ML17306B121

Responds to Request for Info Re Actions Taken to Improve Environment at Util for Employee Identification & Resolution of Safety Concerns

ML17306B121
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	10/30/1992
From:	Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
102-02330-WFC-T, 102-2330-WFC-T, NUDOCS 9211180047
Download: ML17306B121 (95)

Text

ACCELERATED D STRIBUTION DEMO TRATIONSYSTEM REGULA Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTI

'YSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION"NBR:9211180047

'OC.DATE: 92/10/30 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACILsSTA-'50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 STN-50-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi 05000529 STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi 05000530 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION CONWAYgW.F.

Arizona Public Service Co. (formerly Arizona Nuclear Power RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MARTIN,J.B.

Region 5 (Post 820201)

SUBJECT:

Responds to request for info re actions taken to improve environment at util for employee identification resolution of safety concerns.

I DISTRIBUTION CODE:

IE01D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response S

NOTES:STANDARDIZED PLANT Standardized plant.

Standardized plant.

,05000528/

05000529 05000530A RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD INTERNAL: ACRS AEOD/DEIB AEOD/TTC NRR MORISSEAU,D NRR/DLPQ/LPEB10 NRR/DREP/PEPB9H NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS1 RGN5 FILE 01 EXTERNAL: EG&G/BRYCEiJ.H.

NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 2

2 2

2 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT

,ID CODE/NAME TRAMMELLiC AEOD AEOD/DSP/TPAB DEDRO NRR/DLPQ/LHFBPT NRR/DOEA/OEAB NRR/PMAS/ILRB12 D

REG LE 02 NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 NOTE TO ALL RIDS RECIPIENTS:

0 PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK.

ROOhI PI-37 (EXT. 504-2065) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 24 ENCL 24

Arizona Public Service Company P.O, BOX 53999

~

PHOENIX, ARIZONA85072-3999

~

~

i. '..'

~ me I l7-"2:; -'" '~: 03 WILLIAMF. CONWAY EXECUTIVEVICEPRESIOENT NUCLEAR 102-02330-WFC/TRB/JJN October 30, 1992 Mr. John B. Martin, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210.

Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368

References:

1.

Letter dated September 30, 1992, from John B. Martin, NRC to William F. Conway, APS 2.

Letter dated October 8, 1992, from K. E. Perkins, Jr., NRC, to William F. Conway, APS

Dear Mr. Martin:

'ubject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530

Response

to Request for Information Regarding Actions Taken to Improve the Environment at PVNGS for Employee Identification and Resolution of Safety Concerns File: 92-070-026'2-001-350 The referenced letter dated September 30, 1992, transmitted EA 92-139, Notice of Violation (NOV) and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties.

This NOV was based upon the findings in two recommended decisions of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) in Department of Labor (DOL) proceedings that have been brought by Sarah C. Thomas and Linda E. Mitchell (Case Nos, 89-ERA-19 and 91-ERA-9, respectively).

Formal responses to the NOV and proposed civil penalties are not required until'the Secretary of Labor has issued a Final Decision in each of the respective cases.

Therefore, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is deferring its discussion of the violations, the application of the Commission's Enforcement Policy, and any request for a hearing until that time.

As noted in your letter, however, APS has appealed the ALJ findings in each case and believes that the claims of Mmes. Thomas and Mitchell are without merit, as more fully described in APS'leadings before the DOL. Therefore, APS does not believe that there is any basis for concluding that APS'ctions constitute a violation of 10 CFR 50.7.

0 "]AAA:i 92iii80047 92i030 PDR ADOCK 05000528 P

PDR

Mr. John B. Martin Region V Response to Request for Information.

Page 2 In addition to transmitting the NOV, however, you requested information regarding the actions APS has taken since June 8, 1989, to minimize any potential chilling effect from the relevant events involving Mmes. Thomas and Mitchellthat might inhibitor prevent APS employees or contractors from raising safety concerns.

You also requested information regarding actions APS has taken to assess the extent to which its employees harbor reservations about raising safety concerns, and actions taken to eliminate or minimize those reservations.

This letter responds to these requests..

In a related matter, NRC Region V personnel recently conducted an unannounced special inspection to assess the perceptions and attitudes of PVNGS workers with regard to raising safety concerns.

The results of this inspection were transmitted to APS in the second referenced letter dated October 8, 1992 (Special Inspection Report 92-33).

Reference 2 stated that 92% of the employees interviewed felt free to raise safety concerns, but noted that the environment could be improved and requested information regarding APS'lans to do so.

Thus, this letter also addresses that request.

The relevant events involving Mmes. Thomas and Mitchell took place in 1988 and 1990, respectively.

In the period since-these events took place, and continuing to the present, APS has had policies, procedures; and practices to assure that employees will report safety-related concerns without fear of intimidation and harassment.

Additionally, in the time since these events took place, APS has taken significant steps to reinforce its policy

'of encouraging employees to raise safety concerns without fear of intimidation.

In a letter dated February 25, 1992, I outlined to you many of the steps taken by APS to assure that employees and contractors know that management encourages the identification and resolution of safety concerns.

As attachments to that letter, I enclosed our STANDARDS 8 EXPECTATIONS, selected orientation and training material, and past memoranda issued since June 8, 1989, which convey this message.

A list of these documents is. provided as an attachment to this letter.

Additionally, I enclosed two memoranda communicated to PVNGS Employees, Contract Personnel, Supervisors, and Managers in February of 1992, in which I outlined my personal expectations and those of APS to clearly emphasize the need to identify and resolve safety concerns and the right of employees to contact the NRC without fear of retribution.

More recently, in an enclosure to my letter to you dated June 23, 1992, I noted that APS continues to reiterate on a periodic basis its reminder to employees and contract personnel that they are free to discuss their concerns with the NRC without fear of retribution.

For example, following the issuance of the ALJ's Recommended Decision concerning Ms. Mitchell cited in your letter, on August 6, 1992, I personally conducted a session with PVNGS managers, supervisors, and directors in which I enco'uraged them to build an atmosphere in which employees and contract personnel feel free to raise

'r. John B. Martin

. Region V Response to Request for Information Page 3 concerns.

Additionally, I discussed the absolute responsibility of management and supervision to assure that there is no harassment or retaliation of employees for raising

concerns, and I emphasized the need for sensitivity to employee concerns and the importance of being responsive to them.

To reinforce its policy of encouraging employees and contract personnel to raise safety concerns they may have, APS is developing a new training module for PVNGS managers and supervisors which will emphasize their special role in maintaining an open atmosphere for this purpose.

This module, which will be incorporated in training that is scheduled to begin in November of 1992, emphasizes the need for managers and supervisors to properly handle employee safety and quality concerns and to safeguard the rights of those who identify potential problems.

Moreover, it highlights the benefits to APS of assuring that issues are promptly identified and corrected.

In addition to providing information regarding APS'olicy and its legal responsibilities, this module will include interactive role-playing to demonstrate appropriate responses to real lifesituations in which employees raise concerns in various situations.

APS also is establishing the position of PVNGS Special

Counsel, with oversight responsibility forinvestigations ofalleged wrongdoing, including allegations of harassment or intimidation by supervisors and managers.

This Special Counsel will be charged with responsibility to assure that investigations are

thorough, accurate, and timely.

Additionally, the Counsel willbe independent from line management and supervision and willassure that investigations are conducted independent from affected managers and/or supervisors.

Finally, I am particularly concerned that some "pockets" of employees within the PVNGS organization continue to express reservations about raising safety concerns.

To address this issue, APS is retaining an independent consultant to evaluate factors at PVNGS that may affect the willingness of employees to raise concerns.

An assessment will be conducted based on information collected from interviews, written surveys, direct observations, and PVNGS records.

It will identify any organizations within PVNGS in which the employees are reluctant to raise concerns, and will provide a baseline for evaluating strategies to'ncourage further the reporting of safety concerns.

The consultant willthen recommend additional actions to encourage constructive input from employees and receptive responses by management and supervision.

In our future discussions, I willinform you of the results of the assessment and the actions being taken by APS in response.

Mr. John B. Martin Region V Response to Request for Information Page 4 Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Thomas R. Bradish at (602) 393-5421.

Sincerely, WFC/TRB/JJN/jjn Attachment cc:

J. A. Sloan Document Control Desk

Mr. John B. Martin Region V

Response

to Request for Information Page 5 bcc:

J. M. Levine E. C. Simpson R. J. Stevens T. R. Bradish R. A. Bernier G. R. Overbeck E. W. Dotson W. E. Ide R. K. Flood R. J. Adney P. W. Hughes C. D. Mauldin S. C. Guthrie G. T. Shanker K. D. Davis W. A. Boswell B. J. Powell D. L Goodman J. S. Hepner A. H. Gutterman A. C. Gehr B. A.

Brown'.

W. Page Source Documen Library (7602)

(7616)

(?603)

(7636)

(7636)

(7546)

(7694)

(7194)

(7294)

(7394)

(7916)

(7610)

(7992)

(7965)

(7968)

(8568)

(8563)

(8328)

(9820)

(41 41)

(7636)

(1678)

(7747)

ATTACHMENT I.

Memorandum To Palo Verde Employees June 8, 1989 - Notice on Employee Nuclear Safety Concerns II.=

Quality Talks - QA Hot Line - July 14, 1989 III.

Memorandum To All Palo Verde Employees September 21, 1989-Notice On Palo Verde Employee Concerns IV.

Employee Concerns Program Video Script September 27, 1989 V.

Memorandum To All Palo Verde Employees October 13, 1989 - Policy Statement Vl~

Memorandum To Contract Companies Providing Services/Contract Labor to PVNGS October 25, 1989 - PVNGS Policy On Employee Communications

& Concerns Vll.

01PR-OQQ02 - Employee Concerns Program Policy Revision 0 December 1, 1989 Vill.

Memorandum To Palo Verde Employees February 22, 1990 - Problem Identification IX.

Palo Verde's New Era - September 1990 X.

Standards and Expectations

- April 9, 1991 XI~

You and Your Company Handbook - August 1991 XII.

Employee Concerns Program Pamphlet XIII.

Employee Concerns Program Poster Posted Throughout PVNGS XIV.

Site Access Training Handout Section C: Quality Assurance XV.

Site Access Training Lesson Plans NGA01-04-RC-003 Quality Assurance NGA01-04-RC-008 Radiation Protection NGA02-09-RC-001 Site Access Retraining

$0 CFR2.780 NFORMATKNEXEMPT FREYA PUBUC DSCLOSURE A71 ACHMENT2 NEWMANAND HOLTZtNGER, P.C.

LETTER DATED FEBRUARY t, 199 t

Jeee(ee 0 JOeoee C eeOe T(eeoc(+. Jo

~eoeCSSO (. ee(eS

~eeoee(X See( eJeo0 J. A OOVeeeeeOeoT, o1

~eeeA e( eecoe

~coeeoc l (oooee See(le(C(ee ee )eo(A OOVO(AS 0, Oee((ee CJOY Isee Ceeeooee JOeoee T. STOVOee, Jo 4sES ~. eeeSe(C

~ e(eeoCC A OovS(1 S(eeeSe e( OVTTCSOeeee (oeeoeeo J. Tocoe(T Jeeee(S O. Oe(COÃ, Jee exeoe s. 0J(scee Teeoeeeo A ceeeevTT

~ T, eoCee&

~(SCOTT ( SeeeeTC SCOTT A eeooevee STCecee p. TOeeeTS Oeeee(S O. OSSeeeee

~CeeOe J. SSeSOee Jeeee(T C. ~ C(eeoc JKX(see A, oeeeeoees oovo(As l sceecs(ooo JeVC ( OeeVe eeeeVL e( ee ~ OO(CT O

+OJJeve C secsc Jo, eeeeeecs c TIEsauo. Jo, ATDQiKBV 2

~p~N'c HOLTZZNGE'H. + C.

le>5 L STREET. N W wASHIHQTose, o. c. zoos e aoa.sss eeoo February 1,

1991 ooee(S 0 SeeeOeeT SeeSOee o S(eA ST(ee(ee g SeeO(~ ~

Meoee(eo A(~

Ooee OO~

CeeeeO e

eeeeeeT oeJee(O S ~eeO A

~ r o(~oeSe (eAS O,~

(eee(ee O.o((~

eeoeee((ee ee(eeoeO

((J 4 eJexo e(eeo(C 4 ((eeee(

JCSJe + lATCSTeeOeeo eeeJe(CS

~,~

(VeS N. eeoTOSe OeeeT A ~ oeeooee s STCAM H, ee(eeeoST (eeeeOC O. eeeT(eleSOee JOeoe C eCeeSOee

~eoeve ~ eee(o(e.o

~CeeeeeO e-eeOO(ST so OCSVCe J VSSVeeo

+e(eeeeeO T, SeeeeS TCSee(ee O. SOee,OeeooeO

~TSee(CT O, S(eOeeeCOo OeeeeO e

eeeeeVeTCo eeoeeceT K, solo LJ+HKNCC J. eoeoeeeee

~eeeeCT A eeeeeTC OOOCST S(See(eeST(eee

, eOeeO(ST O. (SSeeee JeeT e( OVT(eeoc((o OCOeeOC e( eecee(CO SCOTT S(JeeOeeT(ee eK (OeeeoSO,

~oee oeeeTT(o ee OC Mr. Leo J. Norton Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Office of the Inspector General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Norton:

Enclosed for your consideration, is a report of an investigation by Arizona Public Servi.ce Company APS concerning the circumstances surrounding a comment made by to a co-worker regarding Linda Mitchell.

If after you review the enclosure you have any questions, please call.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2o790, APS requests that this letter and enclosure be exempt from public disclosure and not be made available in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely, Jay

. Gutierrez JMG/jlc Enclosure I

bcc:

(w/enclosures)

Mr. Jack Bailey Mr. James Levine Jancy Loftin, Esq.

George

Lyons, Esq.

9308060270 930731 PDR ADOCK 05000528 Q

CF

ENCLOS URE COMMENT This presents APS's position regarding the circumstances eurrounding a comment~ made to a co-worker regarding Linda Mitchell. It is divided into four sections.

Section I summarizes the potential regulatory concerns.

Section II describes the incident itself and Section III describes follow<<up t

actions and provides analysis in support of the conclusions in Section IV.

The key points are:

2 ~

Does Not, Have A History Of Violence.

Did Not Intend To Harass Or Intimidate Linda Mitchell.

3. ~ Did Not Act With The Knowledge of or At The Behest of APS Management.

4.

APS Management Acted Appropriately In Investigating This Incident.

5.

Received Appropriate Discipline From APS For His Comment.

6.

Linda Mitchell Was Kept Informed During The Investigation And Provided With Appropriate Feedback.

7.

As A Result Of This Incident, APS Reiterated Its Policies Regarding Harassment Or Intimidation.

8.

AFS Has Attempted To Investigate Other Alleged Threats Towards Linda Mitchell.

(1)

Whether is an actual threat to the well heing of Linda Mitchell, an APS employee engaged in protected activities?

(2)

Whether comments about Linda Mitchell vere made in an attempt to harass, intimidate, and suppress Linda Mitchell from engaging in protected activities2 (3)

Whether actions

~ere done with the knowledge or at the behest of APS management?

(4)

Whether APS responded appropriately in investigating this incident, disciplining and providing appropriate feedback to Linda Mitchell and her co-vorkers2 zz.

Each On September 18,

1990, a non-management employee of APS, engaged in an inappropriate conversation with a co-

employee, from a training class, about Linda Mitchell.

During a break was ~alking past the fire protection trailer and motioned Sarah Thomas to come over to him.

After came over to where was standing, he pointed to a fire protection dummy that was burned and tvisted and stated "this is what could happen to Linda [Mitchell] if she doesn't get her act together."

a friend of Linda Mitchell, immediately reported this incident to Linda Mitchell who was also attending the training class.

Just prior to the conclusion of the break, Linda Mitchell spoke to about his comment.

According to the report prepared by APS management

investigating the incident 1/, the following conversation occurred'itchells "Congratulations ~, you made your first entry into my diary that goes to the IG office and my attorney.

"What's the ZG office?"

Mitchell! That's the Inspection General's Office. I don't intimidate."

~

her "Well, we'l just have to see what comes out of this whole deal with the IG Office investigation."

2/

At the next break, Linda Mitchell reported the incident to response was t

[h]e can't do that.

We need to talk to~" l/

On the afternoon of September 19'990@

Linda Mitchell brought the incident to the attention of According to

, Linda Mitchell recounted the incident essentially as summarized in the~

Report. f/

On September 20,

1990, the incident and then notified spoke to about about what had happened.

Upon notification,

'(

informed 2/

5'ttachment 1,

September 21, 1990 Report entitled "Alleged Personal Threat Towards Linda Mitchell."

(hereinafter~ Report )"

~Report at 4.

eport at 5.

~Report at l.

about the incident.

As developed more fully below, Overbeck, after consultation with lnsttucted ~to commence an immediate fact-finding investigation into the incident.

The investigation included interviews with Mitchell, and resulted in a recommendation that d Linda disciplined.

On September 24, 1990, received a positive

,discipline counseling session from regarding this incident.

Q/

zn,addition, on September 27, 1990~ was sent a letter of reprimand regarding his'conduct. f/

ZZZ.

The key eight points set forth in the introduction are discussed below.

employment record and APS's investigation into this matter revealed that does not: have a history of violence towards Linda Mitchell or anyone else. After interviewing on September 20,

1990, APS was convinced that comment about Linda Mitchell was a

Q/ ~ Attachment 2, s personal notes concerning his actions in monitoring the investigation into the incident at 2.

(hereinafter Notes" )

5./

SRR Attachment 3, of Reprimand to Reprimand" )

September 27, 1990 Letter (hereinafter "Letter of

thoughtless spur-of-the-moment remark and was not intended to harm Linda Mitchell.

During his iqterview, after the incident, he tried to contact stated that inda's in order to explain what happened and apologise.

APS believes that ifintended to harm Linda, he would not have txied to contact her in order to apologise.

In addition, during her interview, stated that~

~ comment did not sound malicious. 2/

Finally, in interviewing Linda Mitchell on Septembex 21,

1990, APS was informed that she did not believe ~would harm her," and she stated that "her relationship with has always t

been friendly and okay." R/

Moreover, DOL Investigator Alyssa Evans noted in her Narrative that it was her belief "aiter talking to and other employees about the incident, that he meant his comments in )est and not as a threat or warning."

9/

Therefore, as concluded by in his investigation report, of the comment, ~~ comment was purely spur-of-the-moment and was not intended to mean any harm towards Linda Mitchell in any way.

1 do not believe that~comment was based on a fear (from~perspective) for Linda's well-eport at 3.

~Report at 5.

Sap Attachment 4, Department of Labor Investigator, Alyssa Evans'ocument entitled "Narrative", which provides the factual support for her recommendations that no discrimination of Linda Mitchell has occurred at 7.

(hereinafter "Narrative" )

being.

I don't think~ was trying to 'warn'er of impending danger." ~/

2 ~

Did Not Intend To Harass Or Intimidate The evidence suggests that there was no motive on the part j

of to harass or intimidate Linda Mitchell.

As stated by.

the DOL Investigator, her investigation concluded that did not intend to threaten Linda Hltchell and his comment was made in )est. l3./

explains that Linda Hitchell's name popped into his head because she was sitting directly in front of him during the training class.

Although it seems knew that Linda Hitchell had brought safety probable concerns to the MRC at the time he made his comment to~

it is equally clear that no evidence suggests his comment was motivated by either a desire to coerce her into not going to

~ intended to harass, intimidate, or suppress Linda Mitchell's rights to engage in protected activities.

the NRC in the future or harassing her for going to the NRC in the past. 'n addition, shortly after the incident occurred,

~ tried to contact Linda Mitchell's to explain what, happened and apologize.

In sum, their is no evidence that 12/ <<Report at 6.

11/

Narrative at 7.

3 ~

Did Not Act W5.th Tha Knowledge of or At The Behest There is no evidence to suggest that APS management encouraged, participated in, or even tolerated conduct.

The evidence strongly supports a contrary conclusion.

As noted in the DOL Investigator's Narratives No evidence was uncovered that vould indicate that APS/PVNGS management had encouraged, participated in/

or condoned the comment by

,n/

Additionally, the DOL Investigator stated that "[e]mployees stated in their interviews that they had not witnessed any hostility towards or harassment of the complainant

[Linda Mitchell] by management." ~/

Finally, the DOL Investigator determined that the strongest evidence refuting Linda Mitchell's claims that APS management has harassed or intimidated hez vere the interviews of her co-workers.

As stated in the Narrative:

Perhaps the strongest evidence refuting this second allegation are the intervievs of the complainant's covozkers; covorkers vho the complainant told me vere like her family.

Those intervieved were those suggested by the complainant herself and those closest to her in the workplace.

None of her coworkers could point to any specific incidents that would lead them to conclude that APS management harbored ill feelings towards the. complainant.

Most stated that they knew of no one vho had'll feelings towards her. ~/

In her interviev, Linda Mitchell explained that she believes was trying to inadvertently warn her without getting too 1Z/

Narrative at 4.

t lat/

Narrative at 4.

M/ 'arrative at 7.

involved. M/

The evidence,

however, does not support this theory.

During his second interview, was asked if he was trying to warn Linda Mitchell of something in an indirect way without getting involved. ~ respondedt I have never seen anything or heard anything or have indication that there is any kind of plot or want of harm towards Linda. I'e never heard anybody making anything or give any indication that Linda is in danger. ~/

Moreover, the DOL Investigator reached the same conclusion in her Narrative.

The Investigator sta'ted that it was her belief "after talking to and other employees about the incident, that he meant his comments in )est and not as a threat or znyniag."

Therefore, it is clear that acted alone, and without the knowledge of'r at the behest of APS management, when he made his comment about Linda Mitchell.

4.

AFS Management Acted Swiftly And Appropriately In APS management was first made:aware of this incident at about 10:00 a.m.

on September 20, 1990 when contacted

~ had been told about the incident the day before by Linda Mitchell, however, he wanted to first discuss the matter with before he reported it.

Upon notification

~/~ Report at 5.

~/ ~Report at 6.

12/

Narrative at 7 (emphasis added).

from immediately contacted and told him what had happened.

instructed~ to conduct a fact-finding meeting with Human Resource's assistance and if appropriate get Security's help to investigate the matter.

Additionally, Mr~ immediately brought this incident to the attention of n/

incident constituted a potentially serious matter, and they developed a plan for investigating the incident.

determined that this position and inform her of the actions that were being taken.

t van directed to conduct a fact-finding investigation, and~

was assigned to advise Linda Mitchell of management's also contacted supervisor and informed him that conduct that could be construed as threatening or harassing would not be tolerated.

Additionally, called Region V management and Jay Gutierrez, counsel to APS, called the Inspector General's Office to inform them of both the comment and APS's plans to investigate the matter.

No ob)ections 0 ~

were stated to the proposed course of action.

Notes at 1.

Notes at l.

Notes at 1.

Interviews of were conducted on the afternoon of September 20, 1990. ~/

Attempts vere also made to contact Linda Mitchell, hovever, she vas not home and a message was left on her ansvering machine. 22/

On September 21,

1990, that spoke to Linda Mitchell and told her behavior vas inappropriate and would not be tolerated and that. an investigation gas underway. 23/

Later that day, Linda Mitchell vas interviewed about the incident and vas ze-interviewed. M/

fact-finding investigation examining the incident concluded on September 21,

1990, and recommended that:

2.

3.

4.

should receive a "Written Reminder" in accor ance vith the PVNGS Positive Discipline Policy (01PR-OEM07).

I believe this situation is severe enough to warrant the second step of the Positive Discipline Policy.

Additionally, it formally documents our actions as a result of this investigation.

I would recommend that you communicate to the individuals in Tech. Support aga n) what your expectations are with respect to harassment (sexual or persons going to the Employee Concerns or NRC on any issue).

2 think it would he appropriate for you~ to sit with Linda Mitchell one-on-one and share with her the results of the investigation.

I believe Linda Mitchell has some additional concerns, outside the scope of this investigation, this should be addressed.

I think it would be appropriate to discuss 21/~ Report at 2-3.

Notes at 1.

2Z/

Notes at 2.

eport at 4-6.

this matter with and to develop a

course of action for ad essing those concerns. ~/

APS followed all of the recommendations from the investigation.

had a positive discipline meeting with on September 24, 1990 25/ and letter of reprimand was sent to him on September 27, 1990. 27/

As described more fully below, a

also met with'ndividuals in Operations, Engineering Operations, Computer Services, and System Engineering to reiterate that harassment ox intimidation of employees would not be tolerated.

23/

Additionally, on Septembex 25,

1990, met with Linda Mitchell to discuss the results of the investigation.

He also asked Linda Mitchell if there were other incidents where she had been threatened and if so, expressed APS's desire to investigate these incidents.

Linda Mitchell responded that it was too late to investigate other incidents.

told her that it is never too late and that he is willing to investigate other circumstances. ~/

A review of APS's investigation into this matter shows that the Company acted swiftly and appropriately in determining whether intended to threaten Linda Mitchell or harass or intimidate her.

Even after concluding that intended

~/ ~ Report at 6.

m/

Notes at 2.

22/

Letter of Reprimand.

2R/

Notes at 2.

Notes at 3.

neither, APS took affirmative action to discipline~for his inappropriate comment.

Moreover, APS followed all of the recommendations from investigation.

Finally, as noted by the DOL Investigator in her Narratives All management and nonmanagement employees questioned about the actions taken by APS in response to the "dummy" incident indicated that it was investigated according to regular policy and practice, was taken very seriously, and was handled promptly.

APS management made it clear that it considered comments made hy inappropriate, and was disciplined over an above what the PVNGS Positive Discipline policy called for. 3Q/

Received Appropriate Discipliae From APS The discipline that received from APS for his actions was appropriate.

On September 24, 1990,

had a positive discipline meeting with 33,/

The purpose of the meeting was to review the incident and the results of the fact-finding investigation with stressed to that his actions were totally unacceptable and that all employees at APS should be treated as professionals.

indicated that he wished to apologize to Linda Mitchell and stated that he would never do anything like this again. 32/

ZQ/

Narrative at 5.

m/

Notes at 2.

32/

Notes at 2.

After APS's investigation was comp eted, did apologize to Linda Mitchell.

On September 27,'990, eceived a formal letter of reprimand.

3Z/

The letter stated hat it is APS management's expectation that no employee shall discriminate or intimidate anyone, specifically individuals who have raised safety concerns.

I A copy of the letter of reprimand was placed in personnel file.

APS management acted appropriately in disciplining Termination of for his conduct was considered but viewed as too severe a punishment for hie actions.

In fact, in her interview on September 21, 1990, Linda Mitchell stated that she did not want to be a scapegoat for this incident and that she did not want him to be fired. M/

Moreover, as noted in the DOL Investigator's Narrative:

It appears clear that the "dummy" incident was properly and thoroughly investigated, and that appropriate discipline befell the perpetrator.

awhile the company Positive Discipline Policy calls for an oral reprimand/warning for a first offense such as the one in question, APS management went a step further and issued a written reprimand. M/

There has been no suggestion that APS management acted inappropriately in disciplining 33,/

Letter of Reprimand.

I m/

eport at 5.

M/

Narrative at 7.

6.

Linda N.tchell Has Kept Informed During The Investigation APS made a concerted effort to keep Linda Mitchell informed during the investigation into this incident and promptly provided her with appropriate feedback after the investigation was over.

First attempts to contact Linda Mitchell about this incident were made on September 20, 1990, but were unsuccessful.

A message was left on her answering machine at her home and contact was eventually made with her the following morning.

That morning, Linda Mitchell was told by that APS management 4

found behavior unacceptable and that a fact-finding investigation had been initiated to investigate the incident.

Linda Mitchell agreed to participate in the investigation M/.

and she was interviewed on September 21, 1990 regarding the incident. ~/

On September 25, 1990, after the investigation had been completed, met with Linda Mitchell to discuss the investigation and the actians taken hy management.

thanked Linda Mitchell for her cooperation and informed her that APS management found the incident regrettable and totally unacceptable.

Linda Mitchell indicated that APS should go easy on so as not to make the situation worse.

3R/

explained to Linda Mitchell that management determined m/

otes at 2.

37/ ~Report at 4-5.

otes at 3.

that positive discipline was appropriate and that action had already been taken.

Of equal importance, he also asked Linda Mitchell if there were other instances in which she had been harassed.

Linda Mitchell indicated that it was too late to discuss specifics about other incidents and that she had turned over the information to her attorney.

stated that it was never too late to pursue concerns if desired.

Linda Mitchell stated she would think about it. 39/

As is clear from the above, Linda Mitchell was kept apprised of the investigation into comment'bout her, and APS provided her with feedback about the outcome of the investigation and the discipline received.

Moreover, during her interview, Linda Mitchell indicated that her current chain of command have been very supportive and she feels that appropriate communications have come from them. M/

7.

As A Result Of This Incident, APS Reiterated Its Policies As a result of this incident, APS management communicated to a number of its employees working with Linda Mitchell that harassment or intimidation of co-employees would not be tolerated.

In particular, held meetings with the t

39/

Notes at 3.,

m/

eport at 5.

employees in the following departments and reiterated the company's policy prohibiting harassment:

September 20, 1990, Operations Engineering September 25, 1990, Operations<

Computer Services September 27,

1990, System Engineering

'a' Beyond these specific sessions, APS informs its employees about the company's policy prohibiting the harassment or intimidation of employees in a number of ways.

For examples 2) 3)

4)

Every new employee undergoes orientation training.

During that training the employee is required to view an orientation film which specifically sets forth the prohibition of any harassment or intimidation of individuals having expressed safety concerns.

Employees are provided periodic training on a variety of sub)ect matters at Palo Verde.

One of those training programs includes an outline of the policy and procedures associated with resolution of employee concerns.

That training program specifically sets forth the company's policy prohibiting harassment or intimidation of individuals having expressed safety concerns.

Periodically, Palo Verde's management sends a

variety of printed material to all Palo Verde employees.

En some instances, that material has contained individual copies'of the company policy prohibiting intimidation or harassment of employees having expressed safety concerns.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station has an Employee Concerns Program whereby employees either anonymously or for attribution are encouraged to express any concerns they may have concerning safety-related matters.

Those concerns are routinely investigated, resolved and that data is available for review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Accordingly, it is quite clear that APS management does not condone the harassment or intimidation of any of its employees and encourages employees to raise concerns in a vork atmosphere free from retribution.

8.

APS Has Attempted To Investigate Other Alleged Threats During the course of the investigation into the incident, Linda Mitchell reiterated that she has been threatened on other occasions.

Who'sked to expand on these threats, Linda Mitchell refused, stating that it vas too late to do anything about them and that the specifics had been turned over to her attorney. ~/

Linda Mitchell has alleged in various proceedings certain incidents vhich she has construed as acts of intimidation or harassment but she has not alvays provided specific information to permit APS follow-up.

In addition she has alleged ecpxally unspecified actions or failures to act on the part of APS.

Although Linda Mitchell has not specified how APS has failed to act, the fev times Linda Mitchell has advised APS of specific

concerns, APS's actions have been prompt and appropriate.

For

instance, shortly after filing of a civil lawsuit against APS's top management, Linda Mitchell provided APS with the first hint that she thought she had been sub)ected to harassment or intimidation.

APS immediately commenced an investigation.

Unfortunately, the investigation was hampered from its inception by Linda Mitchell's concerted refusal to provide APS with otes at 2.

specific facts upon which such an investigation could be founded.

APS attempts to enlist the cooperation of Linda Mitchell in this first inquiry is best revealed through correspondence to and from Linda Mitchel1 s attorneys

~

See Attachments 5

1 1 g 15 g 18 and 19

~

On November 3,

1989, a written request for an interview was sent to Linda Mitchell's attorneys. M/

By response dated November 14, 1989, Linda Mitchell's attorneys acknowledged receipt of the request and started what turned out to be a protracted refusal to permit the interview.

"Indeed, as recently as June 22,

1990, specific questions were referred to Linda Mitchell, through her

attorney, which could have shed light on a number of her allegations. Q/

To date, no response to that request has been forthcoming.

During the pendency of the ongoing request to interview Linda Mitchell, her attorney contacted company counsel and reiterated non-specific concerns pertaining to harassment or intimidation of Linda Mitchell. ~/

Once again, APS immediately responded to such information and commenced an investigation which, naturally, began with an attempt to obtain specific information from Linda Mitchell.

Once again, Linda Mitchell refused to be interviewed, thereby preventing any meaningful analysis of the foundation of her allegations. ~/

~/.

H/

Attachment 18.

H/

Attachment 12.

~/

Attachments 13 and 14.

0 In May of 1990, Linda Mitchell filed a petition under 10 CpR 2.206 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission alleging certain inappropriate conduct by Arizona Public Service Company.

Immediately after that filing, Linda Mitchell was once again requested to provide whatever information she may have concerning allegations set forth in the Petition.

Attached hereto is,a copy of the June ll, 1990 letter addressed to Linda Mitchell'8 attorney once again requesting an interview of Linda Mitchell in order to investigate the serious allegations she has made. ~/

In response,"Linda Mitchell, through her attorneys, once again reiterated the continued and concerted refusal to allow APS.

to investigate the foundation for Linda Mitchell's concerns. ~/

As the DOL Investigator noted in her Narrative:

Correspondence between Linda Mitchell's attorney, APS attorneys, and a law firm hired by APS to conduct an independent investigation of Ms. Mitchell's allegations of harassment or intimidation, shows that Ms. Mitchell, through her attorney, repeatedly declined to be interviewed by'8+ APS Security, or the "independent" law firm regarding her allegations and concerns. +/

The DOL Inspector went on to note that As for APS's response to other allegations of harassment made by the complainant

[Linda Mitchell],

the evidence strongly suggests that APS attempted to learn more about the complainant's allegations so that they might investigate, but were impeded by the complainant's attorney.

The correspondence between the Q/

Attachment 16.

Q/

Attachment 17.

Q/

Narrative at 6.

attorneys provides interesting information. It is my opinion that the attorneys (perhaps the complainant's attorney in particular) helped perpetuate an environment of distrust and hostility which created additional problems for both clients.

For example,,

perhaps the complainant would not have alleged discrimination with xegard to her performance appraisal had she known more of the facts. ~/

Therefore, as determined by an independent DOL Investigator, APS has tried on a number of occasions to discuss with Linda Mitchell the facts surrounding other alleged incidents of harassment, only to be refused permission by Linda Mitchell through her attorney, In sum, it does not appear that comment towards Linda Mitchell is a symptom of a largex problem at APS of harassment or intimidation of Linda Mitchell.

As noted by the DOL Investigator, "[t]he allegation that APS management has created and encouraged a hostile work environment for Linda Mitchell in retaliation for her engaging in protected activities was not substantiated."

59/

IV.

As discussed above, it is APS's position that:

l.

Does Not Have A History Of Violence.

2.

Did Not Intend To Harass Or Intimidate Linda Mitchell.

3.

Did Not Act With The Knowledge of or At The Behest of APS Management.

~/

Narrative at 8.

5Q/

Narrative at 7.

4.

APS Management Acted Appropriately In Investigating This Incident.

5.

eceived Appropriate Discipline From APS For His Comment.

6.

Linda Mitchell Was Kept Informed During The Investigation And Provided With Appropriate, Feedback.

7.

As A Result Of This Incident, APS Reiterated Its Policies Regarding Harassment Or Intimidation.

8.

APS Has Attempted To Investigate Other Alleged Threats Towards Linda Mitchell.

DATE:

Septetnber 21. 1990 APS Arfzona Pahlfc Sezvfce Comp<<,

COMPANYCORRESPONDENCE MEMORANDUMS hT hCcDKN.

t'0 ~f tIBTp~

FROM:

6UBJ:

hneged Personal Threat Tovards Ltnda Mitchell Bdow Ls a summazy ofmy actions regardfng an alleged personal threat towards Linda Mitchell.

Se tea:ber 20,:990. at approximately 10 am, contacted me regarding an a)leged perfmnal threat towards one of hLs emp ees (Lfnda Mitchel)). He dLscussed the situation with me because I was acting for duzfng hfs absence &mthe site.

stated that on Wednesday ahezzzoon. September lQ. 1990. Ltnch had brought to hfs attention a sftuatfon which had occurred on Tuesday. September 18, 1990, duzfng the tz-.Ungag class she was atfendfng (NGT-16 P)ant Procedures) fn'QaQer <<68.

Accords~ to~ Dnda said that who was also fn the class, made a statement whfch she pere&ed as a personal threat. hppazenQy, during a break

• .~!

statement was made behind the PVNGS Fire Protection Trailer (ad]acent to Tlr <<68) where a fire protection "tnfnfng dure+ was "tossed fn u heap".

The dummy is Ln a sad state Lt's azzns and legs nze twisted, and.ft fs somewhat burned kofn pretrfous A!

Uy.~

!! d W

!~

lfke. "This cou)d happen to Unda Lfshe doesn't get her act togethez".

! W& !

ReeaQ, at "approximately 1040 you directed me to fmmedfately fnitiate a 'fact Qndfng eEL'ort to deterznine a

s surrou Ln the incident.

Additionally, you dearly communfcated to and zne.

that this sort of conduct (threats/harassment) w not be tolerated and we will Lnvesugate thLs matter to ensue the appropriate actions are talcen.

At approximate)y noon, 1 was able to coordinate an eQ'ort w'th Hu~ Resowccs ~

) to begin fntervfewfng the invoked individuals.~

! d~

results ofthe interviews are presented below.

~da Mitchell was not on-sfte (9/20/90) and was therefore not interviewed. You and

~ attempted to contact LLnda to comznunfcate the actions that were being taken md the fact that, you vfewed thfs situation as unacceptable.

I understand you were not able io reach her but left n message on her answering machfne.

I wfllattempt to interview I.inde today, 9/21/90, when she returns to work.

K4U page

u)t

~

u I con(}u~ r+7 Qte. (jews Qn Wed@el(4L) 8 Mx4n Thc e. ~t wIs w+~~$ ~

~~ was also present during~s tnteMew.

I led both in(ervie~s. Four other people were present for the tnt~ews:

Human Rcsou&'cs Human Resources SE Admin Su pervtsor SE Electrical Supervisor I opened the tntervtcw by stating what we were doing - Le. tnvesUgat&g an aQeged personal threat towards Linda MitchelL I basically covered the material presented in the

Background

section on e I of this memo.

I then asked to explain the events ofTuesday to thc best ofhis knowledge.

Msaid that he was in Tech StaQ'Twining {Plant Pzoceduzea) on Tuesday.

He said that during a break he upas wang back to ~er 168 from thc net'nnec Building v hen he passed the Qre.prot the FP traQer, Hc statecL

, 'l looked up and saw zcxt to Trailer 068.

I motioned to anne over, 1 indicated to the dummy and then Isad~ is what couM happen to Qnda ifshe doesn't get her act togethez". Itwas my attcanyt to make humor.

0-asked+ who he mant by Qnda".

He said Dada MitcheIL I asked Mm what he ment by happen to Linda". He said he mc)Lnt that ahe wouM cnd up Idee the twisted up dummyJ

~aid that~ responded:

'Two years ago they may have done this but would not get away wch itnow."

then said he responded with:

"Yeah, I agree and Ihope some good comes af this."

~then said vrallced back toward the trader and he f He said he stood outatde the er or the last fear adnutea of the breast vrhQe proceeded inside.

After th ourned class, satd that Linda(whowas directlyin front of him with onone aide daand on the ether) tuzned around to him and sa Congratulations you made zzzy Qrst enizy into the IC Iof'.

said G stands forInspector GeneraL) He satd that Qnda said it in a matter of act tone.

d that Unda also stated:

"I'm not to be tnt)znldatlng.

ella aceous items:

said that he had no other conversation with Linda throughout the day or on W

es day.

~ said that he couldn tretne'tuber for sure whether the incident occurred in the moving or afternoon; Later he said itmust tuive been in the nlLezrnoon.

~ satd that he tried to contact on Wednesday but was unable to. He wanted to teg~ what had happens

<<also said that the only thief he had heard about Linda having legal acuons with respect to APS was On his words) "Asuit involving wrongful firingofher relaUve.

~ said that he thought~ was wearing a yellow blouse.

KQJ - page 2

I opene the iniertrscw by stating what we werc doing - at.-. invcscigqting an aII<<e4 personal threat tcfwards Linda Mitchell. I basWaOy covered thc mat~ presente4 in the background" sccuon on page 1 oI this memo.

I then asked to exp~> the events ofTuesday to the best ofher knowledge.

~sold that an Tuesday. Seytember

19. 1990. she was auendmd NCZ-1 9. Plant Procedures training in WaQcr ¹6B.

She said the class was on the S:45am break.

She was standing outside Tir ¹68.

also present. ~~said that she saw walking toward the traQer w en he stopped near the fire protection traQer and forher to come over.

She said that she waIked over where he was standing and pointed to the Are protection dummy. She said that en said; "This is what is gcdng to happen to IAnda" lI asked who Unda was she said she believes he was ref~ to Linda Mitchell.

said she responded:

I don't think so because ifitwas goLag to happen ItwouM have already have ppencd."

~ld that there was nothlntt funker caN by cuber one ofthem at that tune.

she said she wallccd back to the 'ltaQer. Itwas stQ1 about 3 or 4 minutes before chas.

She said that shc went inside and told Qada Mitchell what had happened Once she sepia!nod aboveL She said that htnda appeared apse. ~sash "I thought you should make a note ofit."

~saN Ltnda responded wnh:

"Iguess I'lhave to call Dave Calipinto."

~ said that nave Csltptnto ls Linda'9 attorney.

aneous said that ed to talk to Qnda sebetal Mmes dudag the day but that Qadi didn't want to to him.

i did say that and Unda did some "bantering when class reconvened.

She said she didn't knur who initiated itbut it appeared that W~anted to talk to hcr but she didn',t want to talk to him.

~d that she dldn't understand why~would want her to some over to hear the comment about the du She said he Rnows IMQnda's friencL She said it didn' m&e sense to pickher'ut.

said Ihat she could only think that someone had saId something to to znake say something IQcc that.

~sold she work bleak penta that day and a whne shirt.

~saN that~ comment did not sound matters us.

Ion f I intend to continue the intervi I spoke with Unda Mitchell and this morning and communicated w

t had taken place yesterday.

l told her at beha~ like thiS WQ1 nat be tOlerated and that appreprlate aetiOn WQl be taken when aII of the facts are Mown. Linda agreed to an interviewwith~nd Human Resources.

I willconduct that interview sometime today. As you know,~Ltnda and I called you this morning about 7:15 you also communicated your concerns Ln this matte: a~A stated that you wouM ensure the appropriate actions are taken.

I wQl continue to document my findings and provide you with the results as ihey become availablc.

KI9U-Page

1towfc I conducted two !au..cws Thursday rnareetng.

The fLst tgf vtthvLLnda M!tctteU ar~

the second was with~~

I led boih interviews. Two other people werc present for the interviews:

Human Resources SE Electrical Supervtsor I opened the interview by staUng what we were doirtg - i.e. Nvestigaung an alleged personal threat towards her.

I basically covered the material presented in the "Backg section on e 2 ofthis memo. lalso told Linda that we had already interviewed

<<nd yesterday, I asked IAnda to explain the events ofTuesday to the hect ofher knowledge.

She aatd that ahe was attcndtng the procedure Changes Class ln t?ader e68.~

was the tnstructor.

She said that the fnckfent occurred duzfag the second break af the morning ( 9:45am).

She had one out ofthe trailer on the north aide (true north while several other people, iclutBng who werc smokers went to the south shie af the trailer tncct to the Fire Protection tzaQerl.

She saM that before the brcak ended she went bac3c into the trailer to nvtcm the material already covered. Afew minutes later.~came mio the trsficn che cppeired shsttea.

Linda said "You'lnever guess what hap'pened.

't spoken to mc for about a year but he wanted me to come over to ow mc aomethtng.

He said: 'Thts is what th~ gOing tO dO tO Lhufa MitehelL Thee iS what iS gOing tO happen tO her.

Unda said thatresponded with:

"Ifthey were going to do sornethirtg they should have done it along time ago. l don' think they would do it now."

~then salted Lma:

What are you going to do?"

@ada replied:

"t am gotng to tafic to~

Linda said that she wanted to talk to use sh8 thought ifhe had sotnething to say about why he made the comments to c would tell hcr.

When ~come infie Qtc hreata ttnda spolts to htm snd catch "Congratulations you made your erst entry into my diary that goes to the IC aQce and to my attorney."

responded:

'What's the fG udice~

Linda said:

"Ihat's the Inspection General's cdance."

Linda aatd:

"I don't intimidate."

~ estd:

"Well. we'l ]ust have to see what comes out of this whole deal with the IC off>cc Lnvesugat! on."

Il Lfndc said~voice was notjovlcl or serious just mcneref fact.

Linda said that~ didn't try to talk to her or approach her for the rgb of the day.

Linda said that at the next break Ounch) ahe went Lo

~as unavaQabte and told him what had hap

~ response was:

'Se can't do that. we need io talk to

~a proceeded to take pictures ofthe dununy and called her attorneys: Kohn.

and Colaptnto.

She then returned to class.

She was unable to visit with afternoon atnce she was class and was fn znetNngs.

On Wednesday. Linda was Anally able to relate to the events en csday.

MfsceHaneous l Unda feels that d the thfngs toMRto~ ha". She feels ffhe was to snake a joke he.

have said somethfng or laughed about ft. Shc thought that he was tfytng to inadvertently warn her without geNag too fnvofved.

Linda Ls very satisfied wfth the way the management chain through have handled this uatfon.

Lfnda doesn't want Q5o be a scapegoat forihfs event. Her relattonsldp withhas always been fiiendlyand ok.

Linda'thtntcs that hes not been the stree stnoe he tres rewevett frowthe~

~ She was devastated by that action Unda doesn't thtnk would harm her - but ifhe's fired over this Incident, she fs not sure how ftwould ec h¹n and shc may be banned then.

ada fs conceded that ff fs Ared, people wouM feel alot more resentful b~ds Linda from higher up.

Linda has received several threats fn the past.

One fnctdent. a couple of weeks ago happened outside the new annec buQdfng. %man came uy to her, aossedhts arms 1tke a crucQhc and safd: "They are gohqf to hang you.

She dfdn't kacy vrho he eaa. she cfoesn't think she oould ceeognhe h¹n bshe saw h¹n agafn. sbc couldn't teQ ffhfsbadge was a dfrect or contractor badge.

He ot fnto a yellow trudc with another man and drove oK She dfd not report thfa to or other APS management but dtd AH her attorney.

Also, fn the past couple of nights Qncludfng Tuesday night), IAnda feels she was the subject of threats at home.

Ka onc fnstance, a car came up to her house and prowled around wtth it's lfghts oK She contacted her attorney, the police. etc.

She doesn't feel any further action from hPS fs required for this inCfdent.

said that she wants to prevent an fncidcnt that wtilmake this project be worse than it is.

She ts not physfcNy afraid ~but doesn't want these things to cccur, We asked Unda it'as famtlfar with the whole emergency lfghtfng situation and she saLd yes. he has n very fnvolved. Plot with NED and the Fp task force.

She thought he was hearing alot ofnegative comments directed towards her as a result of that Involvement and therefore thought itmay bc the basts ofwhy he said what he dtd.

0 Linda says shc has received a lot of derogatory matt and calls.

Some of It has been anonymous buL in one case she received some materfal from a supervtsor tn h~ that basically said that Uzufa was the cause of atot of our problems. ~da turned this Information over to her attorneys.

at h cuacnt chain of command; have been vezy supportive.

communctations have come from them, e

ee L at appropr <<

KVJ - page

~

~

~ o 0

n Because of me of the information I gained in talking wtrh ~a and,

l tnterv>ewed a second Ume. Since Linda explicitly dtdn't think~was rnaktnp a ]

once and tn act believes that he was tzyrrftg to "war~n" cr of something tn an ~eel manner without bcco~g involved, l wanted to ask~about it, rtddtuonatty.

had expressed the same eonccrn ~ setd that she dtdn t'nderstand w y would want her to come over to hear the comment about rhc dummy. Shc said knows l'm Linda's Xrbmd. Shc said it dldn't make sense to pickher (Sarah) out that she could only teak that someone had said something to

,~to make say some~

lQce that."

Iasked~if there~ something else that made him make the comment to He said: l have never seen anything or heard anything or have indicaUons that there is any ldnd ofplot or want ofharm towards Linda. LVe never heard anybody maJdng

~ything or gtve any indication that linda ts tn daagcr."

Iaskedagain why hc picked out+

to ance the comment to. He said:

"ilooked up. She was the erst visual contact t had because she had a bright yeHow blouse on."

Conclusions'. I bciieve QPcornrnent ~ purely spur. of-the-moment and vras not intended to mean any harm towards IAnda Mitchell in any way. l do not believe that W~

comment was based on a fear (from

) forQnda's wco-betng.

1 don.'t thinkeras ~ to "warn" her impending danger.

2.

1 believe comment was in poor taste and sheued a deQnfte lack of cornrncn scam good+dgernent.

8.

1 believe Linda Mitchell is genuinely concerned about physical threats because of hcr situation~ the 1G oEce and APS. I can certainly understand why she ts concerned about threats and their sa5ausness atnce by her admission she has been on the rccetvtng end of several. I believe she acted properly in Mngtng up the situation to her supervision as soon as possible.

4. l believe ctcd property when contacted by Linda.

5. l believe that Ltnda thinks the message from with respect to the Linda MitcheD case has not been implemented throu ou c APSjAhVP olganlxatton Recommendations:

1.

should receive a "Written Remtnder" in accordance with the PVNQS e

tsctpltne Pohcy (01PR OEM07). l believe this situation ts severe enough to warrant the SeCOnd Step Of the POSitiVe DtSCtpltne POliey. AddttiOnally. lt fOrmally documents our acUons as a result ofthis tnvcsttgation.

'. l would recommend that you ~communicate to the tndtetduals ln Tech.

'upport (again) what your expectatlons are with respect to harassment (sexual or persons going to the Employee Concerns or NRC on any issue).

3.

l thtnte tt would be appropriate foryou~a stt wuh Itnda Mttchetl one-on-ore and share with her the results ofthe tnvesugatton.

4. l believe Linda Mitchell has some addiUonal concerns.

outside the scope ol this investlgaUon, that should be addressed.

I think lt would be appropriate to d~uss this matter with o develop a course of acUan l'oi addressing those concerns.

KhJ<<page

p ~

9-20-90 1010 I was.informed b

while s at

) that en nc ent ha occ d between and I inda Mitchell..

told ae t at had made a

statement to referring to.'a damaged fire protection training dummy that Linda was'oing.to look like that ifshe did not get her act together..'Zhe three vere ia a trainiag class together and it. occurred dur'ing

a break.

I directed to conduct. 'a fact finding..

.. meeting with assistance

- and if app'ropriate get security. help to investigate the personal threat.

1015 joined us in office and he'old's that Linda had told him that s

e ca ed her lawyer aad

'G and feels she has been threaten with personal bodily harm.

1030 I discussed this incident with I told him of the information that I had and about the direction that I had provided.

3.049 set up a conference ca3.l with my elf and we discussed the above information.and actions taken.

Also discussed was ry recommendation to.meet with Linda Mitchell and tell her of managements position that CBf Co%Q Af hAhilV1flV'g' foal lriM Vocal'lti'le VAJA I)etna e~g(apl~

and vill not be tolerated.

Also 'to tell her

that, ve intend to nvestigate this.incident and needed her wart.iripnmary.

and 1102 Conference call vith and myself to discuss vj~h our art:innr nn6 as~

he

hac, an1'u then ce"coaaended actions. ~ thought that the aetio taken were appropriate.

Ke agreed that should investigate the incident and that I shou discuss management's position and actions we are taking sith Linda.

Zn addition, ~aas to 'call'he Region and EG to give them a heads up.

l135 I cal:ed and asl'ed hin: to get wit,h to assis-in the act finding.

11"8 I asked vh n he became aware c=

he incident and he bednescay a" out '130.

i'.e

"..old me that Linda had V., ~

i,~ r.- r.n

-,; i aav%t "< - t r.:i

.",'i d

.c,r I

~ e e m Vith p"esent, ve attempted to cal Linda at home as th-s Mas a da}'i fo." he Linda vas not available so ve left a message on her answer~ rg machine to etu".n a call to

1600 until Thursday morning because he wanted to wait to ask his side of the story.

This was accom lished an Thurs ay morning and that is when he tol Neet with~riefiy to'discuss the resuits of his fact finding'nd asked him to write those up far toaorraM morning.

9-21-90 0730 I received a telephane call fram also present was I inda Mitchell and L to n a that we became aware of the inc dent on Thursday and find.this type of'ehavior hy a fellow employee unacceptable.

told her that we have started a

fact.'finding investigation and need her help.

She said that she would participate....

1500 Meeting with to discuss the results of their fact finding meeting.

ee c e fact finding meeting notes.

During that meeting I learned fog the first time that linda may have been involved in other incidents ~at she has not reported to hor management.

I accepted the recommendations of the fact finding and will hold a

discussian with on SeptemMr 21,'990

{Monday).

1600 Called to appraise them of the results and received concurrence for the. results of the fact finding and the recommended actions to i sue a written learning.

9-24-90 07 0

'I Positive discipline meeting with mvself.

The pu pose of the meetirig was ta review~

nc ent of 9-18-90 and the resu'ts of che fact findings twas's~ed ta e~plain his actions.:He tated that what he did was stupid and dare as a jake.

I told that h s actions where totally u iacceptable and that each of us expect to be treated as prafe sionals.

In this case his perception was that, it was a joke bu in linda's pe ception this was a threa-.

He said he understood.

I also asked him what he would Qo to correct

"."..is ".'uation?

He said he -'ould first like ta apalagi2e ta

'nda.

I asked hm ii he h(ould ev=r da this again?

Ne said l;e ;auld n~v<r co it ~gain.

askea him 'hat would his actions be ii later "rather employee.made a similar -ak: cr

~ Qa(>d w

.',i lllA a~cut th"s ncidrn=

what wau'~

he da!

He stat=.d that he wcuia tell that p~rsan that

..e rim ~

a

~.:er".

- - y; ous

'. ~i stake and

.-flat his

c Qagip<<par

~ 'v'<<r

<<<<n i.:; cr.. f -o:c + hat.I

.:a':C.:

<<eoh:c

<<r:

arr, cu<<a-=-

'-'a...l" '~t=."at I(

t 'Isa L he au i%. <<!

e lou J, '<< t 1'4'.!r aity:~1

"' in o 0 i, Q(I i) (a

e r

~

~

t 1130 Meeting with Linda Mitchell, and myself to discuss the incident, the results. of the fact finding'and actions.:

~

taken by management.

E told Linda that the management team finds the incident'egrettable and

. total.

unacceptable.'lthough she recommended that we 'go.easy

~ on the individual so as not Co make th'e situation worse',

we ielt that positive discipline was appropriate and'hat we took Chat action yesterday.

E thanked Linda for: her cooperation and asked her about other incidents Chat she

~ould wish to tell me about.

she told me that it was coo late that the specifics on other incidents

'had been turned over to her attorney.

I told her Chat where X

could E wanted'o pursue other'ncidents but, that E

needed isformation Chat she'ad.

E told her that E

.believe that it is never too late and that I aa willing to i.nvestigate other circumstances.

She Said she ~ould

'hink'about it.

Linda said she apprecioted our..efforts in this matter and felt the ma)or problem was not.in the Technical Support area.but rather other 'areas because managers and supervisors counsel Cheiq employees Co avoid her rather than stress maintaining a

professional:

.aCtitude.

E told Linda that Z would pass that. along to

'anagement.

9-26-90 I

1000 Duriag~s aaaagers aeeting eith present, I told the group of our posit ve da,scop ne action and that an issue for management is that we have not gotten our message across that all employees be treated as professionals.

and n'ot'e segregated because of their belie'fs.

'I stated that avoidance does not solve the problem but rather complicates it.

9-27-90 1200 ssued letter of'written reminder.

1400 Discussed incident and management's expectation in Component and System Engineering communication meeting.

Linda was in zttendznce.

cd i <:;Q PVNj 8&1'H

\\ o+~ W.gW

~<<KMVC aa>> ~ &S

'TTAC19K~ 3 g)r..

225-00756-.GRO/KKJ ann:

Sept, ember" 27,.1990 Gc4~

7/i~/yo a:oo d~

//asjwo a:o~

d~A~'~

bwp~m r-S~~

~M &ryJj~

During our conversation, I stated that managelent's expectation i's that no employee shall discriminate or intimidate anyone, specifically. including one <ho has addre sed a safety related 'concern at Palo Verde Ãuclear Generating Station.

You stated thit you understand this expectation nov and that you had

'reviously understood this expectation from Department Communication

."teetings. 'urthermore, you stated.tha.:

"It ass

.a poor choice of iords and on the spur o! the mcment and you vould like to apo1ogize to the invo';cd 'ndividual."

You also said that "You Mould never do this again",

and you ~ere sorry for Oat you had said.

T rea i"e that

ou understand the importance of mee=ing our,expectations in this area and j: em confident that you wdll immediately correct this type ut'onduct.

aa

'0-001-703

'~

'it;ten. Remihder - Conduct This let'ter.is to confirm our Mtten Reminder. Conversation.oa September 23, 1990, concerning jour renarks on September 18, 1995,-'to an employee that "subsequently involved another

+ho.considered the remark hiriasment.

l

~ employee is protec ed under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization cc Department Fjle Personnel r t.Le>>a.

{pl v< <.

".e ~tions l~>p t 2 cop'i os)

LAW Ote'<C~a TEIZ.BORG< ShNDERS 8C PhRKS re<Or C55<oeeAL COarOAAT<oee jo' AAe<4 A, rAA<<5

~IOOC+T J

~ <IV<<0

%(IIIIQ SAI<e<O<<5 aCI<A<IO A. aC<et JA<ICj Ie, ekoLAel ILuaoel LCTI<S w, <<Ave<<Ca Joe<el A SLACel STCre<CII C SAIICS

~ASS<Ca L OALLAOIICO wwovc L. rscllcee scott Jo elc+oclloocte<ca

~IIVCC C SIIITII r<oe<AAO Q 5A<<OCr5 e<C<L C ALOC<<

J. CLAetoee eceocr OAv<O J OAeeeeoee

~ A<A<I 0, av<lt STCvCII rLITT OC<IALO T, eelc<IIIAII JCAII C e<vtt<e<4TOII

~IOIITC el, a<eer50<I

~IAAFwOI<5CI<CC%

Na COARCT e<ILL

~%LAN Oi ISSAII JAeeC5 A, TC<LOOAO JO<eee C

OC<eee<LL atcreece< rAvLI orrcar 4<IAOLCT S. JAAO<e<c

~ AUCC A, rCLACT COIII %AC OOOO TI<ote<T wo eeoc SCOTT ee e<OVSTOII

~ICue<OA 5, SAIIIICTT

~le<tel 1 SCWII o<clc II, a%Tao<I COTTIIC Ilo SCLLT JODO e<OAtee Tee<AS

+C{e av<tc <goo I HOCYEX Ag)ZOeI (COC) 55O 5COO rAca<e<<Lc tCoc) cao as5

'Ira<TCSia OIOCCt L<ee C 230 5657 0

Novembez 3, 1989 Frank I. Ross, Esq.

FARRERg SHAPIRO Sc ROSS g P A C 102SS West Thunderbird Blvd.

Sun City, Arizona 85351 Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.

Michael D. Kahn, Esq.

David K. Colapinto>

Esq KOHNc KOHN 4 COLAPINTOg P C 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20001 (Hand Delivered)

(Airborne Express)

Re:

Independent Investigation at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Gentlemen:

We have been retained by Arizona Public Service Company to conduct an independent investigation of APS's handling of the QA Hotline concerns and related complaints of APS employee Linda Mitchell at Pala Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

We understand that you represent Ms. Linda Mitchell and her husband in litigation pending against

APS, and thus ve are vriting to you rathez than contacting Ms. Mitchell directly.

As part of our investigation of APS 's handling of Ms.

Mitchell's QA Hotline cancerns and complaints, ve vould like to interviev Ms. Mitchell and ve request your cooperation in that regard.

We propose that the interviev vill be conducted by Attorney John Gemmill of this firm and me.

We assume one or more of you may vant to be present, and that is certainly agreeable to us.

We are flexible regarding the time and place but ve are hoping to conduct

~ i I

g

~

ai+ C~<KCI TK!LSORQe SAYUERS a p+~~~

Re:

APS November 3, 1989 Page 2

".~ pJ the interview as soon as it can be scheduled.-

Please contact us at your early convenience in response to this request.

Very truly yours,

... JAMES A. TEILBORG For the Firm JAT/mlh

ATTACHHENT 6

~sCecaCL L$0~

~crena (( cOreHM

~ace C ColkA4VTO+'+i

'+~'WW

~4OWR% Q tV OWesehea$ e

~WON'%%t

((:OHN,KOHN 4 COLAP{NTDe P C are)eCra AT LAW

~ 1t tLOMAar04 llCI tie arakOCWOTOea, OC $00d {

C$0$ 1 $ $4&$4$

November 14, 1989 O+ COW({(g

~{$ {%0roo

~C ~ NOecgyiy~

CONFIDENTIAL Via Facsini1e and U.S. Mail J'aies A. Teilhorg, Ksq.

Teilborg, Sanders 4 Parks 3030 North Third Street Suite 1300

Phoenix, AE 85012 Re:

Independent Investigation at palo Verde Nuclear {"eneratin Stat on

Dear Mr. Teilborg:

We are vriting Ln regards to your letter of November 3, 1989 concerning your desire to Lnterviev Iinda Mitchell.

Ms.

MLtchell. Ls greatly concerned about the nature, purpose and scope of the ongoing 'independent investigation.<

Of mrticular concern Ls the apparent lack of safeguarding Ss.

Ltche)l's confidentiality during the course of the investigation.

Bofore responding further to your November 3rd Lnq{dzy please provide us ansvers to the folloving questionsc (1)

Does AM intend to protect Ms.

Mitchell's confidentiality Curine the course of the gnvestigation3 (2) What ste have been taken to adequately assure confident1ality3 (3.

What Ls the purpose of the Lnvestigation3 (4) Is APS vil Lng to share vith Ms.

Mitd.e~.l's attorneys the fruits of said investigation3 On receipt of this Lnforaation ve shall undertake to further advise Ms.

Mitchell regarding your request for an intarviev.

Sincerely, David K. Colapinto For Linda Mitchell cc:

Frank L. Ross, Esq.

HOV 14 '89 13:87 PAGE.BBZ

4TTACHHENT 7 MEMORANDUM APS Special Znvestigatian at Palo Verde JAT November 1S<

1989 TT David X. Colapinto, 2s30 p.m. 11/14/89 by JAT/JCG 0

On 11/14/89 we placed a call to David Colapinta, attorney for Hs.

mitchell, and asked him vhat he meant about protecting

<<Ms.

Mitchell's confidentiality during the course of investigatian and he exp)ained that his understanding of the Hatline pxogram vas that it afforded the caller confidentiality.

We reminded hLm that that option dLd not appear to have been selected by her on most if nat all af the complaints ve had seen.

We also told him that if he had some concerns Ln that area as Lt pertained to the investigation ve vanted to be sensitive to them.

He admitted that he had nat looked into Che Hotline that closely and vas not that familiar vith how it worked.

He also wanted to knov the scope of our investLgatian and ie explained genexally that it vas ta investigate the manner in vhLch hex Hotline complaints vere handled, whether they vexe handled in accardance vith the procedures APS had set far itself, and whether she had been unfairly treated as a result of having made Hotline complaints.

He xaised his question concerning furnishing them with a copy of the fruits of the investLgatian and ve said ve vould pass that request an to APS as ve vould perhaps a subpart of that request and that, vould be 5ust furnLshLng them vith notes of aur meeting with Ms. Mitchell Lf ve are granted an intexviev.

We also mentioned to him that we vere not in a position to guaranty confidentiality to witnesses, including Ms. mitchell, although ve

vere, Ln instances vhere canfidentiality vas requested, authorised to Cell the vitness that APS would not seek to force disclosure.

f We also discussed the foxmat of such an Lnterviev.

He wandered vhether it would be transcribed.

We said that was not our plan but Lf that Ls what he vanted ve uld cansider it. I have nov relayed these messages to~gatrisb d am awaiting word from him.

JAT/mlh

e

~

pe Otto TEILBORO, ShNDERS 8c PARKS

~AOTCSSeOrAI, COiPOIIATIOII ATTSCHMEHT 8 TAAriA, AAAAS iOOCiT J, OivrO wer<<L. SAeerOrS ieCeeA10 A ACrT JAeeCS el ~ eeAAW+

~ ~5 JAeeCS we iAMCrCII JOeeee A 04ACi gTCreeCII C OA+Ci eaaeeeca

a. ~elCi

~eAOOeTC 4 t1CIICee ICOtt Jo eeCOOCeeiOCTeeC5

~OMCC C. aeeetee AKrAAO~. SArOCIIS

<<CII C ALOCr J, ClA'eTOr OCAOCi OA<<0 Jo OAIIAOr

~AIAri. Ooit STCYCr MITT 4COALO T, eeeCaeeAII JCAr Co reef tlrOTOII

~IOrTC ee SeeeiSOee

~IAic<<OOISCrCCII 0 COACT eeIN

~IAiT0 eSOAII JAeecS A TCILSO+0 JOeeel C, OCeeeel~g STc+rcr +*MlToee+csT

~IIAOLCTi JAAOerC

~10CC A iCI ACT COell iAC 0000 TeeeOTeeT w, eeOI,T SCOTT ee. IIOIISTOr

~ecaeeeoA 5 oAarctt CCItel 0 OCeeAII OICC eeo OOTSOr COTTIIC eeo NCLLT OOSO eeO< CX A,g g gOyA 00O (40tj CSO SHOO IkCI LC (IOI:ISO'ICN wiltca'0 OIOCCT Llelc 230 S6S7 November 20, 1989 David K. Colapinto, Esq. XOHN, KOHN 4 COLAPINTOJ P C. S17 Florida Avenue, N.M. Washington, D.C. 20001 Res Independent Investigatian at palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Dear Hr. Calapintoc Me are vriting ta foLLov up an your letter to us af November 14, 1989, and aur canversatian vith you later on that day. Me have already responded ta the questions you raised in your November 14th letter, through aur informal conversation vith you, hut ve did vant to follaw up in vriting as veil. Moreover, you indicated that you vould have an opportunity to meet vith your client an ar about last

Friday, November 17th.

In the meantime, ve have alsa spoken with APS, and ve are hopefuL of advancing our discussion vith you toward the goal af an interview vith Li.nda MS.tcheLL. Regarding the questions raised in your November 14th letter to us, items (1) and (2) vere discussed in aur canversatian vith yau. If, after your meeting vith.your client, yau continue to have some concerns regarding confidentia1ity, ve vould appreciate hearing from you regarding any speci.fic cancerns so that ve may address them. In response to question number (3) in your November 14th

letter, the following is the precise scope af., our independent investigation, as confirmed to us by APS:

Re: APS November 20, 1989 Page 2 A detezmination of vhether the concerns iden-tified by Ms. ÃLtchell have been processed in a fair and equitable fashion in accordance vith the corporate procedures and policies applicable to the dispositioning of such matters in effect at the time such concerns vere raised, and vhether Ms. Mitchell has been

harassed, intimidated or othezvise treated unfairly in reference to consistent application of cozporate procedures or governmental regulations resulting from hez activities in bringing hez concerns to the attention of corporate management or govern-mental authorities.

Finally, item (4) of your letter asks vhether APS is villing to share vith you the fruits of our investigation. In response, ve propose to share vith you our summary of the interview vith Linda mitchell, at vhich time ve vould invite you and Linda Mitchell to review it for accuracy and make any comments or suggestions if you felt it vas varranted. please give us a call at your early convenience because ve remain sincerely interested in intezvieving Ss. Mitchell as soon as the interview can be scheduled. Ve zuly yo s, JAT/mlh A. T ILBORQ r the Firm ccc Frank L. Ross, Esq. LA<< EILBoRG S>N i s & PhHKs ~10rcSSc0<<AL coapoaAtc0>> A~~CamNT 9 11A>>a A, 1111$ ~OOC>>t J aav>>O Wl>>>> L $A<<<<O<<$ >>ocooA>>O A ac<<t JA<<CS oc, ocAALAa 1AISO>> LCMS mCS w. aAUC<<Ca BONN Ae OLACa OtCP>>CII C OAACII OAac>>Ca L oALLAo<<ccc ~IA+OUC L. raC>>coc ~COTT J ocC1OC>>10CT<<TP ~c>>WC C Socctoc ~IC<<A>>0 ~ Sa>>OC1% >>CK C AiOC>> O. Cl AotO>> OCaaCa OAcr41 a. OAocaool ~acA>> ~ IUaf $tcvC>> 1LCtt OCaALO t >>lcaocalc JCA>> C <<UiololOt0>> <<0>>tc OC ~ 4>>P$ 0>> ~IAaa coOac%C<<CCa 1, C01CT CCCLL <<Aat 0. IS+A>> ~AULo. raccoocAII JA<<C$ A tcla1010 ~r>> C OC<<<<ILL ~TCP<<C>> PAUL 101>>C$ t ~aAoLct 1 yaaoc>>c ~1UCC A, Pcl,aCT CO>>c aAC OOOO tlocotlcte. ocOLW " ':-" SCOTT IC OCOUSTO>> ~CCLC>>OA S. OA1ICCTT acct>> 0, QCcAMC +ICa %e OOTS04I COTT>>c oc. acLLT OOSO OCO>>t<< t<<l>>0 St>>CC ~Uctc c~ PHOtHlx. *ttggO~< +>+ laOt) coO.sa00 rACSCOCILC oOOC~ COO. WSITCA S OI1CCT Llocc 230 5759 Dec8mber 28, 1989 AIRBORNB EXPRESS. David K. Colapinto KOHHr KOHH ~ COZAPZHTOg P Ci S17 Plorida Avenue, H.W. Washington, DC 20001 Res Independent Investigation at Pala Verde Nuclear Generating Station Dear Mr. Colapintoc We are vriting to fo)low up on our letter to you of November 20, 1989, regarding aur request ta interview Ms. Linda Mitchell. We are waiting ta hear fata you. Please give ui a call at your early canvenience ao that. ve can hopefully schedule an interviev of Ms. Mitchell in the very near future. Feel free to call either Jim Teilhorg or me. Sin erel HH Co GEMMILL Por the Pizm JCGclsm I ccc Frantic L. Ross, Esq. ATiACkDKN. l0 0 File ME MORAN D UM FROM: JAT DATEs January 16, 1990 . Spoke with David Colapinto on 1/15/90 and he apologised for not getting back to us more quickly regarding our request to interview Linda Mitchell. He promised Jim that he would get hack to us by the end of the week (1/19). Lkw 55 TEILBORGI ShNDFRS 8C PhRKS P<<OtC55sOSSkL COPPOlatlOSS P<<4<<IE 5, PP<<%5 <<OSCPt J. SPLs<<O Ws<<<<L SAssssOss5 ~ <<sgw<<O i, <<C<<t ~CS <<. <<APLsL<< JsLISO<<LCltl5 44+CO w oklsC<<C<< Jo<<<<4 OLs5C<< OfCP<<C<<C 4aaC<< &OOIOIIl<<4sLLL54<<C<< %440VC L PIC<<C<< Sootf Jo <<C+OC<<<<OCf<<C<< ~OOCC C. Slllr<< slsC<<aPO ~. Sa<<OCPS ssCIL C. BLOC<< J. C&'stoss ~ CPCCS OJ <<so J, 4assPOss ~isk<<<<, SMPt StCVC<<PLItf 4C1kLO f~ <<ICS<<4<< JCA<<C <<OPPI<<Oto<< <<O<<tC <<, Sl<<PSO<< CAPS WOPISC<<CCS

s. COSCf <<ILL

~<<t Os ISggMt ~WPL 4 PS ISO<<5<< J4<<CS k, tCILSOPO JO<<ss C. OCsssssLL StCP<<C<< ~L Po<<OCSt ~ 44OLCt <<Jsl<<OI<<C ~ +llCC 4 PCLIICt CCI<<l <<sC 4000 fl<<ot<<t Wi <<OLf Scoff <<. ekWSto<< <<CLI<<Oa S. ~Cff CCIf<<4, SCIssL<< SIC% << ~ O<<tSO<< COtf<<C << IICLLf 5050 ssO<<t<< t<<ssso St<<CCt S<<ltC tNOENlX. *RgZ0~< 4> i OSOIZ (40tl 5 SO 5 COO PkCS IQ ILC F0 5 ~ 5~ 455 '4 OI<<CCf I I<<C 230-57S9 February 1, 1990 David K. Colapinto EOHNC KOHN 4 COIAPINTO~ P.C. S17 Florida Avenue, N.M. washington, DC 20001 Res Independent Investigation at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Dear Mr-Colapintos Me are writing to fallov up on Jim Teilbarg's canveraatian vith yau on January 1S, regarding our request to interviev Ms. Iinda Mitchell. It vaa our understanding that you auld be considering aur request and discussing this ~ith Ms. Mitchell, and getting back ta ua on thia aub5ect. Me are looking farvard to hearing from you at your early convenience. Sin ely OHN C. GEMMILL For the Firm JCG!lsm ccrc Fran3c L. Rosa, Esq. r r YACHY"NT 12 Oesee a Ce~~ r ~ KQHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 417 FLONIOAAYCee4+ tow wasseeseoToee, oc sooO i ISO@I J34444) Or CavreCs ~ OsssNCS

e. O4~

~C a. aeoeegti~ + eeasetKS a +i ~ sesstea ~ ssr 4 iesertea ae OC 4~~++ March 6, 1990 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail George Lyans, Esq. Snell 4 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center

Pheonix, AZ 85073 Re:

Linda Mitchell

Dear George:

I am writing in regards to the proposed security investigation by your client, Arizona Public Service Co.

("APS"), of my client's recent concerns abaut her personal safety at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

(~PVNCS~)

~

On Thursday, March 1, 1990, I informed you by telephone that Linda Mitchell had recently received direct and indirect threats from other PVNQS and/or other APS personnel.

The level of'ostility directed towards Mrs.

Mitchell was so extx'erne that she feared for her personal safety, particularly in conducting walkdowns of systems in Unit 3 at PVNGS.

During aur conversation of March 1st, I requested that APS respond ta Mrs.. Mitchell's concerns by:

(1) providing far a security escort for Mrs. Mitchell, upon request, in the event it becomes necessary; (2) issuing an appropriate directive from APS management to all employees in order to deter further incidents of harassment and intimidatian of Mrs. Mitchell; and (3) investigating this incident and taking appropriate disciplxnary action against those respansible.

On Friday, March 2nd, you informed me by telephone that APS would inxtiate a "non-Palo Verde" security investigation into this incident.

Later, on Friday, I received a phone call

George Lyons, Esq.

March 6, L990 page Two from of APS security, requesting to arrange a

meeting etween Mrs. Mitchell an5 an nvestigator from APS.

Considering that is a namedMefendant in the Tham san case, we do not feel t is appropriate for us ta 1th~

1 as cc

~ accordingly.

Regarding the proposed security investigation, I am willincr to necrotiate the terms and conditions of'rs.

Mitchell's in%,erview.

Additionallv, we would lee an assurance from APS that a security esca& will he made available to Mrs. Mitchell at PVNGS upan request..

Me also ask that a directive he issued from APS management reminding'anployees that individuals may raise safety concerns to management and/or the NRC without fear of retaliation, harassment ar intimidation, and that disciplinary action will be taken against those found to impede or obstruct the right of employees to raise said concerns.

I loak forward to hearing from you soon.

David K. Colapint Attorney for Mrs. Mitchell Cca Alice Bendheim Atty. for Mrs. Mitchell

Io'eeee Jecot see

~

>>aS fe O

~

>>ee o t>>aea>>

tete 4 eaaatt e

aaaeae

%, oeccece

~aeoeaCO

~ OO>>OO eeoeo>> Oaaoeoeso

>>aoaCO o toeCOCo se eoaeo C~ o. swats, Jo.

AIWta taetaeeeOOCO eec C

Ceaaoe

~oe ~

>>oaef J

~ J Osceses

~eeoc J OOCOsscg cocof e

~eocSO oasts caco s ecfcesse

~ae Aossaoosassoof

~ Q JOCSSO

~ss +eoooos

~+NOa Ofeefee

~ Ca SSSSSf

~ 4 Oats Ieee 4~ sse JOCa~

<<feoseo s. amaze Sect Q Caeegeegt

~4 4, eoooo

~C Osste

~Oa>>ao a oaattocf

~aoeo oaot

~eases o a>>sate Oe>>O Oa teae>>K eeceaee SKOeoa Josegf c oeoaoss

~aoofst ~

oeses S~ ~ eea>>ec

<++ Sa eeeafCO

~sasseae l cssseasc

~fte ~

oeoef ~

OOOOet O eeoc taae>>se e, teaaeo oatele co ~ ocoeelsaeo Oeecet I Ceeef S.~

~Oaae Ja testee

~Otesoo o. ofeoc

+~goose% O>>aseee ~

~ooeeoo J oaseoo

~COCOSC Saaae Sesglgse t

~sscoeCC O Ocftf Oaaeeeae O. OCOOCOC

~asefocf fosse oos>>K JeoCtas e

~aoacg, O, eaofeas Ocsec oocsJoto

~>> OOOO>>ac Oea

~ eaaete

~

tet etc>>t t t>>acct Je

~4ee

~Oec e % aeaaaeOCC Je J>> o aeact ectce J, eeaeaacae

~o>>aeo O

~Oaaeaee>> Kas JKCte C, eaaaeece>> t eoK et ~ eoaeeeo

~

Joel e eoeeg le\\>>C J eeaeaao

~. oeccetsso t

~Ctc e ~ Oeef>>

teeeaae

~ eec CKO

>>OKsec t, aaeeoac

~aae>>ae J. OceeCOt setfaaco o tccecf O <<Cacsfe

~aee ~, COKO eaaa>>e e Oa>>CC J, aa>>aaaatc t

~ec aaac a ~ tceea Oete O eaCSJCO oaaaaee e oeaeco eooctt J teeaacecc t. Oaeteeee t

~acaaaoe ea tee ttacao Jaaaco ea otteoaee

~eaas>> OKCteal ooogef e OKeoaaase Josef OJec eoaoef oeteaco C eeoc

~aoas oe C OJOCOSO

~ aces eaaaaaaS OC OCCCJ Oaetfegtalcaef

~aagco J aaooec

~sec o Ceac o OJOOCO

~fct>>CO S SSOOSOC

~C>>o J OCOOCO

~ooce s

~eaaae J Mtee Cocesl C~

~fetes o osst

~aeao o ooooaos so>>co C castcec CtaaeaCS ta AhlgO

~aace f,Oetc~>>

Oaasa s

~aaaoao o as%csee oaeo c osoceaoff

~ooe e octco

~Octo ceeaocte~

~ ageascl Ja Oaoce

~OO J ~WOOO

~Cccocs o, oasscoecfss caoco J. mesaa t

~tctce ~, ~

SSOSOOC s~ cseefctlcsas

~oocef c

~ctcoaf J oasacf

~ octsageaec~

~oooe

~ ~

Snell &.'wilrner 3100V~~kC ~

Annal 85073-3100 gOZ) 257-7ZU icky 165088

~ ~~+ca To Buenh egg March 9, 1990 Direct Line:

257-7295 TELECOPXED o.C, teal

~tate

~

KOCO ~

O>>ae e

'C.

CCO

~tftete C OaK,

~eOCef o~

Jea>> ta~

~a Jec

~WOO

~SCOSIOOCo g

~Caeacf J,'~~tee Oetoaec C

~f Oaeceoaae eofoc>>ec o

~eof O. ogaK oatoacse e

~OOO C. CKO olocofOases t

~tctcof~>>

~ O tcaoge>>

~c.~>>

~o Coeooo>>

David K. Colapinto, Esq.

KOHN, KOHN 4 COLAPZNTO 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20001 Re:

Linda Mitchell

Dear David:

find your March. 6, 1990 letter both curious and disturbing.

On March 1,

1990, you provided me vith information that your client had serious concerns for her personal safety.

APS immediately responded vith contact from the Corporate Security Department.

ln addition to contact from the Corporate Security Department, Mrs. Mitchell vas contacted by Messrs.

pertaining to her personal safety concerns.

am curious as o w y your letter of March 6, 1990 did not reference the conversations, your client has had vith Palo Verde management concerning the subject matter of her personal safety concerns.

am also disturbed that five days have past without any response to APS Corporate Security's offer of assistance.

You state in your letter, "I am willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of Mrs. Mitchell's interview."

Please be advised that no "negotiation" is necessary or appropriate.

The t

only way APS can attempt to resolve your client's concerns about her personal safety is to obtain from her the foundation for such concerns.

David Z. Colapinto, Esq.

KOHNi KOHN fc COLAPINTO March 9, I.990 Page 2

Based upan the information obtained from your client to date, it does nat appear that there exists any need for anY type of security escort.

Consistent with APS's past practices, the APS policy prohibiting harassment and intimidation'is in full force and effect and has been reiterated in the recent past.

Further reiteration appears unnecessary at this time.

If your client has additianal concerns, I highly recommend she utilite the existing plant procedures for resolving such concerns.

In the event she is unable to obtain resolution from her supervisors and management, she, of course, is free to contact the Employee Concerns Program at Pala Verde.

The phane ne'er for the Employee Concerns Program is 944-S444. I assure you and your client that the concerns will be investigated once the company is provided sufficient information ta enable such an investigation.

Si ely yourS eorg H. Lyons Far Snell 4 Nil er GHL:tlm

~ '

e ~

~ O gQm~+

SlCMgN N EgteNeee OWQO COUaroengoos

~~a w

~ abeengy ~~

+ aesemgg m yg

~~~ gg KOHL, KQHN & CQLAPINTQ. P.C.

ATI'0RkCYS AT LAW jI 7 Pl OIIOAAVCNUQ~

waa~tvOTas, Oc OOOO 1 RECElYED

. riAR16 85 4u'6 990 O< COMiIZ~

~l 4 Oiertyyeo

~ E. E%)ec~~

Via Facsimile and U.S. Nail eeorge H. Lyons Snell t Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center

Phoenix, AZ 85073 Re:

Linda Mitchell

Dear George:

I find your letter of March 9th, which vas telecopied to my office only yesterday, to be a curious and disturbing-response to 'serious concerns raised by my client regarding harassment and intimidation on the Palo Verde nuclear pover site.

Zt is obvious by APS'osturing that it is disinterested in Mrs. Mitchell's claims of harassment and intimidation.

As you are avare, the recent allegations made by Mrs. Mitchell are covered by 10 C.F.R. Part 50 which prohibits the harassment and intimidation of employees at nuclear facilities vho raise safety concerns.

What is particularly disturbing about the incidents reported by Mrs. MitchelL is that they occurred less than a week after Mr. William Conway issued a memorandum to all Palo Verde employees varning against retaliation of those vho identify and report problems.

Obviously, APS'urrent "policy vrohibiting harassment and intimidation" is ineffective, to say the least.

Here, APS is confronted vith an employee who claims to have been harassed only days after APS'atest reissuance of its "policy" and it is unwilling to even arrange an interview vith that employee through her attorney.

Re view APS'osition on this matter as furtherance of its policy of discouraging employees from raising safety concerns vith management and the NRC.

George H. Lyons March 13, 1990 Page Two

'lease he advised that Mrs. Mitchell will not tolerate these instances of on-the-5ob ha~assment and intimidation.

Mrs. Mitchell shall avail herself of all protection and remedies afforded her under law.

Furthermore, APS and its management shall he held responsible for any action taken against Mrs. Mitchell.

Sincerely,

~ Cg vid K. Co apin Attorney for Mrs. Mitchell 54a/lyons

ACHMENT 15 rIOy~gg 0 EO~w++

~~ yz~(vr cgeehle+ ~

~++eO 4 ~eaeetOo

~ ~

~aerrtArw

~Or eC

~~r yg KOHN, KOHN b COLAP(NTO, P.C.

• TT4 R H CY5 *T LAW C I 7 fl,OAiOa avCerUC. rr raaeeieeOYOr.

OC 2OOOi (202'24~412 March 27, 1990 O~ COvayyg r

O ~aaOairg

~Oar%>mote

~

'ia Facsimile and U.S. Mail James A. Teilborg John C. Cemmill Teilborg, Sanders t Parks 3030 North Third Street Suite 1300

Phaenix, AZ 85012 Re:

Inde endent Invcsti ation of Linda Mitchell

Dear Centlcmen:

R As promised in.our phane conversation of'ast Thursdav I am responding to your requests to interview Linda Mitchell regarding your investigation, of whether there has been retaliation against her far raising safety concerns After careful consideration of your requests ve must respectfully decline your invitation for an interview.

While we believe your intentions to he sincere, unfortunately we questian the good faith of APS in conducting this investigation.

For example, during the last week of February Mrs. Mitchell was sub5ected to intense harassment and intimidation an the 5oh site conduct that was so hostile that Mrs. Mitchel) feared for her personal safety.

These incidents occurred soon after it became known to APS management that Mrs. Mitchell had been in contact with the NRC about the emergency lighting system and emergency lighting restart items, and shortly after the NRC confronted APS management about problems identified in these areas.

These incidents of harassment were reported ta APS management, by Mrs. Mitchell and to Ceorge Lyons of'nell 4 Wilmer by me.

Zt is my conclusion that APS has not been in good faith or acted responsibly in addressing these serious concerns of retaliation raised recently hy my client.

Moreover, since these recent incidents were reported, APS management has acted concertedly to monitor and discourage Mrs. Mitchell's contact with the NRC on site.

We have reason to believe directives to this effect have been

4 James A. Tei1borg and John C. Qemmill March 27, 1990 Page Two issued from the vice-presidential level of APS management.

During the past fev veeks there have been other examples of

~

- APS'arassment and retaliation against Mrs. Mitchell toa many to cnumcrate here.

Due to these most recant events ve do not feel it is appropriate for Mrs. Mitchell to be the subject af an investigation, the results of vhich ve bcliev>> APS might attempt to usc in the future as pretext to further retaliate against Mrs. Mitchell, or to ]ustify vhat ve consider Aps~

on-going illegal conduct.

Until APS exhibits good faith in handl'ing problems of harassment and intimidation of employees such as,.:Mrs. Mitche'll ve believe it vould bc f.ntlcss far Mrs. Mitchell to particioate in an nvcstigation vhich aims to determine ~vhcthcr Mrs. Mitchell has been harassed intimidated or othcrvise treated unfairly..."

scc, Your letter of November 20, 1989 at p. 2.

Zf APS had demonstrated half the sincerity you have expressed to me then ve probably could have agreed to an interviev.

Havever, ve are obligated to ob5ect on the basis of escalating retaliatian against Mrs. Mitche)L as veil as the hostile climate created by APS in recent veeks.

X knov you l.ooked forvard to intervieving Mrs. Mitchell

~nd vould rather nat complete the investigation vithout her, but unfortunately ve are unable ta accamadate your request.

Zf, hovever, you believe there is a solution to this stalemate I am alvays villing to discuss this matter.

Jh, Si'ncerely,

'Br~

David K. Calapint Attorney for Ms. Mitchell 53b/tei12

ll 0P 0

JP H"Ã 8 HOL~

A~'CHANT 16 1

e

~ g ~f~c.A

~ Q 141'+

~t 0%4

~ 4+44+W g ~ ~%%+1. 4+

QyggL ~ ~E

~4 <<~'

IIIII~

~a 04HC~

~e ~+++~

~ I >>II>>>>L+

~yyeO~

~4~

~ggsgg 1 eC44~

~O~

~Iy>> $ Oelca

~gee e IPOW

~ 4 ~ %<4~

o ~i SaebeS

~yygga4 4&~

~>>a>>ir 0404+

~cm~a gaea>> ~

MVH~<

NgmN>N k Hos.gg?h+E>, P.C.

I4I$ L $ tC C T. +.~.

~a$ <(>>CtON, O,C. t44$ 4

$ 44 ~ $ $ 4$ 44 nunc ale

>>>0

~l ~ ~~~

MmC M+.A jvlaew ICAL@

pw~ a~m

%etta 4 Ct+CM

~L~

i&0l~el

~awe a~<

Csi i~

~AI~ <Oiw

~evWI~I4~

~aKNa le~I eC aeCL ~ lC~+C ~

~0 l+Nl~

fW4$ ~ +4C~

~Ceee4 ~

~ 4 IH+4%$

~c~

~ a ewer'~CHIC+

4 +1M

~CaaCLe~

~l lb%

~aWfe4~

~Ilail@

L~

~lt~~~

Osgl 4 04lfC

~aeaeei~

~~I~

m e ~~4'~

geegI o aalu

~~

~~+Ic Davict X. Colapinto, Esp.

Xohn, Fohn 0 Colapinto< P.C.

517 Florida Avenue, HeM.

washington, 1.C.

20001 Gear Xr. Colapinto<

to the 2.206 petition vhich vas filed da Nitchill requesting that the q

ommLssLon (NRC) take certain actions in in of matters associated vith emerge y

connection vith tne han ng o ma nc

. li hting at Pale Verd

Ãu lear Oe h

a of emergency lighting th S

e ere have been communications on the part fficials to discredit an NRC inspector th o t t of th i tsd Nac f emergenc lighting has he Inc ection lap'~

eht adsC"acy o d us 3,t is being add,osced th h Si O~fthe technical IIIrI.tI and villbo resolved on the as s

asked L, MS management to intsrvicv APS had direct discussions vith the ÃRC, one> or othozvf.se may have relevant itn s

d such d c

inspection 90 02l ous matter as soon as possible orm so that managemen ca this potentially serious ma e

has tentially critical, relevant You>>clien o

y p ld i t hth information.

Accord g y, in 1 ve vou app e

Xf for any reaso

, t, e Xme nterviav gs.

M tc e e or lace are tche11 ve vill make eve a corno a

tion, although time is of the esse."<<

to facilitate her participation, Ln resolving hex concerns.

4

~

K7 ll '90 17:ll NB 3I HOL e

~a

~ +cage)c dc HoL?xlloch P.Ce 2, '/j David K. Co1apinto, Esq.

June 11, 1990 Page 2

The charges in the petition are taken sory seziousiy by APs because candor on the part of the licensee and honesty in communications between the licensee and the

ÃRC is the cornerston'e af the regulatory system.

I cannot stress enough that APS is alvays ready to cooperate with anyane in receipt of information hearing on vhether &proper actions occurred.

Ns.

Mitchell'e cooperation is central ta an effective i.nvestigation; she may speak freely without concern for retribution against her or any person she may identify.

Should vou have any questions concerniny Ms'itchell's interview, please do not hesitate to contact me.

The Company~s only interest Ln this matter is to determine if any improper actions accuzred, and if so, to take effective corrective action.

Ve sincerely appreciate any cooperation you may be able to extends Sincerely, pj.

~Jay My Qtierres

/ltl cc>

Linda Mitchell (Express Mailed B6i235733) bcc (via telecopy)z Ceorge 8

Ljfonst >sC.

Nancy C. Zaftin, Zsq.

50

~gg4 I>> ggoN++

tft+4CNi +4~+

~i~yg gg~gfg el KOHNe KQMH 4 COLAPINTQ>> P.C.

ATTOhHtYS AT tAW II 1 ~NINAAVCNQC, yew waieiNCTOtc. DC lgOC) l84$ < jS+MEc3 auN gq~

~ Wltr>>>>>> (,~~

j

'"- <ver, p' COUle44

~t.II~

~~ + 4aO~tvsOt

~~ 0 Al

~~ N4J 4 gyeypel a OC 4~~++

tune 12, 1990 4'ay N. Outierrex, Rcq.

Newman f Holtcinger, P.C.

1615 I Stroet, N.H.

Vashington, D.C. 20036 Boar Mr. Gutiorret:

Re:

inda Mitchell'o 2.206 ot ion Me received your letter of tune 11> 1990 today.

Because APS management might be the target of ongoing law enfarcement investigation by government, agencie<<

regarding

<<arne af the allegatianc raised in Mrs. Mitchell'<< petition, ve believe it would be highly inappropriate far our client to cooperte with the target of <<uch investigation<<.

X'rankly, ve have never heard of a complaining vitnesc meetincr with the target of a probe before government investigators have completed their inve<<tigation.

Moreover, it would be very unusual far an adverse party in civil litigation to.permit Ne ather side'I attorneys to froely question him or her about any matter related to that case.

Because Mrs. Mitche)1 might saon be in litigation with APS over some of the iasues railed in her 2.206 Petition your request for an interview can not be <<eriously considerc4.

Xt-is al<<a very o44 that your firm would ask our client to cooperate with your angaing investigation of this matter for Aps while, at the same time, instructing Mr<<. Mitchell~I co-workers not, to cooperate with her and her attorneys.

We can assure you that Mrs. Mitchell villfully cooperate vith the appzopriato regulatory and law enforcement agencies regarding her allegatians about APS.

She will not

however, he fed ta the lions, No to speak, so APS can continue its practice of harassing and retaliating against Chose who report wrongdoing and safety violations.

Jay p, Cutiezres June 12, 1990 Page Tvo Finally, ve note.that you took it upon yourself'o directly communicate vith Mrs. Mitchell regarding your request Nor an interviev vith her hy express mai?ing a coyy of your letter to her.

Ne ask that all commnications vith Mrs. Mitchell about this matter take place through this office onlY.

As such, any direct communication vith Mrs.

Mitchell about her Petition by APS or its attorneys may result in a complaint against APS under Section 2Xo oC'he Znargy Reorganization Act, 42 V.S.C.

5851<

and possibly other lave, and a formal ceap1aint against the rcsponsXblc attorneys under the applicable code of ethics.

Sincerely, David X Colapint Attorneys for Ws. Mitchell 60/gut2

<<CCS TET LBORG. ShYDERs 8c Ph.Hh,

~ 4CrC55eOweLL coarOasreooe T ACCENT t 8 r aaeev a, rhva 5 eeaocir J. ~iuvo

~vv L. ~vheOee5 oeCv4iO A 4Cvr

~Iekv ~. IMvr jfCvCv PLefr 4ciALO T, veCEeeAv 5COTT ee, eeOLe51Oee OeLOOeCO L 4oeLuOvC1

4. COaCT eeeLL Skiff 4 e55kee AWLO. THeCOeesee seCeesro

~ &vOC15

<<CeL C. aLOCv J. CLsrrOv ~ CvCCa

~veO J, OhvvOv

~ >MCC a. sCL ~ Cr COoee vsC OOOO JO<< i. 5~ca 5TCrvCv C. ~aCg

<<ave <<Ooe5Cee CCa veCC oe Cov54oe COrreeC oe. aCLLT JkvC5 a, TCeL5da4 JOeeee C, OCoeoeeLL 5TCOeeCee raeeL i44VC5T

~ VAOLCT4 J4VOeeeC

~Le5Ooe LCeve5 JaoeC5 Wi Ck4lCeeC+

JCeeee C. oeoerfeoeOTOee ooOoeTC a. 5eoev54ee ccetee 4 OceeeLoe 5COTT eo ~ eeCAOCoeOOCToeCA

~ OeMCC C. Ceeetee

~e rwego ~ ~ h(

SLeorC e5OO t+OCPgg J tLltO.

0 hg $ 5Oor

~+45) t70 e ~

Le (heei 454. 5 ~ ~ 5

<<ea IT C g h5

~, e oe C 230 SV61 June 22, 1990 e

David X. Colapintog Es'q.

XOHN~ XOHN 4 COLAPINTOT P C.

517 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

,20001 Res Independent Investigation at, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Dear Mr. Colapintoc Mr.

Gemndll and I

are attempting ta conclude investigation Naturally, ve vere disappointed to zeceive yours of March 27, 1990, declining aur request far an interviev vith Ks.

Mitchell.

Inasmuch as one of the principal puxposes af the investigation is ta determine vhethez hez concerns vere adequately addressed, a meaningful conclusion is difficult vithout speakLn vith her dixectly.

We vould respectfully

request, that u

reconsider your decision and permit us direct 'access to Ke.

Mitchell, vith you present af course.

'f you and Ms. Mitchell aze not villing to reconsider our request for an intervkev, vould you obtain ansveri from hez to the folloving questions and relay them to us?

~ l.

Ax~ thexe any Hatline concerns raised by Ms. Mitche11 vhich have not been satisfactorily resolved'f so, vhich ones%

Zn vhat particular is Ks. Mitchell not.

satisfied?

FfLE COPY

Res APS June 22, 1990 Page 2

gA% Optic(g TE11.SORQ SaYDER5 & PARKS 2.

Has Ms. Mitchell been harassed, intimidated ar othervise treated unfairly because of her utilizatian of the Hotline?

State the particulars, including the name or names of the persons responsible for this treatment wh vas done, vhen, etc.

3; Does Ms Mitchell feel APS has failed ta follov its corporate procedures and policies in dispositioning her Hotline concerns, and, if so, Ln vhat particulars?

Mr. Colapinto, in addition to the above information vhich ve vould appreciate having from Ms. Mitchell, ve vould also appreciate amplification on certain points raised in jour letter of Ma h

27th<

e er o

March You state that during the last veek of February Ms.

Mitchell vas sub5ected to intense harassment and intimidation on the fob site, to the point that she

~ feared Cor her personal safety.

Mould you furnish names

dates, and details?

I 2 ~

3 ~

To vhom at APS management vere these incidents of harassment reported'hen<

and Ln vhat form?

You state that APS management has acted concertedly to monitor and discourage Ms. Mitchell's contact vith the NRC an site.

Ne have reason to believe directives to this effect have been issued from the vice presidential level af APS management.

Would you state in vhat fashion APS has acted to discourage her contact vith the NRCp vho and vhen?

What directives have been issued, hy vhom, vhen and in vhat form?

4.

You state that there have been other examples during the past fev veeka.

Please provide ctetailec vho, in vhat formg anct vhen this harassment'nd retaliation took place?

We are striving to bring this investigation ta a close vithLn the next couple af veeks.

Anything you c& furRsh in respanse to the above inquiries vill enable us ta db a more thorough Job.

Obviously, ve vould (Specially appreciate having the chance to interview Ks. Mitchell.

Reg APS June 22'990 pdge 3

L~ O<tKCI 7 C 1 I.b0 l%G, SA P4 Dtlt5 & P~ R lC 5 tru Ig Than3cing you for your antfcLpated prompt response, I am V

JAT/mlh S A'o SILBORC For the PDaa-I

~ 1

~r

~

'TACR'TNT I 9 er AC~<<<. O. <<Oiwi IT<<we<<s w, EOee~ooe QWO <<CO<<Aoeerr oe i ~

~~ewW

~~

weap

~ Waetttfy waa

<CK'.<<COKH 4 COLAPlHTO, P.C.

• TTORNCYQ AT ~<N

+ < > <LO0 < OA AVC<< <<C. <<w wag~< <OTO<<OC OOOO<

<aOa< aOiwqiq July 2 1990 4

(Oe<ee<<(<

<<<< ~ (<<<ereeoe

~ <<OiVa~

James A. Teilborg Teilborg, Sanders 4 Parkc 3030 North Third Street Suite 1300

Phoenix, AZ 85012 Re:,

. Xinda Mitchell

Dear Mr. Teilborg:

I am vriting in response to your letter of June 22, 1990 in vhich you requested that Linda Mitchell reconsider her decision not to be intervieved as part of vour investigation for Arizona Public Service Co.

(>APSR).

For the reasons stated in ay letter of March 27th and for other

reasons, Ms. Mitchell again respectfully declines your invitation for an interview.

To elaborate on the reasons provided in my March 27th correspondence, during late February and early March, 1990 incidents of harassment and intimidation vere directed against Ms. Mitchell.

At that time, I requested through the lavfirm of Snell t Wilmer, which also represents APS, that an interviev of Ms. Mitchell concerning these allegations be arranged vith an investigator of APS'hoosing.

When I attempted to ensure that Ms. Mitchell vould be represented by legal counsel at such an interviev APS dismissed my request as unnecessary or not appropriate.

Since March, Ms. Mitchell has filed a formal aetition with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC") pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206, and has engaged in other forms of protected conduct. It is my understanding that the NRC is currently investigating Ms. Mitchell's petition allegations, many of vhich overlap vith the issues subject to your invest-'gation.

'45

James A. TeiLborg JuLy 2, 1990 Page Tvo I can assure you that Ms. Mitchell has and vill cooperate fully vith the NRC's'nvestigation of her allegations.

Because"your client is a target of an ongoing lav enforcement investigation it vould not he appropriate for Ms. MitcheXl to agree to an interviev vith your firm at this time My client vould prefer to let the NRC proceeding and investigation run their course.

Also, due-to the events since February, 1990 she does not have confidence in any internal or external APS investigation of her allegations.

S incerely, David K. Colapint Attorney for Hs. Mitchell

$ 0 CFR 2.790 INRSMATIONEXEMPT FROM.

PUBUC OlSCLCSURE ATTACHMENT3 MEMORANDUMFOR:

CHAIRMANCARR FROM: DAVIDC. WILLIAMS,INSPECTOR GENERAL DATED JANUARY 23, 199't

ATTACHMENT4 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE NUMBER 022%1266-WFC/BEB/TCS/CWJ DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1989

4(NW" CI Vf AT1'ACHM1981' Arizona PubUc Service Company COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Io ~

02241266/WFC/BEB/TCS/CWJ To:

sti ~

Ext.:

September "1, 1989 All Palo Verde Employees Various Various FAOM' F Conway st.. i 9012 81-3900 89403-726 jP 849 cd/

SU8JEGT NOT1CE PN PALP VERDE EMPLOYEE CONCERNS (Replaces Memo ¹ 10241295-WFC/fDS/P JC)

'89 OCT 27.

Quality and safety are our primary concerns at Palo Verde.

Each employee is responsible to maintain quality and safety and to immediately report concerns which could have an effect on the safe. and reliable operation of the Station.

Moreover, we solicit the identification of any concern which may adversely affect the performance of our operanons so that they may be resolved promptly.

To assist us in identifying, addressing, and resolving these

concerns, I have established the pch::

delineated in the attached notice.

WFC/BEB/TCS/CWJ:kid Attachment

PSWGS PPL!CY ON E~.

CYEE C'O~" XZC.':OYS 6

C'OYC"'R.':S APS

. ERSONNE AT ALL LEVELS ARE ENCOURAGED

~NB C; ED '0 COM:XZCAT ACTIVE AhD OPEN MANNER SUCH THAT i'%Oh',

PROBL"-MS 'n"'ICH."fAY AFFECT Al~Y AS "ECi OUR PERFOR.~CE ARE QUICKLY IDENTIFIED A!~D SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED.

THIS POLICY APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYEES INCLUDING

<<MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION, CONTRACTORS, AND THEIR BQ'LOYEES.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS)

IS COMMiZTTED TO QUALITY AND SAFETY IN THE OPERATION OF THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GEiNERATZNG STATION Ai%) THROUGHOUT THE APS NUCLEAR GENERATING PROGRAM.

APS AS A WHOLE, A'~D EACH EMPLOYEE, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSURING THAT THIS COMMITMENT ZS MET.

CONCERNS WHICH COULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SAFE AND RELIABLE OPERATION OF THE STATION OR WHICH MiAY ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR NUCLEAR OPERATIONS MUST BE REPORTED PROMPTLY AND BE ADEQUATELY RESOLVED.

EACH SUPERVISOR AND KQIAGER SHOULD ACTIVELY SOLICIT FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES A,'iY KNOWN SAFETY CONCERN AND PROBLDf.

SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW IDENTIFIED SAFETY CONCERNS AND BfPLOYEE

PROBLEMS, OBTAIN EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION WHERE APPROPRIATE, AND FEEDBACK TO THE EMPLOYEE THE RESULTS OF THEIR ACTIONS.

IF THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RESULTS PRESENTED, SUPERVISION SHOULD ENCOURAGE Ah D, IF REQUESTED, ASSIST THE EMPLOYEE IN ESCALATING HIS CONCERN OR PROBLEM TO THE NEXT HIGHER LEVEL OF APS SUPERVISION.

EACH EMPLOYEE IS EXPECTED TO BRING THEIR SAFETY CONCERNS AND PROBLEMS TO ATTENTION OF THEIR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR.

SHOULD EMPLOYEES HAVE A REASON TO FEEL THAT THEIR SAFETY CONCERNS OR PROBLEMS HAVE NOT BEEN OR WILL NOT BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THROUGH THE USE OF THESE NOfufAL CHANNELS, THEY SHOL-D REPORT THEIR COiNCERN OR PROBLEM TO THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM.

THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO DO THIS:

1.

CALL THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNS OFFICE - EXTENSION 6701; 2.

VISIT THE EMPLOYEE t.'ONCERNS OFFICE NORTH ANNEX (ROOM 227)'.

CALL THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNS DIRECT LINE 944-5444; 4.

COMPLETE AN EMPLOYEE CONCERN DISCLOSURE FORM WHEN EXITING; 5.

HAVE A PERSONAL INTERVIEW WHEN EXITING.

'~'HEN REPORTIiNG A

CONCERN TO THE EMPLOYE CONCERNS PROGRA f, PLOYE S

REQUEST CONFIDENTIALITY, EVERY EFFORT WILL BE +~E NOT TO DISCLOSE HE:R IDENT TY OUTSIDE THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM.

CONCERTOS REPORTED UNDER THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM WILL BE INVESTIGATED, RESOLV"D, A.'sD DOCUMENTED.

IN CASES h'HERE ACTION IS REQUIRED TO CORREC.

REPORTED COl:D. ION, THE COMPLETION OF THE ACTION WILL BE VERIFI:"D.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN hILL BE AVAZLABL THE BfPLOYEE WHO RAISED THE CONCERN.

ALTHOUGH EMPLOYEES HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT THEIR CONCERNS TO APS, CONCERNS

." KY ALSO'E IDENTIFIED DIRECTLY TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM.fISSION, REGION (415) 943-3700, OR SITE RESIDENT (602) 393"3737,

EMPLOYEES ARE PROTECT D

BY '-AW AGA NST HARASSMENT ~

~.'TIMIDATION OR RE.A'.

FOR IDENTIFYING NUCL AR SAFE..

CONCERNS..HE:R RIGHTS Ea,'IS

..ECARD AS AS OTHER RELEVANT

'NFOR."AT ON ARE SRPMIZ D

IN NRC FORM 3

WHICH IS POS."-"

WIDELY THROUGHOUT

?"NG<

c'iD OTHER FACIL"'TI S SUPPORT NC>

OUR OPERATIONS.

MOREOVER, ARIZONA PUBLIC S ERVICE COMPANY WILL NOT TOLERATE HARASS ! NT, INTIMIDATION, DISCRIMINATIO!> OR OTHER ACTS OF RETALIATION AGAINST ANY wfPLOY""E FOR IDENTIFYING AhY CONCERN TO EITHER SUPERVISION, MANAGEMENT, THE

~c... LOYEE CONCERNS

PROGRAM, OR THE NRC.

IF AV EMPLOYEE BELIEVES THEY HAVE BEEN OR ARE

BEING, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF IDENTIFYING A CONCERN THEY SHOU ~

IMMEDIATELYREPORT THIS DIRECTLY TO THE ~LOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM ON SITE.

W. F.

CONWAY EXECUTIVE VIC RESIDENT NUCLEAR

ATTACHMENT5 PETITlON DATED MAY22, 1990

ATTA(2iMENT 5 COi.'X~ Et:

~J>Nr'.C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

~ ev 22 V2:>>

ln the Matter of, ARIZONAPUBLIC SERVICE CO.,

Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 REQUEST FOR INSTITUTIONOF PROCEEDINGS TO MODIFY, SUSPEND OR REVOKE LICENSE PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206 To:

Kenneth Carr, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.

Petitioner, Linda E. Mitchell, is a resident of the City of Buckeye, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona Mrs. Mitchell is emptoyed by Arizona Public Service Co.

( APS ) as an associate stectncal engineer at the Pato Verde Nucfear Generating Statton ( PVNGS or Palo Verde ), located approsimately 50 miles west of downtown Pheonix, Arizona Mrs. Mitchell is a well-known whistfebtower at Palo Verde.

2.

APS is an operating public utilityengaged principally in the business of furnishing electric service throughout the State of Arizona. APS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pinnacle West Corporation.

3.

Pursuant to operating licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"), NRC Ucense Nos. NPF41, NPF-51 and NPF-74, APS was authorized to act as an agent for the licensees and had exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation and maintenance of PVNGS, which includes three identical, separate, pressurized-water-reactor plants.

4.

Petitioner hereby requests, under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.206. the institution by the NRC of a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke the license of the ticensee.

5.

The facts that constitute the basis of this request are as foltows:

(a)

On March 21, 1990 Mr. William F. Conway, APS Executive Vice President, Nuclear, was informed by NRC Region V of a Notice of Violation regarding Palo Verde's emergency lighting system.

This Notice of Viofation involeved a previous 3'

-failure to properly maintain and perform requ red surveillance tests of the efTiergecy fighting sy~em." which resulted in a 1989 eel penalty of approximately $100.600..

Although APS failed to comply with NRC requirements in an area for w'hich it was assessed a fine, the NRC did not propose to fine APS for its repeated wilfulviolations in March'1990.

~ ~

(b)

QnApril 24, 1990 NRC Region Y informed Mr. Conway of "several concerns regarding the status of tPalo Verde's] 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, emergency lighting as well a~ its fire protection/prevention program.

These concerns arose as a result of a "routirIe inspection.

See, inspection Report Nos. 50-528/90%2,.50-529/90-o2, 50-530/90-o2. However, due to the improper influence from APS officials inspection Report 90-02 was watered down to cover up additional concerns raised by Petitioner and verified by an NRC inspector, "John Doe",

(c)

Prior to the issuance of inspection Repet 90%2'APS was informed by the NRC Region V inspection team of Spproxfmstely $4 potential violations which could result in substantial cia penaNes andlor fines.

(d)

Upon learning of these serious potential violations AgS management, includin'g E.C. Simpson, APS Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Construction, began a concerted effort and discredit the John Doe NRC inspector through hts superiors at NRC Region V. APS'ntent was to cover up and suppress addlthnal serious vfolations, many of which Petitioner's supervision at APS recognized were legitimate concerns.

(ey pettitonetos sonatty witnessed it cmttoedotaataad stste that APS was about to contact NRC management to ~ck off"the John Doe inspector. APS employees, including Kristin McCanless Clarlc, made disparaging and false comments about John Doe, openly criticized John Doe for aggressively monitoring the PaloVerde emergency lighting system and, over a two-week period, boasted that APS management was going to "get rid of"John Doe. ln addition, Petitioner's immediate supervision often referred to John Doe as "your buddy" in conversations with Petitioner and bragged that APS was about to get John Doe in trouble for being too aggressive.

k (f)

On or about May 10, 1990, an APS employee told Petitioner that APS woyld get John Doe transferred to RegionlV because he was causing too much trouble for Palo Verde and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS" ) regarding 10 CFR 60, Appendix R, emergency lighting requirements.

(g)

Upon information and belief; APS learned that John Doe had confirmed that APS parts used in the PVNGS emergency lighting system did not meet Appendix R requirements by failing to burn for sufficient hours and could not withstand heat levels at PVNGS.

(h)

Upon information and belief, James M. Levine, APS Vice President, Nuclear Production, contacted R.P. Zimmerman, Director, NRC Region V, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, and accused John Doe of misconduct.

(i)

Upon information and belief, Mr. Conway conctacted John Martin, NRG Region V Administrator, and also accused John Doe of misconduct.

.."...~;.*',.

(j)

Uponinformation andbelief, the contactsby Mr. Conway and Mr. LeyIne of APS to John Doe's superiors at NRC Region V contained misrepresentations and false accusations and were intended to impede and interfere with an ongoing NRC inspection.

(k)

Upon information and belief, John Doe was retaliated

'against by NRC Region Y management as a direct result of the communications made by Mr. Conway and Mr. Levine.

(I)

Upon information and belief, NRC tnspection Report 90-02 was watered down by the NRC Region V management in order to whitewash significant safety problems at Palo Verde as a direct result of the communications made by Mr. Conway and Mr. Levine.

- '6.

The violations, ifpermitted to continue, willproduce the following potential hazardous environmental conditions:

(a)

Serious violations in the Palo Verde emergency lighting and fire protection systems, which have gone uncorrected for at least five (5) years, willcontinue unabated.

(b)

The duties and rights of NRC inspectors to investigate and inspect potential violations at NRC licensed facilities willbe serverely chilled due.to the fear of retaliation by NRC management and NRC licensees.

(c)

The rights of employees at NRC licensed facilities, including Petitioner, to speak freely and raise concerns with NRC inspectors as well as employee rights to raise safety concerns without fear of

0 retaliation in general willbe serverely chilled.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for the following relief:

(1)

That the NRC institute a proceeding against APS pursuant to 10 GFR 2.202 to modifrevoke or suspend the above-referenced ficense.

(2)

That APS be cited for violations improperly and illegally deleted from NRC fnspection Report 90-02.

(3)

That APS, WilliamConway, and James Levine be fined

$1,000,000.00, jointlyand severally, for tampering, obstructing and impeding an ongoing NRC inspection.

(4)

That any and all NRC employees involved in retaliation against John Doe be disciplined..

(5)

Such other and further relief as the NRC may deem

.=

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

+

May 22, 1990 cc:

NRC Exec. Dir. for Operations avid K.

apint Kohn, Kohn 8 Colapinto, P.C.

517 Florida Ave., N.W.

Wasington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234<663 Attorneys for Linda E. Mitchell

10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATlONEXEMPTFRdQ-PUBLlC DSCLOSURE ATTACHMENT6 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATIVEREPORT CASE NO. 90%5H

ATTACHMENT7 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 5 2.206 DATED AUGUST 12, 1992

ATFACIiMENT 7 Cite as 36 NRC 143 (1992)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00-924 OFFiCE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Thomas E. Murloy, Diroctor In tho Mattor of 0ockot Nos. 50-528 50-529 50-530 ARRONA PUBLlC SERVICE COMPANY; or aL (Palo Vordo Nuclear Gonoratlng Station, Units 1, 2, and 3)

August 12, 1992 The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies the remain-der of a Pedtion submitted by Ma. Linda E Mitcheu {Petitioner) requesting acdon with regard to the Palo Vade Nuclear Genaating Station of Arizona Public Service Company, cr aL (Licensee).

In ha Pedtion, Pedtioner alleged that seriou viohtions existed at the Palo Verde facility in the systems for emergency lighting and fire protection.

In a Partial Director's Decision issued on October 31, 1990 (DD-90-7, 32 NRC 273),

this aspect of Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 C.FZ. $ 2206 was denied.

Petitioner had also alleged improprieties by Licensee personnel regarding NRC inspccdon activities, specifically that Licensee pasonnel acted improperly to "water down" hspection findings, suppress serious violations, and discredit an NRC inspector. Based on an investigation by the NRC's Office of the Inspector

General, these auegations wae found to be without meri.

Accordingly, thc Director denied this aspect of thc Petitioner's request for action pursuant to secuon 2.206.

143

ATTACHMENT9 NEWMAN AND HOLTZINGER, P.C.

LETTER DATED APRIL 5, 1991

Nzw~~ Bc HoLrzz~aza, P.C.

i6f5 v 5"REK". N w wAS~i~G-.ON. 0 C 20036 202

~ 955

~ 6600 April 5, 1991 Mr. Leo J. Norton Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Office of the Inspector General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Norton:

Enclosed for your consideration are reports of investigations by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) concerning several matters of apparent regulatory interest.

Specifically, Enclosure 1 discusses the circumstances surrounding the transfer by APS to the NRC on February 14, 1990 of approximately twenty-six pounds of documents associated with emergency lighting at Palo Verde.

Enclosure 2 discusses an allegation that a corporate officer ordered the destruction of a February 25, 1990 APS memorandum on the status of emergency lighting.

Enclosure 2 also sets forth APS'osition on the associated NRC concern of whether or not any of the issues discussed in the sub)ect memorandum vere reportable to the NRC. Enclosure 3 contains information relative to an allegation that was terminated by APS based upon a falsifie rug test a ter raising safety concerns.

In addition, APS has reviewed its October 8,

1990 submittal to Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, relative to wrongdoing allegations set forth in a May 22, 1990 petition filed under 10 CFR Section 2.206 and does not currently plan to submit any further information.

This decision is premised on the belief that the Office of the Inspector General is satisfied based on its investigative field vork that APS officials did not engage in the wrongdoing alleged.

If this is not the position of the Inspector General, or if after interviewing any NRC official, the Inspector General tentatively concludes otherwise, we feel fairness dictates that APS be given a further opportunity to respond.

If after you review the enclosures you have any questions, please call.

9308060276 930731 PDR ADOCK 05000528 CF

~EWAaX & HOLTZINGER. RC.

Mr. Leo J. Norton April 5, 1991 Page 2

Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.790, APS requests that this letter and its enclosures be exempt from public disclosure and not be made available in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

/I y M.

tierrez

4 EwN>y 5c HOLTZI.'<GER. RC ENCLOSURE 1

TRANSFER OF DOCUMENTATION FEBRUARY 14, 1990 I. '

- IN RODUCTION Th:s enclosure presents APS'nderstanding regarding the circumstances surrounding the transfer of a file J/

(hereinafter "the file") on February 14, 1990 to an inspector, from which information requested by the inspector was allegedly improperly omitted.

The presentation first summarizes the potential regulatory concern and next describes the facts surrounding the transfer of the file.

The key points are:

The only information APS has with respect to what information was to be sent to the inspector is a file provided to APS by November 6,

1990.

an APS employee, on The only'nformation APS has with respect to what information allegedly was not provided to the NRC is a

February 16, 1990 handwritten note from Linda Mitchell documenting a call from NRC Inspector Charles

Ramsey,

~/

APS has never been provided a copy of the file received by NRC that was allegedly deficient.

A file was provided by on November 6, 1990 and described by him as a

"wor ing ile" similar to the file that was transmitted to Inspec or Ramsey on or about February 14, 1990.

indicated, however, that the working file is not identical to the file transmitted to Ramsey because documents have since been added and removed.

It is the ~~ produced file that will be referred to as "the file" hereinafter.

This file is Attachment 1.

yzwmi & HQLTzIYGER. P.C.

ENCLOSURE 1 - Paga 2

Prior to the February 14, 1990 document transfer, information contained in the file was available for NRC

review, most probably was reviewed by the

NRC, and was the sub)ect of numerous discussions with the NRC both before and during the inspection activity associated with 90-02.

The file was sent to the NRC at the request of NRC 4

Inspector Ramsey as an administrative convenience to help'loseout issues associated with emergency lighting.

Setting aside the information allegedly not sent the NRC inspector, as reflected in Linda Mitchell's February 16, 1990 note, the information sent clearly advised NRC of problems with Emergi-Lites and of APS'lans to address these problems.

,APS personnel have no present recollection of circumstances surrounding the making of arrangements to copy and send the NRC documentation.

A review of the chronology of events demonstrates that there is no evidence of wrongdoing involved in the transfer of information to the NRC.

YEivN~ 4 6c HQLizINGER. P.C.

ENCLOSURE 1 - Page 3

II.

POTENTIAL REGULATORY CONCERNS Allegedly information requested by an NRC inspector was omitted from a file provided to the NRC on February 14, 1990 in an effort by APS to withhold safety significant information of interest to NRC.

Specifically, the information that was allegedly omitted, insofar as APS is aware, was!

1) a copy of a list of the failures (of certain emergency lights) and lists of works orders; 2)

EERs 89-QD-007, 89-QD-008 and 89-QD-034; 3) a copy of a list, of lights upgraded from 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> to 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />; and 4) a DCP. ?/

III. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS On Friday, February 9,

1990, NRC Inspector Charles Ramsey conducted an interim exit meeting covering the period of his inspection from January 29, 1990 to February 9,

1990.

At this meeting he described his i'nspection findings.

Inspector Ramsey stated that his inspection covered a number of areas associated with emergency lighting at Palo Verde.

In particular, Inspector Ramsey noted that there were problems with the newly installed Emergi-lites.

The Emergi-lites were identified as having lamps with only 50-hour rated lamp life and, batteries with limited life at ambient temperatures above 77 degrees 2./

See Attachment 2, 2/16/90 handwritten note of Linda Mitchell.

igvqhY 6c HoLT2IYGER. P.C.

ENCLOSURE 1 - Page 4

Fahrenheit, and having been improperly installed outdoors because the units were not NERD 4X rated or UL listed for outdoor installation.3/

Inspector Ramsey also questioned the reliability and workmanship quality of the Emergi-lites and acknowledged that APS had plans to replace these lights in the 1991-1992 time frame.

After this exit meeting, Inspector Ramsey accompanied an APS Compliance Engineer, and possibly~

also an APS Compliance

Engineer, to the NRC Resident Inspector's office and identified a stack of documents that Ramsey wanted APS to send to Region V.

The stack apparently contained approximately 12-15 closure packages.Q/

No one within the Compliance Department could recall spec'"ic discussions with Inspector Ramsey regarding detailed arrangements to send the documents to Region V.

However, such a..

approach is consistent with the practice within the Compliance Department.

Personnel within the APS Compliance Department have exp'ained that documents provided the NRC are routinely copied by 3/ ~ February 9-,

1990 notes of interim exit of Attachment 3.

4/

Closure packages are APS prepared files containing information which APS feels are responsive to NRC open items.

They are the basis for APS's position that existing open items should be closed out;

4 Ew~g Sc HOLT2I.'gGER, P. C.

ENCLOSURE 1 - Page 5

APS so that APS will have a copy of what has been provided to the NRC and will be better able to respond to subsequent NRC follow-up questions.

The NRC does not appear to have a concern with this practice.

In addition to the APS prepared closure packages, a

file was included that appeared to be a tattered, working file, containing draft documents, and handwritten notes on emergency lighting issues.

It was not clear to~~ who was niw to the Compliance Department and his position as a Compliance Engineer, that the informati'on in the file was intended for transmittal to the NRC.

Although of the Compliance Department has no current recollection;~ recalls seeking guidance from~

with respect to whether or not the working file should be provided to the NRC.

According to indicated that

~ should have the appropriate technical group review the file, in this case group. ~ then provided the file to~, apparently on, the afternoon of February 9,

1990, and sought clarification as to whether or not the information therein should be provided.

~ brought the file to~~ who was in his office, possibly with and Linda Mitchell.

asked~

to look at the documents and determine if they should be sent to the MRC.

Sometime after, ~indicated to

XEwwzi Sc HOLT21'NGER. P.C.

ENCLOSURE 1 - Page 6

~~that this could be a "test" so~ had better send all the information to the NRC.

However, upon review~ decided to remove one "yellow sticky" attached to one of the documents, indicating in the presence of Mitchell and that "we don' need this".~ has also indicated that before returning the file to~, it was not kept in a secure area and that other people in his work place had access to it.~ got the file back fr mo~ and made a copy of the entire file, as was customary to do, piior'to sending information to the NRC.

also copied approximately twenty-six pounds. of other APS documentation on emergency lighting requested by Inspector

Ramsey, sent, the original file back to~

and transmitted the copy of the file and the closure packages to Inspector Ramsey.

As reflected in Attachment 2, Inspector Ramsey called Linda Mitchell on or about February 16, 1990 to request that certain documents be transmitted to him, which were left out of the file sent to him by Compliance.

Mitchell brought Ramsey's request to the attention of indicated that she should send the material to Ramsey.

and he Apparently, based on ~understanding of the Ramsey/Hitcheli conversation, Ramsey had indicated to Mitchell that Al Johnson,

NRC, was on site that day and asked if she would hand carry the requested documents to Mr. Johnson.

Insofar as APS is aware this occurred.

Apart from this telephone contact with Linda Mitchell,

.w ZWNa~ 6C HOLTZIYGER. P. C.

ENCLOSURE 1 - Page 7

APS is unaware of the NRC ever advising APS that the information sent on February 14, was incomplete or that the agency was of the opinion that material was improperly withheld.

on the same day as the Ramsey-Mitchell call, Inspector Ramsey also called In this call Inspector Ramsey indicated to~ a concern relative to the treatment of Linda Mitchell due to her dealings with the NRC on emergency lighting.

~ brought Ramsey's concern directly to the attention of ~~

the Ape Compliance ~~

who thought it was odd that an NRC Inspector would be calling someone at the i

compliance engineer level on such a potentially serious

concern, took this seriously and informed Manager in this area, of Ramsey's concern. ~ committed to I

follow up on this matter.

The disposition of this matter is documented in Attachment 4.

N Ew+AÃ & HQLTXIYGER. P. C.

ENCLOSURE 2

Alleged Destruction of a February 25, 1990 APS Memorandum I.

INTRODUCTION This presents APS's understanding regarding the circumstances surrounding the creation and disposition of an undated APS memorandum apparently created on or about February 25, 1990 (hereinafter the February 25, 1990 memorandum).

The subject memorandum is Attachment 1.

This presentation first summarizes the potential regulatory concern and then describes the facts surrounding the creation and disposition of the memorandum.

Additionally, because the reportability of information set forth in that memorandum is an apparent NRC

concern, Attachment 2 to this enclosure presents the company's position on reportability.

The key points are:

No individuals could be identified who heard or saw any direction from 1990 memorandum.

regarding the February 25, Although told his subordinates that

~wanted the February 25, 1990 memorandum destroyed,~ had no basis for that statement.

Rather than destroy the memorandum, preserved a copy in his personal working file on emergency lighting issues.

xzwgzi Ec HOLT2IYGER, P.C.

ENCLOSURE 2 - Page 2

Mr.

contemporaneous review concluded that the information was already known to the NRC and APS and he did not identify any information in the February 25, 1990 memorandum which he believed should be reported to the NRC.

A detailed review demonstrates that there was no information in the February 25, 1990 memorandum that was required to be reported to the NRC that had not already been reported in previous correspondence.

II.

POTENTIAL REGULATORY CONCERN An allegation that a corporate officer directed the destruction of the February 25, 1990 memorandum.

III. Chronology of Events The creation of the February 25, 1990 memorandum can best be understood in the context of events immediately preceding its preparation.

On February 21,

1990, a teleconference occurred between APS managers and Region V personnel in an effort to better define the issues associated with emergency lighting and their status.

Additionally, on February 22, Mr. William F.

Conway, Executive Vice President

Nuclear, spoke by telephone with the NRC Region'V Administrator.

Although Mr. Conway does not

XEss:sdhy, & HOLTZIÃGKR. RC.

ENCLOSURE 2 - Page 3

recall the specific issues discussed on the call, he does recall that the Administrator expressed dissatisfaction with emergency lighting at Palo Verde and indicated that emergency lighting issues required more management attengiqn g

t. to thip.

I J-call, Nr. Conway held a meeting on February 23<- X$$0 Mth the APS personnel'esponsible for emergency lighting~.,~lh8&g'~

~

and relayed the substance of the: ffegf'onal hd'.minfst'rater's e

s concern and expressed a desire to hav9,".these an't~ rasolvad.

j""

f

~

s 4,

Subsequent to this meeting, a follow~ c'o'y~c ~c :wi"a:he.JA with. the NRC Region V on the same day to.

Cog und~wtaag~he

~a e$

issues the Region had concerning emergence~

y.

Apparently, on the afternooniof'FORQctlacf23'LQOf which was a Friday, returnid to=Me. 'sfbi conc@nod that the NRC's dissatisfaction might be atCe&utjd to tel

~ e%+

N,

~ ~

a deficiencies in his group's performance. -:~ indicated to and Linda;Mitclfell'hat he desired that they=:work over the weekend to. create; a.aeiqor~dum expressing for APS management his group's view-off ptOA8h aSsociated" yith II emergency=lighting.

This has been characterized by all involved as a "covter your ass memorandum",

The result of the group's effort over the weekend was the February 25 memorandum.

indicates that he hand carried a copy of thia. memorandum to

+~and that response was'lfe% -APS'-already has "too much paper" involving emergency lighting concerns and requested that the-"memorandum be given limited diatribotion.

This was not a

t Ewmxg 8c Hox.Tzxioza. P. C.

ENCLOSURE 2 - Page 4

the reception~~thought his effort would receive and he immediately went back to his work area where upon he told his subordinates and Mitchell) that~ wants the memo destroygd.."..

im fact~at the time~ made th,im

comment, he had neither talked to~ nor did he have any indication that~had even seen the memo, Wheii confronted with this inconsistency,~

explains that h&.vis.exaggerating tar=make a, point.

Nonetheless,

Mitchell, r+

apparently too)c-; his comments at face value.

In fact, shortly after the

~eting

~participated in a meeting to discuss thm status of.

-%L walkdowns. of emergexM',y-l3+tti that he had.directed.

kt the meeting the memo and a number of othix documints associated with the status of emergency lighting wore discussed"and an action plan formulated.~ gathered the sub]ect memo along with other material distributed in the course of the meeting and stapledt'the information together and placed it in a working file

.I he maintained on emergency lighting issues. ~ recalls no CcnVerecaticne With~Or any Other Ape repreSentatiVe concerning.-limiting the distribution of the February 25, 1990 memorandum, destroying the memorandum, or in fact the impact of the positions set forth in the memorandum on other ongoing APS activities.

When asked about the reportability of the information,

~indicates that he recalls reviewing the document either

e Eweà & HOLT2IYGER, P. C.

ENCLOSURE 2 - Page 5

during or-.)ust after the meeting that led to the action plan and the impress4>n that the information and position set forth therein had been previously discussed both within APS and with the NRC.

As a result, he does not recall having any specific response to the memorandum.

10 CFR 2.7g0 INFORMATIONEXEMPT FROM PUSLIC DI$CLQ$URE ATTACHMENT10 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN=

MEMORANDUMFQR: JAMES M. TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS FROM:

DAVIDC. WILLIAMS,INSPECTOR GENERAL DATED MARCH 27, 1991