ML20116B887
| ML20116B887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1996 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9607300335 | |
| Download: ML20116B887 (40) | |
Text
- . . - - - __ -. ._. .. .-
. 1 Dcr l PDR+ .
1 I
4
' PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE l HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY i RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONTSRUCTORS (RAYTIIEON)
Taken on JULY 19,1996 '
Condensed Transcript Prepared By:
Tammie L Smith, CSR Certified Shorthand Reporter P. O. Box 4601 Fort Worth, Texas 76164-0601 Phone: (817) 625-4940 FAX (817) 625-5684
" ~~~ ' ~ ' ^ ' ' - ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' '-
D AD 0500 98 ~ - ~
r sDa
}$\p\ c y
le Predecisional Enforcenent Conftrence - Julu 19. 1906 PAGE 1 SHEET 1 PAGE 2 1 2
- ~~
1 1
2 2 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 3 -~'
3 4
4 5 LICENSEE REPRESENTATIVES:
5 6 DENNIS R. KEATING 6 Director 7 7 Houston Llohting & Power Conpany 0 PREDECISIONAL 8 ^
rbheon'Mana!er Engineers & Constructors 9 a 9 ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 18 le RE: HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY h ph y g T g esident 11 RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS mWTHEONI 11 gdgegQaggrgigar 12 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS D I2 DAVID R. HYSTER I3 13 vice President. Nuclear Services Ravtheon Engineers & Constructors 14 MARK A. McBURNETT 15 Licensing Manager 15 Houston Lighting & Power Conpany 16 16 17 17 Assistant Hunan Resources Counsel Houston Llenting & Power Conrany 10 I0 AL GUITERMAN 19 DATE: JULY 19,1996,18:10 A.M. 18 h [ W $ gg t aBocklus, L.L.P.
REPORTER: TAMMIE L. SMITH, CSR 20 28 MIKE HARDT 21 Director Nuclear Division j
21 City Public Service 22 22 CHRIS A. JOHNSON 23 Manager, STP Activities 23 Central Power & Light P4 24 25 l
1 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 3 4 1 NRC REPRESENTATIVES: 1 PR0CEEDINGS 2 L. JOE CALLAN 2 MR. CALLAN: Good norning. I an Regional Administrator 3 Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region IV 3 Joe Callan, the Regional Administrator for the 4 GARY F. SANDORN 4 Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Region IV office.
Enforcenent Officer 5 Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Region IV 5 This norning we vill conduct an open Predecisional 6 ART HOWELL 6 Enforcenent Conference between the NRC and Houston Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects 7 Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Region IV 7 Lighting & Power Conpany and one of its
! 8 WILLIAM L. BROWN 8 contractors Raytheon Engineers & Constructc.i.. to Regional Counsel 9 Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region IV 9 discuss apparent violations of NRC requirenents at 18 LINDA JOY SMITH 10 the company's South Texas Project nuclear Acting Branch Chief DRPIA 11 Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Region IV 11 station.
I 12 RONALD A. K0pRIVA 12 The apparent violations involve l Project Engineer. Branch A 13 Nuclear Regulatory Comisston, Region IV 13 the Departnent of Labor adjudicatorW decisions 14 WILLIAM BECKNER 14 that enployees uho engaged in protected activities Director PD IV-1 15 NuclearkegulatoryConnission.NRR 15 at STP vere the subject of discrinination for 16 BRECK HENDERSON 16 doing so. We'll discuss the specifics of these Pubile Af f airs Officer 17 Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Pubitc Affairs 17 Issues a little later oc.
18 JIM LIEBERMAN (Via Telephone) 18 I'M going to deviate fron the Director agenda here just for a ntnute and do introductions 19 Nuclear Regulatory Connission. 19 Office of Enforcenent 20 28 at this point. Garv, Why don't you --
JOE GRAY IVla Telephone) 21 Deputy Director 21 MR. SAMDORN: I'n Gary Sanborn.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 22 Office of enforcerent 22 I'n the Enforcenent Dfficer for the regional 23 TOM ALEXION IVla Telephonel 23 office.
NRR 24 Nuclear Regulatory Comission 24 MR. HOWELLt I'n Art Howell. I'n 25 25 the Deputy Director of the Division of Reactor
' Tamle L. Smith, CSR 18171 625-4948
, . ~ - - _ ~ - . . -. -
l l
PredIctstonal Enforcenent Conference - July 19. 1996 PAGE 5 PAGE 6 5 6 1 Projects. Region IV. 1 MR. CALLAN: OkaW. Also, ue have 2 MR. BROWN: I'm Bill Brown. I*n 2 a bridge set up for individuals to listen, but not 3 the Regional Counsel. 3 part ic i pat e. And on the bridge. I underst and that 4 MS. SMITH: I'n Linda Snith. I'n 4 ve have Thonas Smith and his attorney. Edward 5 the acting Branch Chief responsible for the South 5 Slavin. And We also have Di'ly Pirner Garde. Ufo 6 Texas Project. 6 is representing Mr. Earl Keene. l 7 MR. K0PRIVA: Ron Kopriva. Project 7 Mr. Cottle. I'n going to ask biu l B Engineer for Branch A. Which is covering the South 8 to lead the introductions.
9 Texas Project. 9 MR. COTTLE: Okay. I'n le MR. BECKNER: I'n Bill Beckner. le Bill Cottle. I'n Houston Lighting & Power 11 I'n the Director of PD IV-1. NRC Headquarters. 11 Executive Vice President and General Manager, 12 MR. HENDERSON: I'n Breck 12 Nuclear .
13 Henderson, the Public Affairs Officer. 13 MR. HYSTER: I'n Dave HWster, the 14 MR. CALLAN Jin. I'M going to ask 14 Vice President of Nuclear Services for Raytheon.
15 Wou to lead the introductions fron Wour end. 15 MR. McDURNETT I'n Mark 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. I'n Jin 16 McBurnet t . I'n the Licensing Manager at South 17 Liebernan the Olrector of the Office of 17 Texas.
10 Enforcenent. and with ne is Joe Grav. ng Deputu. 18 MR. GUTTERMAN: I'n Al Gutternan 19 Let ne just ask everyone to speak 19 with Morgan. Leuls & Bocklus. Counsel to Houston 20 as loud as they can so we can hear all the 20 Lighting & Power Company.
21 discussic , as clear as possible. 21 MR. REMEIKA: I'n Jan Renelka. I 22 MR. CALLANs I'n sorry. Do we 22 an Assistant Hunan Resources Counsel for Raytheon 23 have anybody fron NRR. as well? 23 conpany .
24 MR. ALEXION: Yes. Ton Alexion. 24 MR. KEATING: I*n Dennis teating.
25 NRR. 25 HLLP's Director of Nuclear Safety and Qutlity
- DAGE 7 PAGE 8 7 a 1 Concerns at the South Texas Project. 1 during this Conference. If HLbP or Raytheon wish 2 MR. FREW: I'n Jin Frew. I'n the 2 to discuss the nerats of the DOL decisions. they 3 Raytheon Project Manager at the South Texas 3 naW1 but we are prinarily Interested in corrective 4 Project. 4 actions that have been taken or are planned to be >
5 MR. CALLAN: Mike. If you would -- 5 t aken to address these issues.
6 MR. HARDT: Oh. I'n Mike Hardt. 6 If HLbP or Raytheon present 7 City Public Service. San Antonio. 7 Information on the nerits of the DOL decisions. We 8 MR. JOHNSON: I'n Chris Johnson. B ut!! be interested in whether that infornation is 9 Central Power & Light. 9 neus and. If so, why it wasn't presented to the le MR. CALLAN: I wanted to deviate le DOL.
11 fron the agenda because we have atypical 11 Having said that. I note that the 12 arrangements here set up, and I wanted to get that 12 Conference is nonetheless an inportant step in our 13 clarl fled. 13 deliberative process. The nain purpose of the 14 I Want to emphastze that the f act 14 Conference is to provide the NRC vith the 15 that we are conducting this Conference does not 15 Infornation it needs to nake an inforned 16 nean that the NRC has nade a final deternination 16 enforcenent decision, and We are receptive to all 17 on enforcenent action in either of these two 17 relevant information.
18 c ases. 18 However. It is also important to 19 However, with regard to whether 19 note that no decisions vill be reached or 29 violat tons of WRC requirenents occurred. the NRC 20 discussed during the Conference. I encourage HL&P 21 nornally relles on Departnent of Labor 21 and Raytheon to be candid in providing us their 22 adjudicatory decisions as a basis for concluding 22 perspectives on the apparent violations. their 23 that violations have occurred. 23 significance their circunstances surrounding the 24 Thus, we do not plan to 24 apparent violations, corrective actions taken and 25 re-lltigate the Department of Labor's decisions 25 planned, and any other infornation that Vou Tannte L. Smith. CSE (017) 625-4940
, I i
)
Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - JU19 19, 1996 l PAGE 9 SHEET 2 P ME 10 1 l
9 10
)
I believe bears on the NRC's enforcement decision. 1 Likewise, about an hour after this
)
2 We also encourage you to provide 2 Conference ends, We utll contact those who are l 3 us your perspective on the factors that the NRC 3 listening by phone today to answer any questions I j 4 Will take into consideration in deternining 4 they nau have. HL&P and Raytheon are Welcone to l 5 whether a civil penalty should be assessedt for 5 be here when that occurs.
6 exanple, the circunstances sut rounding 6 This Conference is being l
7 Identificatton and corrective acttons. 7 transcribed, I want to renind the participants l 8 This is an open Conference, and I 8 that this Conference is being transcribed and 9 vant to note that uhlle this neeting is open to 9 request that the participants speak loudly enough l 10 public observation, it is not open to le to be heard both by the court reporter as Well as 11 participation by observers. I also note -- and I 11 by Jin Liebernan, as he requested earlier. and 12 have already noted, actually -- that we have the 12 that you identify yourselves -- and ny notes say 13 Individuals who vere subjected to discrintnation. 13 here if you don't have a name card -- but because 14 or their representatives, on the special bridge 14 We have participants and observers listening by 15 that we discussed earlier. 15 phone, I would request that at least for the first 16 I note that there are no observers 16 few tines, untti vour voice is recognizable, that 17 present in the roon. If any are to shou up during 17 wou identify yourself by nane.
18 the course of the Conference, I util probably look 18 Before I go any further -- well, 19 for an opportunity to interrupt the Conference to 19 I've done the introductions. Coples of the agenda 20 note to then - to request fron then that thev 20 have been nade available to Conference 1
21 hold any questlons that they nau have about the 21 participants and to observers. Folloutng ng ;
22 Conference until its conclusion, at which time the 22 opentne renarks, as nited on the agenda.
23 NRC staff nenbers vill be available to answer 23 Gary Sanborn, the Regtet IV Enforcenent Officer, 24 questions concerning the conduct of the 24 vill discuss the Agency's Enforcement Policy and i
25 Conference. 25 process. I 1
1 PME 11 PME 12 11 12 1 Following that, Art Howell, to nu 1 that we follow in reaching our enforcenent 2 right, who is the Deputy Director of the Division 2 decisions.
3 of Reactor Projects, will sunnarize the apparent 3 First of all, enforcenent is an 4 violations that are at issue today. And he U111 4 integral and inportant part of the NRC's 5 also briefly discuss why the NRC considers the 5 regulatory process. We use enforcenent actions to 6 apparent violations significant. Houston Lighting 6 enphasize the Inportance of conpliance with 7 & Power Conpany and their contractor, Raytheon 7 requirements that are Inportant to safety and also 8 Engineers & Constructors, ulli then be given an 8 to emphasize the importance of taking prompt and 9 opportunity to resend. 9 conprehensive corrective actions when violattons 10 I also note here that the agenda le are discovered so that those violations don't l 11 calls for about a 10-ninute recess prior to the 11 recur, 12 conclusion of the Conference so that the NRC can 12 The principal factors that the NRC 13 tatefly revlev What It has heard and deterntne if 13 considers in deternining enforcenent actions are l
14 ue have any follow-up questlons. 14 the safety and regulatory significance of the l
15 We vill take that recess, if 15 violations, the circunstances surrounding the 16 necessary, and address any final questions We nav 16 Identification of the violations, and the 17 have and then proceed to the concluding renarks. 17 pronptness and scope of corrective actions that 18 Are there any questtons at this 18 are taken or planned.
19 tine about the agenda or the conduct of this 19 In deternintno the significance of 20 Conference? If not, I will now ask Mr. Gary 20 violations, the NRC considers the actual safety 21 Sanborn to discuss the Agency's Enforcenent Poll:V 21 significance and the potential safety consequences 22 and process. 22 of the violations, as well as the regulatory 23 MR. SANBORN: Okay. Thank you. 23 significance. Ano 'rwulatory significance' is a j 24 Joe. I'n going to be naking sone general renarks 24 tern that applies to any circunstances surrounding !
25 about the NRC's Enforcenent Polic), and the process 25 the violations that nau nake then nore significant 1
i l
Tannte L. Snith. CSR 18171 625-4940
Predecit!)nal Enforcenent Conforcnce - July 19.199G PAGE 13 .- PAGE 14 13 14 1 than they night otherwise be on the basis of 1 The enforcement sanctions that are 2 safety alone. For exanple, violations that are 2 provided for in the NRC's policy include Notices 3 connitted Ulltfully or repetitive violations are 3 of Violation, uhleh are written citations.
4 obviously vlotations that t ake on nore regulatory 4 nonetary civil penalties, and enforcenent orders.
5 signi fic ance. 5 As I Indicated earlier, enval penalties are 6 Violations are c1Pssif.ed either 6 reserved for violations above Severity Level IV.
7 Individually or collectively at one of four 7 Tha size of a civil penalty B severity levels in accordanc? With the NRC's 8 depends on the type of Ilcense held, the base 9 Enforcenent Policy. A violation classified at any 9 value assigned by the Policy. the severity level 18 of the three higher levels -- that is at Severity 18 of the violation, and our consideration of 11 Levels I. II. or III -- is a candidate for a 11 additional factors that I will discuss in a 12 nonetary civil penalty or an enforcement order. 12 nonent.
13 Violations classified at Severity 13 The NRC 15 lintted by statute to 14 Level IV are not candidates for ctvil penattles 14 8100.000 per violation per day, with regard to 15 unless they've been considered collectively at 15 enforcenent orders, they can take various forns --
16 Level III and nav er nav not result in enforcement 16 Drders confirning a licensee's connittnent to take 17 action, depending on the circunstances. There 17 specific actions in response to violations, orders 18 also is a category of r'nor violations below 18 suspending a licenses and in tne vorst cases, 19 Severity Level IV, which util result in no 19 urders revoking a license.
20 enforcenent action being taken. 20 In the case of Willful violations, 21 ine supplenents to the NRC's 21 actions can be taken against Individuals, whether 22 Enforcenent Policy and the NRC's Enforcenent 22 licensed or not , who deliberately connat 23 nanual provide exanples and guidance to assist the 23 violations or who deliberately provide false 24 NRC staff in dectoing how significant a particular 24 Infornation of a naterial nature to the NRC or to 25 violation or violations are. 25 a 1:censee.
E PAGE 15 PAGE 16 15 16 1 Nov. If I can focus your attention 1 been no escalated enforcenent action involving the 2 for a nonent on the civil penalty assessment chart 2 sane licensee utthin tuo years of the current 3 -- and I'n going to show that on the screen here. 3 issue, and the current issue is classified at 4 I just Want to briefly describe the process that 4 Severity Level III and is not utilful, the NRC 5 the NRC goes through in arriving at civil penalty 5 ullt exantne only the pronptness and 6 decisions. 6 conprehensiveness of corrective actions in 7 First of all. let ne note that 7 deternining the penalty.
O this chart cones into play only if We decide that B If we do consider identification, 9 a vlotation has occurred, and 11 Will be 9 there are several factors that nau be considered 18 classified at Severity Level III or above. The 1B in deciding whether a licensee should be given 11 next thing I'd point out is that the outcome of 11 credit for Identifying the problen that requires 12 this process is innited in nost, but not all 12 corrective action. For exanple, in cases Where 13 cases, to three possiblittles either no penalty. 13 violations are identified only after en event 14 a base penalty, or two times the base penalty for 14 occurs, a licensee nav not be given credit for 15 the particular violation and severity level. 15 ldentification if there were missed opportunities 16 If there has been escalated 16 to identify and correct the problem before the 17 enforcenent action involving the sane licensee 17 event occurred.
10 within two years of the current issue, if the 10 The final point I would nake about 19 current issue involves a olliful violation, or if 19 the penalty assessnent process is that the NRC naw 2B the current lasue involves a violation classified 28 exercise discretion as Indicated on the chart by 21 above Severity Level III -- In other words, a I or 21 the letter *D.* If there are circumstances that l 22 II violation -- then the NRC ulli exanine issues 22 varrant deviating fron the normal assessnent 23 surrounGing identification and corrective actions 23 process, 1
24 in deternining the outcoht of this process. 24 Situations that new result in j 25 If, on the otber hand, there has 25 exerclaing such discretton are described in Tannte L. Entth CSR 18171 625-4940
. i
(.'
l l
l Predecisional Enforcement Confrrence - July 19,199C PAGE 17 SHEET 3 PAGE 18 l
l i
17 18 1 Sect ton 7 of the PolicW. For exanple, violations 1 process before I close. Civil penaties are 2 that result in radiation overexposures or releases 2 proposed actions and provide Itcensees an i
3 of radioactive naterial to the ervironnent in 3 . opportunity to contest the violations and the i l
4 excess of our linits are candidates for escalating 4 penalty. If a licensee challenges a civl! !
1
( 5 the nornal penalty. 5 penalty, the NRC Will consider the licensee's l l 6 Dn the other hand. there are also 6 argunents in deciding Whether to nodifW the action !
l 7 several circunstances that are described in the 7 in sone way or to require the licensee to pau the l 8 Policy that nay Warrant Ritigating the sanctions. 8 civl! penaltWI in Which case, the NRC would lasue 9 such as violations that are identified by a 9 an order requiring the penalty to be pald.
le licensee in the process of correcting a previous 10 Drders of any kind also are 11 violation that resulted in escalated enforcenent 11 subject to challenge and may result in hearings 12 actlon. 12 before NRC appointed Administrative Lau Judges.
13 in reaching an enforcenent 13 That's a relativelv brief sunnary I 14 decision. the NRC Wi!! consider the Information 14 of the policy and the process that we go through. I 15 developed during our inspection or investigation 15 If you have any questions about that, as it 16 In this case information developed, as well, by 16 pertains to this particular case, we would be 17 the Departnent of Labor and the infornation we 17 happy to answer those at this tine.
18 obtain fron this Conference. 18 All right. In that case, we'll 19 When we are ready to issue the 19 ask Art Howell, then, to describe the apparent 20 action. We vill notify Wou by telephone and in 20 violations fron the NRC's perspective.
21 Urlting. I Would also nention that 17 a civil 21 MR. HOWELL: Thank Wou. Garv. l 22 penalty or an oroer is lasued. the NRC Will issue 22 The arparent violations that are 23 a news announcenent a day or so after the action 23 the subject of this Conference Were described in 24 is issued. 24 the NRC's letters to HL&P and Raytheon, dated June 25 Just a couple of points about due 25 19th. 1996. In addition, We have prepared a l
l l
PAGE 19 PAGE 20 i
l 19 20 1 handout that briefly dtcribes the applicable 1 vlotations connitted by its contractors.
2 requirenents and hoy ve believe those requirenents 2 be are addressing this natter to 3 were vlotated. Thic has been nads available to 3 Rattheon because Raytheon purchased selected 4 participants and observec . 4 assets of Ebasco in Decenber of 1993, including 5 In accordance ulth our normal 5 Ebasco's contacts at the STP facilitW. )
6 practice, this infornation as well as any written 6 The first apparent violation is 7 naternal Wou provide us today, v111 be placed in 7 based on findings fron a U. S. Departnent of Labor i
8 the NRC's Public Docunent Roon. If you believe 8 procoeding, in which the Secretary of Labor found
)
l 9 any of the infornation Wou plan to provide us 9 in a decision issued March 13th, 1996 that 10 should be withheld fron the Pubile Docunent Roon. 10 Thonas H. Smith was the subject of emplownent l
11 Wou need to provide us Wour basis for withholding. 11 discrininat ton in 1991, When he was subjected to a 12 and should do so in urtting. 12 hostsie work environnent in retallation for 13 In trief two apparent vlotations 13 raising concerns about scaffolding practices, j 14 of NRC requirenents were identifte1 Involving 14 At the line Mr. Snt'h Was J i
l 15 discrinination against enployees who engaged in 15 enplogea of Ebasco Services. Incorporated. The I 16 protected activttles. The NRC staff's reviev of 16 retalletorW treatnent in Mr. Salth's case l 1
17 the Departnent of Lator findings in both cases 17 Consisted of of fensive cartoons depicting l
18 indicates that the actions taken against these 18 Mr. Snith as a Wh!stle blower. I 19 Individuals were an apparent violation of 19 The Secretary's decision reversed l 20 12 CFR 50.7. a regulation that applies to 20 a February 17th, 1994, decision lasued bW the l Administrative Law Judge who presided over a l 21 licensees of the NRC and to their contractors. 21
! 22 Even though the violations appear 22 hearing into this natter. The second apparent 23 to have been connitted by contract personnel, the 23 violation is based on a U. S. Departnent of Labor 24 NRC is aGJressing this natter to HL&P because, as 24 proceeding in Which the presiding Administrative 25 an liRC licensee, HL&P is responsible for 25 Law Judge, in a reconnended decision and order j
I k
t Tannte L. Snith. CSR 18171 625-4940 l
~ . - - - - . . _ . _ . .
Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - July 19, 19S6 PAGE 21 PAGE 22 21 22 1 lasued Septenber 29th. 1995, found that Earl V. 1 Conference to HL6P and Raytheon and have you 2 keene was subjected to discrininatory treatnent in 2 provide your perspective on the apparent 3 1994, after he raised concerns about signing off 3 violations.
4 for electrical natntenance work he did not 4 MR. COTTLE: Okay. Thank you.
5 perforn. At the line Mr. Keene was an Enployee of 5 Al Isics. I'n Bill cottle.
6 Raytheon. The discriminatory treatnent of 6 As Mr. Callan has alreadv 7 Mr. Keene's case consisted of his inclusion in a 7 nentioned. We're here because of the two recent 8 March 24th. 1994, reduction in force and his B Departnent of Labor decisions involving the South 9 having been subjected to fitness-for-duty testing 9 Texas Project. We don't plan to devote our line .
le on May 24th.1994. When he returned to the STP's le to discussing the detatis of the individual 11 facility With another individual Who was 11 cases.
12 conpleting docunetation relating to pending 12 HL&P was not a party during the 13 enplovnent. 13 trial in either case, and We have not attempted to 14 As we indicated in our letter to 14 nake a deternination and to judge whether the 15 HL&P, we are interested in understanding Why 15 outcone in either case is likely to stand or to be 16 HL6P's extensive corrective actions in 1993, in 16 reversed in any type of subsequent proceeding.
17 response to previous discrinination issues were 17 And nore Inportantly, we 18 not effective in precluding the discrinination 18 understood fron Wour letter and fron discussions 19 against Mr. Keene. particularly since many of the 19 with uour staff that -- that that Wasn't the 20 corrective actions that HL&P had described in 20 expectation for discussion at this Conference.
21 corrt:spondence to the NRC. had been directed at 21 Instead, our presentation W111 22 the contract Work force and contract supervisors 22 focus on What you indicated as the primary 23 at the South Texas Project. 23 Interest of the Nuclear Regulatory Connission in 24 Unless there are any questions, we 24 vour letter of June 19th, and that is those 25 pould now at this tine like to turn over the 25 actions we've taken to insure that we nanntain an PAGE 23 PAGE 24 23 24 1 environnent at the project in which enployees feel 1 efforts to enhance the site environnent. We've 2 free to raise safety concerns Without fear of 2 looked closelv to see if the Judge's decislo'n 3 retallation. 3 reflects the current site mvironnent, and Le're 4 We vant to nake sure that you 4 convinced that 11 does not. Dennis Keating later 5 understand that we have and continue to work verv 5 on in his presentation. Ulli explain the basb for 6 hard to WeTe such an environnent exists and to 6 our Judanent on that. j 7 sustain it over tine. We take very seriousiv any 7 We have coordinated our
]
O allegation of discrinination. 8 presentation with the Raytheon representatives )
9 The present Departnent of Labor 9 that are here today. Our plan is that the ~ or I le decisions in the Snith and Keene cases indicate le our proposal is that the Raytheon representatives j 11 that disertnination occurred at the South Texas 11 vill nake their presentations first. Mr. Hyster 1
12 Project, and those findings have received our 12 Will discuss the lasues fron Raytheon's corporate I 13 focused attention. 13 perspective. Mr. Freu ull! discuss Raytheon's 14 ve've evaluated those decisions in 14 specific activities at the South Texas Project. !
15 light of the actions we'd already taken to enhance 15 After the Raytheon presentation 16 the site climate. The events in the Snith case 16 Dennis Keating vill begin HL5P's presentation by
]
17 took place in 1991, and I'n confident fron our 17 discussing our ef forts to insure that the site has 18 past discussions and your inspectic'ts and 18 an environnent which fosters open and active 19 evaluations that you recognize that a lot has 19 connuntcations. As part of this, his presentation 20 happened, and a lot has changed at South Texas 20 ut!! discuss the Keene case in relation to the ;
21 since that tine period. 21 developnent of our overall progran explaining why j 22 I an nore disappointed by the 22 ve believe that even if the Administrative Lau j 23 findings in the Adnintstrative Law Judge's 23 Judge's dec;<. ton is corract. that these events are 24 reconnended decision in the Keene case. These 24 not reflect tve of the current site environnent.
25 events occurred in 1994, after we initiated our 25 Mr. McBurnett will then discuss
)
Tannte L. Smith CSR (8176 025-4940 i 1
. l
- 1 l
Predecisional Enforcinent Confersnca - July 19. 19SS PAGE 25 SHEET 4 PAGE 26
)
j 25 26 l 1 the appilcation of the NRC enforcenent guidance to 1 Ebasco.
2 this cases. 2 MR. COTTLE: No, sir. Jin, that 3 And then, finally I will have 3 vasn't what I was trying to say. We were not a 4 sone concluding renarks in our overall case. And 4 party in either of the trials. We. In fact. had 5 we invite your questions at any line during the 5 sone investigative activity. I believe, in both of 6 presentation, or We can hold then until the end of 6 those cases, and certainly in the Keene case in an 7 the presentation after you've had a chance to hear 7 attempt to make a deternination.
I 8 the overall presentation. 8 What I was trying to indicate. We 9 If there are no questions at this 9 haven't tried to judge the outcone of the trial
( 10 point, please allou ne to introduce Mr. Hyster. 18 and What the Adninistrative Law Judge's
{ 11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Mr. Cot t le ? 11 reconnended decision is and whether that nay or J
12 MR. COTTLE: Yes. 12 nau not hold up as that process goes forward.
l 13 HR. LIEBERMAN: This is Jin 13 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Do you
]
14 Liebernan. Can I just ask one question at the 14 require your contractors to notify you when you f
15 beginning concerning one of the statenents you 15 receive or when they receive allegations or 1 16 nade -- 16 complaints of discrinination?
17 MR. COTTLE: Yes, sir. 17 MR. COTTLE: I'll have to go to 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- and nake sure I 18 Dennis. There's not a fornal notification. We 19 understood it correctly. I think you said that 19 have extensive alnost dally contact. I believe. l 20 900 have not been involved in the forner Ebasco 20 between our najor contactors and our enployee i 21 litigation. 21 concern progran. l 22 Did I understand you to say that 22 A contract enployee at the site l
23 900 have not nade an attenpt to do an 23 has the opportunity to use their internal concerns 24 investigation to deternine of whether a 24 progran, if the contractor has one -- and in this 25 discrinination occurred or not? You lef. It to 25 case. Raytheon now does - or the HL&P enployee PAGE 27 PAGE 28 27 28 1 concerns prograns, or can use both. And I'll see 1 such a:s fitness-for-duty or ~ or continued 2 If Dennis has anything to add to that. 2 behavioral observation, certainly.
3 MR. KEATING: And We do require 3 11 nav be -- it naW get doun to --
4 contractors to notify us if they have a 211 case 4 to how specific is the issue. Is it -- is it an 5 or a le CRF 50.7 situation. They are required to 5 issue that would involve an internal 6 notify HL&P. 6 pronotion-type opportunity in a contractor 7 MR. LIEBERMAN: Does HL&P norna119 7 organization. or is it an issue that involves. I 8 follow up on those independent of the contractor? 8 think I'm being let go in a reduction of force.
9 MR. KEATING: That would depend on 9 MR. LIEBERMAN The reason why I'n 18 a case basis as to whether ue did an independent 18 asking is that in nany of these cases, as in the 11 lavestigation if there was such a conplaint. 11 ones We're talking about today, the contractors 12 MR. LIEBERMAN: Do you know What 12 and enployees are involved. and I'm trying to 13 type factors you considered.in deciding whether to 13 understand, does HL&P leave these issues generally 14 do 11 Independent or Just leave 11 Up to the 14 up to the contractors. thenselves?
15 contractor? 15 MR. COTTLE: Not conpletely. And 16 MR. KEATING: It nay be on the 16 -- and I believe you'!! see - Dennis is going to 17 advice of our counsel. It nau be that we cannot 17 speak with sone specificity to the degree of 10 investigate it because littpation is in process. 18 involvenent. I believe, in the Keene case in his 19 and we're not allowed to discuss 11 with sone of 19 presentation.
20 the participants. And that's the sort of thing 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: I would think it's
! 21 that - 21 Inportant. as the licensee, to set the tone on the l
22 HR. COTTLE: I think other 22 site to make sure you understand when these type 23 factors. Jin, would include, you know, does it 23 issues are being raised and Judge for yourself l
24 involve any aspect or Involvenent in an HL&P 24 whether these issues are vabd or whether. vou 25 progran that's utillzed by everyone at the site. 25 know. corrective actlon is needed.
Tannie L. Snith. CSR (B171 625-4948
Predecisional Enforecnent Confersnce - July 19, 19S3 PAGE 29 PAGE 30 29 30 1 MR CCTTLE: And we concur with 1 as the nanager of a branch office for the Naval 2 t hat . 2 reactor.
3 MR. LIEBERMAN: Why don't we go 3 With Ravtheon, or its acquired 4 on. 4 subsidiaries in the last 14 years, I've held 5 MR. COTTLE: David. 5 positions of site nanger, general nanager and as 6 MR. MYSTER: Okay. Thank you. 6 Vice President of Nuclear Services, In each of ng 7 Mr. Cottle. 7 positions I've considered one of nu primaru 8 MW nane is Dave Hyster, and I'n B responsibilities to assuring the existence of a 9 the Vice President of Nuclear Services for 9 positive Work environnent where Work can be 18 Raytheon. In this capacity I have the executive 10 perforned in a safe, high quelltW. tinely, 11 responsibility for the day-to-day Raytheon it responsive nanner. I have found that Ravtheon 12 operations at over twenty operating units, 12 supports and pronotes such an environnent.
13 The activities include engineering 13 With ne today are Jin Freu and 14 procurenant and construction tasks, full service 14 Jin Renelka. Jin Freu is the site nanager of the 1$ nalntenance and nodification contracts, live 1$ South Texas Project. and Jin Renelka ja our 16 support contracts, equipnent and service task and 16 assistant hunan resources counsel. Jin Freu Will 17 personal contracts across the country. 17 address sone of the daw-to-day activities and 18 I an the executive responsible to IP actions taken at the site. And Jin Renelka ts 19 HL&P for the activities perforned at the South 19 here to answer any questions relative to the N Texas Project. On a personal note, I have over 30 20 status of litigation in these cases.
21 Wears experience in nuclear industry. I've spent 21 We're here at your request. and We 22 20 years - 21 Wears in the Navy. MW experiences 22 very nuch appreciate the opportunity to provide 23 there included submarine nalntenance. construction 23 Infornation input regarding the NRC's 24 assionnents, operational positions With the Atonic 24 consideration of possible escalated action. We 25 Energv Comission and DOE. Including an assionnent 25 understand the constderation to have been PAGE 31 PAGE 32 31 32 1 triggered by the two recently rendered decisions 1 for activilles at STP. It was not until the later 2 from the Departnent of Labor. 2 half of December, '93. When We concluded assets 3 The first decision lnvolved a 3 and persons of Ebasco Services, Inc., and the 4 forner Ebs:,co employee, Thonas H. Snith, Recentiv 4 company called Enserch.
5 the Secretary of Labor concluded that in 1991. 5 Nevertheless Ravtheon has readily 6 Mr. Snith had been subjected to a hostile 6 and Willingly cooperated in the posting of the 7 environnent at STP in retallation for raising 7 Smith decision as sought by the Secretary of 8 concerns about scaffolding practices. 8 Labor. Upon receipt and review of that decision.
9 A hostile environnent Was found to 9 We have specifically undertaken to remind all of 18 have been created by the offensive betrayal of 18 our supervisors and nanagers at STP that any 11 Mr. Smith as a Whistle blower in a series of 11 offense of comunication. Such as that described 12 cartoons uhich were found to have been drawn bW an 12 in the Snith dectslon, nust not be toleratedt and, 13 Ebasco forenan. 13 If observed, nust be addressed Innediatelu.
14 To the extent that such offensive 14 As far as I'n aware, there have 15 expression occurred, it appeared to have been as a 15 been no reports of or further incidents involving 16 najor goal to ridicule an employee for assuning 16 cartoons such as those described In the $nith case 17 safety concerns, there can be little doubt such 17 at STP during our tenure at that facility.
19 conduct is not acceptable. Moreover, I can assure 10 MR. SANBORN: Excuse ne. How is 19 the Comission that fron Raytheon's perspective, 19 11 --
20 such expressions vould not be tolerated and Would 20 MR. HYSTER: Go ahead.
21 subject the offending enployee to discip!!ne 21 MR. SANBORNr How is it that 22 connensurate with the circunstances. 22 Raytheon carried out the order issued by the 23 However, the Connission should be 23 Secretary of Labor Which we understand, of 24 aware that Raytheon Was not a part of the Snith 24 course, was issued to Ebasco, 25 case. And in 1991 Raytheon Was not responsible 2$ MR. HYSTER: Yes. Wes.
Tannte L. Smith. CSR 1817) 625-4948
Pred:ctstonal Enforcinent Conftrence - Ju1W 19.1993
( PAGE 33 SHEET 5 PAGE 34 33 34 1 MR. SANBORNs I guess I just need 1 nyself have responsibility for.
l 2 to understand how Raytheon - 2 In that regard We thought it was
! 3 MR. HYSTER: Okav. 3 critical to go post that to let the people know.
4 MR. SANBORN: -- becane involved 4 The fact that We have cone in and taken over a l 5 fron that point on in - 5 force, neans that I have to 90 put nWself in a 6 MR. HYSTER: Okay. 6 position of nal"no sure that the proper tone is 7 MR. SANBORN: - carrying out that 7 set in that site. I think the case like that.
O decision. 8 When we found out about it. Was significant enough 9 MR. HYSTER: Okay. Let ne give 9 to go portrav to our people.
l le 18 Wou a sinple operational answer. And if it has to MR. LIEBERMAN This is Jin 11 be more detailed legal. We'll have our counsel 11 Liebernan.
12 speak t o i t . 12 MR. HYSTER: Yec, sir.
13 We're obviously concerned about 13 MR. LIEBERMAN: When did you start 14 any activity or any concerns that happen on our 14 taking actlon to address this graffiti and l
15 sites. The fact that I'n on a site - our 15 cartoons and whatnot when the Secretary's 16 population todev is nuclear. We've very 16 dec!$ ion cane out or before.
17 close-knit, and the sane people cone through. 17 MR. HYSTER: No, sir. No. The 18 We're interested in any occurrence angvhere that 18 actions on graffitt Were taken Well before 19 happens. 19 Raytheon was involved at STP. When we assuned 2e When this happened, because we 20 responsibility - and I'll talk a little about 21 were attached conpanies, that we had done business 21 that in a uht te in the transttlon -- When We first
! 22 together, that information cane to us. I don't 22 took responsibility for the site. We had -- sone 23 renenber exactly where we got it, but we did get 23 of our folks cane to the site and talked with our 24 11. It Was of significance. It does talk about 24 people.
I 25 the population of people that Mr. Cottle and 25 We revleued incidents. What had 1
i l =-s !
l PAGE 35 PAGE 36 1
l 35 36 1 happened on the site? What was the environnent? 1 this is Bill Cottle. Jin -- If I could go back to 2 What uas the background? At that line I was 2 Gary's original question, and that's how did 3 Inforned that letters were put out. It was 3 Raytheon vind up with the posting and the 4 dissentnated to the people, 4 responsiblitty to nahe it?
5 In ny review at this line for this 5 And I'll ask any of ny people or l 6 Conference. I've gone back and searched and have 6 Raytheon's folks here to correct ne if I go l 7 confirned that our site nanager in the Ebasco 7 astrag. But my understanding as that the decision l B organtration did, in fact. Write letters and B as initially issued by the Departnent of Labor 9 admonished that type of activity. 9 actually was issued to an elenent of the surviving le It was not sonething that started 10 Ebasco Corporation that Raytheon did not 11 because ve took over. It was an ongoing process. 11 purchase.
i l 12 It is sonething that's not allowed in our industry 12 And that cones about because I )
13 and not supported. And our people at that time. 13 believe paw -- that elenent of Ebasco - one of 14 ve finally assumed responsibility for, did 14 the -- one of the conditions in the purchase -
15 aggressively take the issue on. 15 and it's typical between large conpanies -- is 16 That's - although I Wasn't there 16 thev retained the responsibility to defend sone 17 for that period. I can't speak to the specific 17 ongoing litigation, this being one of the cases.
10 conditions. MW after the fact reviev hindsight 18 We got a copy of the decision at 19 savs that those things were belno taken on and 19 HL&P. I -- a honestly don't recall whether it was 28 vere considered very serious bv the nanagenent 20 addressed directly to us or whether We got 11 21 folks. 21 through our counsel. And then We transnitted that 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: And you also said 22 over to the, then. Raytheon site manager and had 23 that decision has been posted? 23 sone follow-up conversations with ny staff to 24 MR. HYSTER: Yes sir. 24 Raytheon saving it's addressed to the old elenent 25 MR. COTTLE: If I could go back -- 25 that's not in your conpanut but it's our site, and Tannie L. Smith. CSR (B17) 625-4948
l l ;
Predectslonal Enforcenent Conference - Ju19 19. 19ES
- PAGE 37 PAGE 38 37 38 ll's Vour people that are here. isn't tolerated in this nuclear Industry.
1 1 l
2 And, obviousiv. We've got to find 2 Whv Wasn't litigation nalntained?
3 a way to go ahead and conply with this. And so 3 Is it because you don't -- didn't :htnk it 4 some posting actually wound up being nade -- nade 4 occurred or What?
5 by Ravtheon at the site. 5 MR. CALLAN: HeV. Jin. I don't 6 MR. SANBORN: And plus the Order. 6 understand the questlon. This is Joe Callan.
7 itself. Was quite specific to the site in that 11 7 MR. HYSTER: Thank you.
B referenced the lunchroon and - 0 MR. LIEBERMAN: Why did the i i
9 MR. HYSTER: Yes. sir. 9 litigation as to whether graffitt was a protected j 10 MR. SMBORN: Can Wou talk about 18 activitU ~ Whether it Was adverse action, hostlie 11 how it was posted! Where it was posted? 11 Work environnent -- Why was protected activity 12 MR. COTTLE: Jin - 12 continued? ;
13 MR. FREW I can do that now or as 13 MR. CALLAN: In other words. Why l
- Why did the licensee or Why did Raytheon or I 14 part of the presentation. 14 15 MR. CCTTLE: It is part of his -- 15 Ebasco contest the issue?
MR. HYSTER: It is part -- 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. If thew 16 MR. SANBORN: It can Wall. 17 feel that that type performance is unacceptable. j 17 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Could I ask one 18 MR. HYSTER: What it seened to 19 nore question before We proceed? 19 have recognized that -- I think as We've heard 20 MR. CALLAN: Yes. Jin. 20 here - that -- that, in fact, this kind of MR. HYSTER: Yes. 21 activity is unacceptable.
21 MR LIEBERMAN: And this is 22 MR LIEBERMAN: Why did Raytheon 22 23 relating to Gar 9 -- Gary's issue. Since Raytheon 23 continue With the -- With the opposition in the 24 is the new contractor here. Mr. Hyster has said 24 DOL conplaint process?
l that this type conduct of graffiti . or whatever. 25 MR. BROWN I think part of the 25
- PAGE 39 PAGE 40 39 40 1 confusion naW be the fact that Wou indicated that 1 MR. HYSTER: Yes.
2 Raytheon has assuned responsitl11tv. but didn't 2 MR. BROWN -- on that or --
3 nake it clear for exactly What you assuned 3 MR. HYSTER: We -- We have taken 4 responsiblitty for. 4 responsibilities for the activities and the l
MR. COTTLE: Jin, also in this 5 environnent that exists at the South Texas Project j 5 6 particular case ~ and, again. I'll ask sone of av 6 since the acquisition of Ebasco.
7 legal folks to correct ne if I'n Wrong -- I 7 MR. BROWN: And that includes 8 believe the initial Administrative Law Judge 8 corrective actions?
9 decision was that in spite of the statenents that. 9 MR. HYSTER: Corrective actions as i required. 700. We Were not - I personally was I 18 Wou know. Such actions are intolerable and We 10 11 fully agree With thosel but I believe the initial 11 not aware of the decision or the process Within 12 Administrative Law Judge's dectslon Was that that 12 Enserch on this case unt11 the Secretary of Labor 13 did not, in and of itself. const ttute a hostile 13 acted on it.
14 Work environnent. and the case went on to the 14 MR. SANBORN Is it accurate.
15 Secretary of Labor on an appeal by the -- by 15 then, to say that Raytheon didn't press the 16 Mr. Sntth and -- and his representative. 16 litigationi that Was -- that was Ebasco?
17 And I ~ I don't recall when, in 17 MR. HYSTER: No, sir. We -- We
( 18 terns of the tine line. that that Administrative 18 tried to focus on the future in setting the proper 19 Law Judge decision came out. But We can certainly 19 tone but --
28 find that out. 20 MR. GUTTERMAN: 11 is accurate.
21 MR. BROWN And When Wou talked 21 Mr. Sanborn. that it Wun Enserch and its 4 22 about assuning responsibilitu -- 22 substatary, Ebasco, that was defending the casel 4 23 MR. MYSTER: Yes. Sir. 23 not Ragtheon or Houston Lighting & Power.
24 MR. BROWN -- can you put sone 24 MR. REMEIKA: That is correct. j 25 paraneters -- 25 MR. CALLAN: Talking about the l
l l
Tannte L. Snith. CSR 18171 625-494e l
i \
l-Pred cisional Enforcc.nent Confzrenes - July 19. 1996
( PAGE 41 SHEET 6 PAGE 42 l l l 41 42 1 case -- the case would be -- 1 to appeal that aspect of the Secretary's dectslon.
2 MR. SM80RN Before the 2 MR. GUTTERMM: Jin, this is 3 Departnent of Labor. 3 Al Gutternan. I don't think that Raytheon is a 4 MR. CALLM: With the 4 party to that litigation. It's still Enserch.
5 Adnintstrative Law Judge. But there were several 5 Enserch kept that part of Ebasco. !
6 issues that were litigated, of which the hostile 6 MR. LIEBERMM: Do you know if 7 Work environnent was one. But there were several 7 they've nade it an issue vet?
8 other issues, uhtch the Secretary of Labor did not B MR. GUTTERMAN: I talked to the 9 disagree with the ALJ decision on. 9- Enserch counsel a couple of weeks ago. and thev 10 MR. GUTTERMAN: That's correct. is were still considering whether to appeal.
11 MR. CALLM: So -- 11 MR. LIEBERMM: Okay. Let's go I 12 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. But today I 12 on.
l 13 gather litigation is still poing on in the Snith 13 MR. HYSTER: Okay. All right. In 14 case as to danagest is that correct? 14 the second case, it clearly does involve Raytheon l
15 MR. REMEIKA: To nu knowledge it 15 and an electric -- electrician working for us.
16 is. 16 Earl V. Keene, j 17 MR. COTTLE: The Secretary's 17 As to Mr. Keene. an Adninistrative 18 decision renanded the subject of the deternination 10 Law Judge for the Departnent of Labor in October.
l 19 of the amount of danages to the -- to the 19 1935 concluded that Mr. Keene was subjected to
! retallation at STP for raising concerns in March 20 parties. I -- to ny knowledge, that's all that is 20 21 going on. 21 1994. The concerns raised involved utre 22 MR. LIEBERMANs Has -- I presune 22 ternination and work baggage sign-off procedures. l 1
i 23 Raytheon nade a decialon whether thev intend to 23 More spectficallu. the ALJ has l 24 accept the Secretary's dectston on liability. the 24 concluded that Mr. Keene was included in the 25 hostile work environnent, or whether thev intend 25 lavoff and evaluated less favorably in March of i
l i
PAGE 43 PAGE 44 l
43 44 1 1994. and too Was referred to fitness-for-dutu 1 fitness-for-dutu violations. Faced with an 2 testing for cause in May,1994. While not an 2 individual on site Who adnitted to having and had l
! 3 enployee in retallation for expressing his 3 an unspecified anount of beer before arriving.
I that condition uns reported to a labor relations 4 concern. 4 5 We utsh the Conntssion to be aware 5 specialist.
6 that Raytheon has challenged the findings and 6 The labor relations specialist 7 conclusions of the ALJ. We're confident that the 7 called for guidance regarding the appilcation of B Secretary of Labor util find merit in our B the FFD policv, and the FFD policy was applied.
9 argunents and are presently avatting the 9 The ALJ concluded that the appilcation of the 18 Secretary's decision. 18 fitness-for-duty policy in that circunstance was 11 As your letter requested. we do 11 unquestionably clear and Mvlous that asking for 12 not intend to re-11tigate the Keene case here 12 guidance could only have ' sen notivated by a j 13 today. However ve do believe that a review bW 13 desire to retallate.
14 the Connission of the record of that case would 14 We don't believe so. Vleved in 15 estabilsh that HL&P and Ravtbeon actively and 15 retrospect, it nag vell be that it vould have been 16 fully investigated every allegation or concern 16 easier to have made a unilateral decision as 17 raised by Mr. Keene. 17 sinply as sent Mr. Keene avav. It certainly would 1B Ulth spectfic regard to the 18 have been personally easier and legally safer and 19 conclusion that retallation nativated the maw. 19 probably far less cost 19 for hin to have done so. j 20 1994. referral of Mr. Keene for testing. We do ask 20 But it would not have given the correct signal to 21 the NRC with a special and unique perspective 21 our people that we denand a drcQ and alcohol-free 22 regarding fitness-for-duty requirenents to 22 environnent on our site.
23 consider the soundness of the ALJ's retionale. 23 Therefore, we respectfully suggest 24 It's a natter of policy for our 24 that if we erred, it was on the side of asking l
( 25 enployees to be aware of and report potential 25 questions, and it was on the side of try'no to i Tannie L. Snith. CSR 18171 C25-4940 l
, Predectstonal Enforcenent Conference - Ju1819,19E3 P ME 45 PME 46 45 46 1 fully inplement and create a drug-free. 1 nan hours in our operating plant environnent.
2 alcohol-free environnent on the site. We don't 2 The point here is not to create an 3 believe that that action should be cause for an 3 inprtssion that We're not concerned, but only to 4 enhanced enforcenent. 4 give an indicat tail of our record. I Want you to 5 In any event, without conceding 5 knoa that we are concerned with th; restructuring 6 facts or Walving any argunent on appeal, the 6 of our conpantes, downsizing in our nuclear 7 events giving rise in the Keene case clearly 7 industry. and shorter outages nust be nore 8 occurred during the very early stages of 8 vigliant to insJre We're listening to our people.
9 Raytheon's involvnent at STP and its assur@t ton of 9 Therefore. I'd like to take a is nanntenance dutles and responsibilities there. le couple of ninutes and give you an overview of 11 I'n confident the environnent for 11 Ravtheon and of the corporat ton and the site 12 voicing concerns. Which nau have existed in either 12 action Which We have been taking or plan to take 13 '91 or '94, reflected tu the Mith and Keene 13 to insure We nanntain and enhance an environnent 14 cases, is not the environment which exts.s today 14 where connunication is encouraged and people feet 15 at STP -- or for that natter. at any of the 15 free to report concerns ulthout fear of 16 nuclear factiltles at Which Raytheon is present. 16 retallation or harassment.
17 I'd Itke to point out that since 17 First for Raytheon. We're a very 18 the start of 1994, the only adverse reconnendation IB large, high technology conpany. We're headquarted 19 from the Departnent of Labor for Raytheon cane 19 in Lexington, Mass. We presentiv have over 76.000 20 ulth the Keene case, and that case is now under 20 Wotkers Worldulde. We operate in four business 21 appeal. 21 areas - connercial and defense electronics, 22 Since 1994. We have three other 22 avlation, najor appilances and engineering and 23 211 cases With enployee appeals pending. During 23 construct son, which I'n here to discuss today.
24 that period We have nobilized and de-nobilized 24 Raytheon Engineers & Constructors 25 over 7.600 personnel and worked over 11 nt111on 25 was forned in 1993 to consolidate all of our P ME 47 FME 48 47 48 1 cngineering construction activities in one simple 1 at over 70 plants.
2 corporate structure Within Raytheon. This 2 We have perforned ISINE Inspection 3 restructuring has provided an opportunity to 3 services at over 30 units. We provide support to 4 utilize the synergy of our engineering 4 over 120 refueling outages. We currentiv have 5 construction organization within Raytheon to 5 contracts at over 34 utt11tles and over 50 6 better focus our efforts. 6 plants.
7 In Decenber of that sane year nost 7 At Raytheon We fully understand j 0 of the Ebasco assets were purchased by Raytheon 8 our responsibility to nalntain an environnent in 9 were subsequentiv nerged into the RE&C 9 which all personnel feel free to report concerns
)
10 organization. Raytheon Nuclear -- We recognized 10 free of retallation and harassment. Reta11ation 1 11 the unique nature of the industrus and. therefore, 11 or discrintnation for performing one's job in
]
12 forned a corporation that focused totally on the 12 accordance With that was -- the philosophy is, of l 1
13 nuclear activities in 1994. 13 course not against the ~ not only against the l 14 The alignnent of all of our 14 law, such as the Energy Re-organization Act, as l 15 nuclear capabl11tles was uhen one structure allons 15 Well as the defense and pubite contracting 16 their self Well With the chief nuclear officers of 16 revision of the United States code specifically I 17 the utilities. In this way We can share our 17 governing nost of our business.
18 Industry vision of proncting excellence and 18 But they're also plainly and 19 provide a tichtly knit group to capitalize on our 19 sinply not consistent With the nanner in which 20 nuclear expertence. 20 Raytheon tries to do our business. We recognize.
21 Dur experience ulth Raytheon 21 of course. that environnent is required in order j 22 nuclear organization now accounts for engineering 22 to be in conpliance ulth the NRC requirenents and I
)
23 construction and nalntenance expertences at over a 23 required by our individual clients.
j 24 hundred plants. We've been engineer and 24 We also understand the senior j 25 constructor of record at 48 units and nodificat ton 25 nanagenent is expected to take an active role in !
l I
i Tannte L. Smith, CSR (0171 625-4940
I I.
l Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - Ju19 19, 1996 PEE 49 SHEET 7 PEE 50 l 49 50 1 pronpity resolving situations involving alleged 1 ethics.
2 discrinination. We recognize the conpliance of 2 The Raytheon standard of business i 3 the requirenents. It is essential to our success. 3 ethics and conduct are applicable to all enployees
- 4 And Raytheon's earned a reputation for excellence 4 and consultants working for Raytheon. Uninhibited 5 in our services and products and nade in the 5 reporting to nanagenent by enployees of suspected 6 Integrity of our -- and it rests in the Integrity 6 violations of Raytheon policy la required by the 7 of our behavior. 7 conpany code of ethics. Moreover, enployees uho 8 This reputation rests on the 8 violate the code are subject to disciplinary 9 company's honorary salvering ist
- 1 connittnent to 9 action up to including disnissal.
le the highest ethical standards. We Want you to le When ue acquired Ebasco in 19 -
11 know that our stanoards are not new. Thew've been 11 in December 1993 one of our first initiatives 12 a part of our Raytheon culture for over 70 years. 12 vith forner Ebasco enployees was to connunicate 13 and nany of the rules reflect Just plain connon 13 Raytheon's rules and ethical standards to then.
l
! 14 sense and decency striving to do the right thing 14 In essence, we treated all the people as if thev 15 the right was all the line. 15 were neu enployees.
16 Each enployee in our company is 16 We veiconed then aboard, shared 17 considered a critical link in the chain of 17 with then the standards they Jere expected to neet 18 excellence and each has a personnel responsibility 18 and live by as enployees of Raytheon.
19 to see to it that this chain is not to be broken. 19 Reinforcenent of these standards is an ongoing 20 We comunicate this responsibility through our 20 process in Raytheon.
21 code of business ethics. That code has been in 21 Dur comitnent -- We've nade a ,
22 effect since 1986. When Raytheon, a charter nenber 22 conpany-ulde comitnent for all our connerical 23 of the defense industry initiattve, becane one of 23 defense work both donestic and foreign, to j
24 the first defense contractors in the country to 24 provide for ow people an Infornation and 25 connit to and inplenent a code of business 25 education progran which includes receipt of the l l PME51 PME52 51 52 1 code of conduct, and now provide annual general 1 had available an 800 ethics hot line, by which the 2 ethics training for all of our enployees. 2 enployees nav raise concerns, anongnously if thev 3 Pronotion of and adherence to the 3 vish. Without fear of retributton.
4 ethics progran is included in the perfornance 4 While over the years nore than 5 review of all of our nanagenent and our 5 7,100 comunications at the ethics of fice t; ave 6 supervisors. We now have in place a progran to 6 ad'!ressed a broad range of concerns. We have --
track the status of training. We're conniting to 7 have varied in a level of seriousness. Each and
( 7 B every concern has been investigated.
l 8 have all of our nuclear employees retain -- l Subsequent to the acquisition of 9 re-train ~ re-trained in 1996. 9 10 As a conpany, ve recognize the le Ebasco, we have received calls on the ethics hot 11 issue of retallation as an inportant issue, and is 11 line that shows a c1 Aar Indicator that the hot 12 therefore one of our targeted areas in our 1996 12 line process is working and being disseninated to 13 general ethics training course. Neu ethics 13 our neu enployees.
l naterials vere available and nade ~ nade 14 In our nuclear environnent, to 14 l
15 available in March of 1996, and are now being 15 insure we put additional enphasis out in this 16 incorporated in our corporate training progran and 16 area, ve've estabitshed a enployee concern 17 disseninated to our supervisors. 17 procedure -- CSD 03G6, and have included it in our 18 The general connunication plan has 1B quality assurance progran. This procedure was 19 also been developed by posters, executive 19 issued in March of 1996, as a direct result of 20 reninders, and nanagenent enphasis to intensify 20 feedback fron an NRC Inspection at one of our 21 the effort to connunicate the current Ravtheon 21 other facilities.
1 22 code of ethics. 22 The purpose of this procedure is
, 23 Raytheon has been tracking the 23 to encourage enployees to report concerns, 24 establish a vehicle for doing so, and assure 24 nature and volune of connunications at its ethics 25 conpliance office for over nine years, and 11 has 25 enployees that reporting concerns will not result I
Tannte t.. Snith. CSR 18171 625-4940
Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - JulW 19. 19ES
- , PME 53 PME 54 53 54 1 in discriminatory or retallatory actions. Within 1 the spectfle actions that are being taken at the 2 this procedure, we have clearly stated that it is 2 current tine at STP. I'd like to talk about sone 3 the enployee's responsibility to report all 3 general inpressions of the environnent at South 4 concerns, and the project and the site nanager's 4 Texas Project during the period after the 5 responsIbllitV to resolve concerns repor1ed. 5 acquisition of Ebasco and describe activities 6 advise employees of action taken, and to insure 6 which were underwaV to establish the project as a 7 that no discrininatory or retallatory action are 7 uorld class operation.
O taken against enployees. 8 MR. SMB0RN: Excuse ne.
9 We require the procedure be posted 9 MR. HYSTER: Yes sir.
10 at each site location. The procedure encourages 10 MR. SMDORN: Was this -- Wour 11 each enploVee to report anV concern to his or her 11 purchase of these contracts in 1993 Wour first 12 supervisor or Raytheon's hot line, our custoner. 12 entrW In'.0 the nuclear fleid in terns of working 13 cr to note to the Nuclear Regulatory Connission if 13 under contract for an NRC licensee?
14 so desired. 14 MR. HYSTER: Oh, no, sir. No.
15 In addition to the need to 15 HR. SANBORN No?
16 natntain an environnent which util be condusive to 16 MR. HYSTER: If Wou look back at 17 reporting concerns. I believe the organizational 17 the derivat ton within RaVtheon and subcontractors.
18 experience in that industry awareness and la We had -- we cane fron a Catalytic -- Catalytic 19 daV-to-day involvenent in the project by all 19 Was - has been a najor nalntenance source in this 20 levels of nanagenent cnd supervision a..d a 20 country at neu plants since in the '60's. We had 21 proactive client / contractor Interface are required 21 involvenent in the governnent side. We had a 22 to set the proper tone. Once these factors are 22 Sterns Rogers. Which was one of our acquisitions 23 assenbled with a uell-nanaged operational outage 23 that built refueling equtFnent, did Sone of the 24 plan, then a success is possible. 24 first equipnent for sone of the first nuclear 25 Jin Freu ullt talk about sone of 25 ships that were built for the Navy prograns.
PAGE 55 PAGE 56 55 56 1 United Engineeri, was acquired and 1 spect fic sunnary of those here today. We could --
2 owned by Raytheon directly, and it was a major 2 we could look at that and provide something for 3 constructor and an engineer in this country at 3 uou if you'd like.
4 that point. Ebasco was purchased prinarily for 4 MR. SANBORNa In this NRC 5 tts - its power background and the new industries 5 inspection that pronpted Raytheon to adopt an 6 across the country. 6 enployee concerns procedurel do Wou have any 7 They had sone nuclear acttvities, 7 specifics on that?
8 and those were prinarily constructton conpletion 8 MR. HYSTER: Yeah. Let ne talk --
9 at Whatsbar lphonetici. They had STP and probably 9 HR. SANBORN: Was that in place?
10 a predoninance in sone of the engineering 10 MR. HYSTER: Yeah. Let ne talk a 11 narkets. Our overall volune at that tine probably 11 little bit about that. Obviousiv, in the industry 12 was note in the connercial donestic narket. Where 12 today, the issue of intinidation and harassment is 13 I've had responsibilities for the natntenance and 13 a very large issue. The regulations you're 14 nodifications of the operating plants. 14 proposing, the letters you put out ~ they've got 15 MR. SANBORN: So has Raytheon had 15 everybody's attention. We're all re-thinking it.
16 exposure, then, to discrinination complaints under 16 It's -- It's something that We're learning today 17 Section 211. or its predecessor 210. even before 17 on how ue can do it even bette .
18 the purchase of these Ebasco contracts? 18 As I went to one of the sites --
19 MR. HYSTER: In preparation for 19 we get Inforned always of any NR connunicat ton --
20 this Conference. I focused prinartiv in the last 20 I cane on one of the sites, and one of our people 21 tuo years. But , yes, we have had -- ue have had 21 had said they really didn't see our progran. Nou, 22 concerns over the years in all of our sites, and 22 We looked, and we know we have the Raytheon 23 ve have an open connunication path. And nang 23 progran. We have ~ ve signed people up. We give 24 things have cone up. We have had sone cases thev 24 then connunication, but they just didn't feel that 25 have been challengeds but I don't have the 25 they had a nuclear piece that would match your Tannte 1.. Smith. CSR 18171 625-4940
m _ _
Predecisional Enforcenent Conra.rence - July 19. 1903 PME 57 SHEET 8 PAGE 58 57 58 1 regulations. 1 Liebernan again. As part of this procedure, do 2 So we concluded What we would do, 2 Wou provide copies of the procedure to enployees?
3 We vent back and We put together an interfacing 3 You said that you posted it. Do you train 4 procedure. And by putting 11 in the QA nanual. 4 enplovees on this procedure?
5 which everybody in nuclear is very confortable 5 MR. HYSTER: Yes, sir. What -
6 With that - that's their ~ their Bible, if you 6 uell, let ne answer the question. One. In the 7 vill -- 11 was basically a very sinple way of 7 procedure, we call to have it posted on each and 8 Interfacing nu entire Raytheon ' wran, giving to 8 every site. As you know todav, on all of our 9 the people on the site a clear direction of what 9 sites there are general Indoctrination courses l
18 their responsibility Was -- reinforcing that -- 10 olven. On each site it's done a little 11 and then shouang then all the places they had. 11 differently bW each client.
12 They can go to ng client. Thev 12 In those neetings we discuss the 13 can go to the NRC. Today I guess I would re-think 13 procedure, or it Will be described 19 the client's 14 and probably ask - have -- also add DOL on the 14 progran. But in general, it's a general 15 list. But it was a sinple vag of doing it. And 15 dissentnation of Infornation through our staff 16 11 was feedback fron those inspections. 16 discussions and through our supervisors.
17 As we go to our trips. We neet -- 17 Our supervisors are linked to all la I neet Ulth the nanagenent and ny people on a 18 the people and the craft labor on our -- on our 19 continuing basis. You talk to then - what are 19 sites.
20 WOU thinking abouti What are you Worried about ? 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Since you said 21 And they said this is one of the areas that. Wou 21 part of the QA process is ~ is raising concerns 22 know, how do we do this, What do We do! how do we 22 only focused on safetv-related concerns or any 23 get the nessage out ? It uas nu way of 23 potential safety concerns? j 24 Inplementing that for our conpanW. 24 MR HYSTER: No, sir. It's 25 MR. LIEBE9 MAN This is Jin 25 concentrated on all concerns.
l I
i l
PAGE 59 PME60 59 60 1 MR. LIEllERMAN: And you've said 1 MR BROWW: In other vords, I l 2 that it does not include letting enployees knov 2 think that there is an earlier Fifth Circuit Court 3 about opportunttles to go to DOL. but you nau 3 decision that Indicated the Internal concerns were 4 consider doing that t is that What I heard? 4 not protected activity! although. I think that's 5 MR. HYSTER: Yes. Knowing today 5 pretty well been taken care of with the anended 6 uhere I an. that util probably be a corrective 6 legislation in 1992.
7 action that we will put into the future. 7 But we assune your position is now I 8 MR. LIEBERMAN: And if you do 8 that you would consider soneone bringing forth 9 that. are you planning to tell people that it only 9 nuclear safety concerns internally also to be
)
13 covers the internal concerns or raising concerns le protected activity.
11 through either the company or the NRC7 11 MR. COTTLE: Dennis has been 12 MR. HYSTER: Can you say that 12 vorking with then on their site progran for STP.
13 again? I didn't understand the question. 13 And I believe he can ansuer the questlon.
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Does raising 14 MR. KEATING: This is Dennis 15 concerns -- no. If you nodify vour procedure to 15 Keating. The tape was bcIng changed.
16 address raising concerns, and you are potentially 16 Their procedure provides for their 17 discrininated against going to the Departnent of 17 Identification of any internal concerns. It also 10 Labor and how that process works, are you going to 18 proviaes an ethics hot line where people can call ,
cover concern just raised to the company 19 off site within the Raytheon organl2ation. It l 19 20 Internally or also include raising concerns to the 20 also provides direction that their enployees are 21 NRC? 21 free to use the licensee's concern progran, and it 22 I ask that becauaa in sone of this 22 also provides that they can go directly to the 23 litigation these issues as to Whether you are 23 NRC. So it addresses those issues presently.
p.7tected if you don't cone to the NRC. 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: MW question Was.
24 25 MR. HYSTER I don't - 25 the extent that is planned to change this CSD Tennie L. Sntth. CSR (8171 625-4940
_ _ _ - m _. ._ _
Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - Jul9 19, 19?S PAGE 61 PAGE 62 61 62 1 procedure 0366 to include inforning enployees of 1 concerns and they can 90 to the Nuclear Regulatory 2 their opportunity to go to the Departnent of 2 Connission. or whoever they speak, if they're not 3 Labort is it going to let then know that they can 3 satisfied with the answer they have.
4 go to the Department of Labor if they perceive 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Can Wour counsel 5 that they've been discriminated against for 5 answer the question, then? I 6 raising concerns to either the NRC or to the 6 MR. HYSTER: Jin. can you --
7 conpany? 7 MR. REMEIKA: We -- We certainly l 0 Notulthstanding ~ vhat I'n trying B do not contest that Internal complaints are 9 to ask is, notulthstanding the vleus and 9 covered, as -- as Mr. Brown has said, since 1992 i le litigation concerning the scope of protected is in the change in legislation.
11 activities, is the company accepting the 11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Good 12 proposition that employees can Go to the 12 enough.
1 13 Departnent of Labor even if the concern is raised 13 MR. COTTLE: I think that's the l 14 to the company and not the NRC7 14 answer. l 15 MR. HYSTER: 1 -- I'n not -- I'd 15 MR. LIEBERMAN: Nov. If procedures )
16 rather elect to have ny counselor answer that 16 are adopted that Ull! ~ rights of employees, that 17 question. I'n not snart enough to answer that 17 vill fully be covered. So no one won't be nisled IB question. I don't Want to say sonething that 's 10 on past positions of the conpany?
19 urong. 19 MR. REMEIKA: No. We -- no. We 20 My point in all of that was I've 20 vill not nislead anyone in that regard.
21 encouraged an open environnent and told ny people 21 MR. HOWELL: This is Art Hovell.
22 to tell ne orally, written -- however they want -- 22 Could you describe the
- u er in which concerns 23 If they have concerns. I take those concerns into 23 that are raised to t'ae cunpany are investigated 24 the prograns available on site to Interface ulth 24 and followed up per Wour procedure - the ones 25 nu client s to nu own hot ilne, if they have a 25 that are raised just to Raytheon.
PAGE 63 PAGE 64 63 64 1 MR. HYSTER: Just to Raytheon? 1 It goes independently and reported 2 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 2 to an ethics group who'll review that ~ revlev 3 MR. HYSTER: In our corporation -- 3 the question. understand it. It nau be as sinple 4 Well, let ne start at the site level. Okav. If a 4 that it's a question sonebody's asking. Thev'11 5 concern is raised to ne by an Individual on site 5 give then an answer.
6 or to nv supervisors. they deal with that 6 But each one of those is 7 directly. It nau be a sinple questiont how does 7 investigated to deternine if there's any 8 this procedure Work? They'll give the Individual 0 Intinidation or harassnent involved. And thev 9 a straight answer in what they believe. That 9 vill work that problen to its resolution. If thew 10 happens across the board in everyday Interpreting is nust -- If they think it's of concern, they ulli 11 our schedules and our procedures. 11 90 deal with the client organization. But they'll 12 The person ~ If we believe it -- 12 do it outside nu line organization to nake sure 13 tt's not clear. We then have available to go to 13 it's Independentiv looked at. that we've not 14 our interface utth the client and use a series of 14 Inproperly influenced that cycle.
15 systens. We have plant problen progran - 15 MR. HOWELL: Does the procedure 12 prograns. We have nonconfornance prograns. We 16 have provisions that would be sinitar in scope to 17 have corrective action prograns that bring things 17 that of STP's enployee concerns progran in terns 18 in. We have interpretation prograns that go to 18 of Independence and fornality of the revleus?
19 our engineering folks then. 19 MR. HYSTER: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
20 If the individual is not satistled 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Thank Wou.
21 with that, that progran can cone and be presented 21 MR. HYSTER: Okav. As I described 22 through a nyrlad of paths. It can go to our hot 22 earlier, one of the first events for our folks was 23 line. There's a hot line number We have 23 the indoctrination of the Raytheon and the 24 available, and that -- within Raytheon ~ then 24 Raytheon business ethics and code of conduct.
25 goes outside ny operational organization. 25 As the transition occurred, there l
Tannie L. Snith, CSR 1817) 625-4940
Prsdecisional Enforcenent Conftrence - July 19, 1996 PME 65 SHEET 9 PME 66 65 66 1 was an Interaction between our project nanagenent i ve Worked to increase our dialog with the labor 2 staff and site personnel to estabitsh a dialog 2 organizations and other owners in the area to 3 unich focused on the needs of the site. 3 deternine hou to better coordinate and support the 4 Presentations enconpassing our capabilities were 4 needs.
5 held with HL&P and our organization. 5 Examples of connon Instance goals 6 Raytheon brought to bear a 6 were connon training for all of our sites, how to 7 conbination of project nanagenent, labor 7 disseninate the Raytheon safety goals better. And 8 relations, safety, and Individual supervision to 8 ve provided feedback on our 1935 results at the S support the needs of the project. Senior project 9 projects. We also provided plans and worked on le nanagement were assigned to develop action plans le nethods to utilize the people nore effectivelv 11 to bring to bear the expertence fron other 11 between the sites. And we nov have had at least 12 Raytheon sites. 12 tuo of these fornal sit-douns ~ one in October, 13 We participated in activities at 13 '95, and one in January '96.
14 the project levell these include neetings with all 14 The point here is that we had a 15 levels of HL&P nanagnent and supervision. The 15 progran proactively going to try to inprove and 16 standards expected at South Texas Project were 16 connunicate What We expect of labor in the area 17 clearly defined and connunicated to ne and nu 17 for each of our sites.
18 project personnel. 18 We participated in stand-douns on 19 Interaction With both the senior 19 the site ulth site personnel which Were oc91oned 20 and niddle nanagenent have proven to be 20 to provide an open forun to discuss uaus to 21 effective. The doors or telephone lines are 21 Inprove the day-to-day work activities at the 22 atuays open to discuss issues and to identify work 22 site.
23 practices Which will inprove the work process. 23 During one of the site 24 One of the issues was hou to 24 stand-downs. I personally addressed each of the 25 Insure we have a full connitnent for our labor. 25 groups and connunicated our expectations to neet PME 67 PME 68 67 68 1 the highest standards at the site. I believe that 1 The policies on the FFD are properly enforced is a 2 in the South Texas Project that was one of the 2 fairly rigorous adninistrative process.
3 Post inportant Indicators I have had which 3 We got a lot of input fron then --
4 Indicated there's a positive environnent. 4 hou ue could Inprove that, hou We could nake 11 5 I sau an action of proactive 5 sinpler, and how We nade sure that each person 6 nanagenent, supervision. and a labor group working 6 could get their Joa done without being concerned 7 together to air concerns and develop counter 7 about it.
8 neasures for outage risks and -- Which vere 8 The other one was the safetu 9 perceived a threatened perfornance to the outage. 9 concerns -- that overall on the site they wanted le Just a side note, if I -- if I listened to the le to set the proper environnent. We challenged then 11 connents and the concerns raised by people at that 11 to go neet a niillon nan hours. We looked back in 12 tine, there were several. 12 construction and found that the South Texas 13 One fron the workers uas the 13 Project during construction hai exceeded a nlllion 14 Inpression -- they were very Interested of knoulno 14 nan hours without a lost line accident.
15 the Inpression of What people thought of then. 15 We challenged then in those 16 They were very sensitive to the fact that there 16 neetings to put together plans and unrk together 17 vere concerns on the site that people thought 17 to try to neet that record at this site. Right 18 night not be right. They were good people. Thew 18 now We are on track. And I think, since that 19 vere concerned. And they wanted to know how thew 19 period, we were over -- I think about close to 20 could better get the infornation out that thev 20 700.000 nan hours now uithout a lost line 21 vere doing a good job, and they were proud of What 21 acc! dent.
22 they've done at South Texas Project. 22 The Ravtheon prograns I've 23 The adninistrative staff -- ue 23 described is our way of insttiling in our 24 spent tine ulth -- In the adninistration today to 24 enployees the standards by which we expect then to 25 nake sure that our people are cleared properiv. 25 live. It's our code. We're nov lou in this Tannie L. Smith. CSR (0171 625-4940
Predecisional Enforcenent Confsrence - July 19.19SS PAGE E9 PAGE 70 09 7e 1 quest. At each of the nuclear sites our clients 1 MR. HYSTER: Yes, sir.
2 now have prograns In place, and this issue is 2 MR. SANBORN: -- In the Departnent 3 receiving emphasis. 3 of Labor's process.
4 I obtain current reports fron nv 4 MR. HYSTER: Yes.
5 project and site nanagers on project status and 5 MR. SANBORN: Has Raytheon entered 6 specific reports of safety and tool box neetings. G into anW settlenent agreenents on other cases that 7 which provide an open forun for reporting 7 nau not be presently pending before the Departnent 8 concern. 8 of Labor?
9 I have a closing connent. I'd 9 MR. HYSTEM Jin, can Wou answer 18 like to saw that one of the indicators of our le that.
11 dedication to safety is the fact that We've 11 MR. REMEIKA: There's been a total 12 achieved a alltion nan hours With no loss injuries 12 of seven cases that have been filed -- 211 cases l 13 on 19 occasions at nine nuclear maintenance 13 -- since we acquired -- Ebasco took over these 14 projects Within the last nine Wears. 14 contracts. One case has been settled bW the 15 To establish a culture capable of 15 enployee withdrawing the complaint.
16 neetIng such a goal requires an etnosphere where 16 Two others have been withdrawn DW 17 people are ullling to report safety concerns and 17 the enployee - their enplovee - their appeal has j 18 put safety ahead of product ton. 18 been withdrawn prior to hearing - have not 1
19 With that. I'd like to open up for 19 required any settlement agreenents. Spect ficallW. j 20 any other questions you have, and I'll turn it 20 MR. SANBORN: OkaV. l l
21 over to Mr. Freu to describe spect fic act ton we're 21 MR. HOWELL: Can we get a copy of 22 taking at the site level. 22 CSD 03GG7 Is that available??
23 MR. SANDORN You nentioned that 23 MR. HYSTER: Yes sir. We'll get 24 Raytheon has approximately three ongoing Section 24 Wou a copy.
25 211 cases -- 25 MR. COTTLE: I don't think we have 1
PAGE 71 PAGE 72 l l
71 72 1 one unth us todaV. We'll get you one. 1 inherited the work force, too, right?
2 MR. BROWN: Can I review Ulth Wou 2 You didn't bring in Raytheon 3 just for a second what I think I understood you 3 vorkers. And did you also inherit the sane
)
4 said - that as far as the Snith case goes, that 4 forenen, the sane supervisors?
5 90u've assuned the contract responsibilitiess 5 MR. HYSTER: Yeah. Let ne just l 6 Wou've assumed the corrective action 6 valk through that. We inherited the contract, the )
7 responsibilltles. But as far as the legal 7 existing work force, and the supervision and the 8 responsibilities for pursuing the case, that is 8 site nanager were on site. We took responsibt11tv 9 still Ebasco's responsibility - 9 for those folks.
18 MR. REMEIKA: Yes, s'r. 18 MR. CALLAN: Okay.
11 MR. BROWN: -- is that correct ? 11 MR. HYSTER: Okav. During this 12 MR. REMEIKA: Yes, sir, correct. 12 period we have gone through. and we have net -
13 MR. BROWN: As far as the Keene 13 had -- our nanagers have cone. We've looked at 14 case goes, however, that happened after Raytheon 14 different operations. and We believe we have 15 took over, so Wou have full responsibilltW. 15 realigned our progran to natch -- at that line I 16 MR. HYSTER: Yes, sir, We do. 16 understand both plants vere down -- were under 17 MR. BROWN Have Wou challenged 17 construction, conpletion. and doing 18 the ALJ decision? In other vords, have you filed 18 nodi ficat ions.
an Anicus brief before the Secretary of Labor?
{
19 19 As the plants recovered we 20 MR. REMEIKA: Yes. We have.
)
20 realigned our folks and provided different people l
21 MR. BROWN: You have? 21 in supervisory positions. We have new site I 22 MR. CALLAN: This is Joe Callan. 22 nanawers -- Jin Freu, who is an exanple of that. l 23 I*n still a little bit confused. lihen Ravtheon 23 And we've aligned ourself now where We believe the I 24 took over the contracts at South Texast you not 24 operattonal denands for the plants util be.
25 only inherited the contracts. Wou largelv 25 At the craft level, obviously.
Tannte L. Snith. CSR 1817) 625-4948
i Predecisionti Enforcinent ConfIronce - Julu 19. 1996 i PAGE 73 SHEET 10 PNIE 74 73 74 1 We've had increases and decreases in the work load 1 responds, and is assigned to that progran under 2 for the plant, and those positions have changed 2 our new conditions in '96.
3 across the board. Sone of the same forenen are 3 Too, for each of the $ltes I've 4 there. Sone of the sane people that were in the 4 taken a progran. which includes handouts. Includes 5 construction progran are there. Dut they're 5 a tape which has discussions of how to handle 6 Working under our direction and our progran and 6 these situations. And that tape is personally 7 our standards. 7 cone by our CEO and Chairnan of the board. And 8 MR. CALLAN: Any other questions? 8 that tape vill be given to all of our supervisors 9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. I had -- we 0 at all of our nuclear sites.
18 had two questions fron here. As to enplovee le MR. LIEBERMAN: You say ' vill.'
11 concern training, that's considered part of the 11 neaning that he, not yet occurred?
12 general site training when new enployees cone to 12 MR. HYSTER: As I Indicated that 13 the site. 13 -- that was -- has just been redone as the 14 For supervisors, is there special 14 corporation -- it's for the entire corporation.
15 training elven to supervisors concerning enployee 15 That tape was just nade available in March.
16 concerns, protected activilles. potential 16 And We're in the process now of 17 discrinination dealing ulth employees who raise 17 naking copies of that and putting out to the 18 allegations of the use of the enployee concern 10 sites. I've had it. I Just don't know exactly 19 progran. the value of a questioning attitude. 19 today who -- hou nang people are done. I think 20 things of this sortl or are supervisors just left 2B We're about halfvas through with our people we've 21 to the same orientation training? 21 got at the sites.
22 MR. HYSTER: No. ?here's a 22 MR. HOWELL: Has there been 23 general ethics Indoctrination prograt. W : 5 23 training given on this neu procedure that was 24 subnitted to each person and each person who is 24 inplenented?
25 an enployee of Raytheon receives that progran. 25 MR. HYSTER: That has gone out and l l
1 1
PAGE 75 PAGE 76 75 76 1 been given to everybody. I believe. 1 South lexas Project in our of fice areas.
2 MR. LIEBERMAN: So supervisors -- 2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Is that -- at that 3 Wou're satisfied that supervisors at South Texas 3 office areat is that uhere forn three is also 4 -- I guess, as well as other places - understand 4 posted? i l
5 the conpany's expectations in this area that have 5 MR. FREW Yes, sir.
6 been given the - especiallW. first !!ne 6 MR. LIEBERMAN: And that's the 7 supervisors - the support counseling or resources 7 location where enployees have easy access to?
8 necessary to deal with employees with questioning 8 MR. FREW: Yes, str. In fact, in 9 attitudes? 9 office areas where they cone to get their checks le MR. HYSTERt Yes, at the South 18 on the way out, that's like a process in and 11 Iexas Project. And Jin Freu unit talk about the 11 process out. That's the central processing 12 detatis of how we have done that. But that was 12 facility for us to give then their paperwork to 13 conpleted at the project. 13 get then started to process into South Texas or 14 MR. GRAY: This is Joe Gray from 14 depart the site.
15 OE. Just one quick questton about specifics in 15 MR. LIEBERMAN: I understar.d that 16 the Secretary of Labor's decialon and order in the 16 there's a sign on that posting that says 'do not 17 Snith case. 17 renove.* Obviously. You don't want to have 18 One of the things the Secretary 18 soneone just take it apav.
19 directed was that the decision in the Sntth case 19 MR. FREW: There's a -
28 be posted. Can you tell ne how and where that 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: What 's the ~
21 directive has been conpiled with? 21 MR. FREW The posting is in a 22 MR. FREUs This is Jin Freu. The 22 see-through folder, clear covered. And it did say 23 Smith decision was posted on the bulletin board in 23 *do not renove.* and we added the words 'from this 24 the lunchroon that was identified in the 24 area.' We've also added to the cover of that, 'If 25 decision. It was also posted in Building 15 at 25 vou require a copy of this docunent,' to contact fannie L. Snith. CSR (8171 625-4940
Predecisional Enforcement Conference - JulM 19, 1923 PAGE 77 PAGE 78 77 78 1 one of two ladies We have on site, and give their 1 MR. FREva Okay.
2 phone numbers. 2 MR. COTTLE: Jin.
3 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Because nu 3 MR. FREW: This is Fin Frev. I'n 4 question was going to be. If this thing is stapled 4 the site representative for Raytheon at the South 5 to a poster, hou can someone see It and read, you 5 Texas Project. My assignnent started in March of 6 know, a 20-sone-odd-page dxunent ? 6 19 % I'n responsible for RavtMon's activities 7 MR. FREva I think it's 27 pages, 7 in the plant nodifications and project B and the decision, itself, ue have it on a paper 8 Implenentation areas.
9 clip -- in the of fice area, anvvag - on a tack so 9 We provide nanagenent, project le you can take the paper citp off -- binder clip. 10 controls, planning, supervision, fleid 11 rather -- and use it. And in the lunchroon It's 11 engineering, and craft labor in support of 12 on a nall, but it also has a binder clip on it. 12 assigned work during both the operating cycle and 13 And in the lunchroon, when we 13 the outages.
14 first posted the dectslon,11 kept coning off the 14 I have 30 years plus experience in 15 vall so people could read it. They were reading 15 the nuclear industry, with the last 13 years, 16 It in the lunchroon. And I nade several tours 16 prior to nu enplovner' vith Raytheon, being With 17 through there to validate that the decision uas 17 General Public Utilttles. With General Public 10 posted and stayed in the area. 18 Utilities I was involved With refueling outages at 19 And that's Why we put those other 19 Oyster Creek and Three Mlle Island.
20 signs on it to -- because someone could have taken 20 While at Three Mlle Island I 21 11 and just left with it. But the posting is 21 served as defueling director on two occasions and 22 there, and it's up and people are actively reading 22 was responsible for the renoval of danaged fuel 23 11 -- Whether the office area or the lunchroon. 23 fron the Unit II reactor vessel. Previous to that 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Thank you 24 I was enployed at Ingalls Ship Building for 19 25 very nuch. 25 years, where I was involved with the construction.
PAGE 79 PAGE 80 79 80 1 overhaul, and refueling of f ast attack 1 the bulletin boards in the lunchroon and in our 2 subnarines. 2 office area in Building 15. It has also been nade 3 Presentig, at South Texas Project 3 required reading for all nanagers, 4 under Raytheon's enployee concerns progran. I'n 4 superintendents, supervisors, forenen, and general 5 responsible to post the enployee concerns progran 5 forenen. They have signed indicating that each 6 procedure. resolve concerns reported. advise 6 has received a copy of the procedure and that thev 7 enployees of actions taken, and Insure that no 7 have read the procedure.
8 discrimination or retallatory actions are taken 8 To further insure that enployees 9 against employees. 9 are auare of the protections affordec to then fron le Since nu assignnent to the South le discrimination. I have posted the enplovee 11 Texas Project in March, I have read the T. H. 11 protection provision found in 10 CFR 50.7 on the 12 Sntth dectslon and order renand fron the Secretary 12 bulletin boards in the lunchroon and our office 13 of Labor. I've also read the E. V. Keene's 13 area in Building 15.
14 reconnended decision order fron the Adninistrative 14 I have also posted on the sane 15 Law Judge and the subsequent briefs. 15 bulletin boards the section from the STP contract 16 After revleulno the Secretary of 16 on nuclear safety and quality concerns, which 17 Labor's Order, I posted the T. H, Snith decision. 17 Raytheon, as a contractor, acknowledges that it is 18 In order to en'.eMe and nalntain a 18 subject to laws and regulations regarding 19 safety-conscious (nvironnent, and acting with the 19 protection of individuals who bring forth 20 full knowledge and concurrence of HL&P's 20 concerns.
21 contracts, licensing. and quality concerns 21 Mr. Keating and I have recently 22 personnel I have Inpleneited Raytheon's corporate 22 checked the postings to confirn, in fact. that 23 standards docunent CSD 0366 enployee concerns 23 they are posted. As a neans of creating special 24 progran at the South Texas Project. 24 and continued enphasis in this area I had the 25 The procedure has been posted on 25 enployee concerns procedure discussed each nonth Tannie L. Snith, CSR (0171 625-4940
- ~ _
a Predecisional Enforcenent Conf nnce - Juiv 19, 1996 PAGE 81 SHEET 11 - PAGE 82 _ , .
81 82 1 in April, May, and June of 1996, as part of one of 1 111ustrating specific scenarios that impilcate 2 our regular safety neetings attended by craft 2 enployee concerns progran issues. We also 3 enployees and supervision. 3 discussed the subject of confidentialltv. These 4 This enabled us to get the Word 4 same topics Were retterated to the second-shift 5 out to all attendees about the procedure and to 5 personnel.
6 encourage their input should they have a concern. 6 To enhance the atnosphere for 7 They were expressiv reninded that their concerns 7 connunications and to emphasize the connitnent to 8 vere welcone and of the nany options available to 8 tean Work, tean-building sessions were conducted 9 then to express concerns. 9 with HL&P and Raytheon's nanagers, supervisors, le It was enphasized that world-class le and superintendents on Aprl! 25 and 26,1996.
11 status could only be obtained if problens were 11 During the tean-building sessions the topic of 12 Identified, concerns addressed, so they could be 12 enployees bringing forth concerns or questions 13 resolved. They were specifically told that asking 13 vithout fear of retallation was stressed.
14 questions and raising concerns are vleved as a 14 On May the leth.1996, a 15 sign of strength at the South Texas Project. 15 tean-building session with Raytheon nanagenent, 16 To further enhance awareness of 16 supervisors, general forenen, and forenen was 17 all enployees, with respect to the enployees 17 held. One of the topics discussed was the I 18 concerns progran, the HL&P enployee concerns 10 enployee concerns progran, At this session the 19 progran coordinator and I addressed all Raytheon 19 HL&P enployee concerns pr00ran coordinator and I l 20 personnel on first shift. May the 14th, 1996, 20 spoke on the right of employees to be able to l
21 during hunan perfornance enhancenent day. 21 bring forth concerns or questions without fear of j 22 We addressed the right of 22 ret allat ion.
23 personnel to bring forth concerns or questions 23 Dur goat Was to create a fear-free l 24 without fear of retallation. We revleved 24 environne It which enployees could raise questlons l
25 situations and historical events as a neans of 25 or concerns ulIhout beino enbarrassed or vithout
- PAGE 83 PAGE 84 83 84 1 feeling unconfortable. We nade then apare of the 1 Raytheon personnel are specifically briefed on 2 nang avenues open to employees to pursue their 2 HLLP and Raytheon's expectations relative to their j 3 questions or concerns. 3 r!Qht to raise questions or concerns without fear I 4 We also talked to the group about 4 of retallation. Raytheon enployees have an 5 their role in natntaining an environnent which is 5 opportunitW to express their concerns or raise 6 sensitive to questtons raised by enployees and the 6 questions as part of their check-out procedure 7 requirenent fron each of then to provide ansvers 7 when departing the site.
8 or to get assistance in providing a proper 8 A separation intervlev is offered 9 response to any emplovet's questton or concern. 9 should they desire one. The employees can choose is We also identified opportunities 18 to have their interview conducted either by the 11 to obtain assistance or help in responding to 11 Raytheon access supervisor or HL&P at the central 12 questions or concerns. such as the one-stop shop. 12 processing facility. Raytheon enployees fully j 13 the outage director, or the plant nanager. In 13 participate in HL&P's conpilnents and concerns tuo 14 addition to the specific actions previousiv 14 *C's' progran, Raytheon's nanagenent tean, the 15 described, we participated fully in training and 15 support of HL&P's policles, and understands the 16 other prograns in concert utth HL&P to foster an 16 need to be proactive on issues, concerns, or 17 environnent where enployees feel free to report 17 questions and to be in the fleid to solve problens 18 concerns or raise questions. 18 and ansuer questions.
19 Raytheon personnel assigned to the 19 Raytheon started in 1994 20 South Texas Project are nade aware of HL&P's 20 inplenented an open-door policy and has provided 21 enployee concerns progran during in-processing as 21 opportunttles for direct feedback to nanagenent 22 part of the site access progran. It covers 22 during stand-down neetings safety neetings, or 23 enployee rights responsibilities and protection in 23 other inpronptu gatherings. These nanagenent 24 the reporting of concerns. 24 actions continue toda.'. and have served to 25 During enployee orientation 25 increase connunications anong Raytheon personnel Taa.nie L. Snith, CSR (B171 625-4940
. - - - ~ ... - __. ..
Predecisional Enforcinent Confzrence - July 19. 199G PAGE 85 PAGE BS B5 86 1 at all levels. 1 The scope and focus of our 2 During its tenure at STP. Raytheon 2 response was connunicated to the corporate levels 3 has brought in expertenced fleid nalntenance 3 of HL&P nanagenent and actions taken were ulth 4 personnel at the managenent and the supervisorv 4 their prior knowledge. Follou-up actions were 5 levels, which has lead to an increased nanagement 5 taken unt ti the individual conpleted his 6 presence in the fleid. This has enabled us to 6 assionnent.
7 address concerns or questions on the spot and to 7 On another occasion the question 8 provida proper guidance of work conduct. This 8 Was raised bW a craftsman through his supervisor 9 also provides us with firsthand knowledge of work 9 concerning the lack of toe boards on scaffolds in 10 in progress in areas Where additional nanagenent 18 the contalnhent building. We checked the 11 attention is needed. 11 procedure and initiated a condition report to 12 I have personally addressed 12 docunent the concern. We provided a copy of the 13 Raytheon enployees on several occasions regarding 13 condition report to the supervisor who brought 14 the employee concerns progran and have been 14 forth the enployee's question and gave the 15 involved in addressing sone specific concerns. 15 supervisor and enployee a neal ticket in 16 Enplovees are raising concerns and asking 16 appreciation for bringing the natter to our 17 quest ions. And I have detected no hesitation or 17 attention.
18 reluctance to do so. 18 The supervisor upon departing the 19 Let ne give you a feu examples. 19 site. after completion of the assionnent, 20 On one occasion a Welder had a concern regarding 20 connented to me that. enployee very nuch 21 contanination on his nodesty garnent. HL&P's 21 appreciated neal ticket, and said to hin that it's 22 nanager of health physics and I talked ulth the 22 nice to see the systen work.
23 individual relative to his concerns. The employee 23 On a recent occasion an employee 24 was appreciative of the tine spent ulth him to 24 during one RED 6 let us know in writing of his 25 address his concerns. 25 in-fleid observations in dealing with the STAR and FAGE B7 PAGE 88 87 88 1 ALARA prograns and procedure compliance. I have 1 I do believe that the environnent 2 provided response to hin and kept HL&P apprised of 2 at the South Texas Project is one that is 3 ny actions. He clearly felt sufficiently 3 conducive to reporting concerns, problens. or 4 confortable to raise his observations and 4 raising questions Ulthout fear of retallation. ;
5 concerns. 5 Raytheon is connitted to and continues to 6 Recognizing the information 6 encourage and Maintain just such an environnent.
7 regarding the enployee concerns progran is of an 7 and Will continue to periodically inpress upon its 8 ongoing and continuous inportance, We will 8 enploWees and enphastze to then the options 9 periodically have discussions with enployees to 9 available to all to raise questions or concerns l
10 insure that knouledge of the progran is current. 10 free fron the fear of retallation. Thank you.
11 In addition to the progran revleu. 11 MR SANBORN Mr. Freu. this is 12 ve also intend to have periodic briefings at the 12 Gary Sanborn. You indicated that you read these
)
13 site. We vill continue to enphasize enployee 13 dectstons. I 14 concerns progran to personnel prior to 14 MR. FREW: Yes.
15 connencenent of outages to insure that the large 15 MR. SANBORN Did it give you any 16 number of new personnel added to the site are 16 concerns about the behavior of anW of the 17 f amiliar with Raytheon's and the South Texas 17 Individuals who nau have been involved in these 18 Project's expectations in regard to the enplowee 18 issues, and have you taken any actions speelfic to 19 concerns progran. 19 those individuals?
20 in sunnary. I believe that 20 MR. FREW: First. let ne ansuer 21 Raytheon has denonstrated good connunications with 21 the question by reading the procedure. MW revlev 22 HLLP on issues such as those raised in the $nith 22 of the procedures. In nu role as the site nanager 23 and Keene cases. In f act. Mr. Keating and I have 23 there. Icft ne Ulth the Inpression that a little 24 connunicated frequently since I have arrived on 24 connunication could have gone a long gav to solve l
25 site. 25 the problens the people had.
Tannte L. Smith. CSR 18171 625-4940
. - _ ~ . = -. .. - .
4 Predecielon:1 Enforc;nent Confirsnce - July 19, 1996
- PAGE 89 SHEET 12 PAGE 90 89 90 1 In the question relative to Keene 1 MR. FREW: Yes. That 's part -
2 in the taping of cables or -- cane up in there. 2 that's part of the training we vent through when 3 people had gone back to valtdate whether they 3 We had our session back on -- I think it was the
( 4 could or could not tape the cable. They talked to 4 leth.
l 5 the engineers. In reading the decision, all I had 5 MR. HOWELL: Well, that's why --
l 6 was the dectslon, itself, the brief that theu 6 this is Art Howell. That's uhv I asked the 7 had. 7 question about what level of fornality there is 0 It did not Indicate that anyone 8 associated uith the enployee concerns progran 9 had gone back to explain to Mr. Keene hou that 9 procedure, because nW inpression. reading the 10 decision was arrived at as opposed to just being a 10 Keene case. Was that the follow-up of Mr. Keene's l
11 decision -- 00 do sonething. I would think in 11 concerns was relatively infornal.
12 today's environnent, when we talk to people, that 12 That naW be a nistaken inpression.
l 13 they vould have an understanding of the -- the 13 but that's the Inpression I had, and that it's not 14 background and the docunentation allowed us to 14 clear to ne that whatever the appropriate actions l
I 15 proceod fron one facet to another, one page to 15 were, especiallu in terns of back-dating and l 16 another. 16 signing off and having other people perforn work 1? MR. LIEBERMAN: If I could just 17 that vere'n't certified. It's not clear to ne that 18 ask a question. I'n not -- 18 that was fully explored.
19 MR. FREW: Yes. 19 And perhaps it was, but that's Why 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Is that part of 20 st's inportant for ne to understand uhat the 21 the training for supervisors to nake sure that 21 process is by which concerns of employees are 22 when an employee does raise a question and the 22 relaWed back to that enp1 wee or if thew're 23 conpanW feels the enployee's vrong, to nake sure 23 fornally investigated and hou that is fed back to 24 the enployee understands what the rationale for 24 the enplovee to nake sure that thew're resolved in 25 the ~ 25 the concernee's nind.
l l
i - PAGE 91 PAGE 92 l
91 92 1 MR. FREW: I think - I think 11 1 MR. FREW: I don't challenge what 2 becones a function of an individual case basis. 2 -- What was in ~ uhat uas in the record, itself.
3 If a question is asked orally and responded to 3 It seens to ne that when the question cane up if 4 orally on the spot at the scene and is resolved, 4 Keene had the question, then the people he was 5 then that's all there is to it. If it needs to be 5 Working with and the forenan could have sat down 6 reduced to writing in sone cases like on the the 6 for five ntnutes, talked about it kicked it l 7 toe board and the scaf foldt We ourselves. 7 upstairs, got another interpretations and if that 8 initiated a condition report. And that is a 8 still Wasn't good enough, keep on going.
9 fornal process. 9 When I had the session with all le Condition reports is one of the 10 the forenen, supervisors. and general forenen on 11 systens at South Texas that people can put things 11 May the leth, we preciselv talked about questions 12 Into for a correction action progran and a 12 cone up in pre-job briefings, questions in the 13 follou-Up and be on a fornal basis. 13 field, be sensitive to the fact that they have a 14 MS SMITH: This is Linda Snith. 14 question. If they have a question then thev need 15 Did you issue a condition report about potential 15 to respond to it. They just can't blou it off.
16 falsification of records or signing off for things 16 And we talked about it specifically.
17 people weren't quallfled for? 17 And We also talked about if you i 18 MR. FREW: I don't knou. That was 18 don't feel confortable or don't have the 19 ~ that was back in '94. I'n not - I don't knou 19 background to resolve a question yourself, or give 20 What happened back then. 20 an answer, or don't knou the procedure nunbert you 21 MR. BROWW: Mr. Keene. I assune, 21 can atuavs go to the one-stop shop. And at South 22 pou believe that he, at least, ulth respect to 22 Texas, the one-stop shop is a tremendous tool 23 different people signing off for other peopa': C 23 because people fron several different 24 that sort of thinal you don't challenge that? An 24 organizations in there ulth procedures and 25 I correct ? 25 back-up, and you have the expertise there to get l
i A
Tannte L. Snlin. CSR 1817) 625-4940
Predectslonal Enforcenent ConfGrence - Jule 19.19E3 PAGE 93 PAGE 94 93 94 1 Uhat you need to have done. 1 cartoons up in the lunchrocn. We talked about 2 MR. SANBORN: Let ne get back to 2 people naking connents about the scaffold 3 the original question, though. Which is really a 3 progran. We talked about people raising questions 4 little bit different. I understand Ravtheon is 4 on the job in the field.
5 appealing the Keene decision. The conpany doesn't 5 That was -- not the specific 6 believe that discrimination occurred in the legal 6 nanes, or at the individuals, but those 7 sense. 7 Individuals who are still at the site today, for B But, nonetheless, have you, as a B exanple, were in those -- were in those classes.
9 result of reading that decision and reading the 9 And nu -- and I have toured the lunchroon le Snith decisioni have you focused any actions on 18 frequentiv -- tuo or three lines a Week as thev 11 the individual supervisors who were involved in 11 cone back and forth fron the plant through the 12 those issues? Have you counseled any individuals 12 day. And I'n observant to see if anything else is 13 specifically as to how things should have been 13 coning up on bulletin boards -- things of that 14 done or how things could have been done better in 14 nature -- and I have not seen any.
15 those spectfic cases? 15 And we also -- and not only did we 16 MR. FREW: Yeah. I -- I have not 16 talk to the people, thenselves -- the forenen --
17 personally counseled the Individuals on a 17 but we actually talked to the working force 1B one-on-one basis. But we did nake sure that all 18 Itself. When We talk about -- When I talk about 19 those individuals who were on site -- the forenen, 19 the Aprli. May, and June neetings, we were down in 20 the general forenen uho vere allegedly or 20 that lunchroon talking about the enployee concerns '
21 supposedly involved in a decision -- they were in 21 progran. We'd highlight to then sone actions that 22 the meeting. 22 could be perceived as procedural violations. And 23 And We actually talked about -- 23 9e talked about cartoons. And it's not right.
24 when I talk about historical events and situations 24 We're here to respect the Individuals in a 25 and scenarlos -- we actually talked about putting 25 professional atnosphere. And that's not 1
I PAGE 95 PAGE 96 I
i 95 96 1 Indicative of a vorld-class situation. 1 Work load assigned. During the outage ve had like 2 MR. LIEBERMAN But what type of 2 about 320 to 330 people on site, We probably had 3 outdance do supervisors -- have they observed 3 in the neighborhood of 70 to 75 total. I'n 4 cartoons and graffiti that nas reflect on - Well. 4 talking about general forenen, forenen, 5 If they see that or if they see things that 5 supervisors, engineering-type folks.
6 reflect on vleus of fellow enployees on other 6 And each of those got a copy of 7 enployeest have you given any special guidance of 7 the procedure, and I have a signed piece of paper B vhat your expectations are? 8 that thev have the procedure and that they have 9 MR. FREW: We expect -- We expect 9 read it. And before I cane here, I checked With 18 not to have that type of behavior taking place. 18 ny flie to nake sure that every forenan and 11 If they observe it, they are supposed to take 11 general foreman Who I have on site today -- and l 12 action with respect to that either by renoving 12 right nou I think I have, like.14 of then -- thev 13 the docunent. the cartoon, or whatever and just 13 all are in that process, and they have -- thew 14 not allov it. 14 have a copy of the procedure and they have stoned 15 We've also talked to the crafts 15 saving that they've read it.
16 people, themselves. at these stand-down sessions 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: And they've all 17 with respect to enployee concerns. We've also 17 attended the training that you've --
18 told the people, It's important if you have a 18 MR. FREW: Yes, sir.
19 concern to raise ill don't walk away fron it. We 19 MR. LIEBERMAN -- nentioned 28 want to hear iti ve welcone it. That's uhat We've 20 already?
21 done with the people at the site. 21 MR. FREW: Yes. sir.
22 MR. LIEBERMANs Hou nany 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Thank you.
23 supervisors or approxinately how nany supervisors 23 MS. SMITH Ihis is Linda Snith.
24 do Wou have at the South Texas site? 24 So were you not at South Texas during Mr. Keene's 25 MR. FREW: That varies with the 25 tenure?
Iannie L. Smith. CSR 18171 625-4940
Predectslonal Enforcenent Conftrence - July 19, 19CS PAGE 97 SHEET 13 PAGE 98 1
97 98 1 MR. FREU: No, MV - ny first ** 1 including discussion of the Raytheon enployee 2 I arrived at South Texas in March of this year. 2 concerns progran, uhtch was reviewed and concurred I
3 MS. SMITH: Okay. And so I guess 3 with by HL6P.
4 1 direct nv Question to HLEP. Old you all look at 4 As you may recall, the current 5 the actual work qua11ficat ton act tvities. 5 South Texas nanagenent tean was assenbled in 6 MR. KEATING: I believe there were 6 1993. At that tine we recognized we needed to 7 SPR's initiated on that. I recall sone of then 7 focus on insuring that STP had an environnent in 8 being referenced in the reports that we did. 8 which enployees feel free to raise concerns 9 MS. SMITH: Okay. 9 without any fear of retallation or reprisal.
is MR. KEATING: But I'd want to le As a result, this tean was forned 11 check then and nake sure that -- 11 with an eve towards sensitivity to enployee 12 MS. SMITH: But his concern was 12 concerns and a clear goal for the environnent. As 13 responded to? 13 the tean was being forned, we began to take 14 MR. COTTLE: His concern was 14 actions to, nunber one, inprove connunication 15 investigated. I know, by HL6P, because I've read a 15 between nanagers, supervisors, and enployees.
16 portion of the investigative report, And I ~ and 16 Tuo, insure enployees vere aware of the various 17 I knou the issues of falsification were looked at, 17 nethods available for raising concerns, and that 18 issues of inproper activities were looked at. And 18 they uere confortable using any of then. And, 19 If we haven't. We can certainly share that kind of 19 three, nake the employee concerns progran nore 20 infornation ulth you. We Weren't prepared to 20 accessible and responsive to enployee concerns.
21 really address that in detall at today's neettna. 21 Since that t tne the nanagenent 22 MS. SMITH: Okay. 22 tean has worked hard to establish an environnent 23 MR. KEATING: I'm Dennis Keating. 23 at STP that encourages connunication up and down 24 We thank Mr. Hyster and Mr. Freu for presenting 24 the nanagenent chain and across discipline lines.
25 Raytheon infornation and actions on these natters. 25 There's a tine inne in your packages that outilnes l
l l
PAGE 99 PAGE 100 1
l 99 100 a nunber of these activities. 1 John Groth, our Vice President in Nuclear ;
1 2 We vill speak about the HL&P 2 Generation frequentiv urttes articles about 3 enployee concerns progran in a nonent. but first 3 nanagenent by valking around that are distributed 4 ue wanted to discuss sone of our other 4 videlv on the site.
5 Initiatives. We initiated a two *C's' progran 5 He and the other nenbers of our 6 uhere various senior nanagers discuss conplinents 6 senior nana2enent tean emphastze to the nanagers and concerns with sna11 groups of HL&P and 7 and supervisors the inportance of being out in the I 7
B contractor enployees on a periodic basis. 8 vork areas. We have increased managenent presence 9 Giving enployees at all levels an 9 in the plant, and as a result, we have Inproved opportunity to interact ulth senior nanagenent not le the connunications between nanagenent and le i
1 11 on19 eives then answers to their questions, but 11 enployees.
also encourages then to take advantage of our 12 ve also created a training nodule 12 open-door policy by naking then feel nore 13 for the supervisory training progran entitled l 13 14 confortable in connunicating their concerns to 14
- Station Expectations." ubich all supervisors nust nanagement. 15 take. ThIs nodule was Initially entitled " Mutual 15 16 Further, these meetings provide us 16 Respect.' It cleariv connunicates station 17 with direct input fron enployees on issues thew 17 expectations regarding the reporting of safety 18 consider inportant. Often enployee suggesttons 10 concerns and the Inportance of supervisors 19 for resolving these issues have been adopted, 19 factittating enployee reporting and resolution of EB resulting in inprovenents that benefit the station 20 concerns. The nodule is Interact tve and includes 21 as a uhole and Qtve enployees posit tve feedback. 21 case studies.
22 A sinitar but less fornal effort 22 Mr. Cottle also sent a letter to ve have pronoted is encouraging nanagers to spend 23 nanagers and supervisors personally connunicating 23 as nuch tine in the fleid as possible observing 24 his thoughts and expectations for nutual respect.
24 on-going act tvities and interacting utth enplovees 25 In addition, we initiated an enployee recognit non 25 Tannte L. Sntth, CSR (81D 625-4948
Predecisional Enforetnent Conference - July 19. 1995
- P EE 101 PAGE 102 121 102
! 1 awards progran, rewarding enployees for bringing i replaced With the enployee concerns progran in 2 forth significant or hard to detect concerns. 2 Decenber, 1993. And We changed the organization 3 In late 1994. We totally revanped 3 so that the ECP nanager reports directlW to 4 the corrective action progran and nade it a nore 4 Mr. Cottle. The HL&P ECP is available to all 5 effective process. An effective corrective action 5 enployees on site, whether HL&P or contractor. We 6 progran is a key elenent in identifying and 6 reorganized the entire enploWee concerns progran 7 resolving concerns. As you nav recall, we devoted 7 to separate the nuclear safety and quality 8 a great deal of effort toward lovering the 8 concerns progran issues fron the nore 9 threshold for reporting of concerns through the 9 hunan-performance-related questions.
1B conditton reporting systen of the corrective le The NSQP procedures were revised.
11 action program. 11 We focused attent ton on safety concerns, and the 12 We also fYdified the corrective 12 sub-group procedures were finalized. We hired a 13 action progran to better dentify adverse trends. 13 new contract manager with no previous association 14 We believe that we have achle.'ed significant 14 With STP to run the NSQP progran. I relieved the 15 inprovenent in the corrective action process. The 15 contract nanager in late Septenber of 1995, upon 16 NRC. In February, revleved the progran and 16 the expiration of his contract.
17 considered it an effective Well-run progran. 17 We enhanced training for NSQP and 18 While We did a nunber of things to 18 ESP Investigators. We also forned an enployee 19 inprove the general site environnent. We also took 19 concerns oversight group. Which conducted regular 20 direct action to inprove the HL&P enployee 20 neetings reviewing the activities Within the 21 concerns progran, or ECP. In late 1993, we had an 21 employee concerns progran.
22 outside consultant revleu the speakout progran. 22 We established an enployee 23 Based on this assessnent and input from the NRC. 23 advocate position to voice the enployees's point 24 significant actions were taken. 24 of vleu during the resolution of concerns. We 25 First, the speakout progran was 25 reestablished the opportunity for HL&P and
- PAGE 163 PACE IB4 l l
183 104 !
I 1 contractor enployees to have an exit intervleu 1 Bill Cottle. I'n trying to renenber back to that
]
2 When thev depart the site. 2 time frane. I thought that the first video that I 1
3 To assure that everwone was 3 ve did went to HL&P enployees. and then We 1 4 Inforned of these inportant changes, ue vent Well 4 provided copies through the - through the j 5 beyond our usual site systens for notifulng 5 contract organization for utilization on site or 6 personnel of procedural changes. The changes were 6 for base line contractors to take hone.
f 7 discussed in neetings, neustetters, and postings 7 I'll have to check on that. But )
8 around the site. We sent a videotape to enployees 8 ue nalled then directly to HL&P enployees*
9 and their familles explalning the importance of 9 houses.
10 reporting concerns and descr6bing the operations le MR. LIEBERMAN: Because your 11 of the enployee concerns progran. 11 question is - is -- are the contractor enployees 12 MR. LIEBERMAN: If I could Just 12 setting the Word of the HL&P enplowee concern I 13 Interrupt on that last point. Does that videotape 13 progran?
14 go to just HLLP enployees or all site enployees? 14 MR. COTTLE: Yes.
15 MR. KEATING: It Went to HL&P 15 MR. KEATING: Yes.
16 enployees and all base line contractors. 16 MR. COTTLE: I don't believe thew 17 MR. CALLAN: What does that nean? 17 Were Inillally nalled to the ~ to the hone. but 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Contractors or the 18 they were nade available and were advertised on 19 contractors and their employees? 19 site as being available for contractors to view.
20 MR. KEATING: It went tc both 20 Nou, there's sone -- there have been sone other 21 contractors and HL&P employees. 21 things done Ulth then, and I think Dennis ull!
22 MR. COTTLE: That's the first one 22 nention then here shortly.
23 that was nailed out? 23 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
24 MR. KEATING: Yes. 24 MR. HGFLL: This is Art Howell. l 25 MR. COTTLE: Okay. Jin, this is 25 Regarding the two 'C's' progrant when was that I
l r
Tannte L. Smith. CSR (0171 625-4940
I 1
Predxtstonal Enforcc,nent ConFtrcnce - July 19, 1996 PAGE 105 SHEET 14 PAGE IIS l
1e5 te6 l 1 started. and how often are these neetings held. 1 to encouraging nanagers and the supervisors to get 2 and Who gives then, and What size groups? Could 2 out in the fleids does that also include 3 vou provide a little more detati, 3 contractor Work spaces and offices and -- the 4 MR. COTTLE: We started that -- I 4 reason I ask that is. I guess. going back to 1991 5 vant to saw back in nid ~ or fall of 1993. I 5 ~ and I'n not sure anybody has the answer -- Was 6 believe. initially. And the two *C's* stands for 6 anybodW fron HL&P Walking through that lunchroon 7 *conplinents' and
- concerns.* The tuo fornal 7 and looking at those cartoons and knew that there i B prcoransl I do it. And it's varied fron -- We 8 Was cartoons and if so - or if nots why not?
9 probably started out doing it every tuo to three 9 What are the expectations in ttat erea now With i le Weeks With a group of HL&P enployees. It's 18 regard to HL&P supervisors?
11 probably nonthly or every six Weeks nou. 11 MR. COTTLE: The expectations are 12 Typically involves Just a randon 12 that nenbers of nu nanagenent tean is appropriates 13 sanple of HL&P enployees from across the site 13 uhether it's Dennis, in terns of activities going 14 soneuhere between 18 and 15. They get together. 14 on with Raytheoni or whether it be a contract 15 spend a couple of hours, and the progran's evolved 15 nanager with -- or sone periods We get out and 16 as it's gone along. They used to spend all 16 tour either with Jin or Calhart or Just Walk 17 norning. We find out nou. they do their honework 17 through the spaces. Most -- unless it's pre-f ab
)
18 earig. and it only takes a couple of hours. 18 Work ~ nost of the actual Work --
19 They cone up with a list that 19 MR. HOWELL: Right.
20 thev'd like to hear ne speak about. And then I'll 20 MR. COTTLE: -- is in the power 21 Go in and spend tuptcally tuo and a half, three 21 plant.
22 hours With then now. John Groth does the same 22 MR. HOWELL: Right. j 23 type of progran With folks of his own contractor 23 MR. COTTLE: And certainly. I knou l 24 organizations. And it's roughly the sane way. 24 gou've valked through With John. John's not 25 MR. HOWELL: Okay. With respect 25 Lashfut about stopping and talking to anybody in PAGE 187 PAGE 108 187 108 1 that power plant. And I don't think nost of the 1 in doors? Are HL&P supervisors reluctant to deal 2 other nanagers are at this point in tlne. 2 vith concerns on the contractors' side?
3 MR. BECKNER: Are ~ this is Bill 3 MR. KEATING: You nean it We were 4 Beckner. Are contract employees viewed -- 4 to receive one?
5 MR. CALLAN: You have to speak up. 5 MR. BECKNER: Well. I think like 6 Bill. 6 With Art's -
7 MR. BECKNER: This is Bill 7 ,
MR. COTTLE: I don't think 11 has B Beckner. Are contract enployees viewed in a B to cone as part of the fornal progran, but I can 9 different manner? Obviously. they're tupleallu 9 give you sone exanples. Our security guard force.
le tenporary -- a lot of transient people. I think le for the nost part, is contract -- contract work 11 navbe I'm asking both HL&P and Raytheon this 11 force. John Grt,th is routinelv involved in 12 questlon. 12 employee issues: not just with HL&P security. but 13 Is there any reluctance on the 13 unth PCI or PTI personnel on that.
14 part of contractor enployees to use the HL&P 14 And I think that's pretty nuch the 15 systen because they're sone type of outsider ui 15 -- pretty nuch the case. I don't see a real 16 they're really not an enployee? And I think vice 16 reluctance to deal Utth it. Thew Will cone and 17 versa, is there any reluctance on the part of HL&P 17 get advice on occasion particular1v If you start 18 to ~ again, dealing with Art's question -- to 18 DettIng over into an area where you're kind of 19 look at issues involving contractor enployees? 19 looking at a legal definttlon of co-e=tplognent.
28 It's a rather general question. but I think Wou 20 But that usually involves enplovnent practices.
21 get nu flavor. 21 and not -- not concerns and issues and fair 22 MR. KEATING: Contractors are not 22 treatnent.
23 reluctant to use the HL&P enployee concerns 23 MR. BECKNER: Your contractor 24 progran. They cone to us regularly. 24 force is nore of a stable contractor force, and it 25 MR. BECKNER: And what about the 25 stava there for an extended period of tine?
Tannie L. Sn!!h. CSR 18171 625-494B
PrQdecisional Enforcenent Conferenco - Jule 19. 19C3
- P EE 109 PME 110 109 110 1 MR. COTTLE: We have what We call 1 involved -
2
- base Itne contractors.' and those -- 2 MR. COTTLE: ~ because they're 3 MR. BECKNER: Can you explain 3 not there for the full period.
4 4 that ? You've used that tern before. 4 MR. BECKNER: These individuals, 5 MR. COTTLE: Yeah. " Base line 5 that We're speaking of here. Were not What Wou're 6 contractors
- are those - and I'll use the exanple 6 calling
- base inne enployees.* And so were thev 7 -- those security guards Who are there. If -- If 7 in sone nanner trained in a less than adequate 8 they weren't there, we Would have an HL&P person 6 nanner, or are they nore reluctant to use the HL&P 9 doing that activity. A portton We count -- a 9 syst e:,7 10 portion of Jin's Raytheon force is base line lo MR. COTTLE: Back in the '93/'94 11 because they provide continuing support. It's not 11 tine frane, I don't know that I can answer that 12 Just during -- just during an outage. 12 question as Well as I can now. Obvious 1v, our 13 Those, We tru as much as Within 13 initiative now -- you heard Jin speak of sone of 14 reasonable constraints, to treat just like HL&P 14 the things that he does as he's ranping up his 15 enployees. If We have a site celebration or a 15 force, you know, for an outage.
16 recognition or an event like that, those folks are 16 I think present day they certainly j 17 tupleally invited, and We expect then to cone and 17 set at least the equivalent of the type of training that an HL&P or base line contractor I 18 part icipat e. 18 19 And We tupleally - tf We have an 19 Would do. And I don't know -- I haven't seen any 20 incentive for an outage or good perfornance of an 20 reluctance on their part to ut:11re the progran.
21 activity, those base inne contractors typically 21 I don't really have a Way of i
- 22 are under the sane type progran that nu site 22 looking in terns of When a concern cones in but I I 23 personnel are. We have to do something different 23 Would say -- because We don't do then by nanes.
24 in nost cases With transient labor in -- 24 obviously ~ but it Would saw where they cane -- I '
I 25 MR. BECKNER: These individuals 25 know where they cane fron a contractor -- which j
l
- PAGE 111 PAGE 112
- 111 112 i elenent of an organizat ton that it cane fron. But 1 a Peps nachine to the turbine deck during the the 2 I don't know -- I really don't know if it's a base 2 turbine outage. I think that's the first tine a 3 line or - or an Individual -- Dennis nau have 3 tot of those folks have been treated that Wav.
4 sonething else on that. 4 MR. LIEDERMAN: That certainly 5 MR. BROWN: Can I ask a question? 5 sounds positive. People often need jobs, too, I 6 MR. COTTLE: One nore thing, B1117 6 guess. In neasuring the success of your progran.
7 MR. BROWN: Sure. 7 have you conpared on Wour exit interviews hov 0 MR. CCTTLE: And W.s can get sone B often Wou get concerns When people leave the site 9 nore information on it. I think probably one of 9 that have not been raised earlier in one of the le the best indications are the nunbers of repeat le the various enployee concern prograns?
11 craft that We're starting to see Who Won't cone 11 MR. COTTLE: Let ne let Dennis 4 12 back to STP fron outaJe to outage. I think this 12 respond to that.
13 last outage ~ not specifically Raytheon - but I 13 MR. KEATING: The nunber of extt 14 think, like, site-Wice We had something over 70 14 Interviews, of course, during an outage goes Way 15 percent now Who won't cone back and Work those 15 up. And We receive very feu concerns out of 16 outages at STP. 16 those. The -- sone of the other things We've 17 MR. LIEBERMAN Is that a change 17 done, of course, is having supervisors be nore 18 Vou perceive? 10 responsive to issues.
19 MR. COTTLE: That's getting better 19 We've louered the threshold on 20 ~ getting better because We're naking sone 20 condition reportings. And even during the outages 21 efforts I think, in sone cases to treat then nore 21 We've had a very effective lessons-learned progran 22 Ilke our Work force. I think it's se* ting better 22 Where people have an opportunity to express 23 -- you go up on the turbine deck during this nost 23 sonething that night have gone better.
24 recent outage, for example, and Wou see HL&P and 24 And We find that people that leave 25 contract nanagers delivering a hundred pizzas and 25 after an outage - particularly the last couple -
1 Tunnie L. Snith, CSR (81D 625-4940
I .
Prr., decisional Enforcenent Confzrenca - July 19. 1936 PAGE 113 SHEET 15 PAGE 114 113 114 1 are very pleased utth their expertence at STP and 1 forenen that Mr. Keene worked uith would work with 2 are Interested in picking up their pavcheck and 2 hin again. according to this infornation. One 3 heading out the door. And we get very little 3 even indicated that he vould keep Mr. Keene fron i
- 4 Input from the ex1ts of the uorkers that leave 4 vorking for then again. Without elaborating on after the outage. 5 What he neant by that.
! 5 6 MR. LIEBERMAN: So they do have an 6 And in llaht of your -- certainly.
l 7 opportunity to raise any concerns they have as 7 vour good intentions and the things that you've I
! 8 part of the exit process? 8 stated that you're going to do to insure that
! 9 MR. KEATING: Yes. And if 9 there is no discrtnination for protected activity.
18 contractors - sonehou We nissed then ~ they do 18 What can or are you doing about situations like 11 this uhere first line supervisors still have these 11 not want to cone back and talk to us or when theV 12 get their whole body count in the middle of the 12 attitudes of what they're gott.g to do or not going 13 night, theu util be handed an envelope that thev 13 to do With respect to individuals who bring up 14 can take With then. 14 protected activity 7 Because that's Where a lot of 15 But ue're also provided with a 15 ths discrinination is taking place.
!!st of people who have terninated each month fron 16 And in spite of the best l 16 17 the contractors. And if it doesn't natch up with 17 Intent tons of nanagenent. the word frequentiv. It f
seens like -- and I'n not just saying that about la soneone We talked 10. We send then a letter in the le i 19 nall. 19 Wout but we find this in other situations -- f MR. LIEBERMAN: And I pressune 28 doesn't get doun to these first 1tne supervisors.
28 21 With a self-stamped reply letter? 21 And here ve have information that that type of 22 MR. KEATING: Yes. It is. With a 22 thinking still exists. l 1
forn in it that's easy to fill out. 23 MR. COTTLE: Tuo things. Jin. and 23 24 MR. BROWW: We had infornation 24 then I'll ask -- or Bill -- and then I'll ask Jin 25 to connen' - One, to the best of nu knowledge.
25 that cane to our attention that none of the PAGE 115 PAGE 116 115 116 Mr. Keene has worked for Raytheon since he's left 1 -- a great exanple is sone of the ~ vou know, 1
2 sone of the difficulties that Mitsubishi's going 2 the STP site at another Job -- not a nuclear fron ny understanding. And I think that does show a 3 through. If you vent to a construction site at 3
4 Ultitneness to bring folks back up. 4 one of these plants 15 years ago -- or probably Secondly. I think one of the 5 even sooner - I haven't read anything in 5
biggest nessages for first line supervisors is hou 6 Mitsubisht's article and seen sonebody's power 6
7 they see you deal uith it when it happens higher 7 plant construction site.
8 in the organization. And. Wou know. Without going 8 And there are norn -- What were into nanes, we've had -- ve've had fairly 9 norns and accepted behaviors that aren't 9
high-level nanagers either asked to leave the 18 acceptable anuncre, in fact. any way you uant to 10 11 company and left or denoted or renoved fron a 11 do it. And Wou have to understand it because it nanagenent position entirely because of that. 12 Inpacts us fron a conpany standpoint. and 11 12 That's not lost on the rest of the 13 inpacts you fron being an Individual supervisor or 13 organization. It's not lost on first 1tne 14 a manager's standpoint. Wi!! We ever be 14 supervisors. And we don't go broadcast this is 15 successful at having everyone understand? I don't 15 it ung so-and-so la not here anunore. But I can give 16 - I don't believe so. But I think we'll never vou an exanple of each of those kind of actions on 17 stop working at having everyone understand.
17 fatrig high nanagenent levels. 18 MR. DROWN Do you have a connent?
18 19 And then I think. third 1W. It's 19 MR. KEATING: I think Mr. Cottle down there every day trying to coach and counsel 28 covered it prettu vell.
28 and nake then understand, whether it's a nutual 21 MR. COTTLE: Didn't -- didn't 21 l Mr. Keene vind up being enploWed subsequentiv at 22 respect or an econonic reality course that the 22 23 World and the business and work force is changing. 23 a~
and It's changino every dau. 24 MR. FREW Yes.
24 25 And we try to put out infornation 25 MR. COTTLE: ~ at another --
Tannte L. Snith. CSR (8171 625-4948
4 Predecisional Enforcinent Conference - JulW 19.19SS PAGE 117 PAGE 118 117 lig 1 MR. FREW: Yes. 1 In May 1994, the NRC conducted a 2 MR. BROWN: At a non-nuclear 2 follow-up inspection that found that the actions 3 project ? 3 ve had taken should correct the specific 4 MR. FREW Yes. 4 deficiencies noted in the 1993 Inspection. The 5 MR. KEATING: And I'll be 5 NRC noted that although We had efforts undervaV to 6 discussing sone further actions that ue've done in 6 regain enploVee confidence in the enployee 7 that regard because thew thought they -- this is 7 concerns progran, additional effort was Warranted.
8 Dennis Keating again. When ve nade the changes to 8 The NRC noted that several of the 9 the ECP in 1993. Mr. Cottle sent a letter to all 9 progran enhancenents were still being inplenentedt le contractors Inforning then of their le and that even with the proactive measures, like 11 responsibilities and station expectations relative 11 those we had recently inplemented, sone tine would 12 to addressing enployee concerns. 12 be required to correct the af fected past problems 13 To further enphasize the 13 and regain enployee confidence in the new enployee 14 inportance the conpany placed on this natter. 14 concerns progran. It was gratifytng that the NRC 15 contractual docunents were nodified to include a 15 recognized the strong personal connitnent we nade 16 specific provision requiring compilance utth 16 to this progran and the substantial progress we 17 Section 211 and 10 CFR 50.7. Job site contractors 17 had already nade.
18 Were required to inforn their enployees of the 18 In the first half of 1993. an 19 nuclear safety and qualltW concerns progran. 19 Independent behavioral consultant perforned a base 20 In late 1993. NRC conducted an 20 line site clinate assessnent by conducting a 21 Inspection at the STP site and found a nunber of 21 surveu of HL&P enployees and base line contractors 22 strengths in our progran. They also found sone 22 concerning a nunber of related issues involving 23 seaknesses. At that tine we identified a nunber 23 nanagenent connunication, and reporting 24 of additional actions to be taken and pronpt!W 24 concerns.
25 inforned the NRC of ther.. 25 This assessment confitned that the PAGE 119 PAGE 120 119 120 1 vast najority of the work force at the South Texas 1 particularly proud of the statenent in the 2 project would raise concerns through at least one 2 Inspection report that the tean found that an 3 of the nechanisns available to then. While we 3 atnosphere had been established that encouraged 4 were pleased With these results. We also 4 the identification of problens and that nanagenent 5 recognized there was further roon for 5 connitnent and sLpport to resolve these problens 6 Improvenent. 6 Was evident.
7 We repeated the survey in 1994 and 7 Shortly thereafter, in Septenber 8 1995, and have seen narked Inprovenent virtually 8 1994, a second independent assessnent by an 9 across the board fron year to year. We recently 9 outside consultant confirned NRC's connents. Of 10 conpleted the fourth such survev and are anxious 1W 18 the enployees and contractors interviewed by the 11 avatting the results. 11 consultant. 98 percent rated the nuclear safetW 12 After the actions ue took in late 12 culture an environnent for raising safety concerns 13 1933 ue have continued to reinforce the enployee 13 as adequate to excellent, with only two percent 14 concerns progran. A second videotape describing 14 Indicating that there were still sone additional 15 the neu ECP process was provided to each enployee 15 opportunttles for inprovenent.
16 and base line contractor in the spring of 1994. 16 Thus, based on direct enployee 17 And we have continued to emphasize the progran in 17 input , the consultant concluded that there had 18 our general enployee training and in nang other 18 been substantial inprovenent in progran 19 WaWS -- such as nu nettings with groups of 19 perfornance since his assessnent in 1993, and that 20 emp10 Vees -- to discuss the progran providing the 20 a strong safety culture and positive Work 21 various nethods for reporting concerns, and ansuer 21 environnent exists at the South Texas Project.
22 their questions. 22 Further, the assessnent concluded 23 In August of 1994. the NRC 23 that the STP prograns were effective in addressing 24 Integrated assessnent tean inspection found STP's 24 enploWee concerns and that additional refinenents 25 actions to be appropriate and effective. We Were 25 to assure continued Inprovenent in the progran had Tannte L. Snith. CSR (0171 625-4940
Predecisional Enforcrnent Conf m nca - July 19, 19ss
- PAGE 121 SHEET 16 PAGE 122 121 122 1 been taken. Even so, we have continued to work on 1 forward safety concerns.
2 inproving the site environnent. 2 MR. SAN 8ORN: Are there penalties 3 A third videotape Was distributed 3 for contractors who don't conpiv?
4 in late 1994. to rentnd station personnel of the 4 MR. KEATING: Not spect fically.
5 ECP. In 199S. the third site-wide behavioral 5 MR. COTTLE: Well, not any 6 consultant services survey Indicated that 6 specific to the speelfic penalty provisions 7 personnel were even nore confortable discussing 7 vritten in the contract. It obviously can be a 8 nuclear safety issues or quality lasues utth their 8 consideration in the reneual extension of a 9 supervisor. Sintiarly, they expressed increased 9 contract. It can be a consideration in whether 10 confidence that the ECP Would give concerns proper 10 wou retain that Individual contract manager on 11 consideration. 11 site.
12 Another outside consultant review 12 We've gotten a lot nore involved 13 of the ECP showed STP was the nost effective of 12 13 and agressive in the selectton of cuntract site 14 plants or corporate locations reviewed in the 14 nanagers. Both John Groth, Gary Parkey -- a 15 areas of nuclear safety culture, nanagenent 15 nunber of folks -- Interviewed Jin before he 16 Influence, and utilingness to raise concerns. The 16 assuned that position. And we've continued that.
17 STP standard contract provisions were again 17 We're doing the sane thing with sone Westinghouse 18 revleved to assure that our expectations Were 10 activilles that we've got going on now and 19 connunicated to contractors relative to Section 19 extending that to other contracts.
20 211 and 10 CFR 50.7. 20 We van'. to nake as good a 21 In addition, we sent another 21 deternination as we can that the values and 22 letter to contractors reninding then of their 22 expectations and beliefs, whether they relate to 23 responsibt!!ty to conply Ulth the laus and 23 just baste sound good perfornance or whether thew 24 regulations prohibiting retallation or 24 relate to the treatnent of people, are -- vou 25 discrimination against enployees for bringing 25 know, are sonething that can be shared uhere l
- PAGE 123 PAGE 124 123 124 1 Wou've got a significant presence on site. 1 MS. SMITHz So I guess you can, 2 MR. SAN 8ORN: Are there any 2 MR. COTTLE: So uhether it would )
3 provisions that would result in a contractor 3 relate to 50.7 or just the job that that ,
l 4 paying any civil penalties that night be assessed 4 contractor's doing at the site. So, Wes, that can
- 5 If they caused a vlotation of this type? 5 occur.
( 6 MR. COTTLE: I don't recall If 6 MS. SMITH: Okay.
7 those are specifically in there or not. Il 7 MR, KEATING: The letter to the 8 certainly ut!! be or vould be the subject of B contractors also connunicated station expectations 9 discussion if that cones about. There are 9 for natntaining an atnosphere that encourages l 10 provistol,s in contracts that deal not specifically le personnel to raise safetW or quality lasues, 11 With this, but , for example, with nanagenent 11 To conplinent our efforts with the l 12 involvenent. nanagement effectiveness. And those 12 ECP, we continued to enphasize the behaviors that l l 13 are areas that are rated in terns of incentive 13 ue felt necessary for us to achieve our objectives 14 provlstons in sone of the contracts. And that nav 14 on site. The behaviors are enphasized in our 15 Well be a factor that would influence. 15 teanwork training that's going on, and in the 16 MS. SMITH: Through those 16 course of facilitative leadership. Behaviors that 17 provisions. Bill, vould uou be able to have a 17 are enphasized concentrate on the value of all 18 contract nanager relleved as a part of that if you 18 inputs and collaborative nethods of resolving 19 felt itke he was not dolno what he needed to do in 19 issues.
20 50.7 directly or is that -- 20 Sinilarly. ue have taken a nunber 21 MR. COTTLE: I don't vant to be 21 of additional actions this wear. We continued our 22 flippant but I've never seen a site vice 22 routine activatles such as posting EPP ~ ECP 23 president that can't have a contract nanager 23 panphlets on the bulletin boards. ECP i 24 relleved for ainost any sientficant perfornance 24 presentations to enployee groups, pubitcation of 2S lasue like that. 25 ECP-related articles in the site newspaper that l
l Tennie L. Snith. CSR 1817) 625-4940
l l
Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - July 19. ISSS PAGE 125 ,
PAGE 126 l
125 126 1 described the various nethods for raistn*J 1 ' leadership assessment tool.' This is a nethod 2 concerns, and our nonthly randon surveys of 40 to 2 where enployees can provide candid and 3 78 employees to deternine awareness of the progran 3 confidential feedback to supervisors on their 4 and 91litnoness to use it. 4 behaviors.
5 We are also revising the access 5 As you can see, we have had a 6 authorization curriculum, which was fornerly GET. 6 sustained nahagement effort since 1993, to insure 7 to update and Inprove the presentation of ECP 7 that the general environnent at STP is open and 8 infornation, we connissioned another ECP revleu 8 that enployees feel free to raise safety concerns 9 by the outside consultant and are in the process 9 without fear of retallation. A part of this 18 of revleuing and inplenenting the reconnendations. 18 effort includes the hvestigation of allegationc l
l 11 The ECP panphlet has been revised 11 of discrintnation in taking appropriate corrective 12 and a fourth video has been prepared deccribing 12 actton.
13 the progran and which util be distributed shortiv 13 In that respect, the allegations 14 to enployees. base Itne contractors, and their 14 in the Keene case were investigated by HLp's 15 fantiles. 15 enployee concerns progran. In June. 1994, 16 We have included Jin Freu in the 16 Mr. Keene exprissed an additional concern about a 17 video in a prominent role speaking fron a 17 possible falstfication natter and a problen with 18 contractor's point of view. We have brought a 18 the fitness-for-duty progran that was not related i 19 copy of the video, and we'll leave 11 with iSU. 19 to his testing when he Was a visttor.
28 As we nentioned. We also have another site-utde 20 After We rcceived a copy of 21 surwu by Behavioral Consultant Services 21 Mr. Keene's conplaint to the Departnent of Labor 22 underway. 22 in Septenber, that natter was reviewed also, but 23 Additionally, we are on the third 23 our investigator did not substantiate the charges.
24 round, approxinately annually, of utilizing a 24 Nevertheless. When the Judge's reconnended 25 feedback tool to supervisors called the 25 decision was received. We revleved it for evidence PAGE 127 PAGE 128 127 120 1 that our previous acttons were not effecttve or 1 taken previousiv vere appropriate and that their I 2 could be Inproved. 2 effectiveness was confirmed by our 3 We did identifu sone act tons We 3 self-assessnents and the NRC inspections. There 4 could take to increase the focus of contractors on 4 vere just additional actions that we felt night 5 assuring their enplovees feel free to raise 5 have a positive effect.
6 concerns. And we specifically began a dialog with 6 The Connission recentiv tssued a 7 Raytheon. Mr. Cottle sent a letter to havtheon in 7 policy statenent on freedon of enplovees in the l 8 February of this year requesting input relative to 8 nuclear industry to raise safety concerns ulthout 9 this natter. 9 fear of retallation. The policy statenent le Later, after we received the 18 Identifles a nunber of actions that can be taken 11 Secretarv of Labor's decision in the Sntth case. 11 to encourage the free fics of information and j l ve included it in our discussions with Raytheon. protect enployees who report concerns.
12 12 I l 13 I personally spoke ulth over 300 Raytheon 13 We have closely reviewed that j 14 enployees, including craft, forenen, supervisors. 14 pollev statenent looking for suggest tons that we 15 and nanagers. These neetings were held as 15 could use to enhance the prc1ran at the South 16 Raytheon's staff for the unit one refueling outage 16 Texas Project. In one forn or another, all of the 17 and addressed nethods for raising concerns, the 17 actions reconnended by the Connission were alreadv l
18 ECP and that STP natntains an open atnosphere for 18 in place at South Texas.
19 reporttno concerns vithout retallatton or 19 SpectfIcally. We have an ef fec1Ive 20 discrtnination. 20 corrective actlon progrant initial and periodic f 21 Jin Frev and I connunicate often 21 training for both enployees and supervisors 22 on concern progran natters. HL&P has also had 22 connunicaling nanagenent' expectations and options l
23 discussion ulth PTI, our security contractor, on 23 for reporting concernst sensitivity training for 24 ECP natters. These acttons vere not taken bacause 24 nanagers and supervisors: Incentive prograns for 25 of a void in the progran. We found that actions 25 Identifying and reporting concerns: the l
Tannte L. Snith. CSR 1817) 625-4940
Predectstonal EnforcInent Conftrence - July 19. 1903 PAGE 129 SHEET 17 PAGE 133 129 138 1 perfornance of credible self-assessnents of our 1 can you speak a little nore to the substance of 2 quellty and concerns progransI clear 19 2 that letter?
3 connunicated expectations to contractors through 3 MR. COTTLE: Jin, I think the 4 contractual requirenents. letters. and group 4 er.sle*,t thing would be if -- If af ter the 5 presentationst an open-door policut a policy 5 Conference ve sinply provide you a copy of it.
6 permitting enployees to raise concerns to the 6 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
7 quality group and enployee advocate or ombudsnan 7 MR. COTTLE: I just flat do not 8 and an enployee concerns progran consistent with B recall all the issues that we addressed in there.
9 the guidance in Nu Reg 1499. 9 But we'll nake that connitnent, and provide that.
le And there is an active prncess for 10 MR. LIEBERMAN Very good.
11 connunicating expectations to our employees in 11 MR. CALLAN: Could you provide US 12 place at the site, we find these measures do 12 a copy, as well?
13 Work. Enployees do report concerns freely, and 13 MR. COTTLE: Sure. Mark.
14 they express confidence that their concerns will 14 MR. McBURNETT: All right. I'n 15 be received and addressed. 15 Mark McBurnett. I an the Licensing Manager for 16 In sunnary. We believe that our 16 the South Texas Project. As requested in your 17 actions to enhance the general environnent and our 17 letter to us. I will provide our perspective on 18 actions to address the specific cases were pronpt. 18 the factors that deternine severity level and 19 comprehensive, and effective. 19 civil penalties associated ulth enforcenent 20 Before I turn the presentation 20 actions.
21 over to Mr. McBurnett. I'll be glad to answer any 21 The Enforcenent Policy indicates 22 questtons. 22 that the level of nanagenent involved is 23 MR. LIEK RMANr I had one 23 considered in assessing the severity levels for 24 question. J:n Liebernan here. The letter to 24 enforcenent actions regarding violations of 58.7.
25 Raytheon in your your line itne of February. '96. 25 In these tuo cases the Lepartnent PAGE 131 PAGE 132 131 132 1 of Labor decisions attribute alleged 1 referral to fitness-for-duty are deternined to be 2 discrinination to non-nanagenent enployeest that 2 discrininatory.
3 is, they were no greater than first inne 3 A pronpt and acoressive corrective 4 supervisors. 4 action is also considered in the Enforcenent 5 In the $nith case the Secretary of 5 Policy as a nitigating factor. South Texas 6 Labor found that an Ebasco forenan's cartoons 6 nanagement, including Raytheon. had been taking 7 created a hostile work environnent. In the Keene 7 conprehensive actions over the last few years to 8 case the Adninistrat8"e Lau Judge decided a B assure that the general environnent is such that 9 Raytheon general foreman selected Mr. Keene for 9 enployees feel free to raise safety concerns le layoff in retallation for proctected attivities. is ulthout fear of retallation.
11 In both cases the individuals involved vere first 11 As Mr. Keating explained we have 12 ilne supervisors. 12 been enphasizing this area since 1993, and have 13 The judi,e in the Keene case also 13 continued to perforn self-assessnents and 14 found retallation in the referral of Mr. Keene to 14 Independent assessments uhtch have confirned the 15 fitness-for-duty testing by the Raytheon labor 15 effectiveness of our efforts. Our efforts have 16 relations specialist. The labor relations 16 been reviewed and found appropriate and effective 17 specialist was part of the Raytheon nanagement 17 during past NRC inspections.
18 organizations houever, he's not a line 18 ve believe we have taken prompt 19 supervisor. He served in a staff function, which 19 and aggressive corrective action relative to the 20 coordinates activilles between the site and the 20 generic issue, we have perforned investigations 21 union hall. 21 of the concerns reported by Keene and Smith and 22 For purposes of the Enforcenent 22 taken action as appropriate.
23 Policy, we believe he should be treated, at nost. 23 When the tuo decisions were 24 as a first line supervisor if -- if -- If, indeed. 24 received. We again reviewed the two cases to 25 the NRC's review of his actions relat tve to the 25 Identify any additional actions that should be Tannte L. Snith CSR 1817) 625-4948
._ ~ .. - - - . . . . - -
Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - July 19, 1996 PAGE 133 PAGE 134 133 134 1 t aken. We wrote to our contractors about our 1 escalated enforcenent.
2 expect at ions. We began a dialogue with Raytheon 2 However, if the conclusion is 3 and held neetings with Raytheon personnel to 3 reached that escalated enforcnnent is appropriate, 4 discuss the South Texas employee concerns 4 NRC should consider the facts that the events at 5 progran. 5 issue in these two cases occurred several years 6 The f acts surrounding these tuo 6 ago and that the significant -- and that there 7 cases predate nost of our actions to inprove 7 vere significant nanagenent changes in 1993. for 8 problen reporting. The Snith case occurred in 8 both HL&P and the contractor.
9 1991. before the managenent tean was forned and 9 It takes some line for nanagenent le the Keene case occurred in early 1994. before our 18 to nake significant changes in site culture, and 11 inprovement efforts had realized their full 11 the NRC has recognized denonstrated improvenents 12 effect. 12 since 1994. In these circunstances We believe 13 We believe We have taken pronpt 13 that NRC should exercise its discretion not to 14 and aggressive actions relative to the specifics 14 Impose a civil penalty.
15 of the cases. The Enforcenent Policy provides for 15 And that's all I had. If anu 16 consideration of past enforcenent history as a 16 questions --
17 f actor in assessing civil penalties. The South 17 MR. HOWELL: Well. I have a le Texas Protect has not had any Severity Level TII 18 connent and a question. This is Art HOWell. The 19 or higher violations in the past two years. 19 Sntth case involves hostile work environnent. And 20 There are two proposed Level II 20 the Secretary of Labor, in his dectslon, inplies 21 violations With HLbP's response deferred pending a 21 that there nust have been nore senior Ebasco 22 decision fron the Secretary of Labor. The events 22 supervisors and nanagers who were aware of those 23 related to these two violations occurred four 23 cartoons. given the nunber of cartoons arJ the 24 years ago. Based on these f acts. We do not 24 fact that they occurred over a two-plus-nontt 25 consider the violations as candidates for 25 period, and the size of the cartoons, and whert I
s.
PAGE 135 PAGE 136 135 136 1 they were located, and li. the lunchroon, and all 1 real fairiv heavy level of detail.
2 that. 2 And chat we see happening is the 3 Given that. Was there any effort. 3 events that were occurring in the Keene case where 4 or do you know who was the nost senior person Who 4 in the -- was that the second quarter of that 5 was aware of those cartoons at the tine that thev 5 year? And that's part of it is the activities.
, 6 occurred? 6 The activities were ongoing at the sane line the 7 MR. McBURNETT We have no -- no 7 events were happening. Plus. We look at the 9 knowledge in that area. 8 contract Work forces are the hardest for us to --
9 MR. HOWELL It was not 9 to get into to nake these kinds of culture is investigated? Nobody knows who kneu about -- 17 changes.
11 MR. COTTLE: I'n not saving it 11 MR. COTTLE: I've got a connent or 12 wasn't investigated. I just -- We Weren't 12 two on that.
13 prepared to address that today. 13 MR. McBURNETT: It can t ake it 14 MS. SMITH: Mark, you nentioned 14 longer for it to sink in, basically. Is the basis 15 that you felt like that you hadn't achieved full 15 for that connent.
16 inprovenent or full effect of the Inprovements. 16 MR. BROWW: Could you be specific 17 MR. McBURWETT That's right. 17 -- uhoever wants to speak for Raytheon -- as to 18 MS. SMIIH: What do you base that 18 What specific points in your brief before the 19 on? 19 Secretary of Labor you continued to challenge and 20 MR. McBURNETT: If you look at the 20 hou that night affect the corrective action for 21 tine line that's in the handout on the last -- the 21 something that you would challenge?
22 last page, and look at the sequence of activities 22 MR. COTTLE: Do you want --
23 that's happening, you'll see that by the end of 23 MR. REMEIKA: Sure. I'll be happy 24 'S3, activities are starting to occur, and they're 24 to provide copies of those briefs if you vish.
25 rolling through the first part of 1994, with a 25 It's -- It's not clear how to respond to that fannie L. Sntth CSR 18171 625-4940
Predecisional Enforcenent Confcrtncs - July 19. 19S3
- PAGE 137 SHEET 18 PAGE 138 137 138 1 question unless you Wanted to get into sone of the 1 list on March 24th. Is that we believe that the 2 facts of the case. 2 evidence was nore conclusive that the -- the 3 But, essentially the position on 3 general forenan who included Mr. Keene on that 4 appeal ulth regard to the layoff was that the 4 Inst had no knouledge that Mr. Keene had nade any l 5 evidence, we believe, established that the lautif 5 allegations with regard to falsification of 6 had occurred before the individual who included 6 records of that sort prior to his inclusion on the 7 Mr. Keene on the laWoff list was apare that 7 laWoff list.
8 Mr. Keene had nade any allegations at all. And B That's all of the evidence with 9 there was plenty of evidence, ue believe. in the 9 regard to when a union steward named J. D. Rilev 18 record to substantiate that. 10 presented infornation and what Infornation he 11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Could I ask you to 11 present ed. With regar6 to the -- to the referral 12 speak a little loader, please. 12 in May of 1934. for cause testing, as ue read the 13 MR. REMEIKA: Sure. This is Jin 13 Adninistrative Lau Judge's conclusion, it's based 14 Renelka speaking, by the Way. With regard to the 14 on a single perception on his part. And that is 15 fitness-for-duty -- 15 that the fitness-for-duty policW was so s
16 MR. CALLAN: Would Wou repeat -- 16 unquestionably unclear as to hou that natter --
17 did you hear the first thing Jin? 17 that -- that Mr. Keene should not have been 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Not reallW. In all 18 subject to that policy, that a question at all bW 19 honestv. 19 a labor relations specialist to a custoner as to 28 MR. CALLAN: It's Worth repeating. 28 how the policW night be applied could only have 21 Would you -- 21 arisen because of a desire to retallate against 22 KR. REMEIKA: Okay. Our -- our 22 the individual.
23 position, essentiallW, with regard to the first 23 And our position is that the 24 aspect of the keene cases that is, discriminatory 24 fitness-for-duty policy was not so clear with 25 or retallatory inclusion of Mr. Keene on a layoff 25 regard .to whether a visitor night be subjected.
PAGE 139 PAGE 140 139 148 1 And our enployees simply ar'ed the question. 1 notivated by sone sort of retallatory anings 2 sought that input, and then executed the guidance 2 involving Mr. Keene.
3 that he got which was to affirn to -- for 3 MR. HOWELL: Well --
4 fitness-for-duty testing. 4 MR. REMEIKA: That -- that is.
5 I would also note just for -- for 5 essentiallW. the basis for our appeal.
6 Ucur consideration. that the sane individual who's 6 MR. HDWELL: That being the case.
7 alleged to have been notivated by retallatory 7 has there been anW clarification to the testing of 8 aninus in that case Is the same individual. 8 visitors relative to fitness-for-dutW --
9 Mr. Casev Davis, who in the Smith decision by the 9 MR. COTTLE: It is absolutely 18 Secretary of Labor eKpressiv acknouledged as 18 clear in site procedures that visitors. or anyone 11 having been respect ful of Mr. Snith's rights to go 11 on the site, at South Texas Project is subject to 12 to the NRC and was expressiv referenced by the 12 fitness-for-duty testi 0 ;
13 Secretary as being someone who had affirnativelv 13 MR. HOWELL: So it remains 14 taken action. done things for Mr. Snith, as he 14 Unchanged, the polley that existed in --
15 said he vould, if he had any concerns. 15 MR. BROWN: Although there is a 16 Mr. Keene. I believe the record in 16 bit of a pilnch in the talks and terns. I believe.
17 the -- in the -- in the Keene case would reflect 17 of what badged visitors, where he really wasn't in 18 that Mr. Casev Davis was -- had responsibilities 18 that category.
19 for Ravtheon at a -- at a co-generation f acility 19 MR. McBURNETT That 's -- let ne 28 -- Dupont f acility in La Porte. Texas. and -- and 28 clarify that. That was the procedure. It's been 21 hired Mr. Keene, and was aware of that process 21 clarlfled nov. So it is clear to uhat it applies 22 that had Mr. Keene hired at La Porte nearly tuo 22 to. Called -- he called to our fitness-for-dutW 23 weeks after he was dented access at South Texas. 23 progran -- the person that's responsible for our 24 That did not suggest to us he -- 24 fitness-for-duty progran and asked the question.
25 that -- that this is an individual who was 25 and they interpret -- thev. the authors of the Tannte L. Snith. CSR 18171 625-4948
.m. ... m_ _ .
Predeelslonal Enforcenent Conference - July 10. 193S PAGE 141 PAGE 142 141 142 1 procedure -- Interpret that this is What -- this 1 MR. CALLAN: Il night be better --
2 is what it neans. They have no knowledge of ang 2 I'n going to avail ourselves of the 10-ninute 3 -- of Mr. Keene's allegations. 3 break. And you all can just take a break. And 4 MR. COTTLE: And that decision is 4 then we nau have sone -- we nav refocus sone l 5 based not -- not so noch on access requirenents as 5 questions. and it night be nore appropriate for j 6 on liabililles for having someone in the plant and 6 vou to provide concluding renarks after We've had 7 potentially driving a car because we don't have 7 a chance to ask any follow-up questions. It nay 8 gate houses at nost of the facilities. And do you a influence your closing renarks.
l 9 just want soneone visiting that night be under the 9 MR. COTTLE: Okay, i
10 Influence. 10 MR. CALLAN: I don't knou. The 11 MR. BROWN: I did note that he 11 logistics of this. Gary?
12 voluntarily accepted the testing. But then he was 12 MR. SANBORN I think we ought to 13 apparentiv tested agains what. 24 days later or 13 leave this bridge open, and we can put this end on 14 something, when -- 14 nute. !
15 MR. COTT'.Es Could We navbe not do 15 MR. CALLAN: Yes.
16 this as part of an open discussion on that? 16 MR. SANBORN: And then perhaps.
17 MR. GUITERMAN: Privacy rights. 17 vou know. agree to be back in le ninutest no nore 10 MR. COTTLE: I don't want to say 18 than 10 ntnutes.
19 anything about that second test that night be 19 MR. CALLAN: Yes. We'll be back f* derogatory to -- to the Individual. 20 at -- let's nake it nore realistic -- 15 ntnutes.
21 MR. BROWN: Okay. That's fine. 21 MR. SANBORNt Fi f teen?
22 MR. COTTLE: If I could nake, Jin 22 MR. CALLAN: Because We need to 23 -- or Joe -- propose to go ahead and nake nu 23 take a break, as well.
24 clostno connents and navbe it's a good tine for 24 MR. SANBORN: Okay.
25 the break. 25
- MR. CALLAN: In addition to our --
PAGE 143 PAGE 144 143 144 1 a working break and our regular break. 1 that?
2 KR. SANBORN Okay. 2 MR. FREW: I think Mr. Keating 3 MR. CALLAN: Fif teen ntnutes. So 3 cane down and was talking to ne about it. And so 4 10 ntnutes to 1:00. We need to get Jin Liebernan 4 I went and looked at it and it said 'do not 5 on -- 5 renove.' He said, well, if you put, remove fron 6 MR. SANBORN: Yes. We could call 6 the area -- If you can't take it down. how are 7 Jin fron -- 7 people going to read it? And nu connent to Dennis 8 R. CALLAN: Jin. We'll call you 8 was, well, people can take it off -- off the clip 9 in . a seu minutes. 9 and read it right nov. They have been doing it.
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Very good, 10 But -- so I went ahead and added the words 'fron .
11 MR. CALLAN: I'n going to put this 11 this area." I believe it pas.
12 on nute. Okay. 12 MR. SANBORN: I need to Dennis, 13 (Short break.) 13 then. What nade you to question the posting?
14 MR. CALLAN: Okay. We're back on 14 MR. KEATING: We received word 15 the record. 15 that there was sone questicu as to whether the 16 Mr. Cottle. We have one follou-up 16 posting had been nade and that there was sone 17 question. and I'n going to ask Mr. Gary Sanborn. 17 vording that nav have given a wrong impression.
18 please. to ask that. 10 MR. SANBORN Ok ay .
19 MR SANBORN: Yes. I want to 19 MR. KEATING: So We fixed it.
20 address it to Mr. Frev. You talked about having 20 MR. SANBORN How long did it take 21 clarlfled the posting of the Smith Departnent of 21 fron the line the decision was issued and received 22 Labor decision to indicate that 11 should not be 22 to actually get it up? Was there any question 23 removed fron the area? 23 there about the tineliness of the posting?
24 MR. FREW Yes. 24 MR. FREW: I had it posted -- I 25 MR. SANBORN: And what pronpted 25 know it was posted on May the 20th. And the Tannie L. Snith. CSR 18171 625-4940
(
Predecisions! Enforecnent Conference - July 19, 19SS
- PAGE 145 SHEET 19 PAGE 146 145 146 1 dectslon, I think Was -- the Cate on it was March 1 cases, obviousiv With both Mr. Hyster and 2 the 13th,19 -- I don't recall -- but sonet tne in 2 Mr. Freu. And I'n confident they both share nu 3 the March. I got a call fron Joe Shepherd. We 3 deternination to prevent any discrinination 4 were responding to Mr. Cottle's letter -- the 4 against enployees for raising concerns.
5 February letter. And we were putting a progran 5 They understand nu belief that the 6 together to talk about it. And Mr. Shepherd gave 6 observations and opinions of enployees are a 7 ne a call, says here -- we'd Itke you to include 7 valuable resource in the safe operation of the 8 the Snith decision in there, also. I asked hin 8 South Texas Project. And any action that's taken ,
9 Uhat was that, that I wasn't aware of it. And 9 that discourages or perceives to discourage l 18 then he sent ne a copy of the Snith decision. 10 enployees fron raising concerns danages this 11 MR. COTTLE: And, Garv, I think 11 resource and is not tolerable.
12 that gets back to the fact that 11 cane in 10. you 12 I think that expectation had been 13 know, the surviving Ebasco part -- part of the 13 connunicated to everyone on site by the first part 14 conpanyi not directiv into Raytheon. I think We 14 of 1994. And although We've inproved on that 15 actually transmitted probably the first copy to 15 effort later, our earlier efforts should have 16 then, so -- 16 prever.ted any discrimination against Mr. Keene.
17 MR. CALLAN: Anything else? Ang 17 The question of why these ear 11er 18 other cuestions. Jin Liebernant Did we - 18 efforts were not effective in concluding the 19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. I have no 19 actions taken is not an easy one to answer, quite i 20 nore Questions. 20 honestig. There are several possibilities. And 21 MR. CALLAN: Okay. Mr. Cottle, 21 let ne just go through a couple of then. One.
22 thank you. And at this point I'll give you an 22 It's possible that the Judge is just vrong in this 23 opportunity for your closing remarks. 23 Instance.
24 MR. COTTLE: I do have just sone 24 Two. It's also beconing evident t 25 brief closing renarks. I've discussed these 25 that act tons that have been det, id to be i
l - PAGE 147 PAGE 148 I
147 140 l
1 acceptable or even taken for granted in the past. 1 orgainzations, and We admit that.
l 2 such as referring an enployee to a 2 Since then we have continued to
( devote a great deal of effort to preventing such l 3 fitness-for-duty or to a psychological evaluation. 3 4 are being found now to constitute either adverse 4 events fron nappentna by connunicating our 5 actions or potentially discrininatory actions in 5 expectations in a variety of ways. I believe the 6 the environnent of today. 6 actions taken since then have been ef fective, and ,
1 7 I'n not offering either of these 7 the effectiveness of sone of those itens show on 1 0 itens as an excuse for the events that occurred in 8 sone of the NRC's own evaluations.
S this case. I really only nention then to point 9 From the start of my tenure at the 10 out that both the sensitivity of our work force le South Texas Project, fostering open connunications
)
11 and the Individual in the Work force and the it has been a top priority for ne and the other j 12 potential legal implications of what constitutes 12 senior nanagers. The objective neasures indicate l
13 an acceptable action, and what has constituted an 13 that we've nade a lot of progress. But none of 14 acceptable action in the past, are both changing. 14 these neasures, or any other nanagenent actions 15 I do believe, however, that we 15 that we're aware of or that I'n aware of or have 16 were making significant progress in early 1994, 16 Identified, can ever guarantee that no individual 17 but that as, I think, Dennis said, our nessage nau 17 supervisor or nanager or co-worker ulli ever take 18 not have nade a full penetration into all areas, 18 an inappropriate action or that no individual Will 19 particularly those areos where you have high rates 19 never perceive that he's been the victin of 20 of employee turnover. 20 retallation or that the Departnent of Labor vill 21 And I think there's sone NRC 21 ever find that discrinination occurred.
22 inspection reports at that tine, or 22 Events of this sort can occur 23 contenporaneous to that time. that say reasonably 23 Ulthin any organization. But we can assure that 24 those same words. It's obviousig nore difficult 24 when such events are brought to our attention or 25 to get that nessage into the ranks of contractor 25 that takes place, that we do take appropriate Tannte L. Smith, CSR 18171 625-4940 l
Predecisional Enforcenent Conference - Jul919.19C3 PAGE 149 PAGE 150 149 150 1 action. 1 our existing work force that these efforts have 2 I think we also have to insure 2 been unsuccessful or 111usion. That kind of 3 that our own efforts to continue educating 3 nessage could deal our progran a setback.
4 supervisors, nanagers, and employees, and 4 We understand the significance of 5 sensitazing then to such events and instances have 5 these cases and are continuing to take actions to 6 to continue to be a prinary focus of the entire 6 inprove the South Texas Environnent. We ask you 7 organizat ion. We believe ve are dolng that. 7 to consider whether the current circunstances at 8 I would hope that the NRC 0 South Texas and our actions over the past two 9 Enforcenent Policy can be applied in a vav that 9 Wears could potentially Justify NRC enforcenent le recognizes sone of that progress. I think you 10 discretion in this case.
11 should also recognize that positive results of 11 And. Mr. Callan. subject to you 12 this nature are fragile when you're dealing with 12 and your staff's questions. that would conclude 13 the cultures of the organizations and the cultures 13 our presentation.
14 of the existent sites. 14 MR. CALLAN: Thank you.
15 I realize if the NRC decides to 15 Mr. Cottle.
16 inpose a civil penaltV. It vill be intended to 16 Jin Liebernan, do you have ang 17 shou that discrtnination vill not be tolerated. 17 closing connents?
18 Cleariv. that would be the ef fect. But l'n also 10 MR. LIEBERMAN: No. I don't .
19 concerned it could have an unintended ef fect by 19 MR. CALLANr Let ne ask the st 3ff 20 creating the Inpression that the events described 20 here. Anybody have any closing observations or 21 in these two decisions represent the current site 21 connents?
22 cinnate. 22 In closing this Predecisional 23 In other words, a civil penaltv 23 Enforcenent Conference. I want to note again that 24 for actions that occurred before nany of our 24 the NRC vill consider the infornation obtained 25 ef forts cane to fruition. could send a nessage to 25 today in naking an enforcenent decision and vill PAGE 151 PAGE 152 151 152 1 not t fu vou by telephone and in vrtting when we are 1 With that. this Conference is 2 ready to announce our decision. 2 closed. Thank you.
3 I renind everyone that the 3 MR. COTTLE: Thank you. ;
4 apparent violations discussed in this Conference 4 (Proceedings concluded 5 are subject to further review and nau be revised 5 at 1:00 p.n.)
6 prior to any resulting enforcenent action. and 6 7 that the statenents or expressions of optnlon nade 7 8 by NRC employees at this Conference, or the lack 8 9 thereof are not Intended to represent final 9 la Agencu positions or deterninations. 10 11 FinallW. I renind Mr. Sntth. 11 12 Mr. Slavin, and Ms. Garde on the bridge that we 12 13 have arranged a telephonic conference to begin in 13 14 about an hour. And can we set that up preciselv 14 15 for, say. 2:00 o' clock? Would that be 15 appropriate?
l 16 16 17 MR. SANBORN: That sounds good. 17 18 Yes. 18 l l
19 MR. CALLAN: 2:00 p.n. Central 29 l 20 fine. And I underst and that the arrangenents for 20 l 21 that call have been nade and f ave been 21 22 connunicated with the parties. If not, please 22 23 call us pronptiv at 800 -- 1 000 952-9677. Let ne 23 24 repeat that -- 1 B00 952-9677 -- and ask for 24 25 Michael Vasquez. 25 f annie L. Snith. CSR (817) 625-4940
l .
l Predecisional Enforc*nent Conference - July 19, 1993 )
l PEE 153 SHEET 20 l 153 1 STATE OF TEXAS I 2 COUNTY OF TARRANT l 3 l 4 I. Tannte L. Sntth, Certified Shorthand t 5 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, hereby 6 certify that the foregotne pages contain a full, ;
l I 7 true and accurate transcription of the proceedings l l
8 as taken stenographically by ne at the line and 9 place Indicated.
10 11 WITNESS MY liAND this the 25th day of July, 12 A.D,, 1996.
]
13 1 14 15 16 I
17 TAMMIE L. SMITH, CSR Certification No. 2960 Expiration: 12/31/97 18 19 20 21 22 23 CERT FIE CO R @0RTER P. O. Box 4601 24 Fort Worth 7exas 76164-0601 817/625-4940 25 t
i f
I Tannte L. Sntth, CSR 18171 625-4940