ML20127M540
| ML20127M540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1985 |
| From: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127M511 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8505230297 | |
| Download: ML20127M540 (14) | |
Text
. _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~r mft [tg M
UNITED STATES og
'[
' "g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'O
,{
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%,+..4; MAY a 01985 NN ET MEMORANDUM FOR: ' James L. Kelley,-Administrative Judge usNac ic Sa g a d Licensing Boaro A
hEafy'ed[
rTcTr-M W 21 P1 :20 F
FROM:
Offil:e of Investigatio )s e
GFFICE Gr Sycpt 7z,,,
SUBJECT:
SHEAR 0N HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT: ALLEGED HARASSM@QffETING & SERVICI BRANCH INTIMIDATION AND FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTATION (2-84-021)
Enclosed is a copy of the Office of Investigations' Report of Investigation concerning the abov'e. named subject. This report has been reviewed and i.
sanitized for the purposes of ensuring the confidentiality of individuals
,who requested that their names not be divulged.
In addition to the sanitization to protect pledges of confidentiality, Exhibit 4 has been deleted from the report. This exhibit contains copiesofdocumentsbelongingtotheDepartment'ofLabor(DOL).
DOL has indicated that they would prefer to control release of these documents themselves. They have no objection to the summarization of these documents contained in the enclosed report being released.
I-
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/o encl:
G. H. Cunningham, III, ELD f
8505230297 850520 4
PDR ADOCK 05000400 0
PDR i
i
R CASE No.. 2-84-021
~
SERVED MAY 211985 p"Eg United States
!.I$[h..
I
- x w,my y p3~,2n w;. @,,,,, /
,.@st. is; Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 3~ %
- 1. 63,.:,VFICL'O! 5EGht. iw r!
v-
- .. W.'J' f;..;;c y..
I Paeport of hwe?OdW:
stig?u;00CKETING & SERvici 9%
atidif 4,.. -
~,
.,:t.s.
-+
Shearon Farris l\\uclear Plant:
Alleged Farassment/Intimication and
- alsification of Documentation Commitments
^
Office of Investigations a
Reported by 01:
Ril
' e6 7 s
9 e
9 i
7 m
5
Title:
SHEARON HARRIS N'JCLEAR POWER PLANT ALLEGED HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION AND FALSIFICATION OF
[;
DOCUMENTATION Licensee:
Case Number:
2-84-021 l
Carolina Power and Light Company Report Date:
5/16/85 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602.
Control Office:
0I:RII Docket No:
50-400 Status:
CLOSED Reported by:
Reviewed by:
/
MA(77u' o$
m flarry t/ Robinsofi '
games /fVorse v
Investigator 01:RII Direct 6f, 01:RII
~
t l
~
\\
App,r6'y by:
b l
1 bet B. Hayes, D)p6 tor Office of Investi ati s
WARNING t
The attached document / report has not been reviewed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.79(a) exemptions nor has any exempt material been deleted.
Do not disseminate nor discuss its contents outside NRC. Treat as "0FFICIAL USE ONLY."
SYNOPSIS i
By memorandum dated October 24, 1984, the Regional Administrator, p
USNRC, Region II requested investigative assistance from the Office of Investigations Field Office', Region II (01:RII) in the conduct.of a joint. interview with OI:RII and the Region II Technical Staff, of an alleger who claimed he had been harassed and intimidated by Carolina Power.and Light Company (CP&L) supervision because he had expressed safety concerns to them regarding the construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear-Power Plant (SHNPP).
This alleger also claimed that critical construction documentation was falsified.
.t i
This alleger had already filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming discrimination.tsy his CP&L supervision because of his race (oriental).
The alleger had also
. filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), charging that CP&L had fired him in violation of the Whistleblower Act.
DOL determined that the alleger had not engaged in any activity that was protected by the Whistleblower Act, but CP&L settled out of court with the alleger on the EEOC complaint. The CP&L legal staff advised that the alleger's 3
attorney had initiated the suggestion of the possibility of a settle-ment. CP&L legal also stated that they'd'id not' settle because they felt they would lose the case, but because the settlement amount was 4
relatively insignificant as compared to t'he anticipated resources, time, and expense required to take the case through litigation.
At the initial interview of the alleger, it was preliminarily apparent that the construction concerns that the alleger had brought to his supervision were not nuclear safety-related, and that he had no actual indication of intentional wrongdoing on the part of the licensee with respect to his concerns about construction documentation. These documentation concerns pertained to the purchase of steel under a cancelled purchase order number, and the discarding, into a trash can, of QC pipa hanger inspection documents.
l The construction concerns, the purchase order concern, and the inspection document concern were addressed by Region II Technical Staff.
Although the alleger was not in a QA/QC capacity, and although the construction concerns that he claimed to have been harassed for bringing up were not nuclear safety-related, OI conducted an investi-gation to determine if the alleger had been harassed by his CP&L x
supervision for any reason.
A total of thirteen of the alleger's co-workers were interviewed, as well as the two CP&L employees who were alleged to have committed the harassment and/or intimidation.
None of the co-workers interviewed ever observed any harassment or intimidation of the alleger by either of the CP&L supervisors.
Both CP&L supervisors denied harassing and intimidating the alleger. The alleger's immediate supervisor was generally described by the alleger's co-workers as be 9g professional, unemotional, hard-working, and impartial.
Six of the thirteen had 1
@Y n i k 2-84-02A
o some problems with this immediate supervisor's leadership ability and lack of nuclear construction experience.
Seven of the thirteen stated.that the alleger had the attitude that he was superior to everyone, that he was emotional and excitable, and had some degree of a communication problem due to a language difference.
Three of thirteen made negative remarks about the alleger's engineer-ing competence.
Two of thirteen indicated acceptable competence.
The remainder did not feel qualified to judge the competence of the alleger's work.
Both CP&L supervisors
- commented on their gradual realization that the alleger was not performing satisfactorily.
They outlined the progression from informal counselling, to formal counselling, to probation, to termination.
The alleger permitted himself to be deposed before representatives of both CP&L and the.NRC at Raleigh, NC on February 25, 1935. At this time, both his technical and his harassment concerns were addressed, explained, and resolved.
The status of this investigation is CLOSED.
2 Case No. 2-84-021
k TABLE OF CONTENTS
/.
i l
Page No.
SYNOPSIS..........................
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................
3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS...................
4 INTERVIEWEES.. '.. ~........
3 5
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION..................
6
-Predication......................
6 Purpose of Investigation
6 Background
6 Results of Investigation 7
Conclusion 9
LIST OF EXHIBITS............
10 i,
l-t i
3 Case No. 2-84-021 L
r APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
'1.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Section 210a.
2.
~
3.
Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001,'(False Statements).
4.
.10 CFR 50, Appendix B (Maintenance of QA Documentation).
t
~.
~
4 Case No. 2-84-021
j INTERVIEWEES t.'"
CHRISCOE, William Patterson, Engineer, CP&L, Mechanical Hanger Section, Exhibit 7 DiBLASI, Theodore Anthony, Lead Ha.nger Engineer. Daniels Construction Company, Exhibit 9
^
,Txhibit 8 FULLER, Alexander Graham, Principal Engineer, CP&L, Exhibit 21 GERMANY, Charles Regan, Systems Hange'r Engineer, Tompk' ins and Beckwith Company, Exhibit 12 GLASS, Margaret, CP&L Staff Attorney, Exhibit 6 HARTLEY, William Carl, Engineer, CP&L, Exhibit 19 3
~
Exhibit 18 JACKSON, Johnny Hanger Engineer, Daniels Construction Company, Exhibit 17 JOHNSON, James P., Engineer, Tcc:pkins and Beckwith, Exhibit 15 JONES, Richard, CPSL Staff Attorney, Exhibit 6 LEE, Jerry Dedgs, Hanger Engineer Supervisor, Daniels Construction Company, Exhibit 20 NASH, Larry Wayne, Hanger Engineer, Tompkiiis and Beckwith Company, Exhibit-10 NEWTON, Leslie Eugene, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, Exhibit 14 POLLARD, Gary Allen, Hanger Engineer, CP&L, Exhibit 16 PRUITT, Michael L., Hanger Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, Exhibit 11
, Exhibit 13 WILLETT, Edwin Eugene, Manager of Piping and Instrumentation, CP&L, Exhibit 22 5
Case No. 2-84-021
r DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Predication This investigation was predicated upon receipt of a memorandum, dated-October 24, 1984, from James P. O'REILLY, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC to the Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II-(OI:RII), which' requested investigative assistance in an interview of Chan Van VO to be conducted, jointly with representatives of the Region _II Technical Staff (Exhibit 1).
Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was'to determine if,'as sileged by VO in his affidavit received by the Region II Staff on October 10, 1984;.(1) VO was harassed and intimidated by his CP&L supervisors for bringing safety concerns to their attention, and (2) critical
-construction documentation was falsified.
Background
Chan Van VO was terminated from his employment as an engineer for CP&L at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant -(SHNPP) on February 29, 1984. The reason cited on the official termination documentation was
~
" Unsatisfactory Performance"_(Exhibit 4 Page 26).
On August 6, 1984, VO filed race discrimination charges against-CP&L with the Raleigh, NC area office, Equal Employment Opportunity
. Commission (EEOC) (Exhibit 4, Pages 57 and 58).
CP&L settled with VO, and the EEOC complaint was dismissed on November 15, 1984 (Exhibit 4 Page 53). CP&L Staff Attorneys Richard JONES and Margaret GLASS advised OI:RII that the suggestion of a possibility of a settlement in l
the VO matter was initiated by V0's attorney.
JONES advised his
!^
recommendation to settle with VO was not based upon any thought of possibly losing in litigation, but was based upon the settlement amount being relatively insignificant as compared to the cost of CP&L in manpower and resources to take the case through the full'litigative process (JONES and GLASS Results of Interview is Exhibit 6).
On September 13, 1984 (approximately one month after V0's submission of his EEOC complaint, but prior to its disposition), the Department i.
of Labor (DOL) received a complaint from VO, alleging that he had been L
terminated by CP&L in violation of the Employee Protection Provisions l
of the Energy Recrganization Act (ERA) (Exhibit 4, Pages 59-62). On l
October 10, 1984. CP&L.was notified by DOL of their (DOL's) determina-tion of no violation on the part of CP&L with respect to this ERA complaint (Exhibit 4, Page 1. Para. 10).
Additional'extentive investigation into the circumstances surrounding the termination of VO was done by CP&L personnel and a consultant from Duke Power Company (Exhibit 24).
6 Case No. 2-84-021 f
L
V Results of Investigation On November 1, 1984 VO was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L.
t Robinson and William P. ANG, Region II Staff (Exhibit 2).
VO was
?
accompanied by his attorney,JRobert GUILD.
This interview centered on four main concerns by V0. (1) That a voided purchase order number had been used by CP&L to purchase steel.that was to be used in plant construction; (2) A steam generator feedwater pump discharge pipe was improperly " cold pulled" and welded onto one of the pump nozzles, causing unacceptable stresses in the nozzle; (3) That portions of pipe support inspection records had been apparently discarded into a trash w
can, and (4) That'when VO brought these and other safety-related items to the attention of his supervisors at CP&L, his concerns were ignored and/or discredited, and he.was subsequently harassed and intimidated by CP&L supervision and management, primarily Alex FULLER, because he voiced these concerns.
In this interview, VO provided no evidence of any indication or knowledge that there was any intentional wrongdoing in connection with concerns (1), (2), or (3) above.
He stated that he had no indication that CP&L intentionally used a cancelled purchase order number to order steel.
He stated that he thought it.was just lack of comunication and coordination between the field and the purchasing department.
He also stated that, although he found portions of pipe support inspection records in a trash can, he had no inoication that anyone from CP&L was intentionally destroying required inspection documentation. These concerns'were addressed by the Inspection Staff of Region II and were itemized in Inspection Report No. 50-400/84-43 (Exhibit 5).
In response to V0's allegation of harassment, thirteen of V0't fellow engineers in the piping / hanger section, who were either presently, or at one time under the supervision of FULLER, were interviewed regard-ing their knowledge of any harassment or intimidation of VO by FULLER.
These engineers were also questioned about their knowledge of anyone in CP&L supervision or management ignoring or " stonewalling" any nuclear safety concerns brought to CP&L supervision by VO, or anyone else. These engineers, some employed by CP&L, some by Daniels Construction Company, and some by Tompkins and Beckwith Company, were also questioned regarding FULLER's supervisory style, and whether FULLER had ever harassed or intimidated any of them.
The following personnel were interviewed:
William Patterson CHRISCOE, Engineer, CP&L, Mechanical Hanger Section (Exhibit 7); Theodore Anthony DiBLASI, Lead Hancer Engineer, Daniels Constr n Compan (Exhibit 9 -
7 Ixii nhes egan a Y. Systems xs,,,.
Hanger Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company (Exhibit 12); William Carl HARTLEY, Engineer, CP&L (Exhibit 19)
- =vz.rs Exhibit
- Johnny ON, Hanger Engineer, Daniels Construction Company (Exhibit 17); James P. JOHNSON, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith (Exhibit 15); Larry Wayne NASH, Hanger
- ngir,eer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company (Exhibit 10); Leslie Eugene NEWTON, Engineer, Tompkins arid Beckwith Company (Exhibit 14); Gary Allen POLLARD, Hanger 7
Case No. 2-84-021
Engineer, CP&L (Exhibit 16); Michael L. PRUITT, Hanger Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Compar.y (Exhibit 11);
~
~
~
~(Exhibit 13)
None of the engineers interviewed ever observed any harassment or intimidation of VO by FULLER.
None of these engineers knew of any nuclear safety-related concerns that. VO had brought to FULLER's attention that had been ignored or " stonewalled" by FULLER.
Most of these engineers described FULLER's supervisory style as being professional, unemotional, unbiased and hard-working.
~
One described FULI.ER as having a tendency to " talk-down" to his people.
Two said FULLER's inexperience'in nuclear construction supervision, added to his tendency to," blindly follow the company (CP&L) line," made him unreceptive to engineering suggestions from subordinates with prior nuclear construction experience.,-
The remaining majority of the thirteen either praised FULLER's management style, or they had no problems with FULLER. Two thought FULLER was too lenient with his people.
One thought that Van VO received preferential treatment by FULLER because Van VO was a minority (Exhibit 19, Page 1).
Seven of these thirteen engineers stated that'VO had the attitude that he was superior to everyone in the section that he was emotional and
. excitable, and that he had a problem communicating and understanding because of his language difference.
One of the thirteen had been in a verbal and physical confrontation with VO (Exhibit 12).
Alex FULLER and Ed WILLETT were both interviewed (Exhibits 21 and 22) and categorically denied any harassment or intimidation of Chan Van V0.. Both stated that they could not recall VO ever coming to them with a true nuclear safety-related concern.
WILLETT stated that V0's personal problems of having some of his family remaining in Vietnam, plus V0's refusal to recognize a backlog of problems in his area of responsibility in waste disposal, and V0's refusal to accept constructive criticism of his job performance, all led to an eventual level of unsatisfactory performance en V0's part and thus his termination.
FULLER advised that what he initially thought was a language problem of communication and understanding with VO eventually surfaced as inadequacies in engineering judgment and an inability to organize and accomplish his work.
FULLER also advised that what V0 may have interpreted as inaction on his (FULLER's) part when VO brought construction concerns to him was the fact that FULLER had knowledge of documentation and/or corrective action in process on that cencern that VO was not aware of.
8 Case No. 2-84-021 m
sw'
-~-e,- -,
k On February 26, 1985, Chan Van VO permitted himself to be deposed by representatives of CP&L with NRC representatives also present. At f.
this time, V0's technical concerns and supervisory conflict concerns s'
were explained and resolved.(Exhibit 23).
Conclusion There was no evidence developed to indicate a pattern of harassment, intimidation, or pressure to resign resulting from VO bringing safety concerns to his supervisors, which ultimately resulted in the termina-tion of V0's employment by the licensee.
Based on V0's testimony on. November 1, 1984, there was no evidence or indication of intentional destruction of required QA documentation by CP&L, and no evidence or indication that the misuse of the purchase order number was anything other than a lack of communication and/or coordination between the field and purchasing (Exhibit 2).
V0's concerns regarding construction deficiencies, discarded inspection documentation, and the misuse of a purchase order number were addressed and will be resolved by NRC Region II inspection personnel (Exhit 5).
3 i
l P
I Case No. 2-84-021
/
LIST OF EXHIBITS 1.
Memorandum of request for investigative assistance and affidavit
- 2. -Transcript of Interview of Chan Van VO, dated November 1, 1984, of.Chan Van VO, dated October 24, 1984, 18 pages 114 pages
~ '
3.
Letter from Chan Van VO, citing his corrections to his transcript of November 11, 1984, 20 pag 6s i
4.
Copies of Documents from review of_ Department of Labor investigative files, 66 pages 5.
Copy of Regicn II, NRC Inspection Report No. 50-400/84-43, dated December 14, 1984, 9 pages 6.
Results of. Interview of Richard JONES and Margaret GLASS, dated February 13, 1985, 1 page 7.
Results of Interview'of William P. CHRISCOE, dated February 14, 1985, 2 pages 8.
Results of Interview of
., 3 pages 9.
Results of Interview of Theodore A. DiBLASI, dated February 15 1985, 2 pages 10; Results of Interview of Larry W. NASH, dated February 15, 1985, 2 pages
- 11.. Results of Interview of Michael L. PRDITT, dated February 15, 1985, 1 page 12.
Results of Interview of Charles R. GERMANY, dated February 15, 1985, 2 pages 13.
Results of Interview of'
.3 pages
- 14. - Results of Interview of Leslie E. NEWTON, dated February 2'O, i
1985, 2 pages 15.
Results of Interview of James JOHNSON, dated February 20, 1985, 2 pages 16.
Results of Interview of Gary A. POLLARD, dated February 20, 1985, 2 pages 17.
Results of Interview of Johnny JACKSON, dated February 20, 1985, 2 pages
- " - ~ - ' ' ' -
18.
Results of Interview ofi 2 pages 19.
Nesults or interview of William L.. NMKTLEY, dated February -21, 1985, 3 pages 20.
Results of Interview of Jerry D. LEE, dated February 21, 1985, l
3 pages.
21.
Results of Interview of Alexander G. FULLER, dated February 21.
1985, 3 pages dated February 22
-1
.22.
Results of Interview of Edwin E. WILLETT 3
.1985, 3 pages
- 23.. Transcript of CP&L Deposition of Chan Van VO, dated February 26 j
1985, 316 pages j
24.
Quality Check Program Report by CP&L on quality issues raised by Chan Van VO, dated January 15, 1985, with attachments, 49 pages
(
10 Case No. 2-84-021
. -. -,.. - -. -.. ~. - -. _.
. -