ML20134M990
| ML20134M990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1994 |
| From: | Selewski V NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134M972 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9702210144 | |
| Download: ML20134M990 (44) | |
Text
.- _ _ . . . _- ___ -__ ,
REPORT OF INTERVIEW Name: Norman Joseph Hallenbeck
Title:
Former Welding Supervisor (Resigned)
Florida Power & Light (FP&L)/St. Lucie Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 128 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0128 Home Ph n HALLENBECK was telephonically interviewed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Investigations (01) Investigator, Vanessa G. Selewski, on August 23, 1994. HALLENBECK alleged he is the victim of discrimination, intimidation, and harassment as he was given a negative performance appraisal and demoted from a welding supervisor position by his supervisor, Ernie P0 ARCH, Area Construction Supervisor, for insisting on correct work procedures. HALLENBECK provided the following information:
HALLENBECK began work at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant (St. Lucie) as a contract welding engineer for United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C) in January 1987.
He worked during outages in that position until April 1988, when he was assigned permanently by UE&C to St. Lucie as acting welding supervisor.
Sometime in August 1990, Hallenbeck became a permanent welding supervisor for FP&L in construction services at FP&L's request. HALLENB.CK'S official last day of work was May 18, 1994.
HALLENBECK has been employed for 25 years in the nuclear industry as a welding supervisor most of that time. He has worked at 14 different nuclear sites all over the country.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Following this interview, HALLENBECK forwarded documents (Attachments 1 & 2), which chronologically detail what HALLENBECK perceives to be intimidation and harassment by P0 ARCH and Herman FAGLEY, FP&L Construction Services Site Manager. Additionally, the following narrative mentions a contract supervisor, Juno engineer, and a welding engineer. HALLENBECK either did not want to disclose the names or did not recall names of these individuals.
BERGEN-PATTERSON SUPPORT During the fall 1993 St. Lucie outage, HALLENBECK held up the work schedule because of an unacceptable weld on the Bergen-Patterson support for the Component Cooling Water system, a safety-related system. Specifically, a contract supervisor reported to HALLENBECK that the root opening for a fillet weld, prior to welding, was 3/8" all around. This root opening was in {
violation of the welding manual requirements and resulted in a " gorilla weld" or weld with improper profile. HALLENBECK directed the weld to be removed
(/
Ir. form:lix in this r cc d was dehted ,
Case No. 2-@4dgance w;th the Freedom of Information / OF F/ PAGE(S)
?' PAGE Act, exernptions 2"*Mi 4 '7o229 BINDER 96-485 PDR m u.C )
1 l
l i
which showed the 3/8" opening resulted from the wrong Bergen-Patterson parts.
The Bergen support was replaced and rewelded. The weld was full of discontinuities and could have failed while in service. P0 ARCH became very upset with HALLENBECK's actions and tried to convince everyone, including the l Juno engineer, to accept the weld as it was. After this ir,cident, P0 ARCH's harassment increased because the train swap was delayed which made P0 ARCH l "look bad." According to HALLENBECK, P0 ARCH made " malicious" remarks and exhibited facial expressions to show he was upset. HALLENBECK feels his decision was correct and he " paid the price" for speaking up.
Days following this incident, P0 ARCH would not speak to HALLENBECK and purposely excluded him from meetings that were scheduled. HALLENBECK was not notified of meetings, though admits he did not attend all of the 2:00 p.m.
department meetings due to forgetting or a critical job. HALLENBECK added he is "not good" at attending meetings.
STOPPING WORK ON DEH SYSTEM HALLENBECK did not know what the acronym DEH represented.
During the last St. Lucie, Unit 1 outage, in spring 1994, HALLENBECK stopped welding work on an instrument line (DEH system on turbine deck) because the welding procedure required amendment before continuing work. Specifically, on March 9,1994, a welding engineer presented a problem to HALLENBECK regarding the welding on the DEH system, a thin wall tubing, nonsafety-related system which operates under high pressure. The welding engineer was concerned about the inadequacy of the welding procedure as the minimum amperage specified was too high for the thin tubing. HALLENBECK verified the concern was valid and directed the welding be stopped to allow the procedure to be amended by the Juno Beach FP&L office, which would take about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. HALLENBECK informed P0 ARCH of the problem and that correcting with an amendment would only take about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. In response, P0 ARCH asked HALLENBECK who knew about the problem and HALLENBECK answered himself, the welder, and the welding engineer.
P0 ARCH responded that if nobody else knew about it, to keep welding while the procedure was being revised. HALLENBECK then informed P0 ARCH that could not be done; welding had to be placed on hold until the revision was complete.
P0 ARCH became angry and HALLENBECK told him that he would let him know when he received the amended procedure. The amendment took about 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
HALLENBECK explained that subsequent to this incident, P0 ARCH harassed him about not attending meetings and began giving his employees directions, claiming he could not find HALLENBECK who would normally give directions.
HALLENBECK was accused of not staying abr?ast of work activities. HALLENBECK feels this harassment resulted from his not doing what P0 ARCH directed or wanted. HALLENBECK feels he did not fit into the new regime because he did not want to bend rules to cut costs.
SHIFT REASSIGNMENT AND JACOBS INCIDENT HALLENBECK feels P0 ARCH " poisoned" the thinking of his welding engineers because they were loyal and then turned "100 percent" against him. Everything in his work group was going smoothly until April 1994, when HALLENBECK was placed on 3rd shift to assist with 24-hour coverage of the pressurizer crack EXHIBIT N Case No. 2-94-018 2 L OF #c7 PAGE(S)
PAGE
repair. Ted SKIBA was the welding supervisor on 2nd shift and Dale JACOBS, a welding engineer who HALLENBECK supervised, was placed on 1st shift. JACOBS and HALLENBECK had been friends for the past 7 or 8 years and JACOBS worked under HALLENBECK's supervision since 1988, yet something happened that changed that while HALLENBECK was on 3rd shift.
On April 12, 1994, JACOBS was acting very irritable aM HALLENBECK asked him to talk privately with him in the weld testing facility. Hl.LLENBECK stated he wanted to determine if something was going on during 1st shift while HALLENBECK was on 3rd shift. As HALLENBECK was asking JACOBS what the problem was, JACOBS interrupted and started screaming that HALLENBECK was a " mother fucking" liar. HALLENBECK stated he was in shock as he had never seen 'JACOBS act this way before. JACOBS told HALLENBECK that everything that has come out of his mouth was a lie and while he (HALLENBECK) was on 3rd shift, he deleted welding files from the computer. HALLEfBECK explained he had inadvertently deleted work plant files, not permanent files. HALLENBECK asked JACOBS what made him think he would purposely delete files which were a benefit to the welders. These files were restored at HALLENBECK's request. HALLE!! BECK feels P0 ARCH " poisoned" JACOBS' thinking while he was on 3rd shift and promised him something. At this point, HALLENBECK felt he had lost control of the Welding Department and was thinking of resigning.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS HALLENBECK stated he has always received good evaluations until P0 ARCH became his supervisor in early 1993. The evaluation, dated January 1,1993 to ,
January 1, 1994, c by P0 ARCH, reveals, on a scale of 1 (low) to 4 (high), ratings of . The 1 evaluation, dated January 1, 1994, to January 1, 1995, s ting of (Attachment 3). HALLENBECK also forwarded previous performance eval tions in which he was positively rated by other supervisors (Attachment 4).
On May 10, 1994, HALLENBECK was called into FAGLEY and P0 ARCH's office to discuss his performance evaluation. Some of the items listed were the same complaints made by JACOBS, and HALLENBECK was concerned that JACOBS had heard about or seen his evaluation (Attachment 2, pp. 7 & 8). FAGLEY and P0 ARCH's accusations against HALLENBECK included being combative with and not listening to employees, deleting computer files, instructing employees to not talk during meetings, and to not talk to other employees. HALLENBECK informed P0 ARCH and FAGLEY that those accusations were not true and taken out of context.
VOICING CONCERNS HALLENBECK had previously met with FP&L Human Resources Manager, Andy DES 0!ZA on November 5, 1993, regarding problems he had with FAGLEY and P0 ARCH.
HALLENBECK also met with the Employee Assistance Program Counselor, Geri SMITH on November 11 and 18, 1993. HALLENBECK also visited his private doctor on November 22 and 30, 1993 (Attachment 2, pp. 3 & 4).
On May 11, 1994, HALLENBECK reported to the site medical facility for severe nausea and at this point, felt very upset that he had been set up and his career ruined because he would not do " shady thir.gs" regarding nuclear welding EXHlBIT 3 Case No. 2-94-018 3 gg
c onc er n i na weldina on the DEH system. Inis 19 tnin wall tubino end was non safety related but EXHlBIT 3
PAGE Q OF 4 9 PAGE(S) i
-. - - - _. . .- -. .. - -. ._ . _ _ - . ~ . - - .--- - --
i s
i Pace No. 6 i
did operate under extremelv hioh oressure. Ine concern ;
was that the Weldina Procedure beina used was inaaecuete for weldina this than of tunina as the minimum smoerece soec 1 f led was to h a ch. 1 investzoated and tounc' st ec tw true. I directed that tne weldina De stocoec until I could get this procedure revised by the Juno beach ot tice where the procedures oriornate from. This was oniv a change to a nonessential variable and it needed oniv to be ammended which would only take about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for the paperwork. I went to Ernie to inf orm him of the problem l and told how lona it would take to correct so we could 1 resume welding. Ernie asked me "Who knows about this?'and I said myself, .the Field Weldina Enaineer and the Welder and I asked why?. Ernie said to me "If nobody j else knows about it, keep welding while your getting the procedure revised". I said we could not_do that as vou must be welding in accordance with a cualified weldina procedure and until it gets revised, we can not weld.
This made him very unhappy and I paid dearly for it in the days followina with all kinds of harrassment because j J didn't do what he wanted or directed.
4/12/94 Une of the employees (Dale Jacces), wno reoorts directiv to me was actina very irriteole. I asMed if we could oc over to the Weld lestina Facility and talk orivetelv.
which he screed. I wanted to f ind out what was coina on since 1 was .)ust comina oft the tn1rd snitt where 1 was asslaned by the Plant Manaaer to oversee the weldina of
. the Pr essur l::er Replacement No::les. (Golna to the weld test facility was normal practice for me and my st at t es i we could hold trainina sessions or talk in or Ivate. ) Mr.
Jacobs and myself were triends both socially and at wor k for the last 7 or 8 years. Mr. Jacobs has worked under my direction since 1988. We had an excellent workina relationship. Something haopened durina the time I was on third shift. When we arrived at the Test facility, I started to ask Mr. Jacobs what the problem was and bef ore l
I could finish, he came out of his chair screamina and i pointing his finger in my face while stattna that I was n ot h i n g b ut a M------ F ------ l i ar . This was totally out of context for the Mr. Jacobs I have known for the cast l
7 or 8 years. I was in total shock and as any supervisor would have done, I let him rant and rave until he act it off his chest for tear of provokina the situation. He stated that everythina that comes out of mv moutn I
e EXHIBIT 3 --
PAGE__13.0F y PAGE(S).
b I
Page No. 7 is a liv. He stated that while I was on the third shi f t I deleted Welding files f rom the computer which I did not knowanaly. The files that were deleted were workina files to make our work easier and were not permanent ;
plant files. By same cuirk in the comouter, while I was i deletina personal flies it was deletina the welcino working files. I asked Mr. Jacobs what made him think 1 l would del et e there tiles when they are a benefit to l myself as well as others. That would De like snontino yourselt in the toot. I notified our comourer exrert several times before this happened. lhe comouter has a backup system and all celeted tiles were restored at my request. It was very apparent that Mr. Jacobs hao the approval of Ernie Pearch before screamino at me because he had absolutely no respect or f ear of retribution as 1 was his supervisor. He didn't care about beina insubordinate to his supervisor. It is very aoparent that while I was on the third shift, that Ernie Poarch had somehow poisoned Mr. Jacobs thinkino somehow with some promises or something that I don't know. I am l thinking of resigning as I now appear to have lost control of the Welding Dept.
5/10/94 Ernie and Herman call me in Hermans office to discuss something. I had no idea what the meetina was about.
Thet hanced me a revised copy of my Employee Per f ormance Evaluation. I reso this in total shock as the items listed were the identical words said to me by Mr. Jacons in the Test Facility with some additional items. lhe cradina for FPL employees is 1 to ' with I beino the worst and 4 beina the Dest. I am vears of ace ano have been involved with Nuclear Weldino since 1 was aoout 26 years old and I have never receivec e bed evaluetion.
All my previous emplovee evaluations
/)I ff have been excellent. Un this evaluation my ratano in most areas were droceed to Nc nd stated in parts
- 1. I was combatsve wath other employees
- 2. I will not listen to my employees
- 3. 1 deleted f rom the computer 1mportant weldina files
- 4. I told my employees not to talk to other dept.
personnel
- 5. I told my employees when they go to meetinas not to say anything EXHIBIT J PAGE- I V 0 F If 9, PAGE(S)
~
- - . ~- - - ~ - .- . _ .. . . - - - - .
I 4
Page No. 8 I indicated to both Herman and Ernie that these accusations were aDsolutely not true and some were out of context. I guess when you don't let people weld the way they want to thats combative and when you tell your j employees that when in meetinas don't say anythino unless !
your absolutely sure of the answer that means not to sav anythina at all. In anger, discust and confusion over i whats happenina,-1 suagest to them to put Mr. Jacobs or Mr. Kunkel in my position and maybe that will make everybody haopy and Ernie will cet someone that will do i what he wants regardless of the end result. It is so 4 obvious as to the covert dealinos of Ernie Poarch. Dele
, Jacces, Jerry Kunkel and Herman F aclev. I'm at a loss.
b/11/94 1 report to the site hedical facility for severe meusee and the site Doctor prescribes some medication. in1G j
} ~
whole issue has taken its toll on my entire life end it '
upsets me terribly that I can be set uo this wav and a 4 career ruined because I won't do shady thinos in Nuclear Weldina Activities. l 3
S/17/94 A letter was put out by Ernie Poarch relievina me et mv reponsibilities as Weldina Suoervisor and placina Mr.
Dale Jacobs in charoe of runnina the day to cav Weldinc operations. I am devasted by this latest move Dv Ernie.
S/18/94 On my own I co back to the Emoloyee assistance procram i and I retained an Attorney with nowhere else to turn to.
NOTES:
1 1.On another incident durino the fall outaae, on a safety related system, Component Coolina Water. Seismic support. It was reported to me by e contractors supervisor that t h e r oot openino for a fillet weld orlor to welaing was at a minimum of 3/8" all the way arounc.
The supervisor raised this concern to me after u.L. had told them to weic it uo. Inis root ooenino clo not meet the reautrements of the Weldina Manual t her eev resu i + in,
, in what is commonly called a cor111a weld or a welo with improper profile. 1 investicated the complaint and
' directed the wela to be removec which later revealed a 3/8"+ root ooenina. Ernie was verv uoset with me cirecting the weld to be .
EXHlBIT O PAGE ff 0F SCI PAGE(S)
Pace No. 9 removed. Ernie the best part of two (2) davs trvino to get Nuclear Engineerina to acceot it as 1s. which they supported me in its removal . This is another example of Ernie Poarch's thinking when it comes to weldino. After the weld was removed it was determined that the two i Bergen Patterson parts were the wrone ones which was cause for the excessive root openino. Ernie's harassment {
increased drastically after that incident because 1. bv l directing the removal of that weld almost delayed train swap and that would make him look bad. Also, durina the removal of that weld, it was full of discontinuities and the weld might have f ailed while in service. My decision was correct and I have paid the price.
I I
1 4
1 I
d J
I 1
i I EXHlBl --
PAGE_ b _OF_ yy PAGE(S)
I
. PERFORMANCE mwn,a aeview worksieer scar ev0ALS ARE Specisc &asunable h .
ReleventTrackable '
EO i; Norman J. HaBenbeck 'b Construction Supervisor E-7 N
o Employee Name Employee Soc. Soc. No. Employee ClassiTei Review Period f(Gm To p
C Emest O.Poarch Area Construction Super isar PSilD29 4041 11183 1/184 o b i Reviewer Name Reviewer's ClassiEcahon MaWPay 1.ocation <
Phone 8-i
' Key Responsibility Area: u==== (% T -
4 i=== sm .aam.he.a..r meme=ota=mia 2 -
s :p n.y , aar = . aps est S.: enwrr s n no e man. no.asa m m. e,== p,.amut Actual Resultalcomments: n % ., Rig -F me. : e. .cn.e m. .e n. me,.a.m
=m.m.hehedmann es easmuseans n er em ,. g e , % p i Ou; Q,
- 1. KRA.Provent weldhg caused eners SMART Gael 1."C. Cy ^ .ad caused NCR's and DR's should be 0, wah y s arw=y*=se. Emts being two or less. { 1 au.
O D.
- 2. KRAMaintain contrat of contraciors, gJ GoatZero special erocess crooram vblatbns forweldino sub contractors. wth~
^
- . . _M_ limits tminn one er less.
r-
- t G
8
=
r~- t
- 3. KRAMaintain budget control M SMART Goat Do not anraad weldino mandabis and oculoment budoets 3> !
',t b
g l m -
~
C3 !
i g . - - -
D!
m g' I n
?&
p .$- tolW s
.. . . =. _
a b
, . . . - . - ~ . . . . . . . . - . . . - - - . - . - . - . . . - - - - - .
. R
! lr iy n !> i: liit9 L
i lalji,jI!N m " i ,4 f ij!
t .g
!II iH t,1
! ! a if- 6 -fa
! { *
[ g!as :
f 8
l, l ll
[i I
e rl' It I '
llg-4
[I ! >l I as 1 i
! !i f ig al II l 1l 5 F' 10a 8
!*I
[I i
l I I
! I I kF I l
2
'g!
- 9 _ f-rt lJ 1
4 ..
.I. II l ! rlI i /v! ; 1 P i 4
!_.f.h lI I 1 .i I i i e i t
i l 4 kO o :
i i
g P ' '
l g 1 I g
i i I I l
[I n'
l ttk AIN- 2-94 THU 12:02
, *?v'Mr>
407 468 4117 P.03
(sh0Vd /4 30 L/ 39Vd
, (NilalHX3 GeRFORMANCEsenaina a noview m*s.w surocw.saansp.cac houraw Amtem hant Eckable o Norman J. HaBenbeck b Construction Supvr. E Review Period '
Employee Name Employee Soc Sec. No. From Empeyes Classification To Emest O. Paarch Area Construction Supervisor PSU929 G1 #1/94 Review:r Name Wif95 Renewer's N*% AdailfPay location Phone -
hy Responsibility Aros:m.w.wim ,im eum. an emu.a.eum, nas, Actual Results/ Comments: n
. e u anne, sa suantoman m een m n e e i.e.., ,.een an.s m =i...es m Rallag
- e. .a w madeas .amn. a. mans.4 a.m. eens..aews str usumer moa.No.s n.*
e assanseess .sm-eafewesames.a 1.0 - 4.0 l 1. MRA:34stude and desolg ; ,_s to neeeree beest h their SeM.
SMART GoaLDudne nonendega, spend a specEsd arnoont elabne periseek br kehing am Sie m.w ulas Massat, snaihe new earmeenerssectsm.
i 1
2.xar i
j eeooie oo noi inne conoincerx: eusia.s.wnh voo.
l 1
j-
- f 4
l
!4 e
I
~ ,. w I / ma i
-nw--.e, .,-.,.e...-.--. . , - ~ , , - - _ , - - - , - . - - ~ , - . , . - ~ , - ------~~.------.--~,.,----_.--.n~_.~--..~ ~ , - - . - - - ~ ~ - , . . - - . . ,.,-w--,--,e--n~-.w,w-----,-.--o,v.
"q
^ *
{
{ {
2 l } I s
I i
l s
[,
' i' af i li il 4
ll l1,
,)
t i
,x
- I h, ;
'g'
! I 4
f
- I l l i ,
1
- g . -
r v
I '
1
/ .
l wi r y
l l f f I g, i
I I[' I j f I 't It I
i i 4 t .i .
f f i i li
- i t)
! Ji ~
l '
-- i ,I
- 11 ) e ll tj Y
} tl 0
- { s U W
, % m.
l
[& mO j
4 I I I NO e rg
- l. E l ! l ! { l l I ! ua
- s o i
i '$
I
?
) n na crypt geenC A07 ADO A447
EMPLOYEE CONFIDENTl/
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM S v^ '"^*" " ' " '
T E EMPLOYEE NO. CLASS /G RADE LOCATION / PR'OJECf H 3* //si i n A c u S Y / .3 7 Y V/ W M .ox s a o 7 ~2 7 0 LITIES PERFORMED fpp,pps c [ p p f o , ,, / ) ,, ,,( ,7, ,g w ey, ppg
- 5 ,,o 12:dusent D,ss e rin a o N Asrio~a Yc,c 6 Rssa<,ni,'~ci bixi n mmee ricas .
As.ex- m s d a unte W A c o,a w o$ zhe,Arirar,,sr,e u lA, v, rs sa s, u* n o,c o e # 's 60.4 enx7/pic#n$w 2x u.c c. _*7 Dec o ws .
1 ff0AM S ALAft3 0 S #f en t kb s e OMkNsv 7%
nount of supervision required heavy O typical 7 light O
'ERFORMANCE cry ,,,
CAT.
nor APPL EITN "Ide'* '*f$s" PERFORMANCE xev ,,, Nov NETE "IEe** **I$s CATEGORIES macuy- meaty, - me_o u y' - CATEGORIES CAT. -APPL. RE - mE - RE PRODUCTIVITY RESPONSIBillTY Job Knowledge
- 14. Serf oevetooment Ow.tity 15. Foresight Quaatity 1e. Inetlative b .g Schedules 17. Probi.m Analysis me.ource vents tics MENT SUPERVISION /MA' a co. 4 ..<en / 18. g*pfoa M4kine CORK HABITS 19. Desesotion' o no.ouay 20. ort.ne. tion .
Tim. u.n em.n t ai. i...d.c. hie l,
, ,,,,,n,,y n. mi.enin. .
contro :ine RELATION 5 HIPS 23.g.,gniene.
com,,,. n
- 24. ggg ,,,,,,
c~~aa
E* % ":. ,.b ,
ca..,,m ..n. =.;r,y,v,,
t I.**.*.*,".*.*** 1
_ EVALUATOR'S OVERALL RATING EAS OF PR (CIENCY/JOS ACCOMPLISHMENTS ~~
\\ I" th
~ . . . . . . . 1 1 APR65fEMENTS OVER LAS ES FOR FURTH LOPMENT (irtdicate which)
AREAS NEEDING lMPHOVEMENT ACTION ITEMS T -
Rai hJ No.: 6$ f 2 4 d Date: M!MM Evalu r: --
2-/<7$ ,
No.: 3 ld lYl0 l7 f 7 l Date: , %
EMPLOYEE COMMENTS EXHIBIT 3 PAGE_ .2LOF_ 4 #l PAGE(S Employee f L W il i Date b'N '90
. s CAREER DISCUSSION ,_
REQUESTED RcCOMMENDED BY EMPLOYEE 7 BY EVALUATOR?
~
-. . i
,i w
- 1
i C.
~
G
[ EMPLOYEE congiosuri PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM EVALUATION PERIOD TO j _ 7Iio l IA '
EMPLOYEE NO. CLASS / GRADE LOCATION / PROJECT, l AWez.sv8sce A/.J 5- y / 3 6 6 25 /FLD al6. F11DLAMD M l 1
8UTIES PERFORMED 'I?E\/IEvd LIELDIMC, TYrUMEhlTgtQL} QJ/1 IQT260 CESS . .
{ As WELL AS FtMAL kit tT)IMspt:rTiords. LEuo rvr>-tuicAt 'DIRErTiok] AUD_Of l
ASS 1 STANCE To CRAFT. SUDEmil%\nM. ELIGluPPRIM61kl i WF)Dlkle RFI ATFD s -
dTTES WHEd ErfDulEN OR Rr-caDEsrED.'REcoET DAllr AcTiVITin T.o L FW
=
v 3 g ' I
%k eason for evaluation anne.ilO 3 rnonthO OtherB Explain:g 7g2p]gyg7lgg
.rnount of supervision required y heavyO typicalE
'ishtI PERFORMANCE KEY NOT CAT. APPL APPL MEEr O RE RE- PE P. FORM ANCE gEy noy "YE M
R O RE u CATEGORIES RgigE- MENTS MENTS CATEGORIES C AT. ,,, APPL A IRE TS MENTS Lt E N1 PRODUCTIVIT& d RESPONSIBILITY -
Job Kncaledge 13. Self oewelopment Oustity 1 14 Initiative r tity
- 15. Problem Analysis
! A.. .ing scheduim SUPE RVISION/MANAG EMENT Resource UtilirstIoe * * "
i j Co'st Awareness 17. Delegation WORK HABITS 18. Leadership
. o e 21.
RELATIONSHIP $ ,o n n, Communication Nr*
23 Cooperation gegufu Client Relations g , , , EVALUATOR *S OVERALL RATING Supervision k JOB ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHICH SUPPORT MEETS / EXCEEDS RATINGS 3.
I
' '~~
j e x siaiT A f
PAGE_ 23 0F_ y 9 PAGE(S) l /e J' l
~~
8-
. . - - . - - _ . . - . . . .. . .-.. _ . - - - --- - _ - - - - - . - - -- - -----=- --
- L.= Q:
CONFIDENTIAL lLT. IMPROVEMF.NTS OVER LAST EVALUATION PERIOD . x'
- 0. -
^
l_
bT. AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT / OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT (indicate which) l O.
i /
l _ s -
i 4
! l-j -'
"c.
r l .
1 i.
l -
4 J
! T. ACTION ITEMS i \
f j . . .
6 i
1 Evaluator:
No.: Z 7 3 51.1- I o,,,: .7 /13/SF No.:!D!/IklOl/l[l Revie Date: a
/
- EMPLOYM ' COMMENTS j - .
3 EXHIBIT 3 s
PAGE M OF W' PAGE(S)
I Employee Date
~
L _ER DISCUSSION YES YES !-
REQUESTED BY EMPLOYEE? RECOMMENDED BY EVALUATOR: .
No Q no ',_<; g , o ? _
t I
CONFIDENTIA l hcMPLOYEE EVALUA'.'lON PERIOD t PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM TO
/ 91 / B 3 A EMPLOYEE NO. CLASS / GRADE LOCATION / PROJECT I A u 9 3 Berr x haevi Ad 7. 54 / 3 sa tpws 26 M An.eus R iu. Lo. i+n o.,
UTIES PERFORMED hq ggp pg gmg ggg 4gg.pg,m
)A4 *H V DAv n s oame rf na) -ro psna mn u usr. Ase sa. Darn TD 7Nar vJsur n s4>d. DISO. span 9mMnM AouDl9A APAAe ytr% M/mLD DtM.UM AmuDRMo A) . IDM 1A11EDt FA CE WM Lt. eTHWEl. EnJr triers n s c A m.m m weit.orus, . /.c. AMr M&fDs PET ETC.. T)mDesmot l lan m u 4. = => rem m ninns. h isew.< porvemo ir m :=o n. c2n a co w p u 44;<
! 2/2nvs nas A s a: 1.4 momr ca st 4 e m>am n su a A e_ nwnau. .D uAP.ue unspet> v Jew >nnos ABaux)rwws Atc. art. l sason for evaluation annual ') 3-month other Explain:
l l mount of supervision required heavy typical % light [ l l
[ 4RFORMANCE KEY NOT EE PERFORMANCE KEY APPL NOT MEE u E R E-CAT. APPL, R IR E- R E-CATEGORIES CAT gppgAPPL RgigE R MENTS MENTS CATEGORIES MENTS M E NTS i RESPONSlillLITY PRODUCTIVITY ~ . --
l l Job Knowledge '13. Self Dowlopment Oustity i 14. Initiative
(' tity 15. Problem Analysla A. e.3 Schedul SUPERVISION
'O' Roeourw Utlllast t n Cost Avvereness 17. Delegetton i CORK HABITS 18. Leadernblo DepenShillry l ' $@3k Flemlbility 20. ormance l l RELATIOllSHI 21. g oy n, I
comnunleetson
- 22. E%ee coo ,e.e 23 ma, Client Reiethe I
, , , , EVALUfTOR'S OVERALL RATING W
l
< T. ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHICH SUPPORT MEETS / EXCEEDS RATINGS j ).
i i
l PAGE 7[O l
,e poln; t -. _. . _ _. _ _ - . _ - ._
m _.-_Avh_.--.--E kJ naha a ,W m A.+ w-smms4J-.-i_h.Am..eummr.me r.- sm--.-- .
-.-----_mu>_.
. CON FIDENTI Al
, AT. IM. T EVALUAlivN PERIOD O,
i i !
j Ai,
- AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT / OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT (ind' whi ~
j O.
i i
i i
i I
l
- 1 w l . T. ACTION ITEMS j a. g ..
4 e
l Evoluator.' % No.: b O O Ol#lO Date: 0 * //~ 3 l
Re,ie @ y N $ -
No.:lfl4-I Pl 714Hfl D.t.: A- n- FJ i EMPLOYEE COMMENTS l
l, EXHIBIT 3 A
{ PAGE 25 0F 4} PAGE(S i
Employee k\ M;WA
') )0 /
b/ s3 f v 14 a- 03te j ' '
CAREER DISCUSSION REQUESTED BY EMPLOYEE' RECOMMENDED BY EVALUATOR:
o -
o -
[ EMPLOYEE CONFIDENTIAL EVALUATION PERIOD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM TO
/~8-RA /~4-RU-M EMPLOYEE NO. CLASS / GRADE LOCATION / PROJECT
'OAMRN 3, HALLEN8ECM S 9 1 33 8 L &El'w $L* *L"' '~mp//m JTIES PERFORMED AS LEno FIEw wtwjMs EN6/NErn MM St)$FMul3E.S A
/
11009 of 5 PEcfLE 5tESAonss/et.g 5'oA f/GLC EA>G/s)GEA)NA 92ATA/N/AJ6-e KLD1k)G AC7)Uf 7]E5 M) A. tor RC.s 90AJ.3JA1LJ7)A'S T A>t'1 H n E 1 IAllT1MT12A"..(" M'A01A m AAw .rjnsichsEnysws cuA>>acs 7o spec.)ficATAW G-22. Aan9Aidn7/b4//APPAc -
v P S17E lAJCLDJA)G D6CUJpfMAlyAT/CAf. OlS/03 7/0A//AM. CA;* LA.lGl.D/A/S AffnTED AIG ND 0A3. 7A17s*AFAcJM& 41/ TM Tbh" /Y)dQS,. AA11~ A>AJD C' AA>D t'11&v7'uin (G YEA $6MA/KL GAJD 9At3t11b2 TEt'AllCAL Cll%R*Tk"sn1 FCA ASME cBDE C&Mft} ALAN'S rason for evaluation ' annualg 3 monthO otherO Explain: nount of supervision required heavyO typicalM light C ERFORMANCE KEY NOT MEET PERFORMANCE KEY NOT MEE RE E U CAT.gpp RE Pet gOglRE, RMENTS RE-CATEGORIES CAT appt PPL R O 1RE,R ME NTS MENTS CATEGORIES M ENTS s PRODUCTIVITY = ; RESPONSIBILITY - Job Knowledge 13. Self Development Quality 14. Initiative f 't, .
- 15. Problem Analysis Mewung Schedul SUPE RVISION/ MANAGEMENT
- 16. s on Meung Resource utilizat n Cost Avvereness i 17, colegation CORK HABITS i 18. Leedercio nt communication l U,'$8 Emp%ee Coope,.coe n. ; sate, Client Relations ,
n ,,,,n,, ,, EVAL.U ATOR'S OVERALL RATING Supeniston - i T JOB ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHICH SUPPORT MEETS / EXCEEDS RATINGS I GE _ 2LOF W PAGE(S: 1 , 9 ' [ /f'
! CONFIDENTI, j CAV. IMPROVEMENTS OVER L LO~ (ION P l* 7 i
~
l OAV.gEAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT PORTUNITIES i l ncr\ i l J f t l CATg ITEMS / NO. ,
- l l
l l l - 1 } l Evaluator ,
,b> d No.: 7lbl/l3 hl7 D.te: "b" 8 N R,.., M 6h,(O R _
No.i+'im ei7i491i O.,. /-e-g 4 I EMPLOYEE COMMENTS g EXHlBIT 3 PAGE_ 7 d F l/o PAGE(S) smoio, 1106tSub _ o.1, i,/6/W ' CAREER DISCUSSION REQUESTED BY EMPLOYEE? RECOMPnTNDED BY EVALUATOR:
- . rop mo 6
e,s., du_ Mk/.tria/4:' _ soer.=e 132'15' heWiteerg f , res //'Et# tad.ittd. "U'. Dee.,=a,312Pr 44.t4 &&'b<& aasiennesca se, ' * . ee. 3/t//Ff at.a Pf3f/4'D CONSTRUCTION DIVISION s.www/pwIn i,ein t'/PP _ T. F/Pf Indlyldual Development Program l / . i e ecserveaos s,ines,s.n meessa,ee man one,es,g.owas aws pre seg. As _ _, -- re to aspeesse*, Co.pises me fedeevis eseu,sw5 ansesue ess l sne.se es egivened on enese 1 13 On8y empte.oes e @ ouper.ise,y , espe,e.a.l,y snande to ,sies en home to .14 j gl33RR[!tTJt Does,iw premoni sh,t.e end seems en .Nen m. see .w a saase. JWess.nad 7p Jir"(@dikkedepspEtag> # Sh8 . u t, 44rWWMTe,
- TA A&hleud, unde 3tsfheead ,8aL* .".^5rn>[;tehe,4ws ar&4 4
^^ 2 Y W.SeWst0 W ADO l**_^"l*L9)lMJ A' f.$ 40V4 644'89f. se,n6*nts.b64,,
seeen s .4 ese seespoos se sesses beste essuns of Jock l penpositasocg RArtase values ecALE l . t entm aewes,. w.= w == e,= eve.n ,,,,,,,,,,, l
# & SileEP 8***a' 88 8'"888* *** 8"#""*8- Yuus penroemance asesseme.t 1 ses,s;es ese senessa and Ineseensener emases tasas to,esilari sne,e is l
e3342 sese.31:ses e me soewe nedae se se insen,eees e se es. i
- d. m Campseten of eseiyuments en e, sneed er echedens, l ,
! lee.e 8.te ene designed to,eeees mens esposts of pedesmenee messe mesmeets to se es.en, ,,
- 5. i La.ng,eemweesuln ,
, esseneseus ee6edens, ag mes setas ess.l.newei.en.one appearises cowse of es n anoangenus,.ide.aufytig j e88e868'S isestid seewees l t nee w a aines.es presucim .e,tuis ,eiscen. ( l womansa shoe wme of,es.se sun essere me Tee so,or. i
- f. M Comele, enter eeNenes to Congeny we,thg hew.
- i. ,,,,e.e e.,s. ..e.e,ee ==, e.en e,..ee.e.,
essenmens one teens an.eMe. l
.. ,,ese,,s.,. - , . . W i k ees e.e . eee-e.et -a.os.e-t m m .or,; . e .ec ..e, ..eu,s.em.-o,,os ,,,ee , .
i P'#**** l I -
,s. e ...c.a.c., % enes.u e,...e es,..e
- -,,en. -
l is comaerasic, or papponssne ansees e e,en se,eneaa.iity ans ses.eeneer. e,,e i 4
,o, e, =,= -ee,ei m m-i us. e.,,..., ,ee ~an.e,e,,,,,,
,, e.,e . s = . =n ..,,.e ,, sees e .
se u . a e.e e , .e, ,es e . -.e., e, e.e.e.e .se,s.ai. 'i
.es. l 0,sensesmes p 14 8888AA1 to ca., teamaaette.se, .. - ==
en e,e,. Aa:Litma:
.e,.e.e= pieas e-o en.e,sesa este,ts tes * !
tL _""*Resaft, ANO SUTant ama ATlaeldell,0, Estatief.e
., o. m . o. .e oe .us.e<.,es - n wei,s en eMenee s _ ,e et ae e,.e .e,,- == on.e e - e..o.e~ - -
ca en. -n . s.e.e. o.e. __, ,
.. .mu.,,se. -. -, .eia -- =,. . n
,s.o.e-ee, w .ei,,, se,.
,s 't.o u
.mee ,ee .<e ene,s. .eem,
- ase,es.o.e..e. - . , -
. ~ '
..no .een en en . e.n.ie.en, ,
ne ), 7 . .e. ,e,.e, 6009
- W * .
.m , . , p
. , , , , , , ' , , , , , , , , , , ,....r.
. ,esi co e .
i i -
,,,,s.sen,M L M x
- ,,A g W = ~ ,e,, +sAs 7 %'
e,,,e,es.,6,,,s h, m1M M ,7
. na
,.,,amTx-1*L, OEW o,.=.1,o - , . . .,e .e * '
v a .ee.v. e
...,ess,,A,GE , , PAGE(
.s,
.m . ,
.- + - , - - ,. n . . - , . , , . e .,
roa. a ise. I ' Nors Ma21enteek s ..=.__ 332h5 *" * "*8 i . . ,< .u . m.u. naet . ca..b/19/90 Ja . - U391D CONSTAUCTl06ut4ANTINANCE j EM g, 1/00 I s.w.m e _ h /AO Y. _ IndMdual t , . ; prog,em } *,. u, a e , .s. u ,, ,m.un a = .. < >=.m ..~ w,.s ne, u : u
}
i . n o., , - . .. .. . it
.a.a e. Assisned to 8t. Luele Po.er Stat 8on m s *.p ai.e wt as the tm6C-Catalytte Imad Vsla Field h'inser rernonettle for orsanisation and tr.intan. )
4 ef n.r..==.*1 anstnand to the V.id dent. a ti.nias.entat. ion of FP&I,'s Vald Control Hazmal. i
- i.=i... . = ww- M he manesnatu vauneens
] ,e a w aa w== ,,,,,,,, t m 4
- 8d ## *** EWs pga.seenas.CSas4848.sht E M
. w -
*".. ~.
g n ". liltm "." "." . .u.. a tamiaman s .. .. v.a.* j . tis e.g. I 8
- 90 d l. t9 .g h.f p I ,
s l w m -. w w
.v ~- w a '.".J5.Eu.d. . .
a ,s i a nas,veum c = , =c , -i;a.
- = .., ',
i EPN .
- a A
- w -a s M .
y 4 .. as ,nas.m , w .. . --ei. , ... , = , , *'" ~ " i u.- m =:: = . -.m ...wu .. A
- e~ p.
i evi.a 's, ... 6 ey S1
^
. ---.EI , D, ..eA.R 5CE- as.4st.
f m.ce,,.anaw .- = n.%TGb.,95 . f@ j g u.a ,
,. . - a ...., _ ,- , ._ ,
. a 1 =- m .. . - ,
3
, m =u.., .. .wrune .na.mi ,a:2 . c. a .. .
1 ma .
,- := --
m -
- .=> w ,,
I c,. u . j =wm
! it ann,w
+ . ~ e, a.e e.t ...nt .e -- ' -- - '?14.:.se m ni. . ~ .. e ..
m : m 4 oc .w. w sa = ! 1 w= - =, W Ls
~
ir. aa.rm ma.n.aa.s.s.e.w
., . a B. Ah .f9.
g l l
.ep e p ,__
~- s I - ., v . ., N ,.
1 Rae.a., m e ,. e p. n.ii u.s : 6 a. ag es e? _ ~ . I i i , l, , , ~. 6 . , . a - . w,, l - l -- - __
.,/Z Mt2 W a M . .,
- b,h I u . w i
e,. ., ... A . Vs u = C , W J V -
~. y OrsfMut 0.i. .aa. , . a.i pm i. 5.n r
! v
~ . , . .
'." '" pH1 BIT _O
'300F -Fi, PAGE(S) i I
PAGE , i I .
/
- . L. , 1;,t-
+
- R; turn tot *
- UE&C-CATALYTIC (8pERApp.FRt i Sharon KDicnio CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE DIVISION -
13-U-7 PERFORMANCE APPMAISAL DEPARTMENT 8,Fid prom Mumt i , NAME: Mr. Nortaan 3. Mallenbeck ID .# M SALARIED: I CLASSIFICATION: Field Er.einser Tech II FIELD PAYROLLS _
.l FUNCTIONAL Supp0RT: Sleidinn. Encinser i i .
PROJECT #1 8E49.149 . l LOCATIONI Jensen Beach d APPRAISER: b #. h NAC(W 8 i RATING INSTRUCTIONS i A. Rating shall be made of each philadelphia salaried or field staff employee at the completion of his/her Job assignment. (Comments on reverse. ) B. Ratina Scalet . 1. INADEQUATE (List action to be taken on reverse side.) - 4
- 2. NEEDS IMPPOVEMENT (List improvement needed on reverse side.)
- 3. CDMAETENT. (Meets standards as required by job description.)
4 HIGHLY CDMAETENT (Exceeds standards as required by Job description. )
- 5. DUTSTANDING (Reserved for only the very top performers in the organirational unit.)
. . Ratina I. COMPREHENSION: Demonstrates a thorough understanding of duties ' and responsibilities. II. TECHNICAL MNOWLEDGE: Exibits appropriate technical knoweldge
~
and ability to understand and apply company and industry j standards. l III. APPROACH Demonstrates an analytica1 and decisive approach to F
.ask assignments.
r i , I V. ATTI'TUDE: Consistently exhibits a professional attitude. 4 ! V. COMMUNICATIONS: Effectively communicates at appropriate levels _ ! within the organization and with the client (if required). VI. COOPERATION: Works toward team goals. VII. ATTENDANCE AND TIMELINESS: Maintains an acceptable and timely __ _ > record. VIII. PERFORMANCE Completes assign: cents accurately, on time and within budget, and closes out paperwork promptly, i IX. OVERALL EVALUATION:
; . n .c . v.
X. INDUBTRIAL AND RADIOLOGICAL BAFETY: Strives to meet company and *
- ALARA goals. Ensures compliance with procedures and practices %._
by subordinates. E)(HET 3 -- f THE FOLLOWING is FOR NUCLEAR SITES ONLY_ PME O 1 0F M PA I. Willingness to work in radiological environment. I i II. Ability to work with and understand the GA/QC Program.
;II. General understanding and compliance with nuclear procedures. ' IV. Overall suitability for nuclear we .
E j h [** h f . 9 d EVALUATOR V DATE EMP(OYEE \ D$E/
.- . . ,q m _
EXEMPT C 12 d>2d ppi PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
' THE PURPOSE OF THE PERFORMANCE REVIEWIS TO RFCORD THE WORK RESULTS ACHIEVED BY THE EMPLOYEE SINCE THE LAST PERFORMANCE REVIEW.THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM IS TO BE COMPLETEO FOR EACH EMPLOYEE BY THE SUPERVISOR FOR TRANSFERS. PROMOTIONS. MERITS, OR ANY OTHER SITUATION IF THE EMPLOYEE HAS NOT BEEN RE '
. VIEWED WITHIN THE LASTTWELVE MONTHS.WHEN COMPLETING THIS PERFORM ANCE RECORD. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
- 1. Check the position description to be sure the employee is properly classified in the position and to be ,
i sure the assigned accountabilities and responsibilities are properly described. If significant changes have l occured in the individual';. . ires of assigned accountabilities, please contact Organization Design to update ! the position description.
~ ~ ~
- 2. Evaluate the vwork results achieved by the employee against the assigned accountabilities and respon-sibilities set forth in the position description. Consider any additional special tasks or projects which the l employee was responsible for during this performance period.
! 3. Record work achievements as qualitative or quantitative expressions of the degree to which various work results fell short of, met, or exceeded required stanoards of performance or goals. DO NOT DISCUSS PERFGRMANCE APPRAISAL OR SALARYINCREASES UNTIL FINAL AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN SECURED. , (Must be completed in ink or baHpoint pen) ') l E MPLOYEE"S NAME JOS TITLE PAYROLL LOCATION CODE & SYMBOL kOQ1$rd $. APPRAISER'S NAME LL&lO2K JOB TITLE O NW ]l*f Q h f6 PAYROLL LOCATION CODE ai SYMBOL l Ot'C . fL.t $. W W- D f$ 1 i I , 7 TYPE OF REVIEW MERIT TRANSFER I
- PROMOTION OTHER j i
Si NATURE OF APPRAISER DATE SIGNATURE OF APPRAISER ERVISoR DATE l kl G = I$ h G o COMPENS TION DATE DI ER PLT ER60NNELilF APPLICA8LE) DATE i Y, SY REVIEWED WITH EMPLOYEE: The signin of is form by the employee is for record
}}3'91 l
keeping purposes only and does not ind ca agreement or disagreement with the rat {ng.
~~
EMPL SIGNATuR OATE 7
- maa.,,:,l,k e ;a..c .u 0 0 -
}
AFTER R%EW WITH ElIl$PLOYEE, FORWARD TO h COMPENSATIOf . ped (GOP Appraiser must complete this mformation for keypunch purposes. PAGE N F cl PAGE(S) EMPL SOC.SEC NO b APPRAISER'S SOC. SEC NO 'O
*U
,\ 'E" MO DAY YR TT y Y ' Y,, WT \
- N,, e
- REVIEW TYPE CODES M MERIT, P. PROMOTION. R RELE ASE. X TRANSFER. O OTHER
-*PEPFORMANCE CODES: REFER TO NO 12 g, ,,,, g r mo m a sioca.oi ne. uso
~
l Give a brief description of this individual's basic job function. ko s' a Ef M A4 . AJ r C ,~ef A- T e /~~~ khft1 TO W hh LA t b AGE.Th%d AL L \Al21 hidh 0FGt (NJ h)EL . /);g t/ay l _\ u c L b u % h.4 mai :: n u A L n Pu A-r r n d a GU Groe ::"( n t u. bf: ak Eb4he St1 l Al Aund ,\ Air e r Lt e GI ASt0--6 Ad.9 I'/17: sGL brod t{ n E I iln m L G A \bGL >N M k& A L VS$A M k h WC M S N Q.0 [ W I s- - , LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE ( 80% May satisfy some assigned accountabilities and/or 100% Consistentlysatisfiesassigned accountabilities requirements, but frequently falls short on assignments. and/or requirements. Solid overall Immediate significant improvement is necessary, performance. 90% Satisfies the majority of assigned accountabilities 1104 Consistently satisfies and frequently exceeds and/or requirements, but occasionally f alls short on assigned accountabilities and or requirements assignments. The need for specific improvement by significant margins. Performance levelis well exists, above position requiremen's. l i 120% - Always satisfies and consistently exceeds as- 7, f signed accountabilities and/or requirements by substantial margins. This level of performa nce is rarely achieved and sustained because of thEAGE_E __OF_ - PAGE$' f frequent opportunity to perf orm at this level. l .
- 1. TECHNICAL / JOB KNOWLEDGE l How well does this individual understa nd and perform the technical and professional requirements of the position? Consider his or _
her willingness and ability to learn and apply ' newconce ts. his level of performance was demonstrated b I i i 2. lNITIATIVE H ow well does this individual actively l influence events and act independently ' without specific instructions, within the I ntabilities? This level of performance was onstrated'
\
l \ f i
- 3. JUDGMENTsPROBLEM ANALYSIS How well does this individual reach sound, logical conclusions based on factual data? 's Consider the incumbent's over all problem. x olvin d decisiveness. This level of performance was demonstrated b f
d i i i j 4. ORG ANIZATION AND PLANNING j How well does this individual plan and i organize nis or her work activities to su ppo rt indiv id u al, t e a m, d e p a rt m e nt a l This level of performanc nstrated-f andcorporatsobjectives? l f-1 l
- [
r in ' ff. -
' ~-
,,g
- 5. DEPENDABILITY
~
!!OW reli3ble is this individuct in meeting v ,.
l his or her customer's needs within - i assigned time frames? This level of performance was demonstrated by: i
- 6. COOPERATION How well doss this individualdemon.
strate respect for people and promote ' '- teamwork? This level of performance was demonstrated by i; , 7. SUPERVISORY SKILLS (Where Applicable) l OVERALL RATING When evaluating an individual on Ihese l j traits. consider how he or she applies the l i l {\ ,' following supervisory fundamentals as the position: This level of performance was demonstrated by a) ConcernforSafety a b) QualityimprovementProcess Promotion , n, c) Leadership and Motivation [' d) Delegation and Guidance l I el EEO Affirmative ActionCommitmern f) Administrative and Budgetary Responsibilities g) Development of Subordinates
~
mportance, ma.or 8 In terms of the main accountabiIities shown on the position description, briefly summarire d accomplishments since the last appraisal. (Think in terms of measurable results; includ b tegofecas t eg PA 1
, ic.) ,L -.
were resolve mndhwt es
this in f f ident I hat ty of products and servic. eliv d to his or her customers i i i
~
s s l l 10. Wh t ongirst ~ gle qualificatio f thi ' iduaP . _ _ _ . i i , f l I, f 11.'Wh t e. this i ividual's,, principal ..rga or im.rovement and h. . .r you helping the individuali ..- Ab ' , '
..a p
.c I . .
' T N ,. , '
l .
~,
l
- 1. 12. Based on the preceding evaluations and statement <. Summarize your appraisal of this individual's overall performance against his or her assigned accountabihties since the most recent appraisal by checking the appropriate box below Refer back to the explanation of rating factors which precedes item 1.
l I [ OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING - (PERF. COD l 80'.(08) 13 Upon completion of the appraisal. discuss how the employee's activities over the next twelve months will support the department's goals by listing up to three specific accountabilities or benchmark indicators against which his or her perfor-mance will be evaluated. These items should be mutually agreed upon between the employee and the supervisor. If , applicable, state a quantifier (i e., ',., $ target or cost avoidance, etc.) or qualifier (i.e., specifications, quality of work. etc i j and the anticipated time frame for completing each accountabihty As indicators change throughout the year, please make I adju Appraiser is responsible for keeping a' copy of this'for the employee's next review -j 1) 2r 1 1 ! 31 l 14 Describe the employee's reaction to the appraisal session considering such things as acceptance of feedback and willingness to ap. .
. rov . Make any comments you feel are pertinent t. .ur discussion of performance with this employee i . . .
j - J.
, , . . , , . , ( ,
j
. .. , .. u . _
1
~
i -
- PAGE
- Pf 0F Vs4t PAG 45) ,
7
1 AL NUCLEA~ FOR A A + l HG l (uet 2 4 key i uz
- ~g!
- .N ;.,r _ ~
- th 1
'? ,.
l l 4 ! 1 .~
.+ y l
l e i
;f?
i .
, hY, i 4* ' HAllNG l
,l , (Evaluete the employee on the 44 most important competencies) (1.0 - 4.0) i l
~
l j OTHER D l j ,j, l _.- ! g OVERALL RATING (1.0 - 4.0): h Overan rating should renect the empkwee's performance as a wttoie including results accomprished, the / competencies above and the Nem supplementary competencies , _ _ _ ,
- mummmme S ATURE DATE SIGNATURE OF PRAISER' PERVISOR D TE EMjLOYEE
- p y -
I
- AREA HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICE DATE.
TOF R DATE x en2 2-__--____ _
- The signing of this form by the employee is to acknowledge review of the document only and does not inc.ca or d,pgreement wnn tne reung. if the empioyee nas commerus a separate note mgyned 3
., , PAGEt % OF 49 PAGE(!:
. y I i
"O
- NUCLE. A EXEMPT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
) (Conidential) INSTRUCTIONS: j 1. Compists the Admitustra'Ivo Section below wtth basic employee informaion. j 2. Ust the employee's accountabilities using your business plan, the employee's postion description or any other i pertinent information/ < 3. Describe the assocated resuas or progress for each actrvity and assign a rating based on the scale below.
- 4. Evaluate the employee agenet all of the r:uclear competencies. Assign a rating based on the scale below.
I
- 5. Determine an overas rating vuts what the employee has &ccer4W (accountabdibes) and how tney accomplished R (competencies). This number need not be determined by calculation, txa should accurmely j renect the employee's pedormance as a whole.
- 6. Obtain signatures of Appraiser and Appraiser's Supervisor.
i . 7. Forward the form tc, your area HR office for review. ! 8. Upon retum of the approved form from the area HR offee, conduct the Performance Review and catain the employee's sgnature l 9. Make a copy for your recordp.
- 10. Forwwd original to Employee Records - HIVGO RATINGS:
4.0 - Performance is consistently superior and signircantly exceeds ag expectations 3.0 - Performance is excellent, frequently exceedlng e*% l . 20 - Performance is good, salstying al expectations 1.0 - Performance fans short of at least some expectr. ions and specific improvement is necessary When astgning a rating, you may use a whole number or up to one decimal place (Example 2.5). ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
\
Const Supv - N JR y ge PSL/ PLT o sen,s.n one, m - = ew.= i === g8: APPRAISER .g, 9 9 'k 0 4-
-- g - ,w - e.
s m site Cnn tr. Serv. Mar. L h65-h12h PSL/ PLT ii5 O e enane w m ew*.iwas A Tm or reew tcheca one /1 N Pmoo M m\.\ . M
@ ANNUAL 0 omen 1 2 2 1 9 1 .
O etaremmetusaurn <- .a / x j ^
. / '
/r Ot m TAT
I SUPPLEMENTARY NUCLEAR COMPETENCIES NcIn:EscuntyN Ernployee Signatum'ha a Date:
' Note:
Ernployee's witflthe rating. signatur is for locord keeping purposes only, and does not inggeege Type of Review: Annual Performanos/ Equity PAGE 80F 4C PAGE(S) j i signature of Apprainer: L A bIi , couPETsecaESSPECTED . ACTUAL BEHAV10RS o RATING Attenson to Dotat I i I oe== i ' i ! ProfeemonalIntegrity. ! j i I interpersonal Sides
/1
! i Juegemenc M frorn Mistakes: L I t intenectuen conceny:
- m .- w.
j nee., nam conneusans er omer= j Accepss N 1 e 1 -
-m r f^ir if
-- .. . - - - . . - - .~. - - . . . . - . -
b . ggg D! N o e oss A 9 Telephone (404) 662 5700 Telen 70 7404 l l j To Mr. Norm Hallenbeck May 21, 1990 ! l l Letter of Recommendation 4 To Whom It May Concern;
- I have known and worked with Norm since January of 1987, in those three Years, Norm has shown himself to be a conscientious and reliable co-worker.
He has proved his knowledge of the various codes, weld supervision, and his ability to work well with not only his subordinates but, with myself (A.N.I.I.) Q.C. inspectors, and N.R.C. inspectors. I
! whole heartedly feel that Norm would .nake a excellent employee on any companys welding team. l 4
Respectfully 1 Charles A. Fiallo A.N.I.I. l 4 St Lucie plant site '
. kh A
EXHlBIT 3 PAGE_39 0F 4 CT PAGE(S) j . I i i
inter Office A..aspondence
- Q..ed
! IE l i CA-isi-isi - Diet bution May 17, 1994
""' . Pearch
"*"""*' cor.4tr. Serv.
] l
- ORGAMIRATION CHAMOR cc: M.L. Fagley i A. Descisa !
a l Effective immediately, Mr. Norman Hallenbeck is assigned j full time to debugging and implementing the new i computerized welding program. ' Mr. Dale Jacobs will assume the responsibility of running F the da'y to day welding operation. 2 The above changes will remain in effect until further notice. 4 d i i Distribution: i l All constr. Services Personnel l Ted skiba i Chuck Geir Greg Rogers Torn Geissinger -- EXHlBib3 -- PAGE_ KOF_ f _PAGE(S) or Abbcc6 5
.... .eu <si.... n., i .,
- 0. Bom 128 Ft. Pierce. FL 34954 0128
@ FPL I l
NUCLEAR SAFETY SPEAKOUT l June 3,1994
Dear Concernee,
dfter speaking to you on the phone yesterday, you voiced a concern and to maintain total confidentiality, I have assigned your concern (attached) the number NSS-PSL-94-092. We (Nuclear Safety SPEAKOUT) will be using this number for all future correspondence I and for the final report. Please review the concern for content and contact me if there are I any needed additions or deletions to ensure 'St we have properly perceived your concern to be investigated. I would also appreciate if you would call and tell me what exactly (in your opinion) could resolve / rectify this situation. Thank you for utilizing our program. Your interests in helping assure that FPL operates safely and reliably is appreciated. With your cooperation SPEAKOUT looks forward to helping you achieve this common goal. Please contact me at (407) 465-3550 extension 3864 or toll free 1-800-645-5105 at your convenience. l Sincerely, L [ John K. L chka
/ Supervisor, Nuclear Safety SPEAKOUT St. Lucie Plant EXtilBlT 3 PAGE ttl _OF_ qc PAGE(S) g p mc4 6 en FPL Group compaa,
/
i 5:PL ! l NUCLEAR SAFETY SPEAKOUT Concern Number: NSS-PSL-94-092 Date: 06/03/94 Concern Statement: EMPLOYEE BELIEVES SUPERVISION IS ATTEMPTING TO TERMINATE HIS EMPLOYMENT E!Y CONTINUOUS HARASSMENT The concernee said that his immediate supervisor, Ernie Poarch, is trying to get him fired for reasons unknown to the concernee. Recent performance appraisals have been getting progressively worse without justification. The concernee said that Mr. Poarch has directed him (in private) to sometimes compromise welding code requirements, which the concernee has refused to do. The concernee believes that Mr. Poarch does not know enough about welding to understand the complexity of the issue. This and other events have led to heated debates between the two. After several discussions with Mr. Poarch and Herman Fagley, Construction Services Manager, it was suggested to the concernee that he attend supervisory training to improve his interpersonal skills. The concernee doesn't know why he needs such training because he believes he does not have a problem in this area. The concernee said that he also believes that his subordinates have also " turned" on him and are attempting to discredit him as well. A recent incident involved a subordinate employee, Dale Jacobs, who started yelling at the concernee for no apparent reason. Mr. Jacobs called the concernee a liar and when the concernee attempted to find out what this person was talking about, the confrontation got worse and Mr. Jacobs started yelling at him even more. The concernee has absolutely no idea what is going on and why other people are trying to 4 get rid of him. In one of the performance appraisals, the concernee said that what Mr. Jacobs was yelling at him was word for-word from what was written in the performance appraisal. How did this employee know what was on his appraisal? The concernee said that he has also been accused of deliberately deleting working welding files on his computer. These files were in fact unintentionally deleted as a result of a program error on the computer when the concernee was deleting other unrelated files to make room on the hard drive. The concernee called the computer experts and they came in the next day and confirmed that something was wrong with the computer program and they were able to restore all of the earlier deleted files. EXHl31T d - PAGE y 1- 0F 40 PAGE(S) I an fPL Group company
t A Page 2 June 3,1994 1 The concernee has contacted the St. Lucie Plant Human Resource department about his . concern and they responded negatively. The concernee believes they are just siding with management and placing the blame on him. The concernee said that he still doesn't know what he did wrong and why things have suddenly changed for the worse. From a concerned employee of Florida Power & Light Co. 4 1 This concern is assigned to the Nuclear Safety SPEAKOUT Investigator A
%M. E i
- ohn K. Luchka l Supervisor, i Nuclear Safety SPEAKOUT St. Lucie Plant 1
J l I l 4 3 1 i i i I i J i EXHISIT 3 i I PAGE D OF 49 PAGE(S) f
\
l
law crrecto MULLER, MINTz, KORNRElCH, CALDWELL 04veo v nom =maien navc.uuttsabsa4.isn) wecmask w. casse, ,,, suits 3soo. rimst v=som rewanciA6 cravam o g ,, s ., ,, ,,ura p.,. . ,,,3)
.# soo soutw assearns sov6svano q ]ss c caos =_o PAvL C. MEsoMANN NOANI.IbONSOA IIIII*IIII comoon o. noosne unaus (3os) 3se-s noo .acww o. onowoA or counss6 CLs AssTM s. svogn *"*"*no (3C,s) ser.ose s .,ossen A. ca6ows66 CArmsw s. .sowNooN vs6sras (sos) 37s.3soa STRA A. As3oTT .cermsy g.mAmost E2Nist M. MgsasN OCMAmo o. TusCMMAN oMLAMoo orrtCE AN!REW st, wtLLlaws suffs loss. FiRsTAfs Towsm DC"N" "y D C"** ass sovin omanos avsmus ,,gg,,, ,, ,,,,, on6Amoo. rLoaioA 3asoi-2.is FRANILH.MsNRY tsasp. ions 6 07)543 6400 coLosau A. =vua.o July 7, 1994 , sus, pon .43. .o VIA FEDERAL EEPRESS l Alexander J. Kranz, Esquire i Clark & Kranz Suite 204 1989 South Federal Highway -
Stuart, Florida 34994 l Re: Norman Hallenbeck , 1
Dear Mr. Kranz:
As per our settlement discussion, enclosed please find an original G;neral Release and Full Waiver of All Claims with regard to Norman H211enbeck's claims against Florida Power & Light Company. l As you can see, the Waiver permits a period of up to twenty-one dnys for Mr. Hallenbeck to decide whether to sign. However, he may sign ! ct any time during that twenty-one day period. He will be paid as an FPL employee for the entire twenty-one days, regardless of when he oigns. As soon as he does sign the document, please return same immediately to the undersigned. A seven-day revocation period will run from the date Mr. Hallenbeck signs the document. As soon as that seven-dcy period has expired, we will forward to you Mr. Hallenbeck's cattlement check in t.he amount of four months pay. [Please make sure Mr. Hallenbeck initials each page where indicated.] Other " exit interview" and employment separation procedures should ba handled by Mr. Hallenbeck with St. Lucie Human Resources Manager Andy D;Soiza, as soon as Mr. Hallenbeck signs the Waiver. Thank you for your cooperation. ,o V ,/ truly rs, a s ' Janes S. Bramnick JSB324dp/kf i EXHIBIT 3 Enclosure D PAGE-- ROF uc7 PAGE(S) t t 1
/ o r Rhk 4 7 '
J,w /
, , l 1 ,, e w u . . > ,
.-/ . /
'}}