ML20137K078

Documents Events Surrounding Segs Placement of Problematic Radiation Protection Technician on Administrative Leave

ML20137K078
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	04/12/1995
From:	Robert Evans NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Cain C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20137J811	List: ML20137J805 ML20137J825 ML20137K000 ML20137K011 ML20137K055 ML20137K061 ML20137K078 ML20137K088 ML20137K102 ML20137K115 ML20137K791
References
FOIA-96-434 NUDOCS 9704040234
Download: ML20137K078 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . -

$~ *. #" *f UtilTE3 STATES

. O g NUCf. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 nsaioNiv 611 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE, SUffE 400 ARLitioToN, TEXAS 700114054 i APR I 2 !995 MEMORANDUM T0: Charles L. Cain, Chief Fuel Cycle and Decameissioning Branch l Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards i

Robert J. Evans, Health Physicist di GM' FROM:

l Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch

Division of padiation Safety and Safeguards i

I

SUBJECT:

IDENTIFICATION 0F A PROBLEMATIC SEE EMPLOYEE I

f The purpose of this memo is to document the events surrounding SEG's placement l

of a problematic radiation protection technician on administrative leave.

?

During November 1994, the SEE radiation protection technician of concern i arrived at the FSV site. This technician was assigned noncritical

instruentation work at the site such as daily instrument response checks and I simple instrument repairs, but not critical instrument calibrations. He was I on day shift for about 3 months with no observable negative behavior or work habits. He then transferred to the night shift about 2 months ago.

During March 1995, fellow SEE technicians went to this technician's

supervisor, the SEE instrument coordinator / supervisor, with concerns about the 1

technician's work habits. A list of concerns were presented to the supervisor, including concerns about " paperwork discrepancies" and sleeping during work hours. The supervisor went on backshift duty on March 27 through March 30, 1995, to observe the technician's behavior. Some of the original concerns were subsequently substantiated by the supervisor. The technician was removed from all instrumentation work (job qualifications were suspended) on March 30, 1995.

SES sent a senior radiological engineer from the Oak Ridge office to perform

] an independent investigation at FSV. The technician was femally interviewed by the independent investigator on April 5, 1995. The investigator concluded that the technician had reasonable explanations for the original concerns; such as, coming to work sick, laying down to rest, and accidently falling asleep on the job while resting (although the technician did not tell anyone he felt sick at the time). However, several problem areas were substantiated  !

during the investigation. For example, the technician admitted to using the y

wrong radioactive source once to perform daily survey instrument response 1.

checks (correct source was checked out but the wrong source was used in the field).

SEG issued a radiological occurrence report on the incident. Preliminary investigation results indicate that the technician had " sloppy" work habits.

Nothing was identified that indicated that the technician falsified documents d ny of his work functions. The technician resigned from or failed to perfo SEEonJpril6,1995,topursueemploymentelsewhere.

[ g\

9704040234 970331 b0 34 ,

PDR

Charles L. Cain Attachment Draft ROR 95-025 cc:

S. J. Collins, DRSS R. A. Scarano, DRSS C. L. Cain, FCDB R. J. Evans, FCDB J. Armenta, 0.I R. Wise, AC FCDB File DOCUMENT NAME: 0:\FCDB\RJE\ INVEST.FSV i

l 1 .

8

m.

ALLEGATION ASSIGNMENT FORM .

g Allegation Number: RIV-95-A-0054 a -

Licensee / Facility or Location: FORT ST. VRAIN Discussed at ARP meeting on: 4/17/95 Branch:

Assigned to: DRP, DRS, DRSS, SAC OI involvement? OI tracking number:

Allegation Summasy: Licensee offcials nported that a contract instrument technician had failed to perform daily response checks on a 6A and 1B portable contamination monitors,

- and a beta-gamma counter. However, the licensee conducted its own review of the maner and does not believe*that the technician falsified any documentation or intended to E:ceive his employer.

4 ARP instructions / guidance:

ARP Chairman: Date: l I

Allecation Resolution Plan (return to the SAC within 10 days of ARP meeting):  ;

9% % c & M &. 9

• ' u W Lf.A.A%/1.,

J

) Submitted by: Date:

cc: Allegation File, ARP Meeting File, OI

) i y ,

yms, untreo eruna

• .. **. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMutss40N f% *

$ Reet0N ew eli RfAN PLAEA I Alvt. Sunt 400 AnuncTON. texas 1eett i %*...*

I 1 -

DATE/ TIME: hS/ 78 PRIORITY:

' / Inusediately i

1 Hour _

2-4 Hours ME55%E TO: A t / N SWA_

MESSAGE FRON: N b C <

NUDEER OF PAGES:

5 PLUS TRANSMITTAL SHEET ,

TELE,' COPY NUMBER

of)5/5 i

- 14 3 & vERrrzCATron nuieER: O d(2.0- U/O

\-

CONTACT: --

4 SPECIAL INSTRUCT 10NS/ATTACit4ENTS(S):

4 I

Inbrma9cn i'l this rewrd i;m dc!Med in ;cccdan t'.th th f t :6m of infamation C

Act, IOUcn..:pur.

$. ~- Y__7_Y; DISPOSITION:

Transmitted & Verified by: Return to Originator Place in Mail Other l

wave DATF AUG-31-1995 07:09 817 860 8125 P.01

< { i' j f{

i I e  :

I  ;

1 1 -

l REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH -

KEl#fETH LER0Y ZARHT i

4 .

On August 24, 1994, ZARHT was interviewed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! Investigator s conducted at his l residence at  %

l ZARHT, former Radiation Protection Operations Supervisor for Scientific i

Ecology Group (SEG , a subcontractor of Public Service Company of Colorado at Fort St. Vrain Nuc ear Generating Station (FSV), fumished the reporting investigator the following information in substance: ,

1 l

ZARHT indicated the reasons why he was terminated free SEE were the following:

i 1. He violated the federal regulations by falsifying release survey forms;

! 2. He violated SEG's radiation procedures; and I

i ,

J. He allegedly harassed and fntfaldated radiation protection '

i 4

technicians (RPs). .

i ZARHT said he blamed Keith 8ARE, a.i RP at FSV, for his disefssal from his , fob.

i ZARHT said he felt he took the " wrap /the blame" for everything that has been 3 happening at SEG. ZARHT indicated w was terufnated on July 21, 1994.

! ZARHT admitted he made some mistakes in his performance as a manager of the i RPs; however, he felt others [maaning other SES personnel should have shared the blame. 4 NEELY SES Vice j

President Ed ZARHT PARS 0ks,named _H. W.

SEG Radiatten ARROWSMITH Protection as SEG President; Manager; an Lichard S ON,'lSES Technical Support Services, as le responsible for I n11 ewing the SEC radiation protection program to, in ZARHT's opinion,

' deteriorate.'

' lARHT ttated he has hired an attorney to look fato the matter regarding his lismissal from SEG to determine if in fact the dismissal was just and fair.

j  !.ARHT provided no additional information. pertinent to this investigation.

B l liis report prepared on September 2,1994, from investigator's notes.

1 e

.,im M, 9 Jonap&n Argente Jr., Investigator i Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV j

i CaseNq. 4-94-800 , $o n,,_.

( ' P.02 1

1 j i gi7 960 8125 j pug-31-1995 'M 4

4

as-st-im on Atwa se -

I )

l

i g

- REPORT OF INTERVIEW i

WITH j j -

i i ROLAND EARNEST SAWYER b I

! On August 25, 1994, SAWYER, fomer Senior Radiation Protection Technician (RP) l and Day Shift Supervisor, for Scientific Ecology Group (SEG), a subcontractor of the Public Service Company of Colorado's (PSC) Fort St. Vrain Nuclear #1(.

i Platev111a, Colorado, was 1.n terviewed by Nuclear Generating Station (FSV)ItC)

Regulatory Commiission (N Investigator Jonathan Armenta, This interview .

was e regnest of SAWYER at his residence a l SAWYER provided the following inforwa n in substance:

f SAWYER provided the following two reasons for wanting to talk to the NRC.'

i

' SAWYER explained, first, he said he had been discriminated against :by SEG],

and second, he said he had been intimidated and harassed by Mark M3)NE of i

j i

Stiers, Anderson, & Malone [ded to talk to the NRC because he thought he hadin byPSC). SAWYER:said he nee j -

1 been made the ' sacrificial lamb" at SEG.

! SAWYER said he was placed on administrative leave on March 28, 1994, and later offered a transfer to SEG's home office in Oakridge, Tennessee,eSAWYER said i

SEE Vice President, Don NEELY, made him three transfer offers beTore he j ultimately resigned. SAWYER said he felt that NEELY wanted him back

(($AWYER:

j on the ;ob, but conditionally. SAWYER said he declined the final offer of transfer on. August 15, 1994, because in his opinion, it was not economically i

j feasible. SAWYER's resignation became effective on August 15, 1994.

l Sju(YER said he, felt the letter [attackd to this report of interview] which he i submitted to[pon WARDWOURG, FSV Decosnissioning Pro.fect Director, regarding a..

complaint against MALONE for harassment and intimidation, stirred up some high i

level corporate executives at SEG [i.e., fromOL W. ARROWSNITH, President of

! SEE, down to gichard SEKTON, SEG's Technical Support Services at FSV).

I

! . SAWYER said he called NEELY the day before he went to see WAREMBOURG and told i his he was going to talk to his [WARDe00RG). SAWYER said he infomedLNEELY.

l what he planned to do, and he [NEELY) did not object. l. SAWYER said the people I

at SEG that needed to be he were not reprimandedTSAWYE(d accountable forRPthe radiation protection pro i

Reonly mentioned the night shift supervisor, Mike MILES).. SAWYER 4elt that the letter he submitted to PSC was " brushed i under the carpet."

! SAWYER.said NEELY pented being told there were problems with the radiation i protection program procedures at FSV. iSAWYER. said other RPs also made similar

pomplaintsandwerebro t up at the last SEG all hands meeting for RPs.

! t 3AWYER said he talked t id PARSONS, SEG's Radiation Protection Manager on

! .ite at, FSV, about 7 mon is ago regarding radiation protection problems, and l SEXTON)ven agreed to set up a meeting with WAREMBOURG to discuss the matter 1

2 3 Case No. 4-94-010 Exhibit

! 1 Page of f,

! P.03 AUCi-31-1995 07:10 817 060 8125 T

.)

f/ .,

further. SAWYER said he feels that PARSONS masteminded the whole idea to make Kenneth ZARHT, foramr SEGitadiation Protection Operations Supervisor, and him [ SAWYER] look bad.

SAWYER said that NEELY told his that ZARHT and he [ SAWYER] could not return to i FSV because PSC did not want them working there on site anymore. SAWYER said l NEELY told him he had a letter from PSC to that effect.

I SAWYER said he believes he has been

• black balled." He said he called a l friend [ SAWYER would not give his name in order to protect his identity] at

! Oyster Creek [ nuclear power plant in New Jersey) to see if he could go work i for him, but he was told by his friend that he could not touch him or ZARHT

.i [ meaning whatever SAWYER and ZARHT did, it was preventing him [his friend,]

l from offering them a job).

l SAWYER said he was on administratiye leave when he talked to MALONE7 SAWYER I said he was interviewed bydlALONE teveral times since March 28, 1994 [when he-

! was placed on administrative laaer]. Afterwards, ' SAWYER,said he had decided to talk to WAREM000RG and make an official complaint against MALONE for the l way he [ SAWYER] was being treated during the interviews.

SAWYER said MALONE did notfphysically or verbally threatened him, but he felt j he was coerced into answering his [MALONE's] questions and admit culpability.

i SAWYER said some of the interviews lasted several hours and were exhausting.

The specifics of that complaint were outlined in a verbal statement by SAWYER to WAREMBOURG. PSC acknowledged the complaint and made it available in letter fom for SAWYER to sign [the 2-page letter is dated April 14, 1994, and is i attached to this report of interview).

i l SAWYER provided no additional information pertinent to this investigation at this time.

This report prepared on September 6, 1994, from investigator's notes.

l D?h itY { % =

Jon&than Armenta, Jr., Inve'st Wator 2 Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV Case No. 4-94-010 Exhibit 2 Page of i

AUG-31-1995 07:11 817 850 8125 P.04 1

1

) )

l.

i Apnl 14,1994 1 .

l 70: File

) Fsen: Roland E Sawyer 4

4

j

Subject:

Fosmal complalar by myself given to I)on Warentems on Apdf 14,1994 at 0830 bours concensing himamidatiostfmm Mark Malone.

i

• s 1

At 0830 hours0.00961 days <br />0.231 hours <br />0.00137 weeks <br />3.15815e-4 months <br /> on April 14,19N Ipve as Don Wesembourg a verbal sensamens c6vering j manerous aspeces of harme==== and helmidarian to sayself fmm Mark Malone. I then recieved j

had

{ b im oopies of atypedhdaar convmarian which we prepared by Mr. Warmn

f. ap=mh==g pressesaWee in allcopy ways for my aar flies. ' conversation. I than signed both copies, re

-4 t .

Raspearfully, 4

1 E

L

=

9 1

i i

! I l

l l

AUG-31-1995' 07:11 817 860 8125 P.05 l l

ATINA kATION j *,

.aoeseany or counumo i

i is i

i

i nkTE: APRIL 14, 1994 I i stnkT: F03 DEAL COMPIAINT BY CHIP SANYER

{

f f SU57ECT MATTER:

PORMAL COMPIAINT AGAINST MARK MAION2 FOR MARA55 MENT 'AND

[ INTIMIDATION IDDGED WI'IB DON WARENSOURG ABOVE DATE i

l Mr. Sawyer has been in the interview process with Mr. Malone on two j separate occasions and is sahaduled for another interview.tgday, j l April 14, 1994, i .

Mr. sawyer feels he is being harassed and intimidated based on the l l j followings ...,

j

!  ! Ne is as'ked the same question or a rephrased question with the 6 same intent several times. In spite of requests that this l

tactic be discontinued, the process continues to be utilized.

l The ' questions asked are leading type questions, l l confrontational in nature, with the assumption guilt. l l

Ne believes the investigator's approach is guilty until proven

! innocent. j 3

l l Ne believes the interview is really an interrogation utilising 1 old time, archaic, law school tricks. l l l Ne believes he has a legal right to have any and all (

l documentation that is being utilised against him, but he was l never informed of that right by the investigator.

l j

(

Re considers the process to be a witch hunt with objective of l

hanging blame on someone.

! i I Be- feels like a criminal, based on the methods being utilized j in the interview process. .

j l Nr. sawyer indicated that he was willing to continue in the

interview process and make the system work, but he was not willing l ,

to continua in process if the above listed problems continue to i

persist.

l The above is a fair representation of the contant of Chip Sawyer's j  ! formal complaint given to Mr. Don warenbourg on April 14, 1994.

t I

Chip Sawyer Datet d[/M9 _

i J l 4

4 = m.m.ma i

I TOTAL P.06 RUG-31-1995 07:11 817 060 8125 P.06

{

l e

j , '/l' ' ' . < , f"p i, _ _ - -