ML20205P459
| ML20205P459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205P063 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-76 NUDOCS 9904200183 | |
| Download: ML20205P459 (135) | |
Text
1 1 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
4 DOUGLAS W. HARRISON )
)
5 vs. )
)
6 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING )
CORPORATION )
7 8
9 10 PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 11 12 13 October 30, 1995 14 1:25 p.m.
15 16 NRC Region II Office l 101 Marietta Street l 17 Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 18 19 l 20 4 l
21 22 Gayla White, CCR-B-1324, RPR 23 BROWN REPORTING, INC.
1100 SPRING STREET, SUITE 750 24 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 (404) 876-8979 25 9904200183 990414 PDR FOIA OUNTER99-76 PDR
/ fv7/yvi o a-
2-1 APPEARANCES 2
.3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II:
4 MR. 'J. MUNDAY MS. L.J. WATSON 5 MR. B. URYC MR. J. JOHNSON 6 MR. E.W. MERSCHOFF MR. M.S. LESSER 7 MR. R. ROSANO (Via Telephone) 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 Office of General Counsel:
10 MS. CAROLYN F. EVANS, Esq.
11 Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.:
12 MR. C.R. BISHOP 13 MR. W.B. DODS O14 MR. S. EHELE 14 MR. S.H. SALOWITZ 15 Winston & Strawn:
16 MR. R.M. RADER ,
17 Tennessee Valley Authority:
18 MR. P. SALAS 19 MR. E.D, MACHON MR. M. MEDFORD 20 MR. E.J. VIGLUICCI MR. M.R. HARDING 21 22 23 - - -
24 25
3 1 MR. ' JOHNSON: Good morning. I'm John 2 Johnson, Acting Director, Regional Administer of the 3 Regional II office. This afternoon we will conduct 4 a predecisional enforcement conference for TVA 5 Browns Ferry, Stone & Webster and Mr. Ehele. This 6 is closed to public observation and is being 7 transcribed.
8 The agenda for the conference is shown in 9 the view graph. Following my brief opening remarks, 10 Mr. Bruno Uryc will discuss the NRC enforcement 11 policy, and I will have a few additional remarks.
12 Mr. Ellis Merschoff, to my left, Director of the 13 Division for Reactor Projects, will discuss the 14 apparent violation; and then each of you will be 15 given an opportunity to respond to the apparent violation. )
16 17 I wish to remind you all that holding 18 this conference does not mean that the NRC is 19 determining that a violation is taking place or that 20 any enforcement action will be taken. This 21 conference is an important step in our 22- decision-making process.
23 Following the conference, I plan to take 24 a 10-minute break so that the NRC can-briefly review 35 what it has heard and determine whether it has any_
4 l' follow-up questions.
2 Lastly, I will provide some closing 3 remarks. Before we start, I would like the NRC 4 staff to introduce themselves, and then I would like 5 you all to introduce yourselves.
6 MR. URYC: I'm Bruno Uryc, Director of 7 the Region II Enforcement Staff.
8 MR. MUNDAY: Joel Munday, Resident 9 Inspector for Browns Ferry.
10 MS. EVANS: Carolyn Evans, Regional 11 Counsel.
12 MR. MERSCHOFF: Ellis Merschoff, Director 13 of Reactor Projects. I would like to apologize for 14 keeping you all waiting.
15 MS. WATSON: I'm Linda Watson on the 16 Enforcement Staff.
17 MR. LESSER: I'm Mark Lesser, Branch 18 Chief of Reactor Projects.
19 MR. BISHOP: I'm Pete Bishop, Vice 20 President and Site Director of Browns Ferry.
21 MR. DODSON: I'm Brad Dodson, Vice 22 President of Stone & Webster, responsible for 23 nuclear operations.
34 MR.-EH5LE: I'm Steve Ehele, 'hief C
25 Construction Supervisor at Browns Ferry.
5 1 MR. SALOWITZ: My name is Steve 2 Salowitz. I'm Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns 3 representative for Browns Ferry.
4 MR. RADER: I'm Bob Rader with Winston &
5 Strawn, the legal representative for Stone &
6 Webster.
7 MR. SALAS: Pedro Salas, TVA Browns Ferry 8 Licensing Manager.
9 MR. MACHON: Rick Machon, TVA Site VP.
10 MR. MEDFORD: Mark Medford, Vice 11 President of Engineering and Technical Services for 12 TVA. l i
13 MR. VIGLUICCI: My name is Ed Vigluicci, j 1
14 Office of the General Counsel, TVA.
15 MR. HARDING: My name is Mike Harding, 16 and I'm the manager of TVA's Concerns Resolution 17 Staff.,
18 MR. URYC: I would like to add that on 19 the telephone we have Mr. Rick Rosano, who's an 20 enforcement specialist out of our headquarterc )
1 21 office up in Rockville.
22 Thank you, gentlemen.
23 I would like to take a few minutes to 24 talk.about the enforcement policy. After an 25 apparent' violation is identified, 'it's assessed in l 1
I 6
1 1 accordance with the commission's enforcement. policy 2 which was recently revised and became effective as 3 of June 30th, 1995. The enforcement policy has been 4 published as new reg 1600.
5 The assessment process involves 6 categorizing the apparent violation into one of four 7 severity levels based on safety and regulatory 8 significance.
9 For cases where there is a potential for 30 escalated enforcement action, that is, where the 11 severity level of the apparent violation may be at 12 severity level one, two or three, a predecisional 13 enforcement conference is veld.
14 There are three primary enforcement 15 sanctions available to the NRC; and they are notices 16 of violations, civil penalties and orders.
17 Notices of violations and civil penalties 18 are issued based on identified violations. Orders 19 may be issued for violations or in the absence of a 20 violation because of a significant public health and 21 safety issue.
22 In this particular case, the decision to 23 hold a predecisional enforcement-conference is based 24- on the-Secretary of Labor's decision which was 25 issued on August 22nd, 1995 in'the matter of Mr.
7.
1 Douglas Harrison versus the Stone & Webster 2 Engineering Group.. A copy of the Secretary of 3 Labor's decision was enclosed with our letters dated-4 October the 18th to Stone & Webster, TVA, and to Mr.
5 Ehele that made the initial arrangements for this 6 conference.
7 In that decision the Secretary of Labor 8 concluded that Stone & Webster discriminated against 9 Mr. Harrison. Such discrimination is prohibited by 10 the Energy Reorganization Act. The apparent 11 violation being considered in the case of Stone &
12 Webster and the TVA derives from the Secretary of 13 Labor decision. TVA, as an NRC licensee, is 14 responsible for the acts of its contractors.
15 The Secretary of Labor decision 16 identifies Mr. Ehele as the supervisor who took the 17 discriminatory action against Mr. Harrison. Under 18 the finr1 rule on deliberate misconduct by 19 unlicensed persons, 10 C.F.R. 50.5, which became 20 effective September 16, 1991 and is described in the 21 NRC enforcement policy in Section 8, enforcement 22 actions involving individuals, individuals are
- 23. subject to enforcement action for deliberate 24 n.i s c on du c t that causes a licensee to'be-in violation-25 'of'any of the Commission's requirements.
8 1 Discriminating against any employee.for engaging in' 2 certa 3r. protected activities is an' apparent 3 violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7. Engaging in deliberate 4 misconduct hat causes the licensee to be in 5 violation of any rule or regulation ~is an apparent 6 violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.5. Enforcement _ sanctions 7 are quickly considered to include a letter of 8 reprimand, a notice of violation, or possibly an 9 order prohibiting or restricting involvement in NRC 10 licensed activities.
11 A predecisional enforcement conference is 12 essentially the last step of this process before the 13 staff makes its final enforcement decision. The 14 purpose of this conference today is not to negotiate 15 and enforce the sanction, our purpose here today is 16 to obtain information that will assist us in 17 determining the appropriate enforcement action, such 18 as a common understanding of the facts, root causes 19 and missed opportunities associated with the 20 apparent violations. A common understanding of 21 corrective actions taken or planned, and a common 22 understanding of the significance of the issues and 23 the need for lasting comprehensive corrective
- 24 action.
'25 At'the predecisional enforcement
9 1 conference stage of the process, we want to be;sure 2 that-TVA and Stone & Webster understand the 3 significance of the issue and is taking effective 4 corrective action. We are seeking information that 5 may be relevant to either mitigation or escalation 6 of any resulting sanction, as well as determining 7 your position relative to the decision issued by the-8- Secretary of Labor in this case.
9 In addition, in the case of Mr. Ehele, we I
10 are seeking information on the application of the 11 factors considered in determining the need for 12 individual enforcement actions as described in 13 Section 8 of the enforcement policy which we 14 provided to you. You are encouraged to provide any 15 information that you believe is relevant to an i
16 enforcement decision in this case.
17 The apparent violations discussed at .this q 18 conference, as Mr. Johnson had stated, are subject 19 to further review and may be subject to change prior 20 to any resulting enforcement action. It is 21 important to note that the decision to conduct this 22 conference does not mean that the NRC has determined 23 that a violation has occurred or that enforcement 2 41 action will be taken. I snould also note at this time:.that statements of abuse or. expressions of
~
25 i
1
.~
10 1 opinions made by the NRC staff at this conference, 2 or the lack thereof, are not intended to represent 3 final agency determinations or beliefs.
4 Following the conference, the Regional 5 Administrator, in conjunction with the NRC Office of 6 Enforcement and other NRC headquarter's offices will 7 reach an enforcement decision for each party 8 involved in this case. This process normally takes 9 about four to six weeks to accomp lish .
10 As Mr. Johnson said, the predecisional 11 enforcement conferences are normally closed to the 12 public, as is this conference. However, there is a 13 trial program to conduct selective conferences as 14 open conferences, which was initiated by the 15 Commission in July of 1392; and this program has 16 been extended pending further evaluation.
17 Finally, if the final enforcement action 18 involves a proposed civil penalty or an order, the 19 NRC will issue a press release 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the 20 enforcement action is issued.
21 MR. JOHNSON: Thanks, Mr. Uryc. Our 22 review of the Secretary of Labor's decision in 23 Mr. Harrison's case indicates that in 1993 Stone &
24' Webster discriminated against Mr. Harrison by
.25 demoting him and transferringf him because he raised
11 1 concerns about fire watch requirements.
2 The NRC places a high value on employees 3 feeling free to raise safety issues without fear of 4 discrimination. The Energy Reoraanization Act and 5 our regulations establish strict requirements and 6 prohibitions against discrimination.
7 Our purpose today is for you to provide 8 an oppcrtunity for the basis for your decisions in 9 this case. In addition, the NRC's concerned about a 10 potential chilling effect on other employees where 11 they may, because of this case, have some kind of 12 fear in raising issues themselves.
13 The steps taken by licensees and 14 contractr-s to assure that managers are aware of 15 their responsibilities are a key element in any 16 Employee Concerns Program.
17 Whether or not you agree with the 18 violation, we expect you to address any actions you 19 may have taken to make sure that your managers are 20 aware of these responsibilities; and we certainly 21 would like you to address any actions that you may 22 have taken based on the Secretary of Labor's 23 decision and order in'this' case.
24 Mr. Merschoff will now discuss the 2 51 potential ^ violations.
12 1 MR. MERSCHOFF: Counsel, will you put up 0 the individual first,'please. What I am going to 3 discuss are essentially three apparent violations.
4 The first one deals with Mr. Ehele. And simply put, 5 what this is is the 10 C.F.R. 50.7 is a rule that 6 prohibits discrimination, and 10 C.F.R. 50.5 is a 7 rule regarding delib^ rate misconduct. And based on 8 the results of the Secretary of Labor's ruling that 9 has been discussed, this violation states something 10 to that effect. Specifically, Mr. Steve Ehele, 11 while employed as a chief construction supervisor 12 with Stone & Webster Engineering Group, a contractor 13 to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns 14 Ferry Nuclear Plant, deliberately discriminated 15 against Mr. Douglas Harrison when Mr. Ehele demoted 16 the complainant and transferred him to a different 17 position because he r a i. s e d concerns related to the 18 fire watch requirements. That's the apparent 19 violation for the individual.
20 If you would put the next one up, 21 counselor.
22 The apparent violation against Stone &
23 Webster and the Tennessee Valley Authority are both 24 the same, in that 10 C.F.R. 50.7 prohibits 25 discrimination; and that the Secretary of Labor
13 1 found that Stone & Webster Engineering Group, 2 contracted to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the 3 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against 4 Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stone & Webster 5 Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and 6 transferred him to a different position because he 7 raised concerns related to fire watch requirements.
8 Now, those are the apparent violations.
9 Why are we here. We are here to afford you an 10 opportunity to provide us information about these 11 apparent violations. Specifically, to provide us a 12 common understanding of the facts, of the causeo and 13 the significance, the basis for the adverse 14 employment action taken against Mr. Harrison, 15 whether or not a chilling effect exists from i
16 Mr. Harrison's termination and the recent Secretary f 17 of Labor decision. The potential negative impact on 1
18 the reporting of safety concerns through the level j 19 of management that was involved in this matter, the 20 severity of the violation, any escalation or 21 mitigation considerations, your nlans to implement 22 corrective action or any other application of an 3 enforcement policy which you would consider i
24 relevant. j J
25 As Mr. Johnson said, this doesn't ]
l
14 1 indicate a decision is made. This is, in. fact, a 2 meeting to discuss the facts of the matter and to 3 assure.that we understand all aspects of this. If 4 there are no questions --
5 MR. JOHNSON: The order we'have proposed 6 is for TVA to provide their presentation, then Stone 7 & Webster and Mr. Ehele. I do want Mr. Ehele to 8 know that he has an opportunity to meet separately 9 'with the NRC if he se desires. . u have that 10 desire?
11 MR. EHELE: No, I don't.
12 MR. MACHON: Actually, Mr. Johnson, what 13 we've got is we have provided you with two 14 presentations; and our plan was we were going to 15 propose that Stone & Webster provide their comments; 16 and then we would come back and close.
17 MR. JOHNSON: That's fine with us, if 18 Stone & Webster thinks that's agreeable?
19 MR. BISHOP: Fine.
20 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Mr. Machon?
21 MR. MACHON: Okay. Like I said, we have
.22 two handouts there. One is for TVA, and one is for 23 Stone & Webster. I'm going to start with the TVA 24 handout. We have completed the introduction, 25 obviously, so if we can. turn to page 2.
15 1 As you know, we at Browns Ferry and TVA 2 take pride in not only the work that we do, but also 3 the fact that we provide an open environment to 4 raise any safety concerns and also take pride in the 5 fact that we act on them promptly and correctly.
6 Quite frankly, I'm surprised to be here dealing with 7 this issue. All the indications at Browns Ferry 8 that we have received, not only from our own 9 studies, but also from NRC studies that have been 10 done with regard to the Employee Concerns Program, 11 indicate that people on the site feel free to come 12 forward with safety issues, whether it be directly 13 to management from the Employee Concerns Program or 14 through direct process. j j
1 15 In my personal review of the briefs of 16 your OIG's investigation of this circumstance, I i
17 would have to conclude that there was no 18 discrimination issue that occurred with regards to 19 Mr Harrison. I think Stone & Webster is prepared 20 to argue with the details to support that. Brad? ,
21 MR. DODSON: Thank you. Good afternoon.
22 We, likewise, have an agenda, which I believe you 23 have a copy of. I would like to review that if I !
24 could, please. I will lead vi th a basic 25 intioduction and overview. Then Mr. Bishop will l
I i
16 1- discuss the_ sequence of events. I'm on page 2 of 2 the Stone & Webster handout. Then there will a 3 statement by Mr. Ehele. Then Mr. Bishop will 4 discuss assessment of alleged discrimination by SWEC 5 and a review of the Department of Labor actions.
6 Mr. Bob Rader will talk about Stone & Webster's 7 petition for review of the Secretary's decision at 8 the Court of Appeals. Then Mr. Bishop will return 9 and discuss about actions to encourage reporting of 10 safety concerns and actions to verify the 11 effectiveness, to look at the chilling effect, as 12 you have described it. Then I will come back to 13 talk about NRC enforcement considerations in summary 14 and closing remarks.
15 On page 3, Stone & Webster has had an 16 Employee Concerns Program in effect. We believe we 17 had an effective program in place at the time of 18 this event. We will discuss the application of that 19 event or that program to this event and how it was, 20 in fact, used during this process. We have done 21 that program very much in conjunction with TVA. Our 22 contractual requirements require that,we review that 23 progra,m with them and work together with them, and 24 we believe that program has been effective, and we 25 will' describe that program for you. We are very
17 l' proud of the program we have. We believe it is 2 effective. We have taken additional steps even-3 since this event, however, to both determine its 4 effectiveness and to try to make absolutely.sure 5 that everyone understands the open environment that-6 we intend; and we will be describing that.
7 This predecisional enforcement conference 8 doe- come as a result of the Secretary of Labor's 9 decision. The issue is whether or not the 10 ironworker lead foreman at Browns Ferry was demotea 11 to a foreman and reassigned because he raised 12 concerns about the fire watch requirements. We will 13 discuss that and discuss the sequence of events that 14 led to that.
15 The findings of the Secretary of Labor, 16 however, do disagree with the Administrative Law 17 Judge's review and the Department of Labor's Wage 18 and Hour Division's review. Stone & Webster has 19 appealed to the Court of Appeals based on 20 significant legal issues and lack of, evidence tc 21 find discrimination, and Mr. Rader will describe 22 that for you a bit further. We believe that the 23 facts in this case lead to a finding of no 24 discrimination, and we will give you the basis for 25 'that.
i
18 1 Now, if I could, I would like to turn it 2 over to Mr. Bishop to talk about the sequence of 3 events.
4 MR. BISHOP: Okay, we should be on page 4 5 of the Stone & Webster handout. I would like to-6 start with the sequence of events that start back in 7 June of 1992 when Douglas Harrison was hired by 8 Stone & Webster as an ironworker journeyman.
9 Going back to a date that's not on here, 10 October 2nd of 1992, after several discussions with 11 Stone & Webster management, supervision and TVA fire 12 officers of the group, in trying to come up with 13 more efficient way, to do the fire watch -- and also 14 at this time in the unit 3 dry well, as a lot of us 15 remember, was an RCA, high reg a r e a'; and it required 16 us to address that. So it was very important, both 17 from a fire watch standpoint, man-hour standpoint, 18 and ALARO concerns, that a program was established.
19 Now, most of you that have been around 20 construction, nuclear power construction, there are 21 steel welders; and most welders have a helper. And 27, in the program at Browns Ferry and other plants that 23 certainly I have been on, and I have been on a 24 number of plants, that the fire watch procedure 25 program does not require a particular union to do
19 1 that fire watch. As long as you are trained and 2 tested and approved as a fire watch individual, it 3 can be any trade, whether it be ironworkers, 4 laborers, carpenters, electricians or pipe fitters.
5 In other words, the program issued by a Stone &
6 Webster manager on October 2nd, 1992, with a 7 concurrent signature by TVA's fire officers this 8 program was, in addition to having roving fire watch 9 on each elevation in the dry well, unit 3, the 10 ironworkers, the carpenters and others that were 11 going to be trained in the fire watch procedure and 12 testing, when the welder was working, his helper 13 would do the fire watch. When the helper was doing 14 the work, the welder would not be working, so he 15 would be doing the fire watch. So that was the 16 program that was initiated on October the 2nd of 17 1992.
18 In moving along to October 6, Doug 19 Harrison was promoted to lead foreman. He was the 20 second lead foreman for the-ironworkers in the 21 unit 3 dry well; and at that time, Doug harrison was 22 told specifica3' that when the workload comes down 23 and the work isJfinishing, that he would, in fact,
-3 4' be the first to be reduced from lead foreman to 25 foreman.
. 20 1 On November lith of 1992, Doug Harrison 4
2 was cut back from lead foreman to foreman; and at 3 that time did bump a more junior' foreman, and Doug 4 took the position as foreman at that time.
5 Then again on January the 6th of 1993, 6 Doug Harrison was again redesignated as a lead 7 foreman in the dry well wi.th a single crew, and also 8 at that time was advised that when the workload came 9 down, that he would be the first to be reduced, in 10 the conversation that he was raised to lead 11 foreman.
12 Then toward the end of January 1993, our 13 site manager, as he does, we have a roster that is 14 published weekly, and that will identify lead 15 foreman with their foreman and then numbers of crews 16 that they have and people that were working in the 17 crew. There are ratios that are rule to thumb.
18 They are certainly not gospel. But the more 19 difficult and complex the work is, the less ' crews 20 you will have, the less people you will have in the 21 crews. And, of course, the dry well steel back in 22 this time was definitely a critical path to recovery 23 of unit 3, which fortunately, the fellows did an 24 outstanding. job taking that off critical path; and 25 .t i didn't turn out to be such. But was reviewing
21 1 the rosters at-the time and called a meeting with 2 Steve Ehele and other supervisors, as with all 3 supervisors that supervised pipe fitters, 4 electricians and all other trades. Take a look at 5 your organization. Are you a little top-heavy, do 6 we have too many lead foremen, do we have too many 7 foremen. Take a look and get back. Steve Ehele was 8 in that meeting.
9 A day or so later Steve called his supervision that worked for him. At the time, he 10 11 had three supervisors reporting directly to him in the dry well. And he asked them to do the same. He 12 13 was passing it along, take a look, with no specific 14 direction or instruction about any individual, take a look at your organization. Are you top-heav/? Is 15 16 it time that we reduced? Do we have a 17 responsibility to do this job in the most
-- quality 18 first, safety, and in an efficient manner?
1 19 The same day the supervision that worked 20 for Steve Ehele came back to him and made the 21 recommendation that, yes, it's time we have two lead j i
j 22 foremen in the dry well, the lower steel to wrap it 23 up, and we recommend that Doug Harrison be brought 24 back to foreman. We know that Doug Harrison refused 25- the foreman's job and said that he was not going'to
.i
^
22 1 penalize anyone. Well, we will get to that in a 2 minute.
3 On February the 1st, every Monday morning 4 we have what we call a toolbox session. This is 5 where we bring all .e crews together and talk about 6 safety issues and others; and then at that meeting, 7 Doug Harrison was -- I'm sorry, we are on page 5 --
8 was leading that meeting. After all the agenda 9 ' items were finished, Doug Harrison opened it up for 10 general discussion. The ironworkers had a concern 11 about who was doing the fire watch in the dry well, 12 and it appeared to be more along the lines of the 13 cool-down period. Meaning when the work was 14 finished, the ironworkers or others go out on break 15 or lunch or at the end of the workday, the fire 16 watch procedure requires that after the spark or 17 fire-generating activity stopped, that there is a 18 fire watch that will stay in the area for 30 minutes 19 to make sure that a fire d o e s n ' 'c start. That's the 20 program. This was a concern that Steve Ehele heard 21 on February 1st in this toolbox session. No safety 22 concern was expressed on February 1st.
23 On February 2nd of 1993, Doug Harrison 24 was informed of his reduction to a foreman. As I 25 stated a minute ago, he reviewed the foreman's job;
23 1 and after repeated requests, said now I want-to go 2 back to my tools; and I'm not. going to bust a 3 foreman back to take his spot.
4 Later that day, Doug Harrison, a union 5 rep, which we call a job steward, approached Steve 6 Ehele and his supervisors and .tquested that Doug 7 Harrison be reassigned to an area outside of the 8 unit 3 dry well. That day that request was 9 granted.
10 On February 3rd, 1993, Dorg Harrison 11 speaks with the ironworkers that worked in the dry 12 well before the morning. shift. The ironworkers 13 refused to go to work until these safety concerns 14 were resolved.
15 After Steve Ehele notifies.his 16 supervisor, he convenes a meeting to discuss the 17 problem with the bargaining unit, the job steward, 18 in addition, we also had what we call a -bull 19 s *.e w a r d . This is a steward that represents all of 20 the unions on site. It is one individual per site. l 21 At that meeting, he looked to the i
22 ironworker steward and said this is no way to 23 resolve our problems. We need to get back to work.
1 24 'This.is not the way to go, with the work stoppage. .
i 25- MR. URYC: Your bullet saye-that Harrison i
i
24 1 speaks with the ironworkers in the dry well before 2 morning shift. The ironworkers refuse to enter.
3 Are you saying that they refused to work because of 4 what Harrison had told them?
5 MR. BISHOP: We were not there when 6 Harrison spoke with the individuals, but at that 7 meeting -- they were not in the dry well. It si ould 8 say that the ironworkers that worked in the dry Il 9 well. They were not in the dry well at the time, 10 but they did refuse, after that morning meeting 11 prior to work, to go to work.
r 12 Okay, later in some meetings with the 13 fire-watch supervision, and we refer to the fire 14 watch lead foreman, that would be the laborers' lead 15 foreman. For the first time, the real concern the 16 ironworkers had came out that the ironworkers were 17 concerned that the laborers were not signing on to 18 the hot work permit. Up to this point, Stone &
19 Webster understood the problem being a 20 jurisdictional issue, not a safety issue. Never did 21 we hear a safety issue prior to this. So in that 22 meeting, the lead foreman for the laborers brought 23 out the fact that he thought the ironworkers were 24 concerned about the laborers not signing on to the 25 hot work permit.
25
~ Stone & Webster's. field manager _and Steve 2 Ehele took a look at this, and they found no 3 evidence that the laborers had failed to sign on to 4 the hot work permits. And Steve later in the day 5 convenes another meeting with the labor supervision, 6 the bargaining unit reps, to come up with some new 7 arrangements on how the fire watch should be handled 8 in the unit 3 dry well. Keeping in mind, the major 9 concern being that hot spots, during the breaks, 10 when tney go out for lunch or at the end of the day, 11 does require, as I stated a minute ago, that a fire 12 watcher will stay and observe for 30 minutes after 13 that generation is stopped.
34 Then on Monday the 8th, after the 15 meetings that I have just described, came_up with a 16 program that would reduce the hours in the dry well, 17 and the laborers again did assume full 18 responsibility of the fire watch in the dry well.
19 This is based on a program that the labor lead 20 foreman had proposed that had been used previously 21 on unit 2 and worked fine. But just for your 22 information, the program that was established on
-23 October 2nd of 1992 is still in effect today, and 24 perhaps what we will do is use welders' helpers or "5 welders or anyone else that is trained, tested, and
26 1 a certified fire watcher.
2 At this time, I think it would be 3 appropriate for Steve Ehele to make some statements 4 to cover some of the same information.
5 MR. EHELE: First of all, I would like to 6 thank the Commission for giving me the opportunity.
7 to make my statement and clarify my actions again on 8 February of 1993. As Pete said, there will be a lot 9 of repetition in some of the things that he has 10 said; and I will also be getting into it deeper. My 11 present position at Stone & Webster is chief 12 construction supervisor at Browns Ferry.
13 Prior to that, I have been at Browns 14 Ferry since August of 1991. I held other 15 supervisory manager positions. Specifically to 16 start with, when I was there in 1991, I was 17 designated as a manager of maintenance for Stone &
18 Webster at Browns Ferry. Since then I have 19 supervised or managed several different 20 disciplines.
21 At this time, I am currently supervising 22 the ironworkers and pipe fitters and sheet metalers 23 and the mechanical craftsmen during completion where 24 we stand right now. My first contact with nuclear 35 construction was in 1969 at Sarah Power Plant, so I
27 1 have a long history and a long experience with 2 nuclear power and with the needs for safety within 3 the industry.
4 Specifically as a supervisor, I have been 5 at Stone & Webster for 15 years working.in a 6 non-manual position. Prior to that, I had jobs with 7 Stone & Webster as a crafts person, so I understand 8 their positions on safety and on quality of the 9 work. Personally, my feelings toward safety is when 10 I go to these plants to either build them or work 11 maintenance on them, I would move my family there.
12 That's how concerned I am about the safety of it.
13 What happened in January of '93 is when I 14 was making the transition from maintenance into 15 taking over manager of the dry well, specifically 16 the ironworkers, because they were the largest craft 17 in the dry well at that time, I sat back and tried 18 to watch the organization that was already in place 19 to see who the players were and what they were doing 20 and why they were at it.
21 During this time, I noticed that the 22 . ironworkers were kind of top-heavy in their craft 23 supervision. Basically, we had four foremen 24 performing production work and two lead foremen.
25 One of the foremen was specifically being directed
28-1 by a lead foreman individually. I asked my 2 subordinates at that time is this really necessary, 3 do we need this. Remember, again, this is early in 4 January, probably the third week in January They 5 never reported back to me on how they felt about 6 that, nor did I pursue it any further.
7 During the last week of January, my 8 supervisor, the field manager at that time, as Pete 9 pointed out, was making his weekly review of the 10 craft roster; and he saw the same thing, not only in 11 the ironworkers, but all the other disciplines. And 12 his question was, to all the discipline managers,
.13 take a look at what you have out there. Is it 14 necessary? Are these positions that are being 15 filled by craftsmen as foreman or lead foreman, do 16 they continue to need to remain in those positions, 17 or can we start reducing some of those positions?
18 Again, I passed that same information 19 along to my subordinates and asked them to review 20 it. The day that I took it back to them, 21 -specifically concerning the ironworkers, they came 22 back to me that afternoon with an answer. And this 23 was somewhere in the last week of January. Their 24 answer was that Mr. Harrison, who was a lead 25 foreman, it was their selection to be reduced. They
29 1 didn't feel as though we needed two lead foremen 2 anymore, and Mr. Harrison would be reduced and would 3 no longer -- we could still have satisfactory 4 coverage by the one lead foreman. I accepted this 5 and put it away and didn't carry on with it 6 anymore. And again, I want to point out that all of 7 these actions were taken prior to any meetings that B I had with the ironworkers on February the 1st.
9 On February the 1st is when I attended a 10 safety meeting that was conducted by Mr. Harrison.
11 As Pete pointed out, the safety meetings are 12 conducted in the mornings, normally, before we start 13 work. We allow 30 minutes in the morning; and at 14 that time, we go over the safety notes that are put 15 out by our safety department; and we address any 16 concerns that the crafts had regarding the safety in 17 their work or where we are headed.
18 The meeting itself was routine. There 19 were no questions, no particular oatstanding 20 statements were brought up. And when that portion 21 of the meeting was closed, Mr. Harrison made a
. 1 22 statement, okay, we have completed the portion of 23 the safety meeting we need to complete. At that 24 time, he opens the floor up as such to any questions y l
25 that anybody has out there that they want to ask to I
i l
1
30
- 1. the supervision that were in attendance.
2 At this time, some of the ironworkers 3 started posing questions about fire' watch; and they 4 addressed it to me. I interpreted their questions 5 at that. time to be one of jurisdiction. As Pete 6 pointed out, the previous October we had made a 7 decision, an agreement with Stone & Webster 8 management and with labor and with TVA fire 9 protection, that we would implement a fire watch 10 program to utilize the specific crafts to fire watch 11 for themselves.
12 We weren't going to do it like they did 13 in unit 2. In unit 2 they specifically used one 14 craft for it. The ironworkers expressed an opinion 15 that they didn't like that idea, and they did not 16 want to do the work that was assigned to them. And 17 that's how I addressed it to them. Gentlemen, I 18 don't understand your concerns. Here we have 19 assigned work to you which basically puts more of 20 your people to work. We have now created more jobs 21 for ironworkers than we might have had before, and 22 now you don't want to accept that work. And the 23 answer was, no, we don't want to do fire watch 24- anymore. I told them it was their agreement. They-
'2 5 agreed with our management, and they agreed to fire v
. q
31-I watch, and they.could do the fire watch, end of the 2 story, we need to go to work.
3 So the meeting was' adjourned, and we got 4 up and went to work. The f.ollowing day is when we 5 made the decision to go ahead and implement the 6 decisions we had made previously about the positions 7 of foreman and lead foreman throughout the 8 disciplines. I addressed that to my subordinates, 9 and they told Mr. Harrison the decision to reduce 10 him from general foreman down to foreman. At that 11 time, he refused the position as the foreman. We 12 wanted him to stay on as a foreman. He would have 13 been an asset. However, for whatever reason, he 14 refused to take that position and decided to remain 15 on as a journeyman.
16 That very same day I was in a meeting 17 with my supervisor and was asked to come out of that 18 meeting by the ironworker steward who was present 19 with Mr. Harrison. The ironworker steward asked me 20 at that time if I would consider transferring 21 Mr. Harrison to another work area. I told him 22 considering the circumstances, I certainly do not 23- have a problem with that. Normally, it's routine, d
~24 when someone is cut back.from a supervisory 25 position,~that-they be transferred to another area, 4
32 1 so there is no conflict that they will have with 2 anybody that they had to supervise, so I certainly 3 had no problem with that. That was on February-4 the 2nd.
5 The next morning, February the 3rd, right 6 at the start of work, I was in my normal area inside 7 the plant waiting for the people to go to work, and 8 I noticed that the laborers had showed up on time to 9 go to work, and the electricians had showed up on 10 time to go to work, and the dry well and the pipe 11 fitters. The only ones who were in absence were the 12 ironworkers. I started to get a little bit curious 13 about it, and then someone told me that they were 14 still in their dress-out area. They had changed 15 clothes and were going to come in, but they were 16 having a meeting, and they weren't planning on 17 coming to work until some problem that they had got 18 resolved.
19 At that time, I didn't know what the 20 problem was, so I went to the meeting area to find 21 out what it was. Besides the ironworkers that 22 worked in the dry well, in attendance at that 23 meeting was the ironworker steward, the fire watch 24 general foreman who was there and the bull steward 25 that Petecaddressed, or the stewards, as such, were
i 33 1 in attendance.
2 When I saw everybody_ sitting down there, 3 my first question to the stewards were why are we not going to work. We need to go to work. And the 4
5 bull steward in turn spoke to the ironworker steward 6 and said this isn't the way that we need to take-7 care of our business here. These gentlemen need to 8 go to work. And the ironworker steward in turn 9 passed that along to the men, and they got up, and 10 they went to work.
11 And after they went to wcrk is when I had 12 discussions with not only the stewards but the fire 13 watch general foreman to try to determine what the 14 problem was. And there was the first time that I 15 understood what they thought really was their 16 concern.
17 Their concern was that the laborers that 18 were doing the fire watch when the ironworkers were 19 not in the dry well, such as on breaks and lunchtime 20 and the end of the shift, for that 30-minute 21 cool-down period were not signing onto the hot work 22 permit.
23- Therefore, the ironworker, while he was 24 on break, was. responsible for his area and the 25 potential'for af fire in that area'where he' worked.
34 1 He became responsible for that. As it was pointed 2 out, we made some inquiries into that; and we 3 checked some hot work permits; and.we did find that, 4 in fact, the laborers were signing out; and they had 5 accepted responsibility for that time when the 6 ironworkers were not in there.
7 MR. MERSCHOFF: I wonder if I could 8 interrupt because I'm confused at this point. I 9 thought the concern on the 1st was that the 10 ironworkers themselves had to perform the fire watch 11 duties for the cool down, but now I think I heard 12 that the laborers were, in fact, doing that fire 13 watch during the cool down and not signing on.
14 MR. EHELE: If you had the letter from 15 October the 2nd, you would under tand what I've been 16 telling you. The cool-down period, as I stated in 17 that letter, would be watched by the laborers.
18 There were laborers that signed into the dry well li when we were putting welding machines in there 20 because that was the ignition source, to watch 21 those.
22 MR. MERSCHOFF: Didn't you think the 23 concern on the 1st was that the ironworkers had to 24 do that and didn't want to?
25 MR. EHELE: No, no. They didn't want to
35 it do any fire watch period.
2 MR. MERSCHOFF: At all?
3 MR. EHELE: At all. They didn't want'any 4 part of the fire watch. It had previously been done 5 in unit 2 by the laborers, and that's what they 6 wanted.
7 MR. MERSCHOFF: Before the 2nd?
8 MR. EHELE: All the time. All the time 9 that's what they wanted. They wanted the laborers 10 to be in charge. No responsibility for the 11 individual crafts to be in charge for the fire 12 watch.
13 MR. BISHOP: Just to go over a point with 14 you, though, if tne ironworkers were signed on to 15 the hot work permit and the laborer was not, he was 16 responsible to stay for that 30 minutes rather than 17 going out on break or his lunch or whatever.
18 MR. MERSCHOFF: If the laborer had not 19 signed on?
20 MR. BISHOP: That's correct.
21 MR. EHELE: And the ironworkers were 22 required, as they were taught in training, if you 23 'are signed on to the hot work permit, it is your 24 respons'ibility to remain there during that cool-down 25 period. We always afforded them that opportun'ity if
36 1 they wanted it. We never said, okay, you have to 2 come out now for-lunch, and you have to-come out now
'3 for break', or you have to go home. No, that's not 4 the case. They were allowed to stay for that 30 5 minutes if that needed to happen.
6 MR. MERSCHOFF: Ironworkers, at least 7 from my experience, tend not to be shy and reserved; 8 and I'm wondering what was the nature of the meeting 9 on the lat? I would think they would be pretty 10 blunt with their concern, and that it would become 11 apparent that the concern was not signing on to the 12 hot work permit.
13 MR. EHELE: I thought they were very 14 blunt. I understood the meeting at the 1st that 15 their concern was they did not want to perform any 16 fire watch period.
l '. MR. MERSCHOFF: Why not?
18 MR. EHELE: Just because the laborers had 19 always done it.
20 MR. BISHOP: It's almost a reverse 21 jurisdiction, and we didn't understand.
22 MR. MERSCHOFF: But they had been doing 23 it for three months?
'34' MR. EHELE: They had been doing it since.
25 October.
\
37 1 MR. MERSCHOFF: The ironworkers?
2 MR. EHELE: Not only ironworkers, but the 3 pipe fitter, the electricians, the sheet metal. The 4 transition in the letter didn't specifi-*lly state 5 any particular craft. Any individual doing fire 6 watch. Any individual doing work will perform their 7 own fire watch. If a pipe fitter was in there 8 weiding, the pipe fitter was fire watching for you.
9 MR. JOHNSON: And this met your 10 administrative controls, as well as TVA's controls?
11 MR. EHELE: It was agreed upon by TVA, 12 yes, sir.
13 MR. MERSCHOFF: Do you have any idea what 14 changed from the 1st to the 3rd, when you heard 15 directly from the ironworkers on the 1st, and you 16 thought the problem was jurisdiction?
17 MR. EHELE: That's correct.
18 MR. MERSCHOFF: And on the 3rd, when you 19 spoke with the stewards, and you learned that the 20 problem was that the laborers were not signing on to 21 the hot work. permit to be the responsible party?
22 MR EHELE-: That's correct.
23 MR. MERSCHOFF: What changed?
24 MR. EHELE: I don't_know. It is all in 25 how'the presented _it to me, and then I~ questioned a
f
I 38 1 them. I felt as though when'I had the meeting with 2 them on the 1st, that I questioned them trying to 3 find oct what the concern was, and I drew from their 4- responses that their concern was that they didn't 5 want to do fire watch period. Later on, it appears 6 from the meeting on the 3rd that they had had in the 7 morning, it came out that they were concerned that 8 they were being held responsible when they weren't 9 there.
10 MS. EVANS: But you determined that that 11 had not been happening because the laborers had been 12 sending --
13 MR. EHELE: That's correct. We did go 14 back, and we did, as Mr. Bishop also addressed, we 15 did find hot work permits that were signed on both 16 by an iron orker and by a laborer.
17 MS. WATSON: Was there an individual 18 laborer assigned to watch a particular area ehen the 19 work had been going on or was it a roving?
20 MR. EHELE: It was a roving.
21 M S -. WATSON: A roving individual?
- 22. MR. EHELE: A roving individual; that's 23 correct.
-24 MS. WATSON: And they were assigned on 25 the table watching a~particular area for 30 minutes
39 1 or they came and looked at it every so often?-
2 MR. EHELE: They were assigned into the 3 dry well on a shift arrangement, okay. They didn't 4 come in specifically for the. break time that the 5 craft went out to take a break, no. They were.in 6 there already. They were roving around all the 7 different elevations. So in addition to the 8 individual fire watch we hnd watching this ignition 9 source while it was being performed, we had laborers 10 performing roving, also.
11 MS. WATSON: And you had two laborers 12 doing this roving patrol?
13 MR. EHELE: At least, per elevation.
14 MR. URYC: There's a footnote in the l Secretary of Labor's decision, on page 2, 15 16 footnote 1, that says during the 30-minute cool-down 17 period following the conclusion of any welding, 18 grinding, burning or other hot work, the ironworkers 19 involved were responsible for policing their 20 workstations watching for fire. Under respondent's i i
21 scheduling, however, the ironworkers exited 22 .immediately upon' concluding their hot work and only 23 two laborer rovers policed all workstations. ,
i 24 Harrison testified, I know that I have ;
l
-2 5 had my foremen working in enough-different places on l
. I
40 1 one elevation that two rovers could not physically 2 see within their scope of view everywhere that was 3- being worked.
4 So the ironworkers doing welding, for 5 example, or any of the craft that you had, were, in 6 fact, responsible for policing _their own work?
7 MR. EHELE: The individual who signed on 8 to the hot work permit was. responsible.
9 MR. URYC: And how did the two laborer 10 rovers fit into that?
11 MR. EHELE: They were signed on to the 12 hot work permits. They became responsible for the 13 whole area while the individual crafts, whether they 14 be ironworkers or pipe fitters, were out on break or 15 out on lunch or gone home for the day.
16 MR. URYC: Did you ever understand that 17 to be Harrison's concern, that two rovers can't 18 possibly watch all of these hot works?
19 MR. EHELE: No, sir. It was never 20 presented to me that way.
21 MR. MERSCHOFF: Didn't Stone & Webster 23 subsequently change the-number of rovers?
-. 2 3 MR. EHELE: Yes, we did; and'that is 34 where I-was heading. The meeting that we had that 35 very. day, we had another one that afternoon where we
41 1 sat down with a laborer, I sat down with -- the 2 laborer being the bull steward -- and specifically 3 the ironworker steward and the general foreman for 4 the fire watch, as well as some of the other 5 discipline managers, labor discipline managers, and-6 myself.
7 And the general foreman for the laborers 8 presented the program to us that they did in 9 unit 2. The program in unit 2 had three laborers 10 per elevation performing fire watch duties at all 11 times. I know that sour s like, well, maybe what 12 Mr. Harrison said was right. We didn't have enough, 13 and now we are going with three. But if you look at 14 the rest of it, what that allowed me to do is I 15 didn't have to have that ironworker doing that 16 specific fire watch. He could now perform other 17 duties to get ready for other tasks, and it freed up 18 an additional man here to perform some production 19 work for completion of the iron and not just be a 20 fire watcher, because we had an individual laborer, 21- three laborers now, that were roving around 22 performing. fire watches for all of the-23 spark-producing activities on that elevation. So I 24 had five ironworkers in there working,- and then 35_ these guys could go on;and do additional work in i
42 1 there.if they didn't ~ specifically have to do fire' 2 watch or didn't have to have them there at all.
3 MR. JOFNSON: Their helpers, you are 4 talking about?
5 MR. EHELE: That's correct. I didn't 6 have to have them there at all anymore because you 7 had laborers there. And consequently, it cut down 8 on man-hours worked, which is, in fact, relates to 9 them all. We have less people in the regulation 10 area. So this was a good program, and we accepted-11 it and agreed upon it, and we implemented it the 12 following Monday.
13 MR. MERSCHOFF: Two rovers would not have 14 been enough to accomplish that, the coverage you 15 needed?
16 MR. EHELE: I think two probably would 17 have done it.
16 MR. MERSCHOFF: But three was to be 19 prudent?
20 MR. EHELE. I think so. I agree with 21 that. It was what.had been done previously before, 22 and everybody,was in agreement with it. And it's 23- what we had done in the previous unit, and I didn't 24 see a problem with it. I remind you, again,-this 35 was the third one-that was going _to be infthere-
43 1 specifically for all of the time that the 2 spark-producing activities were going on, not 3 necessarily to just cover the cool-down period, but 4 all of the time.
5 Up to this point, and I go back.again'to 6 February the 1st, I probat ' lad never really had 7 any direct discussion with Mr. Harrison. I probably 8 wouldn't have recognized him had he walked in the 9 room. I was dealing at this time with over 140 10 ironworkers and probably 80 pipe fitters that were 11 working in the dry well in and out, in and out, in 12' and out.
13 And I had been working on --
and 14 everybody can relate to the difference between the 15 mod side and the plant side. I had been working on-16 the plant side prior to working over in the dry 17 well, so I really didn't have a whole lot of contact 18 with any of the craft that were working strictly on 19 recovery or strictly on modifications. I was 20 working strictly on maintenance. A lot of these 21 people were new people to me, new names, new faces.
22 After the meeting on the 3rd that I went 23 through already, and we decided to'let the laborers
.24 do it, that was implemented'the following Monday.
25 We found on the 3rd that it was kind of an l
4
i 44 1 inappropriate thing, and I think the - stewards agreed 2 with us, it was an. inappropriate thing to have this 3 work stoppage. Specifically, because it became a 4 labor issue. Wt didn't have a safety issue here.
5 We had a labor issue. And the steward was in 6 agreement. Okay, guys, you really need to go to 7 work. We don't have any problems out there. You 8 need to just get up and do what we are paying you 9 for, and that is to go to work.
10 Since all of this began in 1993, I have 11 been party to quite a bit of investigation; and I 12 have cooperated all the way through. Mr. Salowitz, 13 of Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns Program, 14 addressed me shortly thereafter; and I gave him all 15 the information he needed at the time. The T V2. OIG 16 was there. He talked to me, and I gave him all the 17 information he needed. I filed an affidavit with 18 the Department of Labor, and I testified before the 19 Administrative Law Judge.
20 So I have cooperated in e"ery way that I 21 could to try and clear all this matter up and give 22 them all the information that I can, and basically I 23 have told everybody basically ~the same thing I have 34- just told'y'all.
25 Throughout the. years, and as I have told
45' 1 you, I go back about 25 years with the nuclear 2 program, I have been aware of the NRC regulacions 3 against discrimination and retaliation and whistle 4 blower acts. Not only is this emphasized through my-5 management with Stone & Webster, but personally that-6 information is always conveyed from me to the-7 supervisors that work-for me and to the crafts and 8 to the individuals that work below me. They always 9 can follow up, go to the NRC anytime they feel like 10 it. If you have concerns, bring them to me; and we 11 will go ahead and resolve them. And I think in this 12 case once we found what their concerns were, that we 13 handled them immediately; and we took care of their 14 concerns; and no more, nothing else had been 15 addressed after that.
16 If nothing else, this meeting and these 17 events have impressed upon me the need to 18 cummunicate effectively with my employees and 19 I definitely need to be sensitive to their concerns.
20 and to their questions. Thank you.
2l MS. WATSON: I have one more question.
22 MR. EHELE: Yes.
23 MS, WATSON: In'the Secretary of Labor's 24 decision, I assume you have read that?
25 MR. EHELE: Yes,- ma'am.
o 46 1 MS. WATSON: There's a comment in here 2 about Mr. Morrow's statements to you when 3 Mr. Harrison was transferred-to an outside position, 4 and my reading of this leads me to believe that 5 Mr. Morrow believes that you told him to take 6 Mr. Harrison and move him, and I'm-just wondering,-
7 from what you said, it sounded like Mr. Morrow had 8 requested moving hir.
9 MR. EHELE: That's my statement; that's 10 correct.
11 MS. WATSON: Can you clarify?
12 MR. EHELE: My statement is that 13 Mr. Merrow' requested it. He asked me -- Mr.
14 Harrison requested it ;hrough Mr. Morrow. He asked 15 that on the 2nd of February. He had previously, 16 also, that had been addressed to my subordinates, if 17 he could be transferred; and they had to have that 18 cleared through me; so that'e why they came to me 19 and asked me.
20 MR. MERSCHOFF: During that same time 21 period between th,e 1st and the 2nd, according to the 22 Secretary-of Labor's decision, after the meeting 23 with the ironworkers, Mr. Harrison went to TVA, and 24 he states he. learned.that you were out of compliance 25 with'the fire protection program, presumably two
4 47 1 rovers is not enough. It doesn't say that. Simply-2 that you are out of compliance. That he, 3 Mr. Harrison, went back to you -- I don't.think it 4 was the same day. I think it is February 1st. To 5 tell you that you are out of compliance, and that 6 you needed to speak with Mr. Wallace, which you 7 never did.
8 So he came back the second day because 9 the concern of the inadequate number of rovers had 10 never been addressed, and that's what led to the 11 ultimate work stoppage, et cetera. What's your 12 recollection of that period on the 1st of being told 13 that?
1 MR. EHELE: Mr. Harrison told me that 15 afternoon that Mr. Wallace of the TVA fire 16 protection wanted to talk "o me. He didn't address 17 what it was or why he wanteu to talk with me. I 18 tried to make contact with Mr. Wallace and couldn't 19 hook up with him. That is not necessarily unusual.
20 Browns Ferry was very busy in the early stages of i 21 1993, and-it was hard to make contact with people, 22 but I did try to make contact with Mr. Wallace, and 1
23 I never could get up with him.
- 24. MR.-MERSCHOFF: But you don't have any 25- recollection of being informed that what-you were 1
1
48 1 doing was not in compliance with'TVA's fire 2 protection?
3 MR. EHELE: No, sir.
4 MR. BISHOP: This is a point of 5 information. The letter that we have talked about 6 that was issued on October the 2nd of '92, 7 Mr. Wallace was the concorving signatory of that 8 letter that was issued by Stone & Webster 9 management.
10 MR. MERSCHOFF: Does that letter make it 11 clear that during breaks, end of work, that all cool 12 down would be covered by two rovers?
13 MR. EHELE: Yes, sir, it does, 14 specifically.
15 MR. MERSCHOFF: Maybe when we get to the 16 TVA point, if you could clarify whether or not two 17 rovers is consistent with your program requirements, 18 if you know that now.
19 MR. BISHOP: It is all a level of 20 effort. One rover would be adequate if the level of 21 effort was there.
22 MR. MERSCHOFF: It's the function of the 23' amount of welding?
124 MR. BISHOP: That's correct.
.25 MR. EHELE: It also depends, on
49 1 particularly in the dry well, which elevation you 2 are talking about. The elevation gets smaller as 3 you go up.
4 MR. 'RYC: You had two lead foremen, and 5 you were expected to reduce one of those lead 6 foremen, and Harrison was one of those, right?
7 MR. EHELE: My question for my 8 supervisor, when I first took over this, why do we
. 9 need all of those people.
10 MR. URYC: But you had two lead foremen, 11 and Harrison was a lead fereman?
I 12 MR. EHELE: Yes, sir.
13 MR. URYC: Can you tell me again.why you 14 chose Harrison to be the one?
)'
15 MR. EHELE: I didn't. I didn't choose 16 him.
17 MR. URYC: Who did?
18 MR. EHELE: The three supervisors who 19 worked for me made the selection. Like I said,-I 20 never knew any of these people, so I wouldn't have 21 been in any position at all to make a selection.
22- MR. URYC: So you received a 23 recommendation --
<2 4 MR.'EHELE: That's correct.
35 MR .- URYC: -- from other ~ supervisors'who
-1 a
50 1 recommended to.you that Harrison be one of the lead 2 foremen cut back?
3 MR. EHELE: That's correct.
4 MR. URYC: And this is all prior to 5 February 1st?
6 MR. EHELE: That's correct.
7 MR. BISHOP: Let me help you a little bit 8 with a couple of things I had stated before. On 9 October 6th of 1992, Doug Harrison was promoted to a 10 lead foreman and then reduced back to a foreman on 11 November the lith of 1992. And when he was 12 promoted, at that time, he was told that when the 13 work level comes down, and we have a need to reduce 14 lead foremen, you will be the first because you are 15 the least senior person.
16 Then again on January the 6th of 1993, 17 when Doug Harrison was promoted the second time to a 18 lead foreman, that conversation also took place.
19 Now, that was prior to Steve becoming involved in 20 the unit 3 dry well work and probably about that 21 same week or the week after. He was told that, hey, 22 when the workload co nes down and we have a need to 23 reduce the number of lead foremen, Doug, you will be 24 the first to be used. We also have order of values 25 Lthat .are kept, as you know,;.but the individual that
- _ __ _ - ___ _ __-_-_:_ _ _ = _ ____ _ --
51 1 was in there that was the remaining lead foreman was 2 the one that had been in there all the time and the 3' more senior individual as a lead foreman.
4 D4S . EVANS: How many others were 5 reduced? You said there were reductions across all 6 disciplines. Do you know how many, just off the top 7 of your head?
8 MR. BISHOP: During that '- i m e frame -- do 9 we have the exact number?
10 MR. EHELE: Four.
11 MR. MEDFORD: We can provide that.
12 MR. RADER: We can provide you with 13 records. The exact number is hard to ascertain 14 because the employment records are no longer 15 available, but we can show you four other lead 16 foremen produced during that period.
17 MR. JOHNSON: I have two quick 18 questions. Were there any fires in the dry well in 19 this' time period; and secondly, were there any 20 instances of fire watches where they were acting as 21 a fire watch but were not qualified or certified 22 according to TVA's requirements?
23 MR. EHELE: I don't know.. The first 24 question, no, there were no fires, not at that 25 time. I think later on there might have been some
52 1 other ones that happened; and specifically in this 2 time frame that we are dealing with here, in early 3 1993, no.
4 MR. MERSCHOFF: Are you in a position to 5 know? That is a pretty definite statement, there 6 were no fires. There are often fires, as you know, 7 in construction sites. Would you know?
8 MR. EHELE: I'm talking about in the dry 9 well, yes, I would know.
10 MR. MERSCHOFF: Okay.
11 MR. JOHNSON: You were overseeing the dry 12 well activities?
13 MR. EilE L E : That's correct. As far as 14 the qualified person signed on, I don't think that 15 anybody that was not qualified would have signed on 16 except that had responsibility. As far as I know, 17 there were no one that were signed on in that work 18 permit that had not been properly trained by TVA in 19 the fire watch program.
20 MR. JOHNSON: Those are all the questions ,
21 I have. f 22 MR. BISHOP: Page 6, the Stone & Webster l
23 _ investigation finds no discrimination. On 124- February 4th of-1993, Doug Harrison contacted Steve 25- Salowitz,. manager of the Stone & Webster Employee f i
53 1 Concerns Program. Steve Salowitz investigates on 2 February the 4th through~the 12th, 1993, by 3 interviewing the Stone & Webster supervision and 4 management, who at the time advised of the roster 5 review that was taking place and the decision to 6 eliminate a lead foreman position prior to the 7 concern being raised. Steve Salowitz concludes that 8 no reprisal occurred. That the cutbacks in progress 9 had begun prior to Harrison's discussing the fire 10 watch concerns.
11 Steve Salowitz also concluded that 12 Harrison's reduction from lead foreman to foreman 13 was based on seniority, like the previous reductions 14 in November of 1992.
15 Page 7, Steve Salowitz investigates the 16 possible failure of laborers to sign on to the hot 17 work permits. Steve first finds that the hot work 18 permits from February 3rd, 1993 and afterwards were 19 signed; and later, when they were available, 20- reviewed the permits on February 1st and 2nd of 21 1993; 'and they were signed, even though some were 22 illegible.
23 Steve Salowitz confirms that Steve Ehele 24 had taken adequate corrective action after_the 25 meeting on February'3rd, 1993 to assure that
54 1 laborers were signing permits. Steve Salowitz and 2 TVA QA agreed at that time that no corrective action 3 document was needed. He found that no evidence was 4 found that laborers in the dry well failed to cover 5 hot cpnts during the absence of the ironworkers.
6 Then on April 16th of 1993, when Doug 7 Harrison returns to work from an extended sick 8 leave, Steve Salowitz informs Doug Harrison of his 9 investigation results. Harrison was told that he 10 had done a good job as lead foreman and was reduced 11 only because of cost savings and the workload. At 12 that time, Doug Harrison raised no concerns about 13 the handling of the complaint or the findings.
14 We have Steve Salowitz here, as you can 15 see, if there are any questions, now or later, 16 ladies and gentlemen. If not, we can go to page 8, 17 the Department of Labor actions.
18 On March 30th of 1993, Doug Harrison 19 filed a Section 211 complaint with the Department of 20 Labor. This was received by Stone & Webster on 21 May 28th of 1993. The Department of Labor Wage and 22 Hour Division finds on June 16 of 1993 by clear and 23 convincing evidence that no discrimination
-24 occurred. They found that the standard review of-25 the personnel assignments and labor costs led to 1
1
55 1 Harrison's demotion. The only other lead foreman 2 maintained his position because of seniority. That 3 the decisions to demote Harrison and' foremen of 4 other crafts was made prior to Doug Harrison raising 5 any fire watch concerns on February 1st of 1993.
6 Then after a full hearing with live 7 testimony, the Administrative Law Judge issued a 8 recommended decision on November 8th of 1994 finding 9 no discrimination or retaliation against Harrison.
10 He finds that Doug Harrison was made lead 11 foreman to finish the lower steel. That's elevation 12 563 in the dry well unit No. 3 at Browns Ferry.
13 When near completion, Stone & Webster was reviewing 14 its rosters and decided that fewer foremen were 15 needed; hence, no discrimination in Harrison's 16 reduction from lead foreman to foreman. He found 17 that Harrison's reduction was in accordance with 18 accepted seniority principles.
19 Harrison's subsequent transfer to an 20 outside crew came either at his own request or after 21 his meeting with the ironworkers resulted in a work 22 stoppage.
23 This was'the finding of the 24 Administrative Law Judge. As we have stated, his
- 25. transfer was because of his request.
i 56 1 And then.the decision and order by'the-2 Secretary of Labor on August 22nd of 1995 rejects 3 the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion.
4 MR. URYC: Turn back to page 6, and I 5 have a question for Mr. Salowitz. The first bullet 6 says that Harrison contacted you. What was the 7 nature of that contact and why did he contact you 8 then?
9 MR. SALOWITZ: He came'to me on the 4th 10 of February; and ac that time, he told me that back 11 on the 2nd of February, he felt that there was an 12 inadequate number of fire watch personnel.in the dry 13 well; and that individuals were not signing on to 14 the hot work permits at that particular time. And 15 he also told me that he was reduced to a fcreman 16 level for raising those questions.
17 MR. URYC: And did you then talk to 18 Mr. Ehele about those concerns that Mr. Harrison 19 expressed to you?
20 MR. SALOWITZ: Yes, I did, the following 21 day, the 5th, is when I spoke to Mr. Ehele and other 22 Stone & Webster supervisors who worked for Mr. Ehele.
23 and Mr. Ehele's immediate supervisor as well, 24 including the other lead foreman.
35 MR. URYC: What is your understanding of ll
57 1 why Harrison thought that he was being discriminated 2 against for raising these concerns? Did you explore 3 that and develop that with him?
4 MR. SALOWITZ: Yes. Mr. Harrison felt 5 that he had made the point thet there were not 6 enough fire watch in the dry well when the 7 ironworkers left, and he felt he had discussed that-8 with management, and that. is basically what he told 9 me, and that is the way we left it.
10 MR. MERSCHOFF: On the 1st he thought he 11 made that point, is that what you are saying?
12 MR. SALOWITZ: No, he talked to me on 13 the 4th, and he claimed that -- on the 1st, that's 14 correct, yes, 15 MS. EVANS: Can you share with us what 16 the other managers might have said about 17 Mr. Harrison?
18 MR. SALOWITZ: They all had very high 19 regard for Mr. Harrison, as far as his ability to do 20 the job. And, in fact, they were -- how can I 21 phrase this. They were_quite concerned because they 22 had to cut back one individual because they didn't 23 have any work. You know, the work had stopped in 24 that area or was reduced in'that area. And in order 25- t o _ -- - they could have k"ept either one, is what they
58 1 told me; and when Mr. Harrison left, and I spoke to 2 them, that's when I told him what they had told me.
3 That they wish they could have kept him because he 4 was as good as the initial lead foremLn or the other 5 lead foreman.
6 MR. URYC: Could I take you to page 5, 7 the first bullet under February 3rd, 1993 where 8 Harrison speak 7 with the ironworkers. Do you know 9 'f i those ironworkers refused to work because of what 10 Harrison had discussed with them?
11 MR. SALOWITZ: No.
12 MR. URYC: Thank you.
13 MR. BISHOP: Are we ready for page 9? Go 14 ahead, Bob.
15 MR. RADER: After the Secretary's 16 decisien in ?.ugust of this year, Stone & Webster 17 determined that it would pursue an appeal by 18 petition for review with the Eleventh Circuit Clerk, 19 an appeal which was filed on October 13th.
20 In general, there were two areas in which 21 the company has appealed. The first area relates to 22 the definition of application of the protected 23 activity, which is required under Section 211 to 24 trigger _the responsibility-of the employer.
- 25. The-second set of issues relate to
59 4 1 substantial evidence, which are discussed on.page 2 10, which I will get to in a second.
'3 As you know, with~ regard to protected 4 activity, it is required under'section 211 that an 5 employee engage in protected activity before he 6 brings himself within the coverage of the statute.
7 So this is a highly significant concept and one 8- which is not simply some legal' technicality, and one 9 which has particular application here because as you 10 have heard Mr. Ehele tell you and as he has told the 11 Administrative Law Judge and everyone else before 12 him, he and the other supervisors simply did not 13 understand prior to February the 3rd exactly what 14 was Mr. Harrison's concern about the fire watch and 15 apparently the concerns shared by some of the other 16 ironworkers. Indeed, even at that point, one would 17 be hard-pressed to say it was a safety issue as 18 such. It was really an issue of whether or not the 19 ironworkers who were signed on to the permit can 20 come out of the dry well area.
21 In any event, it is pretty clear from-the 22 testimony before the Administrative Law . Judge that 23 as'of February 1st, before the time when the
-34~ decision had already been made, that is, after the
~
25' decision had already been made to' cut back
60 1 Mr. Harrison from a lead foreman to a foreman 2 position, it is clear that at that time, M r .. Ehele 3 did not have the state of mind to understand that 4 Mr. Harrison thought that he was engaging in 5 protected activity by raising safety concerns.
6 In fact, if you read the Secret.ary's 7 decision, even he acknowledges that initially this 8 was thought to be a jurisdictional concern, and it 9 wasn't until later that it evolved into a safety 10 issue. Unfortunately, the Secretary, from our 11 perspective, never really explains how this came to 12 be perceived as a safety issue..
13 We think that at the earliest this could
.14 not have been conceived as anything remotely related 15 with safety until at least February 3rd, when the 16 reduction had already taken place. -
17 Also, we feel that the Secretary's 18 findings that there was a violation of the fire 19 protection plan in force at Browns Ferry is simply 20 invalid. As Mr. Ehele has explained, there was an 21 agreement on October 2nd between TVA, Stone &
22 Webster, you.know, with the endorsement support of 23 all.the crafts and bartsining units, that the 24 ironworkers would participate in'the fire watch; and-25 that the' laborers would be used as supplemental-
__m
61 1 rovers.
2 There has been no showing by the 3 Secretary that there was any violation of the fire 4 protection requirements under that plan. There is 5 certainly no violation of any'NRC regulations. So 6 we believe that finding is inadmissible; and, 7 therefore, there is no basis for finding protected 8 activity in that particular area.
9 And finally, in this area, there is a 10 finding by the Secretary that when Mr. Harrison was 11 speaking with the other ironworkers on February 12 the 3rd. that he was engaged in protected activity 13 because he was raising concerns with the coworkers; I
14 and we feel that that is also an unjustified 15 extension of the statute. As you may know, the 16 traditional interpretation of protected activity is 17 when an employee raises concern with the supervision 18 or with the NRC or at least somebody in some higher 19 authority.
20 The remainder of issues are discussed on 21 page 10; and as we say here, these issues relate to 22 the lack of substantial-evidence to support the 23 Secretary's decision. The decision.of the 24 Secretary, as the head of f any agency of.the United
'n
.25 States whose decision is under appeal, must be zm
i e 62 1 supported by substantial evidence; and we believe in 2 this case there is no substantial evidence to 3 support the Secretary's decision for several 4 reasons.
5 The primary among them is the fact that 6 the Secretary of Labor in this case substituted his 7 judgment on witness credibility for that of the 8 Administrative Law Judge. It is a very basic 9 principle under American jurisprudence that the 10 trial judge is there to examine the witnesses' 11 credibility. He alone hears them speak. He watches 12 their body language, he hears the words come from 13 their mouth, and he alone is in the position to 14 distinguish those who are telling the truth from 15 those who are not.
16 And indeed in this case, if you look at 17 all the testimony, and in most cases, the testimony 18 of Mr. Ehele and the other Stone & Webster witnesses 19 was not even controverted. Actually, you can 20 believe everything Mr. Harrison had to say and still 21 believe everything that Mr. Ehele had to say because 22 -what we are talking about is intent, understanding 23 and knowledge. As Mr. Ehele has explained, his
- 24. knowledge regarding Mr. Harrison's. activities was
.25 certainly not the same as Mr. Harrison may have
1 63 1 understood.
~
2 There are several examples where this 3 comes into play in the Secretary's decision. The 4 Secretary obviously did not accept the 5 Administrative Law Judge's assessment of witness 6 credibility regarding the reasons for the cutback.
7 And for whatever reason, which we cannot understand, 8 he did not credit not only the testimony of Mr.
9 Ehele, which he pointed out didn't even select Mr.
10 Harrison; but he discredited the testimony of the 11 three supervisors who did, in fact, select Mr.
12 Harrison for the cutback. And, in fact, he didn't 13 even mention them in his own decision, which I find 14 startling.
15 Also, you will find that the Secretary 16 quibbles with the field manager's testimony about He 17 the desired ratio between foremen and craftsmen.
18 said, well, I don't believe that-because he didn't c
19 achieve the exact result that he was looking for.
20 Well, you know, there is an old saying that the It was an approvement. It 21 enemy of better is best.
was a decided improvement. And as I said, we can 22 23 produce records that will show that not only 24 Mr. Harrison,_ but other lead. foremen, were, in fact,
- 2 5 - cut back; and it' demonstrates the sincerity and
64 1 honesty of the field manager, Mr. Ehele and the 2 other supervisors, in making those cutbacks.
3 We also feel that the Secretary did not 4 credit the Administrative Law Judge's understanding 5 of what M r '. Ehele said when he made a comment about 6 that Mr. Harrison was acting like Moses parting the 7 Red Sea. It was an off-hand comment; but as Mr.
8 Ehele has explained, he was concerned about the work-9 stoppage; and that is what triggered that comment.
10 The Administrative Law Judge accepted that; but for 11 some reason, the Secretary of Labor never heard 12 'A r . Ehele explain that; and we don't think that's 13 right.
14 Also with regard to the issue of 15 Harrison's transfer, Mr. Ehele testified that he did 16 it at his own request. The Administrative Law Judge 17 said, well, it was either that, or it was because he 18 was engaged in unauthorized work stoppage; but 19 either way it is proper; and we believe that the 20 Secretary of Labor improperly disregarded that 21 conclusion as well.
22 So in general, we believe that there are 23 many very unsatisfactory legal conclusions and 24 factual findings.by the Secretary which are very.
25 vulnerable to appeal, _and we do believe that this
65 1 finding by the Secretary should and will. be 2 reversed.
3 MR. BISHOP: Page 11, Stone & Webster's 4 Employee Concerns Program does encourage reporting 5 of safety and quality concerns, 6 MR. MERSCHOFF: Let me go back, Bob, for 7 one minute. Can you speak to the remedy at all?
8 Have you requested a stay to ti , remedy and total 9 resolution be appealed?
10 MR. RADER: Yes, we have. We have asked 11 the Secretary to stay his order regarding back pay 12 pending resolution.
13 MR. MERSCHOFF: Has that been granted?
14 MR. RADER: It has not been acted upon.
15 MR. ROSANO: Let me ask a quick 16 question. I have a copy of the application for 17 stay, at I can't cell from it what is the date that 18 it was filed.
19 MR. RADER: I'm sorry, Mr. Rosano, I 20 don't have it with me. It was filed about a week 21 after the appeal itself was filed. I'm guessing it 22 would be about a week, 10 days ago.
23 MR, ROSANO: Thank you.
34 MR. BISHOP: Okay, the Stone & Webster 25; _ Employee' Concerns Program was implemented to
66 l' investigate Stone & Webster's employees' nuclear 2 safety and quality concerns that were not resolved 3 by supervision or management. The Employee Concerns 4 reprecentative functions independently-from Stone &
5 Webster site management in investigating and 6 resolving nuclear safety and quality concerns and 7 allegations of intimidation or harassment.
8 Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns rep 9 coordinates and shares the investigative results 20 with TVA.
11 Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns 12 involvement in the Harrison case, the Stone &
13 Webster Employee Concerns representative conducted a 14 thorough investigation and obtained TVA concurrence 15 on the disposition of the fire watch concerns.
16 Mr. Harrison was apparently satisfied by the report 17 that the Employee Concerns rep gave him on April 16 18 of 1993.
19 Page 12, the effectiveness of the Stone &
20 Webster Employee Concerns Program has been verified 21 a number of times. The Stone & Webster actions to 22 improve the quality of the work environment in
-23 raising safety concerns is in response to an NRC
'24 letter date'd August.26, 1993 in an unrelated 25 Section.211fcase..
I
67 1 We issued a memorandum dated September 2 14th of 1993 from myself to all supervisors and 3 managers summarizing the Stone &_ Webster Employee 4 Concerns Program and initiating a program to roll 5 this information down to all employees.
6 We conducted a follow-up survey to 7 determine the knowledge and use of the Employee 8 Co.icerns Program in October of 1993. The results 9 showed no evidence of chilling effect in willingness 10 to report Employee Concerns.
11 Let me give you some numbers from that 12 survey. There were 347 or 31 percent of the on-site 13 craft at that time were surveyed. 91 percent of the 14 surveyed said they would discuss concerns with 15 either their supervisor or the Stone & Webster 16 ' Employee Concerns rep. 92 percent of those 17 surveyed would discuss with Stone & Webster, TVA, or 18 the NRC.
19 In addition, there were some special 20 meetings held by the Stone & Webster site manager.
21 This was to make crafts aware of the available 22 processes for reporting quality and safety )
23 concerns. These meetings took place in October of 24 1993.
25 Then during some inspection activities by a
68 1 the NRC which audited the effectiveness of the Stone 2 & Webster Employee Concerns Program-in November of 3 3993 confirmed that Stone & Webster personnel were 4 not reluctant to report potential safety / quality 5 concerns.
6 The employees surveyed unanimously, with 7 the exception of one Stone & Webster employee that 8 was on their first day of work at Browns Ferry, 9 stated 1.0 reluctance to raise safety / quality 10 concerns to supervisors. Stone & Webster's Employee 11 Concerns Program, TVA, or the NRC. The numbers 12 there were 127 Stone & Webster employees surveyed by 13 the NRC, 124 said that they would raise concerns to 14 sup. iisien or management. We feel that is 15 confidence in management.
16 The NRC concludes that based on this 17 current activity and earlier surveys, that the 18 awareneas and knowledge of the contractor and TVA's 19 program have increased.
20 Later Stone & Webster performs another 21 random survey to evaluate potential chilling 22 effects, which concludes that Stone & Webster 23 employees are willing to report safety and quality 24 concerns without fear of reprisal. This survey was 25 . conducted with 471 or 43 percent of the then on-site
69 1 craft. The results were 98.9 percent would raise 2 concerns to supervision, TVA, or the NRC. 98.1 3 responded that they would raise concerns to either 4 supervision, management, or through the Stone &-
5 Webster Employee Concerns Program.
6 Then the TVA OIG in the July of '94 7 survey showed that Browns Ferry employees
-8 overwhelmingly felt free to raise nuclear safety 9 concerns to their supervision and management.
10 In J4nuary of '95 Stone & Webster 11 distributes a memorandum to all -ite employees 12 summarizing our Employee Concs F gram once 13 again.
14 TVA OIG's annual audit of Stone &
15 Webster's Employee Concerns Program in September of 16 1995 demonstrates that all Browns Ferry personnel
~
17 surveyed would report safety and quality concerns to j i
18 their supervisors or through other available 19 processes.
20 And later on October 2nd of 1995, at our-21 Monday morning toolboxes, and we have a lot of key 1
22 site locations throughout the site where we post I 23 important information, re e mp h a s i z ir.g Stone &
i
'l 24 Webster's management expectation that employees will' !
i 25 report ~ safety and. quality concerns and should feel I
l
70 1 free to do so.
2 We feel that the combined Stone &
3- Webster /TVA programs provide an effe ive assurance 4 to employees wishing to raise safety and-quality 5 concerns without fear of reprisal.
6 MR. MERSCHOFF: One quick question.
7 Page 13, the second bullet, the July '94 survey that 8 showed Browns Ferry employees, does that include 9 Stone & Webster contract employees?
10 MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir, it has a separate 11 category; and Mark is going to share with us those 12 results; and, I'm sorry, I should have said that.
13 MR. URYC: Mr. Bishop, how have you got 14 your expectations relative to supervisors dealing 15' with safety concerns and discrimination? How have 16 you got that down to the supervisory level?
17 MR. BISHOP: Well, we at Browns Ferry, 18 and I very much agree, are what we call an 19 organization. And as I mentioned earlier, where we 20 say roll down to, we start with an organization, and _
21 I just happen to be the one --
it doesn't make me 22 any more important than anyone else on that job --.I 23 just happen to be the'one~in charge out there at 24 Stone & Webster.
25 But we have these meetings that do -- as
71 1 you see anyplace in here where C . R .- Bishop issues a l 2 memorandum to the management and supervisors. It is
'3 a fairly large distribution. And we'have meetings 4 with management, whether_it be at my level or dawn, 5 that go down through supervision and then request 6 and require that they rol'1 this down to all 7 employees; and we do that through meetings at 8 different levels, or we do that through publications 9 and postings. And the postings that we mentioned in 10 here throughout the key locations is available to 11 all people.
12 All Stone & Webster people come on site 13 through a graph out. We are a contractor. We have 14 an association. Even if you don't go into the 15 secured areas, you will see the postings. Those 16 locations are posted with specific information like 17 this. But it is an organization that starts with 18 the publications. These are requirements that flow 19 down through.
20 As I mentioned also, Jimmy Butts, our 21 site manager -- 'I didn't mean to throw his name in 22 here -- but out fjeld site manager did have some 23 special needs with.some of the other crafts'
-24 supervision / management. He said that it's real 25 important to get this information to all of your
72 1 members about this.
2 MR. URYC: Have you given any special 3 training to your supervisors regarding
-4 discrimination, you know, how to avoid it, how .to 5 deal with potential discrimination cases? Have you 6 explained, for example, 50.7 in your liability?
7 MR. BISHOP: That is part of the 8 training. Maybe Steve could help us. That is 9 certainly identified at the pre -- it is not 10 pre-employment, but after all the training,-all the 11 people, before they go on-site who get training, 12 that information is passed along not only to Stone &
13 Webster but TVA and anybody.
14 MR. URYC: These are your general 15 employee training type issues?
1C MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir. To my knowledge, 17 as far as any training on how to handle a case like 18 this, our goal is not to have them. I can't think 19 of any training that we have given. But as Steve 20 described earlier, he clearly understands the 21 repercussions with discrimination and all the 22 retaliatory action that will be taken.
23 MR. URYC: Mr. Ehele made a very 24 interesting comment. If he had a lesson learned --
35 and I'm trying to' quote you as correctly as I can --
__ l
73 1 the biggest lesson he learned is the need to better.
2 communicate.
3 MR. BISHOP: Sure.
'4 MR. URYC: Have you had a lessons-learned 5 go-around on this particular case with your 6 supervisors? I mean- , there's been a tremendous 7 amount of time over the last several years on this 8 one case, I would imagine. Have you had sit-downs 9 with your supervisors to go, for example, through_a 10 lessons learned or --
11 MR. BISHOP: I don't know on which point 12 we specificaLly issued the information where we did 13 come up with some actions on some of the surveys 14 that we did which were, in fact, created because of 15 this just to check and see if we had a chilling
'16 effect.
1 17 The latest one is as far as a chilling 18 effect from the Secretary's decision on 19 August 22nd. We have issued some since then to get 20 people back up as far as their awareness. But I'm 21 trying to recall which ones were given away because 22 of the Harrison case.
23 MR. SALOWITZ: October 2nd.
24 MR. BISHOP: October 2nd of '95. Now, 25 .the September 14th-of '93'was in an unrelated tear
74 1 l'evel Section 211 case. Even though it settled, we 2 -did take some very quick actions there, not only to
- 3. get the program summary out to everybody, to roll it 4- down to all employees, but to do a follow-up survey-5 on whether that information is going out, in fact, 6 is getting out; and that's where the surveys hook 7 up, in addition to getting the program's information 8 out so everybody understands it, all the way from 9 the top down to everybody else, 10 MR. URYC: As a side point, I guess more 11 or less a point of curiosity on my part, your 12 numbers were very high in your surveys. 90 percent 13 said they would report. What were the other 10 14 percent saying as to why they would not report?
15 Were you getting any kind of feedback like that?
16 MR. BISHOP: We could certainly provide <
17 you with that because we do have the ones that 18 answered. There were answers like that, that they 19 would not. We have one, and I just don't recall it, 20 but we can certainly provide that.
21 MR. JOHNSON: Before we leave, maybe, 22 Mr. Dodson, you could address a question similar to 23 the last one in terms of programs Stone & Webster 24 had for all the supervisors in your facilities. I'm 25' not' familiar with1your activities in general in
. a -_a___ _ _ _ _ _ - ----_-__-__w
I l -
~
75 I
l I 7
/
1 training ]
any general f
I but do you have /
1 b other places, f for supervisors. meetings I
2 programs routine There are MR. DODSON: to discuss 1
f ]
with the heads of the field meet several locations common lessons that l 4 common problems and with discussions They have routine 5
times a year. contract j 6 . We are providing :
our head of construction. of operating plants.
We 7
for a number at a 8 - maintenance organizational structure have suoervision, is a regular i 9
facilities; and there number of other what are 10 what is going on, to share 11 infrastructure at one site to are the concerns the issues, w know about 12 f other sitas 13 make sure that _ ch of the sure, 14 those. conducted, I'm not And those are 15 but there are 16 there are three or four a year, common location bring into a multiple ones that we 17 18 to go over those kinds of issues of construction for the And the director visitations to 19 routinely makes know, are, 20 company, you the issues to understand what 21 the various sites can best cross-pollinate
' how to make sure that we one site 22 learned from that we have 23 the best lessons well. That was the to initiate into the other as 24 program in effect.
25 ~ '
l 1
~ ~ ' ~ - _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -- -
(
1 76 The specifics about, 2
managerial lessons you know, a broader 3 learned exercise 50.7, I honestly could not associated with 4 tell you; but I could 5 point to an exact lessons plan that has been used; and we have done specific 6 training.
I'm going to 7 havebeto go check, would but I do know for a fact that it routine 8
Q. Are cross dialogue between the sites.
you aware of any other problems in 9 i Stone & Webster 10 your such as this and other people in workstation?
11 _
MR. DODSON: No, sir.
12 go to page 14 If I could, let me 13 MR. JOHNSON.- Sure.
14 MR. DODSON:
15 enforcement action is We believe that no i16 warranted in this case. The NRC should find 17 the no violation of 50.7 occurred for following reasons.
L8 9
happened. The evidence shows that no 50.7 violation Stone & Webster management's O
funderstanding 1
was that there were no particular safety concerns being raised. k 2 The timing and the sequence of the foremen t
were before and lead foremen reductions j
any raising of any concern, and that Mr. Harrison's transfer was becaut : of a request. voluntary h
s"' _ .- - - - -
75 1 other places, but do you have any general training 2 programs for supervisors.
3 MR. DODSON: There are routine meetings 4 with the heads of the field locations to discuss 5 common problems and common lessons that meet several 6 times a year. They have routine discussions with 7 our head of construction. We are providing contract 8 maintenance for a number of operating plants. We 9 have supervision, organizational structure at a 10 number of other facilities; and there is a regular 11 infrastructure to share what is going on, what are 12 the issues, what are the concerns at one site to 13 make sure tact nach of the other sites know about 14 those. j 15 And those are conducted, I'm not sure, 16 there are three or four a year, but there are 17 multiple ones that we bring into a common location 18 to go over those kinds of issues.
19 And the director of construction for the 20 company, you know, routinely makes visitations to 21 the various sites to understand what the issues are, 22 how to make sure that we can best cross-pollinate 23 the best lessons that we have learned from one site 1 24 to initiate into-the other as well. That.we; the 25 program in effect.
J 1
)
76 1 The specifics about, you know, a broader-2 managerial lessons learned exercise associated with 3 50.7, I honestly could not tell you; but I could 4 point to an exact lessons plan that has.been used; 5 and we hava done specific training. I'm going to 6 have to go check, but I do know for a fact that it 7 would be routine cross dialogue between the sites.
8 Q. Are you aware of any other problems in 9 Stone & Webster such as this and other people in 10 your workstation?
11 MR. DODSON: No, sir, If I could, let me 12 go to page 14.
13 MR. JOHNSON: Sure.
14 MR. DODSON: We believe that no 15 enforcement action is warranted in this case. The 16 NRC should find no violation of 50.7 occurred for 17 the following reasons:
18 The evidence shows that no 50.7 violation 19 happened. Stone & Webster management's 20 understanding was that there were no particular 21 safety concerns being raised. The timing and the 22 sequence of the foremen and lead foremen reductions 23 were before any raising of any concern,-and that 24 Mr. Harrison's transfer-was because of a voluntary 25 request.
-77 1 The Administrative Law Judge found that 2 Mr. Ehele and other Stone'& Webster's managers were 3 credible and' acting in good faith and with honest 4 motives and intents.
5 The evidence shows conclusions that the 6 Stone & Webster managers acted with valid reasons.
7 And the Secretary himself acknowledges that the 8 discrimination finding is a, quote, close call.
9 Independent sources have likewise found 10 that no discrimination existed. Those include 11 Stone & Webster internal reviews, TVA reviews, and 12 NRC reviews that have been done to this point. A 13 finding in favor of Stone & Webster by the 14 Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division and of 15 the Administrative Law Judge show the merits of'the 16 Stone & Webster appeal in this action.
17 At a minimum, consideration of possible 18 enforcement action should be postponed pending the 19 decision of th'e Court of Appeals might be as 20 follows:
21 We believe certainly fairness dictates 22 that the NRC wait pending the Court of Appeals and 23 their decision of the case, given all of the' other 24 findings, finding no discrimination; and that this 25 was, quote, such a close: call.
78 1 The TVA, NRC, and Stone & Webster
- 2. resources are better conserved pending this appeal.
3 And, in fact, we believe there has been no 4 demonstration of need for any kind of immediate NRC 5 action. We have indicated results of surveys, 6 results of evaluations that have been done. We have 7 determined that the program is in effect and is 8 working well.
9 Even if a violation is deemed to have 10 occurred, no civil penalty shnuld be imposed. The
-11 Stone & Webster Employee Concerns representative 12 thoroughly investigated and resolved the safety 13 concerns, as well as any allegation concerning 14 discrimination. There is a lack of chilling effect, 15 as has been found and verified by the NRC, TVA, and 16 Stone & Webster. Stone & Webster does have a good 17 enforcement record.
18 The incident involving Mr. Harricon was a 19 single isolated occurrence that by every indication 20 has had no impact beyond the complainant himself.
21 That no violation of TVA's fire protection plan or 22 no violation or no safety issues existed. And the
- 23. Secretary acknowledged that his reversal of the 24 Administrative Law Judge's fact-finding is a close 25 question.
_c
79 1 Enforcement discretion .s i warranted in 2 this discrimination case where, as here, the-3 employer has taken prompt, comprehensive, and 4 effective corrective actions to address both the 5 particular situation-and the overall work 6 environment concerning raising of safety issues.
7 The effectiveness of the Employee-
- 8. Concerns representative's review has been discussed 9 with you. Ongoing actions by Stone & Webster to 10 assure that the work environment is conducive to 11 raising safety concerns has also been discussed with 12 you, and that there is no finding or evidence of any 13 programmatic discrimination or Llatant and egregious 14 actions of discrimination.
15 On page 16, we are very proud of the 16 Employee Concerns Program we have, its 17 effectiveness. We believe it was well-used here.
18 We believe it was in place and working effectively 19 during this period. We believe and we remain 20 committed to a free and open employee discussion of 21 safety concerns at all levels. We will not tolerate 22- intimidation', harassment and discrimination against
- 23. our employees.
- 24 We have repeatedly reinforced these
-25 expectations,_and'the. effectiveness ~ in communicating o
80 1 management's expectation has been verified. The 2 message has been getting out, and they understand 3 it.
4 Stone & Webster will continue to monitor 5 the effectiveness of this program and to emphasize 6 its availability for all employees.
7 It is for this very reason that we 8 believe we have an effective program in place, and 9 we continue to have an effective program in place, 10 that we have assumed all of these appealed 11 processes. And we believe that we were well founded 12 in what we were doing at the time, and continue to 13 believe we were well founded, and that our 14 supervisors acted in a proper way.
Mark?
15 MR. URYC: Let me ask a question. Has 16 Stone & Webster ever issued any correspondence that 17 very specifically says that management will not 18 tolerate any intimidation, harassment or 19 discrimination against employees? Were those 20 specific words used in any correspondence to select 21 employees?
22 MR. DODSON: The issuance of the various 23 communications that we talked about in the postings
.24 and all, whether they used exactly that phraseology, 25- -I could not state without looking back at those.
81 1- MR. URYC: This is a very powerful 2 statement here, and I would expect that it would 3 also be a very powerful statement to your employees 4 and to your supervisors.
5 MR. MEDFORD: If you will turn to page 3 6 in the TVA handout, that is where I will begin; but
'7 before I do that, Ellis, I would like to go back to 8 a question you asked earlier. And, that is, in 9 TVA's assessment, to the extent to which Douglas 10 Harrison was concerned about fire protection and dry 11 we] warnings, that has not been a key part of our 12 assessment of this situation. Neither on TVA 13 management, nor based on my quick reading of the OIG 14 report, rereading, I should say, on the part of the 15 OIG. You might ask why.
16 The answer is that -- in my mind, at 17 least -- it's not a particularly important issue.
18 Clearly, Douglas FTrrison did not raise this issue 19 frivolously. It is clear in my mind. In 20 retrospect, he did have a safety issue, whether it 21 is valid or not, admittedly. He may not have 22 communicated it as clearly as he should have, but I 23 think he had a sincere safetyLissue. If it would be 24- of value to the NRC, we will attempt to do a 25 retrospective assessment.
82 1 MR. MERSCHOFF: That's not important.
2 Whether he was right or wrong doesn't matter in this 3 instance. It is the case that he brought up a 4 concern. So your resources are best spent elsewhere 5 in researching the historical question.
6 MR. MEDFORD: With that, again, I would 7 like for you to turn to page 3 of the TVA handout.
8 On this page I'm going to give you a summary of our 9 assessment of the Browns Ferry working environment.
10 We have listed under the first bullet three specific 11 surveys, one by the NRC, two by our inspector 12 general, all of which I will note occurred after the 13 original Harrison case was filed, and the third of 14 which is at least contemporaneous with the Secretary 15 of Labor decision.
16 I should point out these dates I have 17 given are the dates of the report. In some cases, 18 the work done to support that report was done 19 somewhat for it. What I would like to do, I'm going 20 to make reference to the summary from the 1995 TVA 21 inspector general report. I would like to address 22 two categories of employees.
23 The first is TVA employees at Browns 24 Ferry, and I would like to compare their responses 25 in a given area across all three of these surveys.
83 1 In the 1993 NRC' survey, 98 percent of TVA' employees 2 at Browns Ferry indicated that they would report a 3 safety concern to the management. In 1994, a TVA 4 survey, 99.7 percent indicated that they would 5 report a safety issue to their management. And in 6 the most recent survey that was completed this 7 summer by the Inspector General, 100 percent. 181 8 out of 181 interviewees indicated that they would 9 raise an issue to their management. But the trend 10 is that from a very strong positive base in 1993, if 11 anything, the situation with regard to TVA employees 12 has gotten better.
13 I would also like to make reference to 14 the same' question for contractor employees at Browns 15 Ferry, and I will point out, Pete Bishop gave you a 16 number of statistics earlier. Pete appropriately 17 focused on Stone & Webster employees at B :.' o w n s 18 Ferry. I am not going to focus on Stone & Webster 19 employees but rather the total contract base at 20 Browns Ferry.
21 Again, going back to the 1993 NRC survey, 22 98 percent out of 171 interviewees indicated they 23 would report a safety issue to their management. In 24 response to.the same question in 1994, the Inspector e
25 General got 99 percent out.of 320 interviewees. And
e-84 l-l 1 finally, in response to the most recent' Inspector 2 General survey, 100 percent of the contractors l
3 surveyed, that was 192 individuals, indicated that 4 they would report a safety issue to their 5 management.
6 Based on this, we conclude that the 7 Harrison case has not . adversely impacted the work l
l 8 environment at Browns Ferry. If you would, turn to l
9 page 4 of the TVA handout. I will not dwell a lot 10 on this page, but I would like to briefly summarize 11 the requirements that we impose on TVA contractors..
l l 12 At the top of the page, .we have listed i 13 four specific requirements that are in the contracts 14 themselves. The contractors must comply with 15 Section 211. They must fully investigate 16 allegations of discrimination. They must cooperate 17 with the TVA Inspector General in investigation of 18 any issues, and they must describe management action 19 in response to issues,
- 20. Ma]or contractors, such as SWEC, ms 't 21 establish their own Employee Concerns Program. The 22 contractor Employee Concerns Programs are audited 23 periodically by both the TVA Inspector General and J2 4 the. Concerns Resolution Staff which reports to me.
25 There is frequent. communication between
(
85 1 the Contractor Concerns Programs and the TVA 2 Concerns Program. There is a specific requirement 3 that the contractor programs provide us a monthly 4 report on the status of the program. In addition to 5 that, the TVA Concerns Resolution site rep and the 6 contractor site reps typically talk at least weekly.
7 MR. MACHON: And I get a monthly report 8 on every employee concerning the status with regard 9 to his disposition status from my site rep, so I 10 will know what is going on in everybody's shop.
11 MR. MEDFORD: If you would, turn to 12 page 5. I would like to now discuss briefly the 13 actions taken by TVA as a result of this case.
14 First, as has been indicated a number of times, the 15 TVA Inspector General specifically investigated 16 Douglas Harrison's allegations.
17 Second, we have monitored the progress of 18 the case through the Department of Labor process, 19 that is, through the Wage and Hour decision and the 20 ALG decision and now the Secretary of Labor's' !
21 decision.
22 Third, we requested SWEC to address a ;
l 23 potential chilling effect of the Secretary's 24 decision by a letter _ dated September 19, 1995.
25 And finally, we've ass'essed their I
8 6~
1 response to that request in a follow-up action, and 2 we requested of them follow-up action in result of 3 that.
4 Specifically, we asked that SWEC go back 5 to those ironworkers who had been employed at the 6 time of the Harrison issue regarding the fire watch--
7 'and have continued to be on the Browns ~ Ferry site 8 since that time. They interviewed -- there were 11 9 individuals available to them. I think there are 10 two more that fall into the category I just 11 described who were unavailable. For example, like 12 No. 1 was on jury duty, and the other was 13 unavailable for some other reason. But of the 11 14 who were available to them, they were interviewed; 15 and all of them agreed they were willing to identify 16 the safety issues to t h e i r m a n a g.' .n e n t .
17 If you will turn to page 6, I would like 18 to summarize the situation from TVA's perspective.
19 First, as I have indicated earlier, the Browns Ferry 20 working environment is open to the. expression of 21 employee concerns.
22 secondly, the circumstances of the 23 Harrison case do not point to discrimination on the 24 part of SWEC.
'25 Third, I believe that both TVA and SWEC
'l l
87 1 have taken proper action in assessing and dispelling-2 the potential chilling effect on the case; and, 3 finally, no violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7 exists.
4 (Discussion ensued off the record.)
5 MR. MERSCHOFF: So by the last' bullet 6 mark, it indicates that TVA is in agreement with 7 Stone & Webster's conclusion that Mr. Harrison did 8 not raise a safety concern?
9 MR. MEDFORD: No.
10 MR. MERSCHOFF: Or that he wasn't 11 discriminated against?
12 MR. MEDFORD: He was not discriminated 13 against as a result of raising the safety concern.
14 MR. MERSCHOFF: You don't necessarily 15 agree that there wasn't a safety et- cern?
16 MR. MEDFORD: In hindsight, I think he 17 raised a safety concern. Now, there are two 18 issues. One is SWEC management's understanding at 19 the time described in this sequence of events 20 whether he raised a safety concern, and I think 21 there'is substantial doubt whether they believed 22 that he raised a safety concern, point No. 1.
23_ Point No. 2, I think they have shown 24 convincingly'that the action taken, the employment
.25 action taken,-had been initiated prior to any safety
88 1 concern having been' raised, whether it was 2 understood or not.
3 MR. MERSCHOFF: I understand. Thank you.
'4 MR. DODSON: Could I answer one question 5 that was asked me. You asked the question could I 6 site specifically that we had used that specific 7 phraseology. I have a copy of the Heads Up, which 8 was one of the bulletins that was used out there; 9 'and if I could read the first paragraph, this might 10 answer your question.
11 It reads: Stone & Webster is committed 12 to implementing an effective Employee Concerns 13 Program at Browns Ferry and offers an uninhibited 14 opportunity to express employee concerns. Our 15 policy at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant provides SWEC 16 employees with several options for expressing 17 employee concerns without fear of intimidation, 18 harassment or reprisal.
19 That is the first paragraph, underlined 20 and highlighted as it was presented.
21 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. At this point, what 22 I would like to do is take a short break. You all
-23 -can remain here if you would like. We wil] go to a L24 separate room and see if we have any further 25 questions. I. don't think we will take more than
891 1 five minutes.
2 (A recess was taken.)
.3 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, Dick, P. r e you still 4 on the phone?
5 MR. RASONA: Yes, I am here.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, we do have a few 7 questions for Stone & Webster. The first question 8 is: Your Employee Concerns Program investigation, I 9 think we heard that the investigation concluded, 10 from talking to the supervisors, that they indicated 11 that when you were going to downgrade a supervisor 12 or a general foreman, either that it didn't matter 13 to them, that either supervisor could be downgraded, 14 and earlier we heard that it was going to'be based 15 on seniority. So 1 guess if you could explain that 16 discrepancy.
17 MR. SALOWITZ: I think you are talking 18 about my statement before.
19 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
20 MR. SALOWITZ: They told me that based on 21 seniority, they decided to reduce Mr. Harrison; but, 22 you know, I guess what I was trying to 'l you is 23 that they were both equally as good as .i e another.
24 The onlyfdifference being that' based on eeniority-25 Harrison knew, when he went into the job, that when 1
90.
I they did reduce, he would be ~t he first one reduced.
2 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. The second question 3 we had was, Mr. Dodson, the bulletin that.you held 4 up, you called it a Heads Up bulletin?
5 MR. DODSON: Yes, sir.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Could we get a copy of 7 that, and also, could you indicate who received a 8 . copy of that? Was it all Stone & Webster employees 9 included?
10 MR. DODSON: Do you want to address the 11 distribution of this?
12 MR. SALOWITZ: I also have in here, I 13 found when you were out, I have a toolbox topics 14 which has exactly the same information provided on 15 it, and this is distributed to all Stone & Webster 16 craft, and that is what is used at their weekly 17 toolbox meeting. And they actually, if I'm not 18 mistaken, they sign an attendance roster that says 19 that they have been at this toolbox meeting; and 20 this information has been provided to t h e m ..
21 MR. BISHOP: As stated previously, the 22 Monday morning before work shift; and, of course, we 23 have other shifts; but generally speaking, Monday 24 morning we have a toolbox-session; and we were 25 saying that that was included in there; and we do,
d T
91
- 1. in fact, have an' attendance roster and a sheet 2 stating they were there.
3 MR. JOHNSON: Who were there?
4 MR. BISHOP: All the craft, and then this 5 was one of the same meetings that Harrison. raised
+
6 the fire watch concerns over on February the 1st.
7 That takes place on Monday morning of each shift.
8 MR. DODSON: Not the same actual meeting, 9 the same type of meeting.
10 MR. BISHOP: The same type of meeting, 11 yes.
12 MR. DODSON: On the Heads Up posting that 13 I was talking about, it's a thing that was posted in 14 a common area but doesn't specifically require the 15 person, or that we could s' aw that that person saw 16 the thing. It's there for u-,e to look at in common 17 areas; whereas, the other one, there was literally a l
18 roster.
19 MR. JOHNSON: So the workers at the j 20 toolbox meetings, we know that they received it; and 21 we know what was posted; but my question also 22 related to the supervisors.
23 MR. BISHOP: Well, the supervisors also
-24 attend the toolbox meeting.
25 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. The last. question we j I
4
)
i 92 1 had was, Mr. Ehele, could you confirm what your 2 position was at the time of this incident in 3 approximately early February of '93.
4 MR. EHELE: I was assigned as the dry 5 well manager, to oversee the work in the dry well by 6 all crafts, but specifically the ironworkers.
7 MS. WATSON: Is that the same position 0 you have new?
9 MR. EHELE: No, ma'am.
10 MS. WATSON: So your titie now is the 11 chief construction supervisor?
12 MR. EHELE: I carry the same corporate 13 title now 's I carried then, chief construction 14 supervisor. The manager title is one that was used 15 specifically at Brownn Ferry because of 16 corresponding TVA poFitions.
17 MR. BISHOP: As he also stated, now he is 18 supervising the other crafts.
19 MR. EHELE: Yes, several crafts, 20 including ironworkers, again, pipe fitters and sheet 21 metal and all other mechanical crafts as a part of 22 the unit 3 recovery. program.
23 MS. WATSON: So the difference is at that 24 point in time, you were supervising the' crafts 35- inside;the' dry well?
93 1 MR. EHELE: That's correct.
.2 MS. WATSON: And now you supervise the' 3 whole time?
4 MR. EHELE: At that time, I was managing 5 the activities that were going on within the dry 6 well, but specifically the' ironworkers in general 7 because they were the largest craft in there. I was 8 alse aware of the activities being performed by the 9 pipe fitters and the electricians at the same time.
10 The ironworkers were the largest bulk of people in 11 the dry well at that time.
12 MS. WATSON: And who was your 13 supervisor?
14 MR. EHELE: The gentleman's name was 15 Jimmy Butts.
16 MS. WATSON: And what was his title?
17 MR. EHELE: He was a field manager.
18 MS. WATSON: So he was over all the 19 supervisors?
20 MR. EHELE: That's correct.
21- MS. WATSON: And the three supervisors 22 'who reported to you in the-ironworkers, what were 23 their names?
24 MR. EHELE: M r '. Joe Fontay, John Cerowig
'25 .and Wayne Tennison. .
94 1 MS.' WATSON: And Mr. Tennison was 2 Mr. Harrison's supervisor?
3 MR. EHELE: Yes. Mr. Tennison was the 4 one who relayed the information to Mr. Harrison, 5 talked to him about it, that's correct.
6 MR. JOHNSON: For the NRC staff, those 7 are what I remember to be our final questions.
8 ' Dick, do you have any questions?
9 MR. RASONA: No, I don't. Thank you.
10 MR. JOHNSON: Does TVA or Stone & Webster 11 or Mr. Ehele have any additional comments?
12 MR. MEDFORD: No.
13 MR. DODSON: No.
14 MR. JOHNSON: I would like to close the 1 15 enforcement conference. I would like to also remind 16 Mr. Ehele that he has the opportunity to . meet 17 separately with us, and it is my understanding that 18 you have declined that; is that correct?
19 MR. EHELE: That's correct.
20 MR. JOHNSON: In closing, I want to 21 remind TVA, Stone & Webster and Mr. Ehele two 22 things. Fir ,, that the apparent violation- are 23' subject to further review and may be subject to 24 change prior to any resulting enforcement action.
25 And secondly, that'the statements or
95 1 views of any NRC employees at this enforcement 2 conference are nor .ntended to repr te't any 'inal 3 agency action. With that, I conclus.
4 enforcemeat conference.
5 (Proceedsaga cuncluded dt 3:40 p.m.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
.24 25
96 1 STATE.OF GEORGIA:
COUNTY OF FULTON:
2 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing 4 transcript was reported, as stated in the. caption,.
5 and the questions and answers thereto were' reduced 6 to typewriting under my direction; that the 7 foregoing pages 1 through 95 represent a true, 8 complete, and correct transcript of the evidence 9 given upon said hearing, and I further certify that 10 I am not of kin or counsel to the parties in the 11 case; am not in the employ of counsel for any of 12 said parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the 13 result of said case.
14 Disclosure Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-28 (d):
15 The party taking this deposition vill receive 16 the original and one copy based on our standard and 17 customary per page charges. Copies to other parties 18 will be furnished at one half that per page rate.
19 Incidental direct expenses of production may be 20 added to either party where applicable.
21 Our customary appearance fee will be charged to 22 the party taking this deposition.
23 This, the 3rd day of November, 1995.
24 *
((I'M GAYLA WH'ITE., CCR-B-1324, RPR 2 5' My commission expires onfthe
.26th day of August, 1996.
1 tr g.
O R*
z it$*AE F
M !r s!4!$
- W =gi3 P P*t*!
.e s!
G i**
3 =8 t,
i
.e-e O F 4 8:*. EER W };IEE M r s?
l'* =fj3
=;':
$e
{d
=8
.I
InThe Matter Of:
DOUGLAS WHARRISON v.
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE t October 30,1995 BROWN REPORTING, INC.
ATLANTA, AUGUS7:4, CARROLLTON ROME 1100 SPRING STREET SUITE 750 ATLANTA, GA USA 30309 (404) 8768979 or (800) 637-0293 90N,1Eslll$$YI!??i?l0?lN Word Index included with this Min-U-Scripte
DOUGLAS U. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Octoler 30,1995 Page 1 Page 2 ft) BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , [1] APPEARANCES 121 ! p}
p) IN THE MATTER OF: ) { p) Nuclear Regulatory Conesson.Regenit.
M) DOUGLAS W. HARRISON ) i M} MR. J. MUNDAY
[5] vs. ) ! MS. LJ WATSON
!s) STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING ) l' [5] MR. B. URYC CORPORATION ) . MR.J JOHNSON I
f7] 1d] MR. E.W. MERSCHOFF is] . MR. M S. LESSER
- 19) I [7] MR. R. ROSANO (Via Telephone)
(10) PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE [sl (11) ,
Nuclear Regulatory Comtruseon (12} ; 19] Offce of GeneralCounsel.
October 30,19's MS. CAROLYN F. EVANS, Esq.
It31 g(10]
tul 1.25 p.tn ititi issj i Stone & Webster Engineaang Corp.;
[ts) NRC Regen il Offee ![11 101 Marotta Street i MR C.R. BISHOP (17} Suite 2900 itial MR. W.B. DODSON Atlanta, George l MR. S. EHELE tit] ((14] MR. S.H. SALOWITZ
!t91 l115]
po) j Winston & Strawn, 121J !(1 61 p2} Gayla Whne, CCR B.1324, RPR ,
MR. R.M. RADER p3) BROWN REPORTING. INC. ![17J 1100 SPRING STREET SUITE 750 Tennessee Valley Authorily:
r?4] ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30309 ((1a)
(404)870-8979 MR P. SA1 AS p5] [19] MR E D. MACHON
, MR. M MEDFORD i(2 01 MR. EA VIGLUICCl i MR. M.R. HARCING
- (2 tj
' f221
[23l 1R4)
-:f25) i i
BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (3) Page 1 - Page 2.
PREDECISIONAL ENTORCEMENT CONTEREN'CE DOUGLAS W. IIARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION i
Page 3 1 Page 5 pi MR. JOHNSON: Good morning.fmjohn j MR. SALOWITZ: My name is Steve
' m Johnson, Acting Director, Regional Administer of the lm p)Salowitz.I'm Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns p3 Regional 11 office.This afternoon we will conduct p1 representative for Browns Ferry, ni a predecisional enforcernent conference forTVA p) MR. RADER: Um Ilob Rader with Winston &
si lirowns Ferry, Stone & Webster and Mr. Ehele.This ; :si Strawn, the legal representative for Stone &
gl is closed to public observation and is being ' sj i Webster.
m transcribed. !m MR. SALAS: Pedro Salas,TVA Browns Ferry Ici The agenda for the conference is shown in te; Licensing Manager.
In the view graph. Following my brief opening remark 5. i 9) 1 MR. MACHON: Rick Machon.TVA Site VP.
pq Mr.Bruno Uryc will discuss the NRC enforcement 4,o; MR. MEDFORD: Mark Medford,Vice 04 polity,and I will have a few additional remarks. lp,) President of Engineering and Technical Services for p21 Mr.Elbs Merschoff,to my left, Director of the .p2) TVA.
or Division for Reactor Projects, will discuss the < p 3) MR.VIGLUICCI: My name is Ed Vigluicci,
- 04) apparent violation;and then each of you will bc ;py Office of the General Counsel,TVA.
Usi given an opportunity to respond to the apparent ipsj MR. HARDING: My name is Mike Harding, p6) violation. 'pe) and rm the manager ofTVA's Concerns Resolution on I wish to remind you all that holding . p n Staff.
pa this conference does not mean that the NRC is pe) MR. URYC: I would like to add that on om determirung that a violation is takmg place or that ,991 the telephone we have Mr. Rick Rosano, who's an pm any enforcement action will be taken.This ;pa enforcement specialist out of our headquarters pq conference is an important step in our .py office up in Rockville.
w: decision nuking process. p21 Thank you, gentlemen.
n following the conference.1 plan to take p3) I would like to take a few rninutes to 2.) a likminute break so that the NRC can briefly review py talk about the enforcement policy. After an psi what it has heard and determme whether it has any ps) apparent violation is identiEed.it's assessed in Page 4 Page 6 pj follow-up que*,tions. pi accordance with the Commission's enforcement policy m Lastly. I wdl provide some closing m which was recently revised and became effective as p! renurks. llefore we start.1 would like the NRC p) ofJune 30th,1995.The enforcement policy has been m staff to miroduce themselves.and then I would like p) published as new reg 1600.
(s) you all to introduce yourselves n The assessment process involves m MR. URYC: Tm liruno Uryc, Director of is: categorizing the apparent volation into one of four m the Region 11 Enforcement Staff. m severity levels based on safety and regulatory m MR. MUNDAY:Joel Munday. Resident ta; significance, m inspector for llrowns Ferry. m For cases where there is a potential for
,oj MS. EVANS: Carolyn Evans. Regional pq escalated enforcement action,that is,where the ty Counsel 'pq severity level of the apparent violation may be at m MR. MERSCHOFF: Ellis Merschof f, Director p2) severity leven m.c, two or three,a predecisional oi of Reactor Project 3. I would like to apologire for ps: enforcement conference is held.
im keeping you all waiting. p4i There are three primary enforcement m MS. WATSON: 1 m Lin6 Watson on the psi sanctions available to the NRC:and theyvc notices 16? LnforCement $taff. p61 of violations, civil penalties and ordCrs.
,n MR. LESSER:I m Mark Lesser,Inntnch Notict s of violations and civil penalties on is! Chief of Reactor Projects. .pa; are issued based on identified violations. Orders ej MR. BISHOP: I m Pete Bishop,Vice og may be issued for violations or in the absence of a w President and Site Director of Browns Ferry. pq siolation because of a signiEcant public health and vu MR. DODSON: I m Brad Dodson.Vice pq safety issue.
m President of Stone & Webster, resp (msible for . p2i in this particular case,the decision to n1 nuclear operations. ; pal hold a predecisional enforcement conference is based m MR. EHELE: I m Steve Ehele. Chief p4) on the Secretary of Labor's decision which was 2si Construction Supervisor at Ilrowns Ferry. psi issued on August 22nd,1995 in the matter of Mr.
fage 3 - Page 6 (4) Min-U-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 1
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 7 Page 9 pj Douglas Harrison versus the Stone & Webster l pj conference stage of the process,we want to be sure p) Engineering Group. A copy of the Secretary of m thatTVA and Stone & Webster understand the p) labor's decision was enclosed with our letters dated p) significance of the issue and is taking effective p) October the IHth to Stone & Webster,TVA,and to Mr. p) corrective action.We are seeking information that si Ehele that made the initial arrangements for this ! p) may be relevant to either mitigation or escalation g lei conference. l p) of any resulting sanction,as well as determining m in that decision the Secretary of Labor i m your position relative to the decision issued by the p1 concludW that Stone & Webster discriminated against l pj Secretary oflaborin this case.
p) Mr. Harrison.Such discrimination is prohibited by l p) In addition,in the case of Mr. Ehele, we poj the Energy Reorganization Ac' The apparent inq are seeking information on the application of the pti violation being considered in the case of Stone & lpy factors considered in determining the need for pa Webster and theTVA derives from the Secretary of ina individual enforcement actions as described in
- 03) labor decision.TVA.as an NRC licensee is 'ps) Section 8 of the enforcement policy which we
- 04) responsible for the acts ofits contractors. p4) provided to you.You are encouraged to provide any psj The Secretary of Labor decisica lus) information that you believe is relevant to an ps) identifies Mr. Ehele as the supervisor who aok the lpe enforcement decision in this case.
On discriminatory action against Mr. Harrison.Under lpa The apparent violations discussed at this pm the final rule on deliberate misconduct by 'pai cr nference,as Mr. Johnson had stated,are subject ps) unlicensed persons,10 C.ER.50.5,which became inoj to further review and may be subject to change prior pq cffective September 16,1991 and is described in the !pm to any resulting enforcement action. it is pq NRC enforcement policy in Section 8.cnforcement !py impartant to note 11' i the decision to conduct this pa actions involving individuals, individuals are ipz cmference does not mean that the NRC has determined pai subject to enforcement action for deliberate Ip3) that a violation has occurred or that enforcement
- 94) misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation ip4: action will be taken.1 should also note st this psi of any of the Commission's requirements. Ips) time that statements of abuse or expressions of i
Page8 Page10 pi Discrmunating against any employee for engaging in ' pj opinions made by the NRC staff at this conference, m certain protected activities is an apparent i m or the lack thereof,are not intended to repretent pi violation of 10 C.ER.50.7. Engaging in deliberate p; final agency determinations or beliefs.
91 misconduct that causes the licensee to be in p) Following the conference,the Regional ist violation of any rule or regulation is an apparent p) Adminiftrator,in conjunction with the NRC Office of (61 violation of 10 C.ER.50.5. Enforcement sanctions , p) Enforcement and other NRC headquarter's offices will m are quickly considered to include a letter of m reach an enforcement decision for each party te; reprimand,a notice of violation,or possibly an mi involved in this case.This process normally takes pj order prohibiting or restricting involvement in NRC ! roi about four to six weeks to accomplish.
ou licensed activities. (pm As Mr. Johnson said,the predecisional ny A predecisional enforcement conference is lpy enforcement conferences are normally closed to the pa essentially the last step of this process before the !pa public,as is this conference. However,there is a om staff makes its final enforcement decision.The 1033 trial program to conduct selective conferences as pm purpose of this conference today is not to negotiate !n4) open conferences,which was initiated by the psi and enforce the sanction.Our purpose here today is !ssi Commission inJuly of 1992:and this program has om to obtain mformation that will assist us in .pq been extended pending further evaluation.
On determining the appropriate enforcement action,such pn Finally,if the final enforcement action om as a comnon understanding of the facts, root causes jus) involves a proposed civil penalty or an order,the poi and missed opportunities associated with the ipoj NRC willissue a press release 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the pq apparent violations. A common understanding of f pq enforcement action is issued.
l pq corrective actions taken or planned,and a common py MR. JOHNSON:Thanks Mr.Uryc.Our pa understanding of the significance of the issues and iga review of the Secretary of labor's decision in px the need for lasting comprehensive corrective lpa Mr. Harris (m's case indicates that in 1993 stone &
p4) action. !p4) Webster discriminated against Mr. Harrison by psi At the predecisional enforcement !ps) demoting him and transferring him because he raised- {
BROWN REPORTING INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripts (5) Page 7 - Page 10
PEEDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE O WERSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION I
Page 11 ; Page 13 pj concerns aboin fire watch requirements. p) found that Stone & Webster Engineering Group, gj The NRC places a high value on employees pi contracted to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the p; feeling free to raise safety issues without fear of pj Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against p; discrimination.The Energy Reorganization Act and pj Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stone & Webster Isi our regulations establish strict requirements and Isl Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and m prohibitions against discrimination. Isi transferred him to a different position because he m Our purpose today is for you to provide j m raised concerns related to fire watch requirements.
m an opportunity for the basis for vour decisions in l 18; Now,those are the apparent violations.
m this case.In addition,the NRC's concerned about a ~ m Why are we here.We are here to afford you an om potential chilling effect on other employees where pq opportunity to provide us information about these on they nu),because of this case,have some kind of {py apparent violations.Specifically,to provide us a p21 fear in raising issues themselves. jp2; common understanding of the facts,of the causes and p3) The steps taken by licensees and ! psi the significance,the basis for the adverse pai contractors to assure that managers are aware of lp41 employment action taken against Mr. Harrison, ps; their respomibilities are a key element in any l psi whether or not a chilling effect exists from psi Employee Concerns Program. Insj Mr. Harrison's termination and the recent Secretary on Whether or not you agree with the rpn oflabor decision.The potential negative impact on ps) violation, we expect you to address any actions you ing the reporting of safety concerns through the level poj nuy have taken to nuke sure that your nunagers are ;pg of manager ent that was mvolved in this matter,the poi aware of these responsibilities;and we certainly Igor severity of the violation,any escalation or pq wottid like you to address any actions that you may 'pq nutigation considentions, your plans to implement Ini has e taken based on the Secretary of labor's igri corrective action or any other application of an pai deciuon and order in this case. , psi enforcement policy which you would consider pq Mr. Merschoff will now discuss the pm relevant.
psi potential violations. :ps As Mr. Johnson said, this doesn't Page 12 Page 14 pi MR. MERSCHOFF: Counsel, will you put up ! pi indicate a decision is made.This is.in fact,a pi the mdividual first, please What I am going to , m meeting to discuss the facts of the matter and to p1 discuss are essentially three apparent violations. ' pi assure that we understand all aspects cf this.lf 81 The first one deals with Mr. Ehele. And simply put. . pj there are no questions-isi what this is is the 10 C.FR.50.7 is a rule that tsj MR. JOHNSON: The order we have proposed ici pruhibits discrinunation, and 10 C.F R. 50.5 is a , m is forTVA to provide their presentation,then Stone in rule regardmg deliberate misconduct. And based on m & Webster and Mr. Ehele.1 do want Mr. Ehele to m the results of the Secretary of Labor's ruling that l tai know that he has an opportunity to meet separately m has been discussed,this violation states something l m with the NRC if he so desires.Do you have that om to that effect.Specifically.Mr. Steve Ebele, ! poi desire?
nn v.'.ile rmployed as a chief construction supervisor py MR. EHELE: No,I don't.
- 02) with Stone & Webster Engineenng Group,a contractor . p rj MR. M ACHON: Act ually, Mr. Johnson, what pai to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns :pz we've got is we have provided you with two em Ferry Nuclear Plant, deliberately discriminated p4 presentations;and our plan was we were going to ps; against Mr. Douglas Harnson when Mr.Ehele demoted . psi propose that Stone & Webster provide their comments; om the complainant and transferred him to a diffeient ! psi and then we would come back and close.
nn position because he raised concerns related to the :pa MR. JOHNSON: That's fine with us,if psi fire watch requirements.That's the apparent ps; Stone & Webster thinks that's agreeable?
pw violation for the individual. .pg MR. BISHOP: Fine.
poi If you would put the next one up, pq MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Mr. Machon?
pu counselor. pq MR. MACHON: Okay. Like I said, we have pri The apparent violation against Stone & pzl two handouts there.One is forTVA,and one is for p2) Webster and the Tennessee Valley Authonty are both psi Stone & Webster.!'m going to start with theTVA pq the same,m that 10 C.ER.50.7 prohibits pm handout.We have completed the introduction, ps discrimination;and that the Secretary of Labor ps; obviously,:.o if we can turn to page 2.
Page 113 Page 14 (6) Min U-Scripte llROWN RE/ORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. IIARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ESTORCEMENT CONTERENCE October 30,1995 STONE O WEBSTER ENCINEERING CORPORATION Page 15 Page 17 pj As you know, we at lirowns Ferry and TVA l vi proud of the program we have.We believe it is m take pride in not only the work that we do,but also ) p1 effective.We have taken additional steps even p1 the fact that we pmvide an open envimnment to ! pi since this event,however,to both determine its p) raise any safety concerns and also take pride in the ! pi effectiveness and to try to make absolutely sure I
is) fact that we act on them promptly and correctly.
m) Quite frankly,I m surprised to be here dealing with
! p) sj we that everyone understands the open environmen intend;and we will be describing that.
m this issue. All the indications at Ilrowns Ferry lm This predecisional enforcement conference 181 that we have received,not onic from our own l pi does come as a result of the Secretary of Laix>r's p) studies,but also from NRC studies that have been ! p) decision.The issue is whether or not the poi done with regard to the Employee Concerns Program. l poi ironworker lead forernan at Ilrowns Ferry was demoted 99 indicate that people on the site feel free to come 109 to a foreman and reassigned because he raised na forward with safety issues,whether it be directly lpa concerns about the fire watch requirements.We will ps) to nunagement from the Employee Concerns Program or ! val discuss that and discuss the sequence of events that pq through direct process. lp41 led to that.
ps) In my perstmal review of the briefs of !ns) The findings of the Secretary of Lawr.
paj your OlG's investigation of this circumstance,I rosi however,do disagree with the Administrative law on would have to conclude that there was no inn Judge's review and the Department of Labor's Wage poi discrirnination issue that occurred with regards to ' psi and liour Division's review. Stone & Websier has
- 09) Mr. Ilarris<m.1 think Stone & Webster is prepared lpe) appealed to the Court of Appeals based on po to argue with the details to support that.llrad? ! poi significant legalissues and lack of evidence to pq MR.DODSON:Thank you. Good afternoon. :py find discrimination,and Mr. Rader will describe pri We,likewise, have an agenda, which ! belie ~e you 'pr) that for you a bit further.We believe that the n have a copy of. I would like to review that if I !p21 facts in this case lead to a finding of no em could,please.1 will lead with a basic !p4) discrimination,and we will give you the basis for psj introduction and overview.Then Mr.llishop will ipsi that.
__ _ ___ __ l Page 16 Page 18 in discuss the sequence of events,rm on page 2 of ' 01 Now,if I could.1 would like to turn it p1 the Stone & Webster handout.Then there will a pl over to Mr.Ilishop to talk about the sequence of pl statement by Mr. Ehele.Then Mr.Ilishop will p1 events.
sj discuss assessment of alleged discrimination by SWEC i pi MR. BISHOP: Okay,we should be on page 4 mi and a review of the Department oflatmr actions. : isi of the Stone & Webster handout.1 would like to is; Mr.llob Rader will tatt almut Stone & Webster's ' 51 start with the sequence of cvents that start back in m pet tion for review of the Secretary's decision at in June of 1992 when Douglas liarrison was hired by pi the Court of Appeals.Then Mr.llishop will return p1 Stone & Webster as an ironworker journeyman, si and discuss about actions to encourage reportmg of i si Going back to a date that's not on here, poi safety concerns and actions to vertfy the lpo) October 2nd of 1992 after several discussions with ny effectiveness,to k>ok at the chilling effect,a5 'py Stone & Webster management, supervision andTVA fire na you have described it.Then I will come back to :pa officers of the group,in trying to come up with ps) talk about NRC enforcement considerations in summary psi more efficient ways to do the fire watch - and also n4) and closing remarks. ;p4) at this time in the unit 3 dry well,as a lot of us psi On page 3, Stone & Webster has had an ; psi remember,was an RCA, high reg area;and it required osi Employee Concerns Program in effect.We believe we ;ps! us to address that.So it was very important,both on had an effective program in place at the time of inn from a fire watch standpoint, man-hour standpoint, nel this event.We will discuss the application of that !ps) ap'l A1.ARO concerns,that a program was established.
poi event or that program to this event and how it was, poi Now,most of you that have been around poi in fact, used during this process.We have done :po) construction, nuclear power construction,there are py that program very much in conjunction withTVA.Our pq steel welders;and most welders have a helper. And pa contractual requirements require that we review that ga in the program at Ilrowns Ferry and other plants that pai program with them and work together with them,and , pal cenainly I have been on,and I have been on a pq we believe that program has been effective,and we ;p4j number of plants,that the fire watch procedure t-si will describe that program for you.We are very ps! program does no require a partictdar utuon to do BROWN REPORTING. INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U. Scripts (7) P2.ge 15 - Page 18
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30 1995 0 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Page19I Page 21 pi that fire watch. As long as you are trained and ni the rosters at the time and called a meeting with m tested and approved as a fire watch individual,it m Steve Ehele and other supersisors,as with au pi can be any trade,whether it be ironworkers, aj supervisors that supervised pipe fitters, pi laborers, carpenters, electricians or pipe fitters. p) electricians and all other trades.Take a look at ni in other words,the program issued by a Stone & is) your organization. Are you a little top heavy,do isi Webster manager on October 2nd,1992,with a is) we have too many lead forem ..,do we have too many m concurrent signature byTVA's fire officers this m foremen.Take a look and get back. Steve Ehele was is) program was in additian to having roving fire watch l ts; in that meeting.
m on each elevation in the dry well, unit 3,the {m A day or so later Steve called his 001 fronworkers,the carpenters and others that were l poi supervision that worked for him. At the time, he ny gomg to be trained in the fire watch procedure and !py had three supervisors reporting directly ta him in pr; testing, when the welder was working, his helper inal the dry well. And he asked them to do the same,lic pa) would do the fire watch.When the helper was doing ! val was passing it along,take a look,with no specific
- 04) the work,the welder would not be working,so he ip4) direction or instruction almut any individual,take ps; would be doing the fire watch.So that was the :ps) a look at your organization. Are you top-heavy? Is pai program that was initiated on October the 2nd of insj it time that we reduced? Do we have a on 1992. jun responsibility to do this job in the most - quality psi in moving along to October 6, Doug !pa) first, safety,and in an efficient nunner?
- 09) llarrIMm Was promoted to ICad forenun. lle W15 the 'p oi The same day the supervision that worked pq second lead foreman for the ironworkers in the l pol for Steve Ehele came back to him and made the pq umt 3 dry well;and at that time,Doug ifarrison was 99 recommendation that,yes,it's time we have two lead pri told specifically that when the workload comes down !pri foremen in the dry well,the lower steel to wrap it pai and the work is finishing,that he would,in fact, p2) up.and we recommend that Doug flarrison be brought p4) be the first to be reduced from lead foreman to :p4) back to forenun.We know that Doug liarrison refused psi foreman. !ps) the foreman's job and said that he was not going to Page 20 Page 22 pl On Nm ember 1 I th of 1992, Doug IIarrison ei penalize anyone.Well, we will get to that in a m was cut back from lead foreman to foreman;and at , pi minute.
pi that time did bump a more junior foreman,and Doug p) On February the 1st,every Monday morning m took the pmition as forenun at that time- ! m we have what we call a toolbox session.This is N Then again onJanuary the 6th of 1993- sj where we bring all the crews together and talk about l6} Doug flarrlMm Was again redesignated as a ICad [El safety issues and others;and then at that meeting, m forenun in the dry well with a single crew,and also m Doug flarnson was - I'm sorry, we are on page 5 -
m at that time was advised that when the workload came 181 was leading that meeting. After all the agenda e down,that he would be the first to be reduced,in . m items were finished, Doug 11arrison opened it up for not the conversation that he was raised to lead spo general discussion.The ironworkers had a concern pq forenun. ny about who was doing the fire watch in the dry wc!!,
pri Then toward the end of January 1993,our :pa and it appeared to be more along the lines of the pai site nunager,as he does, we have a roster that is i nsi cool-down period. Meaning when the work was pq published weekly,and that will identify lead tp4; finished, the itunworkers or others go out on break ps; foreman with their foreman and then numbers of crews : psi or lunch or at the end of the workday,the fire pai that they have and people that were workingin the lps) watch procedure requires that after the spark or pn crew.There are ratios that are rule to thumb. :pn fire-generating activity stopped,that there is a pai They are certainly not gospel.liut the more !pel fire watch that will stay in the area for 30 minutes og difficult and complex the work is,the less crews 'p91 to make sure that a fire doesn't start.That's the po; you will have,the less people you will have m the 1901 program.This was a concern that Steve Ehele heard pq crews. And,uf course,the dry well steel back in 'py on February 1st in this toolbox session.No safety pri this time was definitely a critical path to recovery 'pa) concern was expressed on Feb uary 1st, trs: of umt 3,which fortunately,the tellows did an ips) On February 2nd of 1993, Doug IIarrison pq outstanding job taking that cff critical path;and !p43 was informed of his reduction to a foreman. As I ps; it didni mra cut to be such.Ilut was reviewing ; psi stated a minute ago,he reviewed the foreman's job;
- Page 19 - Page 22 (8) Min U-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS U. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ESTORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 l
Page 23 i Page 25 pj and after repeated requests, said now I want to go l p1 Stone & Webster's field manager and Steve pl back to my tools;and rm not going to bust a I m Ehele took a loo? st this,and they found no pi foreman back to take his spot. ! pi evidence that the laborers had failed to sign on to Hj later that day,Doug liarrison,a union p) the hot work permits.And Steve later in the day (si rep,which we call a job steward, approached Steve ts; convenes another meeting with the labor supervision.
- 8) Ehele and his supervisors and requested that Doug ! iej the bargaining unit reps,to come up with some new m liarrison be reassigned to an area outside of the i m arungements on how the fire watch should be handled is) unit 3 dry well.That day that request was ! rej in the unit 3 dry well. Keeping in mind,the major m granted. p) concern being that hot spots, during the breaks, poi On February 3rd,1993 Doug liarrison po) when they go out for lunch or at the end of the day, pij speaks with the ironworkers that worked in the dry .py does require,as I stated a minute ago,that a fire pri well before the morning shift.The ironworkers lpri watcher will stay and observe for 30 minutes after om refused to go to work until these safety concerns los) that generation is stopped.
par were resolved. (p41 Then on Monday the 8th, after the ps! After Steve Ehele noti 6es his l psi meetings that I have just described,came up with a pel supervisor,he convenes a meeting to discuss the psi program that would reduce the hours in the dry well,
) pn problem with the bargaining unit,the job steward, on and the laborers again did assume full pai in addition, we also had what we call a bull lpel responsibility of the fire watch in the dry well.
poi steward.This is a steward that represents all of tool This is based on a program that the labor lead poi the unions on site.it is one individual per site. Ipq foreman had proposed that had been used previously py At that meeting, he looked to the !py on unit 2 and worked fine.But just for your pri ironworker steward and said this is no way to pri information,the prognm that was established on psi resolve our problems.We need to get back to work. ips; October 2nd of 1992 is stillin effect today,and p41 This is not the way to go,with the work stoppage. :p4) perhaps what we will do is use welders' helpers or i2sj MR. URYC: Your hullet say5 that liarrison !ps) welders or anyone else that is trained, tested,and I
page 24 , Page 26 pi speaks with the ironworkers in the dry well before ! pl a certified fire watcher.
m morning shift.The ironworkers refuse to enter. Im At this time,I think it would be raj Are you saying that they refused to work because of I p) appropriate for Steve Ehele to make some statements pj what liarrison had told them? i si to cover some of the same information.
Isl MR. BISHOP: We were not there when tsj MR. EHELE: First of all. I would like to tai liarr son spoke with the individuals.but at that 1e1 thank the Conunission for giving me the opportunity m meeting - they were not in the dry well. it should m to make my statement and clarify my actions again on tai say that the ironworkers that worked in the dry isi february of 1993. As Pete said, there will be a lot si well.They were not in the dry well at the time, m of repetition in some of the things that he has por but they did refust,after that morning meeting juoi said;and I will also be getting into it deeper. My pu prior to work,to go to work. Ivy present position at Stone & Webster is chief pri Okay,later in some meetings wnh the !pri construction supervisor at Browns Ferry.
Om fire watch supervision.and we refer to the fire !p3) Prior to that,1 have been at Browns l p4i watch lead foreman.that would be the laborers' lead lp4) Ferry since August of 1991.1 held other !
ps) foreman. For the first time, the real concern the i nsi supervisory manager positions.Specifically to psi ironworkers had came out that the ironworkers were ; psi start with, when I was there in 1991,1 was i pn concerned that the laborers were not signing on to iva designated as a manager of maintenance for Stone & !
psi the hot work pernut.Up to this point, Stone & lpe) Webster at Browns Ferry.Since then I have i p9[ Webster 11Hderstood the problem being a insi supervised or managed several different poi jurisdictional issue, not a safety issue. Never did inq disciplines.
pq v,e hear a safety issue prior to this.So in that pn At this time,I am currently supervising pri meeting,the lead foreman for the laborers brought 1971 the ironworkers and pipe fitters and sheet metalers ps) out the fact that he thought the ironworkers were 1931 and the mechanical craftsmen during completion where j p4) concerned about the laborers not signing on to the p4) we stand right now.My first contact with nuclear j ps; hot work pernut. !psj construction was in 1969 at Sarah Power Plant.so 1 BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (9) Page 23 - Page 26
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE a WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Page 27 Page 29 pi have a long history and a long experience with pl dion't feo as though we needed two lead foremen m nuclear power and with the needs for safety within gi anymore,and Mr. liarrison would be reduced and would p) the industry. p) no longer- we could still have satisfactory p; Specifically as a supervisor 1 have been p; coverage by the one lead forenun.1 accepted this isj at Stone & Webster for 15 years working in a - ts; and put it away and didn't carry on with it is) non-manual positicn Prior to that,I had jobs with re) anymore. And again,I want to point out that all of m Stone & Webster as a crafts person, so I understand , m these actions were taken prior to any meetings that si their positions on safety and on quality of the j taj i had with the ironworkers on February the ist.
pi work. Personally, my feelings toward safety is when l ty On February the 1st is when I attended a poi I go to these plants to either build them or work !pm safety meeting that was conducted by Mr.Harnson.
pq maintenance on them,I would move my family there- lpy As Pete pointed out,the safety meetings are pai That's how concerned I am about the safety ofit. ivri conducted in the mornings, normally,before we start pal What happened inJanuary of '93 is when I ;ps) woik.We allow 30 minutes in the morning;and at p41 was makmg the tmnsition from maintenance into lp4) that time, we go over the safety notes that are put psi taking over manager of the dry well, specifically l psi out by our safety department;and we address any pai the ironworkers, because they were the largest craft lpsj concerns that the crafts had regarding the safety in pri in the dry well at that time,I sat back and tried lpri their work or where we are headed.
pal to watch the organization that was already in place {paj The meeting itself was routine.There p9] to see who the players were and what they were doing lpoj were no questions,no particular outstanding pm and why they were at it. l poi statements were brought up. And when that portion pq During this time.1 noticed that the lpy of the meeting was closed,Mr. Harrison made a pri ironworkers were kind of top-heavy in their craft lpri statement.okay,we have completed the portion of p3) supervision. liasically, we had four forernen ;ps) the safety meeting we need to complete. At that p41 performmg pmduction work and two lead foremen. :p4; time, he opens the floor up as such to any questions psi One of the foremen was specifically being directed ipsi that anybody has out there that they want to ask to Page 28 Page 30 p) by a lead forenun imhvidually.1 asked my n; the supervision that were in attendance.
pl subordinates at that time is this really necessary, jg) At this time,some of the ironworkers p1 do we need this. Remember,again,this is early in . pi started posing questions about fire watch;and they pi januat y probably the third week inJanuary.They p) addressed it to me.1 interpreted their questions pl never reported back to me on how they felt about tsi at that time to be one of jurisdiction. As Pete rei that, nor did I pursue it any further. tai pointed out,the previous October we had made a m Durmg the last week ofJanuary, my m decision.an agreement with Stone & Webster ts) superusor.the field manager at that time,as Pete 181 management and with labor and with TVA fire m; pointed out, was makmg his weekly review of the rei protection,that we would implement a fire watch om craft roster;and he saw the same thing.not only in pm program to utilize the specific crafts to fire watch pq the ironworkers,but all the other dtsciplines. And ,pq for themsehis, p21 his question was, to all the discipline m:rg-rs. 'p2 We weren't going to do it We they did pai take a look at what you have out there.ls it p3) in unit 2.In unit 2 they specifically used one 041 necessary? Are these positions that are beinF :04) craft for it.The ironworkers expressed an opinion pH filled by craftsmen as foreman or lead forer' tan,do insi that they didn't like that idea,and they did not psi they continue to need to remain in those positions, lpe) want to do the work that was assigned to them. And pri or can we start reducing some of those positions? ;pa that's how I addrened it to them. Gentlemen,1 ps Again,I passed that same information :pai don't understand your concerns.llere we have pp) along to my bubordinates and asked them to review tp91 assigned work to you which basically puts more of pm it.The day that I took it back to them. !pm your people to work.We have now created more jobs pq specifically concerning the ironworkers,they came ipq for ironworkers than we might have had before,and pr back to me that afterno<m with an answer. And this prj now you don't want to accept that work.And the res; svas somewhere in the last week ofJanuary.Their lp31 answer was, no,we don't want to do fire watch tai aeswer was that Mr. liarrison, who was a lead !p4) anymore.1 told them it was their agreement.They psi foreman,it was their selection to be reduced.They _ 'as) agreed with our management, and they agreed to 1. e__
Page 27 - Page 23 (10) Min-U-Scripte BROWN RFPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE STONE & T.IEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 31 Page 33 p1 watch,and they could do the fire watch,end of the pj in attendance.
A story,we need to go to work. i pi When I saw everybody sitting down there, pj So the meeting was adjourned,and we got i p) my first question to the stewards were why are we Hj up and went to work.The following day is when we i p) not going to work.We need to go to work.And the (s1 made the decision to go ahead and implement the ts) bull steward in turn spoke to the ironworker steward isj decisions we had made previously about the positions 181 and said this isn't the way that we need to take m of foreman and lead foreman throughout the l m care of our business here.These gentlemen need to m disciplines.1 addressed that to my subordinates, I ejt go to work. And the ironworker steward in turn m an > they told Mr. Harrison the decision to reduce ! m passed that along to the raen,and they got up,and poi him from general foreman down to foreman. At that ! pot they went to work.
Du time,he refused the position as the foreman.We ivy And after they went to work is when I had pri wanted him to stay on as a foreman.lfe would have lpri discussions with not only the stewards but the fire ps; been an asset.However,for whatever reason,he l psi watch general foreman to try to determine what the 041 refused to take that position and decided to remain p4) pmblem was. And there was the first time that I us; on as a journeyman. josi understood what they thought really was their psi That very same day I was in a meeting lps; concern, on with my supervisor and was asked to come out of that lpa Their concern was that the laborers that paj meeting by the irunworker steward who was present !ps) were doing the fire watch when the ironworkers were pai with Mr. Ilarrison.The ironworker steward asked me f re) not in the dry well.such as on breaks and lunchtime poi at that time ifI would consider transferring ! poi and the end of the shift,for that 30-minute 99 Mr.Ilarrison to another work area.1 told him !py cool.down period were not signing onto the hot work pri considering the circumstances.1 certainly do not !pr) permit.
tai have a prob!cm with that.Normally,it's routine, i ns; Therefore,the ironworker,while he was 94; when someone is cut back from a supervisory 1941 on break, was responsible for his area and the psi position,that they be transferred to another area. psi potential for a fire in tha; area where he worked.
Page 32 Page 34 pi so there is no conflict that they will have with I p1 lie became responsible for that. As it was pointed m anytudy that they had to supervise,so I certainly , m out,we made some inquiries into that;and we p) had no problem with that.That was on February p1 checked some hot work permits;and we did find that, si the 2nd. si in fact,the laborers were signing out;and they had
,si The next morning February the 3rd,nght is; accepted responsibility for that time when the te; at the start of work,1 was in my narmal area mside ist ironworkers were not in there.
m the plant waiting for the people to go to work,and :m MR. MERSCHOFF: I wonder if I could is: I noticed that the laborers had showed up on time to i 181 interrupt because I'm confused at this point.1 m go to work,and the electricians had showed up on m thought the concern on the 1st was that the pol time to go to work,and the dry well and the pipe 001 ironworkers themselves had to perform the fire watch 09 fitters.The only ones who were in absence were the pu duties for the cool down,but now I think I heard pr: imnworkers. I started to get a httle bit cunous tori that the laborers were,in fact, doing that fire psi about it,and then someone told me that they were lp:1 watch during the cool down and not signing on.
04; stillin their dress-out area.They had changed !p4) MR. EHELE: If you had the letter from psi clothes and were going to come in,but they were 'ps; October the 2nd, you would understand what I've been pa) having a meeting,and they weren't planning on . psi telling you.The cool-down period,as I stated in on coming to work until some problem that they had got !nn that letter,would be watched by the laborers.
. ps) resolved. josi There were laborers that signed into the dry well pei At that time,1 didn't know what the psi wher we were putting welding machines in there po; problem was, so I went to the meeting area to find , poi because that was the ignition source,to watch pq out what it was.Ilesides the ironworkers that :py those, pri worked in the dry well. in attendance at that lpri MR. MERSCHOFF: Didn't you think the psi meeting was the ironworker steward,the fire watch !psj concern on the 1st was that the ironworkers had to p41 general forrman who was there and the bull steward !p41 do that and didn't want to?
psi that Pete addressed,or the stewards,as such,were lpsj MR. EHELE: No, no.They didn't want to BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script @ (11) Page 31 - Page 34
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE a WE" STER ENGINEERING CO2PORATION Page 35 Page 37 pj do any fire watch period. p1 MR. MERSCHOFF: The ironworkers?
m MR. MERSCHOFF: At all? m MR. EHELE: Not only imnworkers, but the p) MR. EHELE:At all.They didn't want any p) pipe fitter,the electricians,the sheet metal.The pi part of the fire watch.It had previously been donc p1 transition in the letter didn't specifically state (4 in unit 2 by the laborers,and that's what they Is) any particular craft. Any individual doing fire si wanted. i p) watch. Any individual doing work will perform their m MR. MERSCHOFF:Ilefore the 2nd? ! m own fire watch.lf a pipe fitter was in there mi MR. EHELE:All the time. All the time ! rej welding, the pipe fitter was fire watching for you.
m that's what they wanted.They wanted the laborers lm MR. JOHNSON: And this met your om to be m charge.No responsibility for the lpa adnunistrative controls,as well asTVA's controls?
py ino:vidual crafts to be in charge for the fire 'p 9 MR. EHELE: It was agreed upon byTVA, vil watch. i va yes. sir.
pal MR. BISHOFN Just to go over a point with (ps) MR. MERSCHOFF: Do you have any idea what pal you,though,if the ironworkers were signed on to lp41 changed from the 1st to the 3rd,when you heard psi the hot work permit and the laborer was not,he was los directly from the ironworkers on the 1st,and you 061 responsible to stay for that 30 minutes rather than lpel thought the problem was jurisdiction?
pn going out on break or his lunch or whatever. lpa MR. EHELE: That's correct.
pe; MR. MERSCHOFF: If the laborer had not l psi MR. MERSCHOFF:And on the 3rd,when you noi signed on? l poi spoke with the stewards,and you learned that the pq MR. BISHOP: That's correct. :pq prontem was that the laborers were not signing on to pq MR. EHELE: And the ironworkers were 'py the hot work pertmt to be the responsible party?
pri required.as they were taught in training,if you pa MR. EHELE: That's correct.
paj are signed on to the hot work permit,it is your fpsi MR. MERSCHOFF: What changed?
py responsibility to remain there during that cool-down !p4) MR.EHELE:I don't know.It is C 1 pa period.We always afforded thern that opportunity if jpg how they presented it to me,and then ! questioned Page 36 i Page 38 p) they wanted it.We never said,okay,you have to pl them.1 felt as though when I had the meeting with m come out now forlanch,and you have to come out now ! m them on the 1st,that ! questioned them trying to p) for break or you have to go home.No,that's not ni find out what the concern was,and I drew from their p) the case.They were allowed to stay for that 30 ' pi responses that their concern was that they didn't is minutes if that needed to happen. l Is) want to do fire watch period.Later on.it appears mi MR. MERSCHOFF: Ironworkers.at least ! m) from the meeting on the 3rd that they had had in the m from my experience, tend not to be shy and reserved; l m morning,it came out that they were concerned that isi and I'm wondering what was the nature of the meetinH is) they were being held resptmsible when they weren't m on the Ist? I would think they would be pretty m there.
pq blunt with their concern.and that it woald become {pq MS. EVANS:llut you determined that that py apparent that the concern was not signmg on to the ;py had not been happening because the laborers had been na hot work permit. pri sending-03: MR. EHELE: I thought they were very : psi MR. EHELE: That's correct.We did go
- 04) blunt.I understood the meeting at the 1st that p,i back,and we did,as Mr.lkshop also addressed.we no their concern was they did not want to perform any .ps did find hot work permits that were signed on both psi fire watch period. 109 by an ironworker and by a laborer.
on MR. MERSCHOFF: Why not? on MS. WATSON: Was there an individual om MR. EHELE:Just because the laborers had ins) laborer assigned to watch a particular area when the om always done it. ! poi work had been going on or was it a roving?
pm- MR. BISHOP: It's almost a reverse pq MR. EHELE: It was a roving.
py furtsdiction,and we didn't understand. :py MS. WATSON: A roving individual?
pa MR. MERSCHOFF: llut they had been doing lpa MR. EHELE: A roving individual;that's i
ps) it for three months? nal correct.
pq- MR. EHELE: They had been doing it since !py MS. WATSON: And they were assigned on pu Oct berc __ _ yrs the table w7tching apapular areafor 30 nhu{eL -_
Page 35 Page 38 (12) _ Min-U-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 8768979
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENTORCEMENT CONFERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 39 Page 41 p) or they came and looked at it every so often? i pj sat down with a laborer,I sat down with - the m MR. EHELE:They were assigned into the ! m laborer being the bull steward - and specifically pl dry well on a shift a rrangement.okay.They didn't l p: the ironworker steward and the general foreman for pl come in specifically for the break time that the ! p1 the fire watch.as well as r,ome of the other ts) craft went out to take a break,no.They were in I 511 discipline managers, labor discipline managers,and is) there already.They were roving around all the ! isj myself.
m different elevations.So in addition to the !m And the general foreman for the laborers pi individual fire watch we had watching this ignition i is) presented the pmgram to us that they did in m source while it was being performed.we had laborers j m unit 2.The program in unit 2 had three laborers po) performing roving,also. inq per elevation performing fire watch duties at all ny MS. WATSON: And you had two laborers inn times.1 know that sounds like, well.maybe what pri doing this roving patrol? l val Mr.llarrison said was right.We didn't have enough, pai MR. EHELE:At least, per elevation. lp33 and now we are going with three.Ilut if you look at pq MR. URYC: There's a footnote in the ip4) the rest of it,what that allowed me to do is I psj Secretary of121mr's decision,on page 2, !pst didn't have to have that ironworker doing that D6] footnote I,that sayt during the 30-minute cool-down !ps) specific fire watch.11e could now perform other on period following the conclusion of any welding. (pn duties to get ready for other tasks,and it freed up ps) grinding, burning or other hot work the ironworkers jos: an additional man here to perform some production po) involved were responsible for policing their 'pe) work for completion of the iron and not just be a poi workstations watching for fire.Under respondent's pq fire watcher,became we had tn individuallaborer, ]
pq scheduling,however,the ironworkers exited 'pq three laborees now,that were roving around pi) immediately upon concluding their hot work and only 'pri performing fire watches for all of the p3) two laborer rovers policed all workstations. 'ps; spark-producing activities on that elevation.So i pq liarrison testified,I know that I have !p41 had five ironworkers in there working.and ther psi had my foremen working in enough different places on ! psi these guys could go on and do additional work in Page 40 Page 42 oj one elevation that two rovers could .30t physically i p) there if they didn't specifically have to do fire m see within their scope of view everywhere that was ! pl watch or didn't have to have them there at all.
m being worked. p) MR. JOHNSON: Their helpers, you are p; So the imnworkers doing welding, for i pi talking about?
mi example,or any of the craft that you had.were,in gi MR. EHELE: That's correct.1 didn't tsj fact, responsible for policing their own work) ts; have to have them there at all anymore because you m MR. EHELE: The mdividual who signed on m had latmrers there. And consequently.it cut down
!si to the hot work pernut was responsible. isi on man-hours worked,which is,in fact. relates to tr MR. URYC: And how did the two laborer pl them all.We have less people in the regulation pq mvers fit mto that? pq area Co this was a good program,and we accepted ny MR. EHELE: They were signed on to the !pq it anu agreed upon it,and we implemented it the er: hot work permits.They became respcmsible for the !pr; following Monday.
ps) whole area while the individual crafts, whether they l os; MR. MERSCHOFF: Two rovers would not have pq be ironworkers or pipe fitters, were out on break or tp,) been enough to accomplish that,the coverage you ps; out on lunch or gone home for the day. :ps) needed?
pe MR. URYC: Did you ever understand that ins; MR. EHELE:I think two probably would on to be llarnson's concern,that two rovers can't on have done it.
pa possibly watch allof these hot works? ; psi MR. MERSCHOFF:Ilut three was to be po: MR. EHELE: No, sir. It was never !nsi prudent?
pq presented to me that way. lpq MR. EHELE:I think so.1 agree with pq MR. MERSCHOFF: Didn't Stone & Webster 'pu that.It was what had been donc previously before.
pr) subsequently change the number of rovers? pri and everybody was in agreement with it. And it's p21 MR. EHELE: Yes, we did;and that is .ps; what we had done in the previous unit,and I didn't pq where 1 was heading.The meeting that we had that p4; see a problem with it.1 remind you,again,this psi very day,we had another one that afternoon where we psi was the third one that was going to be in therc BROWN REPORTING. INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripts (13) Page 39 - Page 42
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARR150N v.
October 30,1995 STONE a WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Page 43 Page45 pj specifically for all of the time that the p) you,1 go back about 25 years with the nuclear vi spark producing activities were going on, not pi progam,I have been aware of the NRC regulations p) necessarily to just cover the cool-down pericd,but pi against discrimination and retaliation and whistle pi all of the time. pl blower acts.Not only is this emphasized through my isj Up to this point,and I go back again to isi management with Stone & Webster,but personally that 1sj February the 1st,I probably had never really had , tsj information is always conveyed from me to the In any direct discussion with Mr.Ilarrison.1 probably j pi supervisors that work for me and to the cafts and si wouldn't have recognized him had he walked in the j tai to the individuals that work below me.They always toi room. I was dealing at this time with over 140 i pi can follow up,go to the NRC anytime they feel like pq ironworkers and probably 80 pipe fitters that were 'pq it.lf you have concerns, bring them to me;and we ny working in the dry well in and out,in and out,in 09 will go ahead and resolve them.And I think in this t'ri and out. prj case once we found what their concerns were,that we Um And I had been working on - and 031 handled them immediately;and we took care of their pai everytmdy can relate to the difference between the jp ) concerns;and no more, nething else had been psj mod side and the plant side.1 had been working on l psi addressed after that.
ps; the plant side prior to working over in the dry [ps; If nothmg else,this meeting and these un well, so I really didn't have a whole lot of contact !pn events have impressed upon me the need to nel with any of the craft that were working stnctly on lper communicate effectively with my employees and pq recovery or strictly on modifications.1 was !pe) definitely need to be sensitive to their concerns pq working strictly on rnaintenance. A lot of these um and to their questions,Thank you.
pq people were new people to me,new names,new faces. Ipy MS. WATSON: I have one more question.
pri After the meeting on the 3rd that I went lp 3 MR. EHELE: Yes.
rni through already and we decided to let the laborers l pal MS. WATSON:In the Secretary of Labor's 941 do it, that was implemented the following Monday. p41 decision,I assume you have read that?
psi We found on the 3rd that it was kind of an ' psi MR. EHELE: Yes. ma'am.
Page 44 Page 46 in inappropnate thing,and I think the stewards agreed : ni MS. WATSON: There's a comment in here pt with us,it was an inappropnate thing to have this ; pi about Mr. Morrow's statements to you when pi work stoppage.Specifically, because it became a p) Mr.llarrison was tansferred to an outside position, vi labor issue.We didn't have a safety issue here. . p1 and my reading of this leads me to believe that ist We had a labor assue. And the steward was in ts) Mr. Morrow believes that you told him to take ts) agreement.Okay, guys, you really need to go to ist Mr. Harrison and move him.and I'm just wondering, rn work.We don't have any pmblems out there.You ' (a from what you said,it sounded like Mr. Morrow had ta) need to just get up and do what we are paying you raj requested moving him.
pi for, and that is to go to work. si MR. EHELE: That's my statement; that's om Since all of this began in 1993.1 have 'om correct.
pn been party to quite a bit of investigation;and I lpy MS, WATSON: Can you clarify?
pri have coopented all the way through.Mr.Salowitz, 'p:3 MR, EHELE: My statement is that om of Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns Progam, [pz Mr.Mormw requested it. lie asked me - Mr.
04} addressed me shortly thereafter;and I gave him all !p41 Harnson requested it thmugh Mr. Morrow.He asked psi the information he needed at the time.The'lVA O!G i ns) that on the 2nd of February. IIe had previously, pe) was there. Ile talked to me, and I gave him all the lps} also,that had been addressed to my subordinates,if on mformation he needed.1 filed an affidavit with e nn he could be tmnsferred;and they had to have that ps; the Department of Labor,and I testified before the !pe) cleared through me; so that's why they came to me pq Admimstrative LawJudge. .pw and asked me.
pm So I have cooperated in every way that 1 'pq MR. MERSCHOFF: During that same time 99 could to try and clear all this matter up and give ipy period between the 1st and the 2nd,according to the pa them all the information that I can.and basically I pri Secretary of Labor's decision,after the meeting psi have told everybody basically the same thing I have paj with the ironworkers,Mr. Harrison went toTVA,and pel just told y'all. lp4) he states he learned that you were out of compliance psj Throughout the years,and as I have told !ps) with the fire protection program, presumably two_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __
Page 43 '. Page 46 (14) Min-U-Script @ BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE STONE a WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 i
Page a9 Page 47 l!
01 rove--is not enough.It doesn't say that.Sim, , ni particularly in the dry well,which elevation you m that you are out of compliance.That he, l p1 are talking about.The elevation gets smaller as p) Mr. liarrison, went back to you - I don't think it I p) you go up.
pi was the same day.1 think it is February 1st.To lpi MR. URYC: You had two lead foremen.and
,sj tell you that you are out of compliance.and that l Ist you were expected to reduce one of those lead ist you needed to speak with Mr.Wallace,which you l tej foremen,and liarrison was one of those.right?
m never Jid. lm MR. EHELE: My question for my p) So he came back the recond day because l p1 supervisor, when I first took over this, why do we mi the concern of the inadequate number of rovers had ' p1 need allof those people.
poi never been addressed, and that's what led to the i poi MR. URYC:llut you had two lead foremen, ps) ultimate work stoppage,et cetera.What's your lpy and liarrison was a lead foreman?
pa recollection of that period on the Ist of being told I na MR. EHELE: Yes, sir, na that? fpai MR. URYC: Can you tell me again why you pq MR. EHELE: Mr.liarrison told me that !p4) chose Harrison to be the one?
ps! afternoon that Mr.Wallace of theTVA fire !ns) MR. EHELE:1 didn't.1 didn't choose ps) protection wanted tt talk to me.11e didn't address ins)him.
On what it was or why he wanted to talk with me.1 !pn MR. URYC: Who did?
pm tried to make contact with Mr.Wallace and couldn't f pq MR. EHELE: The three supervisors who per hook up with him.That is not necessarily unusual. Ipoi worked for me made the selection.Like I said,I poi llrowns Ferry was very busy in the early stages of lpo; never knew any of these people. so I wouldn't have py 1993,and it was hard to make contact with people, 1 p9 been in any position at all to make a selection.
ga but I did try to nuke contact with Mr.Wallace,and tm i MR. URYC: So you received a p3: I never could get up with him. ja recommendation-py MR. MERSCHOFF:llut you don't have any Ipy MR. EHELE: That's correct.
psi recollection of being informed that what you were psi MR. URYC:- from other supervisors who Page48l Page 50 pi doing was not in compliance with TVA's fire ' p1 recommended to you that liarrison be one of the lead a prmection? . m foremen cut back?
pj MR. EHELE: No, sir. ! pt MR. EHELE: That's correct.
pi MR. BISHOP: This is a point of ' pi MR. URYC: And this is all prior to tsi information.The letter that we have talked about ' ts) February 1st?
tsi that was issued on October the 2nd of '92, i ty MR. EHELE: That's correct.
m Mr.Wallace was the concurring signatory of that m MR. BISHOP: Let me help you a little bit p; letter that was issued by Stone & Webster i al with a couple of things I had stated before.On toi nunagement. ! p) October 6th of 1992, Doug Harrison was promoted to a po, MR. MERSCHOFF: Does that letter nuke it inal lead foreman and then reduced back to a forenun on no clear that during breaks.end of work.that all cool f pn November the 1Ith of 1992. And when he was i
pa down would be covered by two rovers? na pmmoted,at that time,he was told that when the ps; MR. EHELE: Yes, sir,it does. :pa work level comes down,and we have a need to reduce 041 spectfically. lpo lead foremen,you will be the first because you are psi MR. MERSCHOFF: Maybe when we get to the ins) the least senior person, ps! TVA point,if you could clarify whether or not two :ps) Then again on January the 6th of 1993, on rovers is consistent with your program requirements, inn when Doug Harrison was promoted the second time to a ps: if you know that now. :pej lead forenun.that conversation also took place, om MR. BISHOP: It is all a level of ; poi Now,that was prior to Steve becoming involved in poi effort.One rover would be adequatt if the level of l poi the unit 3 dry well work and probably about that gn effort was there. ;py same week or the week after.He was told that, hey, ga MR. MERSCHOFF:It's the function of the . pa when the workload comes down and we have a need to rn amount of welding? ipsi reduce the number of lead feremen.Doug, you will be no MR. BISHOP: That's correct. .;pq the first to be used.We also have order of values ps) MR EHELE:It also depends,on ps) that are kept,as you know;but the individual that ISROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripts (15) Page 47 - Page 50
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE Q WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION I
Page 51 Page 53 ty was in there that was the remaining lead foreman was 01 Concerns Program. Steve Salowitz investigates on m the one that had been in there all the time and the m February the 4th through the 12th,1993,by p) more senior individual as a lead foreman, pj interviewing the Stone & Webster supervision and pj MS. EVANS:liow many others were pj management,who at the time advised of the roster (si reduced?You said there were reductions across all p1 review that was taking place and the decision to rei disciplines.Do you know how many,just off the top pi eliminate a lead foreman position prior to the m of your head? m concern being raised. Steve Salowitz concludes that isi MR. BISHOP: During that time frame - do i p) no reprisal occurred.That the cutbacks in progress p1 we have the exact number? ) p) had begun prior to liarrison's discussing the fire poi MR. EHELE: Four. i poj watch concerns.
py MR. MEDFORD: We can provide that. jpg Steve Salowitz also concluded that prj MR. RADER: We can provide you with lpa liarrison's reduction from Icad foreman to foreman om records.The exact numberis hard to ascertain {pa) was based on seniority,like the previous reductions v41 because the employment records are no longer ip4) in November of 1992.
psi available, but we can show you four other lead jps) Page 7. Steve Salowitz investigates the psi foremen produced during that period. Insi possible failure oflaborers to sign on to the hot on MR. JOHNSON: '. have two quick lpa work pernuts. Steve tint finds that the hot work pai questions.Were there any fires in the dry wellin ins) permits from February 3rd,1993 and afterwards were pq this time period;and secondly,were there any poi signed:and later,who they were available, pq instances of fire watches where they were acting as ;po} reviewed the permits ori F:trary 1st and 2nd of pq a fire watch but were not qualified or certified lpy 1993;and they were signed,even though some were prj accordmg toTVA's requirements? lp2) illegible.
pai MR. EHELE: I don't know.The first l pal Steve Salowitz confirms that Steve Ehele p41 question, no, there were no fires, not at that !p4) had taken adequate corrective action after the psi ume.1 think later on there might has e been some U2s1 meeting on February 3rd,1993 to assure that
___ _ _ _ _ _ ~ .
Page52 Page 54 p; other ones that happened:and specifically in this l pj latmrers were signing pernuts. Steve Salowitz and m time frame that we are dealing with here in early m TVA QA agreed at that time that no corrective action pt1993,no. p1 document was needed. lie found that no evidence was si MR. MERSCHOFF: Are you in a position to p) found that laborers in the dry well failed to cover pi know?That is a pretty definite statement,there 151 hot spots during the absence of the ironworkers.
im were no fires.There are often fires.as you know, l !q Then on April 16th of 1993, when Doug m in construction sites.Would you know? i m liarrison returns to work from an extended sick m MR. EHELE: I'm talking about in the dry tai leave, Steve Salowitz informs Doug Harrison of his p) well,yes,I would know. ' pi investigation results. liarrison was told that he pq MR. MERSCHOFF: Okay. .pq had done a good job as lead foreman and was reduced oy MR. JOHNSON: You were overseeing the dry pq only because of cost savings and the workload. At pri well activities) .pij that time, Doug Harrison raised no concerns about pai MR. EHELE: That's correct. As far as
- pal the handhng of the complaint or the findings.
p4; the qualified person signed on,I don't think that ' p41 We have Steve Salowitz here, as you can ps) anybody that was not quattfied would have signed on 'ps) see,if there are any questions.now or later, pq except that had responsibility. As far as I know, !pai ladies and gentlemen.lf not,we can go to page 8, on there were no one that were signed on in that work ;pa the Department of Labor actions.
pe perrnit that had not been properly trained byTVA in l pal On March 30th of 1993, Doug liarrison
- 09) the fire watch program. ;ng filed a Section 211 complaint with the Department of pq MR. JOHNSON: Those are all the questions !po) Latur.This was received by Stone & Webster on myIhave. 'py May 28th of 1993.The Department oflaborWage and pri MR. BISHOP: Page 6, the St me & Webster :pa Hour Divi 6m finds on June 16 of 1993 by clear and trai investigation finds no diumination.On : pal convincmg evidence that no discrimination p4) February 4th of 1993.Doug liarrison contacted Steve p4; occurred.They found that the standard review of
- 2q Salowitz, manager of the Stone & Webster Employee ipsi the r ersonnel assignments and labor costs led to Page 5f - Page 54 (16) Min-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. IIARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ESTORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 55 Page 57 p1 liarrison's demoticaThe only other lead foreman ! 03 why liarrison thought that he was being discriminated m maintained his position because of seniority.That l m against for raising these concerns? Did you explore p; the decisions to demote liarrison and foremen of ! p) that and develop that with him?
pj other crafts was made prior to Doug liarrison raising I p1 MR. S ALOWITZ: Yes. Mr.11arrison felt is any fire watch concerns on February 1st of 1993. l ts) that he had made the point that there were not isi Then after a full hearing with live ! isj enough fire watch in the dry well when the m testimony,the Administrative LawJudge issued a ! m ironworkers left,and he felt he had discussed that m recommended decision on November 8th of 1994 finding ! m with management,and that is basically what he told m no discrimination or retaliation against liarrison. l m me,and that is the way we left it.
poi lie finds that Doug IIarrison was made lead l poi MR. MERSCHOFF: On the 1st he thought he pij foreman to finish the lower steel.That's elevation lpy made that point,is that what you are saying?
pr; 563 in the dry well unit No. 3 at Ilrowns Ferry. lpri MR. SALOWITZ: No, he talked to me on om When near completion, Stone & Webster was reviewing ! pal the 4th,and he claimed that - on the 1st,that's v4) its rosters and decided that fewer foremen were !p4) correct,yes.
psi needed; hence, no discrimination in liarrison's l psi MS. EVANS: Can you share with us what ps) reduction fmm lead foreman to foreman.11e found !pel the other managers might have said about on that liarrison's reduction was in accordance with inn Mr.liarnson?
ps; accepted seniority principles. pai MR. SALOWITZ: They all had very high poi Jiarrison's subsequent transfer to an {po) regard for Mr.liarrison,as far as his ability to de rioj outside crew came either at his own request or after lpoj the job. And.in fact,they were - how can I 24 his meeting with the ironworkers resulted in a work lpy phrase this.They were quite concerned because they p2; stoppage. 4p23 had to cut back one individual because they didn't n This was the finding of the ln have any work.You know.the work had stopped in p41 Admmistrative lawJudge. As we have stated,his :p41 that area or was reduced in that area. And in order ps) transfer was because of his request. ps) to - they could have kept either one,is what they j Page 56 Page 58 p) And then the derNon and order by the p) told me;and when Mr.liarrison le, and I spoke to m Secretary of Labor on August 22nd of 1995 rejects ' m them.that's when I told him what w had told me.
pi the Administrative LawJudge's conclusion. I p) That they wish they could have kep xcause he
) MR. URYC: Turn back to page 6,and I , p) was as good as the initiallead forenun or the other
- si have a question for Mr.Salowitz.The first bullet i sii lead foreman, ist says that liarrison contacted you.What was the ! s31 MR. URYC: Could I take you to page 5.
m nature of that contact and why did he contact you ; m the first bullet under February 3rd,1993 where is: then? is: liarrison speaks with the ironworkers.Do you know m MR.SALOWITZ: lie came to me on the 4th ' m if those imnworkers refused to work because of what pol of February;and at that time.he sold me that back 1 poi liarrison had discussed with them?
09 on the 2nd of February,he felt that there was an !py MR. S ALOWITZ: No.
pr; madequate number of fire watch personnel m the dry ;pri MR. URYC: Thank you.
03: well;and that individuals were not signing on to ps; MR. BISHOP: Are we ready for page 9? Go 04: the hot work permits at that particular time. And !s41 ahead,llob.
ps! he also told me that he was reduced to a foreman l psi MR. RADER: After the Secretary's pe; level for raising those questions. psj decision in August of this year, Stone & Webster pn MR. URYC: And did you then talk to ,pn deternuned that it would pursue an appeal by ps) Mr.Ehele about those concerns that Mr.liarrison ins) petition for review with the Eleventh Circuit Clerk, poi expressed to you? 19e1 an appeal which was filed on October 13th, poi MR. S ALOWITZ: Yes,1 did, the following !poj in generalthere were two areas in which ,
29 day, the 5th,is when I spoke to Mr.Ehele and other lpy the company has appealed.The first area relates to !
n Stone & Webster supervisors who worked for Mr. Ehele 'p2) the definition of application of the protected .
gx and Mr. Ehele's immediate supervisor as well, n activity,which is required under Section 211 to l p4) including the other lead foreman. p4) tnper the responsibility of the employer. j ps) MR. URYC: What is your understanding of :ps! Yhe second set ofissues relate to BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script @ (17) Page 55 - Page 58 '
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 300 1995 STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Page 59 l Page 61 0; substantial evidence, which are discussed on page pj rovers.
m 10, which I will get to in a second. pi There has been no showing by the pl As you know,with regard to protected p) Secretary that there was any violation of the fire pi activity,it is required under Section 211 that an i p1 protection requirements under that plan.There is (q employee engage in protected activity before he I is) certainly no violation of any NRC regulations.So mi brings himself within the coverage of the statute. I pj we believe that finding is inadmissible;and, m So this is a highly significant concept and one i m therefore, there is no basis for finding protected Iq which is not simply some legal technicality,and onc ! pj activity in that particular area.
Iq which has panicular application here because as you !p) And finally,in this area, there is a pq have heard Mr.Ehele tell you and as he has told the lpq finding by the Secretary that when Mr. Harrison was 04 Administrauve LawJudge and everyone else before !py speaking with the other ironworkers on February pri him, he and the other supervisors simply did not f pr: the 3rd,that he was engaged in protected activity ps; understand prior to February the 3rd exactly what lps) because he was taising concerns with the coworkers; pq was Mr.liarrison's concern about the fire watch and lp41 and we feel that that is also an unjustified pq apparently the concerns shared by some of the other lpa extension of the statute.As you may know,the ps; ironworkers. Indeed, even at that point,one would lps) traditional interpretation of protected activity is on be hard pressed to say it was a safety issue as lon when an employee raises concern with the supervision pq such,it was really an issue of whether or not the !pej or with the NRC or at least somebody in some higher psi tronworkers who were signed on to the permit can ' psi authority.
pq cc~ out of the dry well area. 'pq The renuinder ofissues are discussed on pu in any event,it is pretcy clear from the ,pq page 10;and as we say here,these issues relate to pri testimony before the Administrative LawJudge that :gri the lack of substantial evidence to support the pai as of February 1st,before the time when the psi Secretary's decision.The decision of the pq decision had already been nude,that is.after the :p,i Secretary,as the head of any agency of the United psi decision had already been made to cut back ipsi States whose decision is under appeal, must be Page60 Page 62 p1 Mr. Harrison from a lead foreman to a forenun : pi supported by substantial evidence;and we believe in pi position,it is clear that at that time, Mr. Ehele p1 this case there is no substantial evidence to p1 did not have the state of nund to understand that ni support the Secretary's decision for several pi Mr. Harroon thought that he was engaging m sj reasons.
isi protected activity by raising safety concerns. ry The primary among them is the fact that p In fact.if mu read the Secretary's p; the Secretary of Labor in this case substituted his m decision.evet he acknowledges that initially this 1 m judgment on witness credibility for that of the ial was thought N be a jurisdictional concern,and it ,
p1 Administrative lawJudge. It is a very basic pl wasn't untillatt Gat it evolved into a safety : p) principle under Arnerican jurisprudence that the pq issue. Unfortunately,the Secretary,fmm our !pg trial judge is there to examine the witnesses' 09 perspective, never really explains how this came to !py credibibty. He alone hears them speak.He watches pri be perceived as a safety issue. !na their body language,he hears the words come from pal We think that at the earliest this could 'pai their mouth,and he alone is in the position 9 pq not have been conceived as anything remotely related :
09 distinguish those who are telling the tru.n from 04 with safety until at least February 3rd,when the psi those who are not.
- 06) reduction had already taken place. psi And indeed in this case,if you look at on Also, we feel that the Secretary's on all the testimony,and in most cases,the testimony psi findings that there was a violation of the fire 'pel of Mr. Ehele and the other Stone & Webster witnesses poi protection plan in force at 11rowns Ferry is simply noi was not even controverted. Actually,you can pq imalid. As Mr. Ehele has explained,there was an ipq beheve everything Mr. Harrison had to say and still pq agreement on October 2nd betweenTVA. Stone & ipy believe everything that Mr.Ehele had to say because
- n) Webster,you know, with the endorsement support of 'pri what we are talking about is intent, understanding pa: all the crafts and bargaining units.that the ipal and knowledge. As Mr. Ehele has explained,his py ironworkers would participate in the fire watch;and pq knowledge regarding Mr. Harrison's activities was pq that the laborers would be used as supplemental :ps certainly not the same as Mr. Harrison may have -- - - . - -
Page 59 - Page 62 (18) Min #1-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 t
Page 63 Page 65 to understood. p3 finding by the Secretary should and will be m There are several examples where this m reversed.
p) comes into play in the Secretary's decision.The p) MR. BISHOP: Page 11. Stone & Webster's p) Secretary obviously did not accept the p) Employee Concerns Program does encourage reporting to Administrative bwJudge's assessment of witness 15) of safety and quality concerns.
tej credibility regardmg the reasons for the cutback. l rei MR.MERSCHOFF:let me go back, Bob,for m And for whatever reason,which we cannot understand, i m one minute.Can you speak to the remedy at all?
m he did not credit not only the testimony of Mr. ! Isj llave you requested a stay to the remedy and total m Ehele,which he pointed out didn't even select Mr. I p1 resolution be appealed?
por llarrison;but he discredited the testimony of the jpoj MR. RADER: Yes, we have.We have asked pq three supervisors who did in fact, select Mr. 'pq the Secretary to stay his order regarding back pay pij liarrison for the cutback. And,in fact,he didn't tua pending resolution.
par even mention them in his own decision,which I find !ps; MR. MERSCHOFF: lias that been granted?
pq startling. !nm MR. RADER:It has not been acted upon.
pq Also,you will find that the Secretary jpg MR. ROSANO: Let me ask a quick pq quibbles with the field manager's testimony about jpe) question. I have a copy of the application for on the desired ratio between foremen and craftsmen.He !nn stay, but I carft tell from it what is the date that paj said,well,1 don't believe that because he didn't ins; it was filed.
poi achieve the exact result that he was looking for. lom MR. RADER: I'm sorry, Mr. Rosano,I poi Well, you know,there is an old saying that the poj don't have it with me.It was filed about a week pq enemy of better is best.It was an approvement.It ,pq after the appeal itself was filed. I'm guessing it pa was a decided improvement. And as I said, we can ;pa would be about a week,10 days ago.
pai produce records that will show that not only ip3) MR. ROSANO: Thank you.
pq Mr. liarrison, but other lead foremen, were,in fact, !py MR. BISHOP: Okay,the Stone & Webster psi cut back;and it dernonstrates the sincerity and ips) Employee Concerns Program was implemented to
-- f -
Page 64 Page 66 p) honesty of the field nunager,Mr.Ehele and the i p) investigate Stone & Webster's employees' nuclear m other supervisors,in making those cutbacks. { m safety and quality concerns that were not resolved p) We also feel that the Secretary did not I p) by supervision or nunagement.The Employee Concerns pi credit the Administrative bwJudge's understanding . p) representative functions independently from Stone & ;
tsi of what Mr.Ehele said when he nude a comment about I (si Webster site nunagement in investigating and m that Mr. liarrison was acting like Moses parting the ' te) resolving nuclear safety and quality concerns and m Red Sea. It was an off-hand comment;but as Mr. m allegations of intimidation or harassment.
m Ehele has explamed,he was concerned about the work ! rs) Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns rep m stoppage;and that is what triggered that comment, , p) coordinates and shares the investigative results poi The Administrative bwJudge accepted that;but for : poi withTVA.
m) some reaum,the Secretary of bbor never heard !py Stone & Webster's Employee Concerns na Mr.Ehele explain that;and we don't think that's :p2) involvement in the liarris(m case,the Stone &
p3) right. p3) Webster Employee Concerns representative conducted a pq Also with regard to the issue of 'Do thorough mvesugation and obtainedTVA concurrence psi liarrison's transfer,Mr.Ehele testified that he did 'us on the disposition of the fire watch concerns. j om n at his own request.The Administrathe LawJudge ! psi Mr. llarrison was apparently satisfied by the report !
on said, well,it was either that or it was because he !pn that the Employee Concerns rep gave him on April 16 pm was engaged in unauthorized work stoppage;but i ps of1993 De either way it is proper;and we believe that the ;noj Page 12,the effectiveness of the Stone &
pq Secretary of uborimproperly disregarded that !pq Webster Employee Concerns Program has been verified pq conclusion as well, ;py a number of times.The Stone & Webster actions to i pa So in general, we believe that there are !pa improve the quality of the work environment in pm many very unsatisfactory legal conclusions and .p3) raising safety concerns is in response to an NRC pm factual findings by the Secretary which are very ipo letter dated August 26,1993 in an unrelated 99 vulnerable to appeal,and we do believe that this ins) Sectic' 211 case. I BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 ' Min U-Scripts (19) Page 63 - Page 66 I
PREL)ECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Page 67 Page 69 p) We issued a memorandum dated September vi craft.The results were 98.9 percent would raise p1 14th of 1993 from myself to all supervisors and pl concerns to supervision,TVA,or the NRC.98.1 pi nunagers summarizing the Stone & Webster Employee p1 responded that they would raise concerns to either p; Concerns Program and initiating a program to roll Hj supenision, management.or through the Stone &
sj this infornution down to all employees. I (s) Webster Employee Concerns Program.
isj We conducted a follow;up survey to lm Then theTVA OlG in theJuly of '94 m determine the knowledge and use of the Employee l m survey showed that Ilrowns Ferry employees pi Concerns Program in October of 1993.The results l pl overwhelmingly felt free to raise nuclear safety m showed no evidence of chilling effect in willingness i m concerns to their supervision and managernent.
pm to report Employee Concerns. lpm InJanuary of '95 Stone & Webster pq Ist me give you some numbers from that In q distributes a memorandum to all on-site employees pri survey.There were 347 or 31 percent of the on-site i 021 summarizing our Employee Concerns Program once pai craft at that time were surveyed.91 percent of the !ssi again.
041 surveyed said they would discuss concerns with lp4) TVA OIG's annual audit of Stone &
D61 either their supervisor or the Stone & Webster ! psi Webster's Employee Concerns Program in September of pq Employee Concerns rep.92 percent of those insi 1995 demonsttutes that allIlrowns Ferry personnel pr) surveyed would discuss with Stone & Webster,TVA.or jp7) surveyed would report safety and quality concerns to ps: the NRC. ins) their supervisors or through other available poj in addition.there were some special lps! processes.
pm meetings held by the Stone & Webster site manager. !pm And later on October 2nd of 1995, at our pq This was to nuke crufts aware of the available !py Monday morning toolboxes,and we have a lot of key pri processes for reporting quality and safety ;pri s te locations throughout the site where we post psi concerns.These meetings took place in October of pa) important information, reemphasizing Stone &
p*) 1993- p41 Webster's management expectation that employees will psi Then during some inspection activities by psi report safety and quality concerns and should feel Page 68 Page 70 pi the NRC which audited the effectiveness of the Stone p) free to do so.
pi & Webster Employee Concerns Program in Novernber of p) We feel that the combined Stone &
p; 1993 confirmed that Stone & Webster personnel were p) Webster /TVA programs provide an effective assurance si not reluctant to report potential safety /quahty l p) to employees wishing to tuise safety and quality isi concerns. pi concerns withoet fear of reprisal.
tal The employees surveyed urunimously,with ist MR. MERSCHOFF: One quick question.
m the excepuun of one Stone & Webster employee that m Page 13,the second bullet.theJuly '94 survey that m was on their first day of work at Ilrowns Ferry. pi showed Browns Ferry employees,does that include
[9] stated no reluctance to raise safety / quality g Stone & Webster ContraCl employees?
pq concerns to supemsors. Stone & Webster's Employee om MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir,it has a separate on Concerns Program,TVA.or the NRC.The numbers pq category;and Mark is going to share with us those pri there were 127 Stone & Webster employees surveyed by ,pri results;and,Tm sorry,I should have said that.
Os: the NRC.124 said that they would raise concerns to !ps; MR. URYC: Mr. llishop, how have you got
- 04) supemsion or management.We feel that is 'p4 your expectations relative to supervisors dealing usi confidence in management. ! psi with safety concerns and discrimination? How have nel The NRC concludes that based on this !nsi you got that down to the supenisory level?
pri current activity and earlier surveys,that the !p ri MR. BISHOP: Well, we at Ilrowns Ferry, ps) awareness and knowledge of the contractor and TVA's jpei and I very much agree,are what we call an poi pmgram have increased. ;pe) organization. And as I mentioned earlier, where we um later Stone & Webster performs another { poi say roll down to,we start with an organization,and my random survey to evaluate potential chilling pq l just happen to be the one -it doesn't make me pri effects,which concludes that Stone & Webster pr any more important than anyone else on that job - I pai employees are willing to report safety and quality pa: just happen to be the one in charge out there at am concerns without fear of repnsal.This survey was pai Stone & Webster.
psi conducted with 471 or 43 percent of the then on-site ips) But we have these meetings that do - as Page 67 - Page 70 (20) Min-GScripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON r. PREDECISIONAL ENTORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE O UEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 71 Page 73 pj you see anyplace in henc where C.R.liishop issues a p) the biggest lesson he learned is the need to better m memorandum to the management and supervisors.It is m communicate.
p1 a fairly large distribution. And we have meetings p MR. BISHOP: Sure.
pl w th management, whether it be at my level or down, MR. URYC: llave you had a lessons learned isj that go down through supervision and then request lpj gs3 go.around on this particular case with your p) and require that they roll this down to all l is; supervisors? I mean,there's been a tremendous m employees;and we do that through meetings at ! m amount of time over the last several years on this rei different levels,or we do that through publications ! pj one case,I would imagine.llave you had sit-downs m and postings. And the postings that we mentioned in l m with your supervisors to go,for example,through a sq here throughout the key locations is available to lpq lessons learned or-on all people. lpy MR. BISHOP:I don't know on which pont pri All Stone & Webster people come on site jorj we specifically issued the information where *ve did pai through a graph out.We are a contractor.We have Ins) come up with some actions on some of the surveys
- 04) an association. Even if you don't go into the lp41 that we did which were,in fact, created because of psi secured areas,you will see the postings.Those (ps) this just to check and see if we had a chilling poi locations are posted with specific information like ,pq cffect.
On this.Ilut it is an organization that starts with on The latest one is as far as a chilling paj the publications.These are requirements that flow lpe) effect from the Secretary's decision on pe) down through. ; pol August 22nd.We have issued some since then to get poj As I mennoned also, Jimmy llutts,our :poj people back up as far as their awareness.llut I'm py site manager -I didn't mean to throw his name in !po trying to recall which ones were given away because pri here - but out field site manager did have some l pal of the liarrison case.
ps; special needs with sorne of the other crafts' lp3) MR. SALOWITZ: October 2nd.
p41 supervision /nunagement.lle said that it's real ip41 MR. BISHOP: October 2nd of '95. Now, psi important to get this infornution to all of your (psi the September 14th of '93 was in an unrelated tear Page 72 Page 74 pl members about this. : pi level Section 21I case, Even though it settled,we m MR. URYC: llave you given any special . m did take some very quick actions there, not only to p) tmining to your supervisors regarding I m get the program summary out to everybody,to rollit si discrimination, you know, how to avoid it, how to ; p) down to all employees, but to do a follow-up survey is; deal with potential discrimination cases? IIave you ! 511 on whether that information is going out.in fact, tot explained, for example,50.7 in your liability? ; ist is getting out;and that's where the surveys hook m MR. BISHOP: That is part of the m up,in addition to getting the program's information m training.Ma eb" Steve could help us.That is ! is) out so everybody understands it, all the way frum m cenamly identified at the pre -it is not ! m the top down to everybody else.
pq pre-employment, but after all the training,all the lpq MR.URYC: As a side point,I guess more 09 people,before they go on-site who get training. -p y or less a point of curiosity on my part, your p2; that information is passed along not only to Stone & -p2) numbers were very high in your surveys.90 percent pai Webster but TVA and anybody. :psj said they would report,What were the other 10 p4: MR, URYC: These are your general p4) percent saying as to why they would not report?
pe emplo)ce training type issues? ps) Were you getting any kind of feedback like that? l pq MR. BISHOP: Yes, sir.To my knowledge, + ps; MR. BISHOP: We could certainly provide on as far as any training on how to handle a case hke 'on you with that because we do have the ones that ,
pe) this,our goalis not to have them.I can't think I nsi answered.There were answers like that,that they I poi of any training that we have given.Ilut as Steve iper would not.We have one,and I just don't recallit, pq described earlier, he clearly understands the :pa but we can certainly provide that, ;
pu repercussions with discrimination and all the :py MR. JOHNSON: llefore we leave, maybe, j pri retaliatory action that will be taken. :p23 Mr. Dodson,you could address a question similar to - l p3) _ MR, URYC: Mr.Ehele made a very pai the last one in terms of programs Stone & Webster paj interesting comment. lf he had a lesson learned - p41 had for all the supervisors in your facilities. I'm psi and I'm trying to quote you as correctly as I can - psi not familiar with your activities in general in
- BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripts (21) Page 71 - Page 74 ,
PREDECISIONAL ESTO2 CEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Page 75 Page 77 19 other places,but do you have any general training l to The Administrative bwJudge found that gi programs for supervisors. gj Mr.Ehele and other Stone & Webster's managers were pi MR. DODSON: There are routine meetings pi credible and acting in good faith and with honest pl with the heads of the field locations to discuss pl rnotives and intents.
Isl common problems and common lessons that meet several isj The evidence shows conclusions that the re; times a year.They have routine discussions with isi Stone & Webster managers acted with valid reasons.
m our head of construction.We are providing contract i m And the Secretary himself acknowledges that the ts: mamtenance for a number of operating plants.We ! ist discrimination finding is a, quote,close call.
m have supervision, organizational structure at a ! s) i Independent sources have likewise found poi number of other facilities;and there is a regular lvoi that no discrimination existed.Those include 09 infrastructure to share what is going on,what are 109 Stone & Webster internal reviews,TVA reviews,and pri the issues, what are the concerns at one site to lpri NRC reviews that have been done to this point. A ps; nuke sure that each of the other sites know about 103) finding in favor of Stone & Webster by the v41 those. lp ) Department oflaborWage and Hour Division and of psi And those are conducted,l'm not sure, Osl the Administrative hwJudge show the merits of the pai there are three or four a year, but there are ps) Stone & Webster appeal in this action.
Un multiple ones that we bring into a common location on At a minimum, considetution of possible p:1 to go over those kinds ofissues. 'psj enforcemein action should be postponed pending the poi And the director of construction for the l poi decmon of the Court of Appeals trught be as poi company, you know, routinely nukes visitations to .po; follow 3:
pu the various sites to understand what the issues are, lpy We believe certainly fairness dictates p2) how to nuke sure that we can best cross pollinate ip21 that the NRC wait pending the Court of Appeals and pai the best lessons that we have learned from one site !pai their decision of the case,given all of the other p4i to iruttate into the other as well.That was the :p4) findings. finding no discrimination;and that this psj program in effect. !ps) was, quote,such a close call.
Page 76 Page 78 p) The specifics about,you know,a broader i p1 The TVA, NRC, and Stone & Webster m nunageriallessons learned exercise associated with , pl resources are better conserved pending this appeal.
p) 50.7,1 honestly could not tell you;but I could l p1 And.in fact,we believe there has been no pi point to an exact lessons plan that has been used, , 1 demonstration of need for any kind of immediate NRC isi and we have done specific training.I'm going to (si action.We have indicated results of surveys, 161 hase to go check,but I do know for a fact that it is) results of evaluations that have been done.We have m would be routme cross dialogue between the sites. m determined that the program is in effect and is tal Q: Are you aware of any other problems in isi working well.
m Stone & Webster such as this and other people in to) Even if a violation is deemed to have poi your workstation? ;po) occurred, no civil penalty should be imposed.The py MR. DODSON: No, sir. If I could,let me :pq Stone & Webster Employee Concerns representative pal go to page 14. ivri thoroughly investigated and resolved the safety pa; MR. JOHNSON: Sure. 03) concerns, as well as any allegation concerning p4; MR. DODSON: We believe that no : pal discrimination.There is a lack of chilling effect, psi enforcement action is warranted in this case.The I ns) as has been found and verified by the NRC.TVA,and ps! NRC should find no violation of 50.7 occurred for !ps) Stone & Webster. Stone & Webster does have a good on the following reasons: :pa enforcement record, pal The evidence shows that no 50.7 violation :ps: The incident involving Mr. Harrison was a poi happened. Stone & Webster nunagement's !poj single isolated occurrence that by every indication got understanding was that there were no particular : poi has had no impact beyond the complainant himself.
pq safety concerns being raised.The timing and the pq That no violation ofTVA's fire protection plan or azi sequence of the foremen and lead foremen reductions 'pt) no violation or no safety issues existed. And the pai were before any raising of any uncern,and that pai Secretary acknowledged that his reversal of the pai Mr.liarrmm's transfer was because of a voluntary lp4) Administrative lawJudge's fact-finding is a close ps; request. psi question.
Page 75 - Page 78 (22) Min-U-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGIAS W. IIARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENTORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 79 Page 81 p1 Enft2rcement discretion is warranted in , ty MR.URYC: This is a very powerful m this discrimination case where,as here,the ! m statement here and I would expect that it would p) employer has taken prompt, comprehensive,and i p) also be a very powerful statement to your employees 81 effective corrective actions to address both the ; p and to your supervisors.
151 particular situation and the overall work l sj MR. MEDFORD. lf you will turn to page 3 m) environment concerning raising of safety issues. l rei in the TVA handout,that is where I will begin;but m The effectiveness of the Employee ! m before I do that, Ellis,I would like to go back to ts) C(meerns representative's review has been discussed ' pi a question you asked earlier.And,that is,in sei with yo i.Onge' .;; actions by Stone & Webster to ! v1 TVA's assessment,to the extent to which Douglas poi assure that the i urk environment is conducive to !pg liarrison was concerned about fire protection and dry su raising safety corcerns has also been discussed with !py well warnings,that ha.4 not been a key pan of our pri you and that there is no finding or evidence of any tori assessment of this situation.Neither onTVA ps; programmatic discrimination or blatant and egregious { pal management, nor based on my quick reading of the OIG pq actions of discrimination. :p41 repon rereading.1 sh uld say,on the pan of the ps; On page 16 we are very proud of the !ns) OIG.You might ask why.
ps) Employee Ccmccrns Program we have,its i ns) The answer is that - in my mind, at va effectiveness.We believe it was well-used here. 'pa least - it's not a panicularly imponant issue.
poi We believe it was in place and working effectively ;pe) Clearly, Douglas liarrison did not raise this issue ps: during this period.We believe and we remain poi frivolously.lt is clear in my mind.In pm committed to a free and open employee discussion of <pm retrospect, he did have a safety issue, whether it pu safety concerns at alllevels.We will not tolerate :py is valid or not, admittedly.lle may not have pri intimidation, harassment and discrimination against :pri communicated it as clearly as he should have,but I pai our employees. ;p3) think he had a sincere safety issue.lfit would be pq We have repeatedly reinforced these !p4) of value to the NRC,we will attempt to do a psi expectations,and the effectiveness in communicating 'ps) retrospective assessment.
Psge 80 Page 82 pi management's espectcion has been venfied.The ' pj MR. MERSCHOFF: That's not important.
m message has been getting out,and they understand m Whether he was right or wrung doesn't matter in this p1 it. pi instance.It is the case that he bmught up a p) Stone & Webster will continue to monitor p1 concern.So your resources are best spent elsewhere isi the effectiveness of this prognm and to emphasize ts) in researching the 'istorical question.
Is) its availability for all employees. p) MR. MEDFORD: With that,again,1 would m it is for this very reason that we m like for you to turn to page 3 of theTVA handout.
101 believe we have an effective pmgram in place.and ' m) On this page I'm going to give you a summary of our mi we contmue to have an effective prugram in place, :si assessment of the llrowns Ferry working environment.
po: that we nave assumed all of these appealed ; poi We have listed under the first bullet three specdic py processes. And we believe that we were well founded 109 surveys,one by the NRC,two by our inspector na in what we were doing at the time,and continue to ini; general, all of which I will note occurre d after the pa; believe we were well founded,and that our paj priginalliarrison case was filed,and the third of pq supervisors acted in a proper way. Mark? :04i which is at least contemporaneous with the Secretary ps; MR. URYC:Irt me a<,k a question.Ilas ps) of Labor decision.
pej Stone & Webster ever issued any corresp(mdence that .ps) i should point out these dates I have on very specifically says that management will not .pn given are the dates of the report.In some cases, pe) toletute any intinujation, harassment or !nel the work done to suppon that report was donc po; discrimination against employees? Were those ;ps! somewhat for it.What I would like to do,l'm going pq specific words used in any corresp(mdence to select !pa to make reference to the summary from the 1995 TVA >
pu employees? 'py inspector general repon.1 would like to address pc MR. DODSON: The issuance of the various pzl two categories of employees.
p3; communications that we talked about in the postmgs 'px The first isTVA employees at lituwns na and all,whether they used exactly that phraseology, ip4i Ferry, and I would like to compare their resp (mses ps1 I could not state without looking back at those. tps; in a giwn area across all three of these survep.
BROWN REPORTING INC. (404) 876-8979 Misa-U-scripts . (23) Page 79 - Page 82
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATI0N __
Page83 Page 85 pi in the 1993 NRC survey,98 percent ofTVA employees p1 the Contractor Concerns Programs and theTVA p; at lirowns Ferry indicated that they would report E pi Concerns Pmgram There is a specific requirement ni safety concern to the management.In 1994,a TVA pi that the contractor programs provide us a monthly p; survey,99 7 percent invicated that they would 8) report on the status of the program.In addition to si repm a sa:ety issue to their nunagement. And in Is) that,theTVA Concerns Resolution site rep and the p) the most recent survey that was completed this pl contractor site reps typically talk at least weekly.
m summer by the Inspector General,1(X) percent.181 , rn MR. MACHON: And I get a monthly report isj out of IFl imeniewers indicated that they would l ta; on every employee concerning the status with regard pi raise an issue to their management.Ilut the trend i p to his disposition status from my site rep,so I poi is that fmtn a very strong pnitive base in 1993,if !po)i will know what is going on in everybody's shop.
pq anything,the situation with regard toTVA employees !py MR. MEDFORD: If you would, turn to p:1 has gotten better lpa page 5.1 would like to now discuss bnefly the pai i would also hke to nuke reference to Ips) actions taken byTVA as a result of this case, pai the same question for contractor employees at Ilrown5 jp4) First,as has been indicated a number of times,the psi Ferry,and I will point out, Pete liishop gave you a losi TVA Inspector General specifically investigated pai number of stat % tics earlier. Pete appropriately tosi Douglas llarnson's allegations.
on focused on Strne & Webster employees at lirowns { pr, Second,we have monitored the progress of pe) Ferry.1 am not going to focus on Stone & Webster jpel the case through the Department of labor process, pe) employees but rather the total contract base at :no; that is.through the Wage and flour decision and the poi llrowns Ferry. poi ALG decision and now the Secretary of labor's pq Again, going back to the 1993 NRC survey, ipn decision.
pa 98 percent out of 171 interviewees indicated they lpa Third, we requested SWEC to address a p21 would repon a safety issue to their nunagement. In 1933 potential chilhng effect of the Secretar(s p41 respmse to the same question in 1994,the Inspector !p41 decision by a letter dated September 10,1995.
psi General got 99 percent out of 320 interviewees. And !ps! And finally, we've assessed their Page 84 Page 86 p) finally,in response to the most recent inspector pl response to that request in a follow ap action,and m General survey,100 percent of the contractor 5 pt we requested of them follow-up action in result of pl surveyed.that was 192 mdividuals, indicated that pi that.
j they would report a safety issac to their p; Specifically, we asked that SWEC go back is) nurugement. , tsi to those ironworkers who had been employed at the p; li.ised on this, we conclude that the l p1 time of the Harrixm issue regarding the fire watch m llarnson case has not adveracly impacted the work i m and have continued to be on the 15rowns Ferry site isi envmmment at llrowns Ferry.lf you would, turn to Isi since that time.They interviewed - there were 11 foi p. ige 4 of theTVA handout.1 will not dwell a lot si individuals available to them.1 think there are pol on this page, but I would hke to bnefly sumnurire !voi two more that fall into the category I just pu the requirements that we impose on l'VA contractors. pq described who were unavailable.For example,like
, na At the top of the page,we have listed .pa No. I was on jury duty,and the other was psi four specific requirements that are in the contracts :p3) unavailable for some other reason. liut of the 11 v4; themselves.The contractors must comply with :p41 who were available to then they were interviewed; ost $rction 211.They must fully mvestigate ps) and all of them agreed they were willing to identify ps) allegations of discrimination.They must cooperate l psi the safety issues to their management.
pq with theTVA Inspector Generalin investigation of 'pn if you will turn to page 6,1 would like pai any issues,and they must dmcribe management action :ps) to sumnurire the situation fromTVA's perspective, pel in respmse to issues. .ne: First,as I have indicated earher,the lirowns Fet ry poi Major contractors, such as SWEC, must !poj working environment is open to the expression of pq estabhsh their own Employee Concerns Program,The pq cmployee concerns.
pa contructor Employee Concerns Progturns are audited 'pa $ccondly,the circumstances of the pai periodically by Imth the TVA Inspector General and ! n: liarris<m case do not point to discrimination on the p4) the Concerns Resolution Staff which reports to me. !p4) part of SWEC.
tai There is frequent comnyunication between lps; . Third,I believe that both TVA and SWEC Page C3 - Page M6 (24) Min-U-Scr8pte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON ' v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE STONE & UEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 87 , Page 89 pi have taken proper action in assessing and dispelling ! pj five minutes.
m the potential chilling effect on the case:and. pl (A recess was taken.)
p1 finally, no violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7 exists. , p) MR. JOHNSON: Okay, Dick, are you sti'l g) (Discussion ensued off the record.) j pj on the phone?
Isi MR. MERSCHOFF: So by the last bullet I sti MR.RASONA:Yes 1am here.
isj mark.it indicates thatTVA is in agreement with l tsi MR. JOHNSON: Okay,we do have a few m Stone & Webster's conclusion that Mr. Ilarrison did l m questions for Stone & Webster.The first question n not taise a safety concern? l taj is:Your Employee Concerns Program investigation.1 m MR. MEDFORD: No. I pi think we heard that the investigation concluded, poi MR. MERSOHOFF: Oc that he wasn't l poi from talking to the supervisors,that they indicated 09 discriminated against? joy that when you were goiag to downgrade a supervisor pz) MR, MEDFORD: lie was not discriminated !pri or a general foreman, either that it didn't matter pa; against as a result of raising the safety concern. !ns) to them,that either supervisor could be downgraded.
p4j MR. MERSCHOFF: You don't necessarily v4) and earlier we heard that it was going to be based ps) agree that there wasn't a safety concern) psi on seniority.So I guess if you could explain that pq MR. MEDFORD: In hindsight,I think he nei discrepancy.
vn raised a safety concern.Now,there are two :nn MR. SALOWITZ:I think you are talking pa) issues.One is SWEC management's understanding at ! pal about my statement before.
poi the time described in this sequence of events ! poi MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
pol whether he raised a safety concern,and I think ! pal MR. SALOWITZ: They told me that based on pu there is substantial doubt whether they believed !py seniority,they decided to reduce Mr.11arrison;but, prj that he raised a safety concern, point No.1- igr) you know,1 guess what I was trying to tell you is pai Point No. 2,1 think they have shown ;ps; that they were both equally as good as one another.
p4) convincingly that the action taken, the employment 'p41 The only dWerence being that based on seniority psi action taken. had been initiated prior to any safety lps) liarristm knew, when he went into the job,that when Page 88 Page 90 p) concern having been raised,whether it was ni they did reduce,he would be the first one reduced.
i understood or not. !m MR. JOHNSON: Okay.The second question ni MR. MERSCHOFF: I understand.Thank you. I p1 we had was,Mr.Dodson,the bulletin that you held pi MR. DODSON: Could I answer one question pi up, you called it a licads Up bulletin?
is; that was asked me.You asked the question could I ' isi MR. DODSON: Yes, sir.
is) site specifically that we had used that specific , is) MR. JOHNSON: Could we get a copy of m phraseology.1 have a copy of the ileads Up,which ' m that,and also,could you indicate who received a tai was one of the bulletins that was used out there; ! m copy of that? Was it all Stone & Webster employees mi and ifI could read the first paragraph.this might ' p) mcluded?
poi answer your question. jpoi MR. DODSON: Do you want to address the ny it reads: Stone & Webster is committed ton distribution of this?
or; to implementing an effective Employee Concerns :pz) MR. SALOWITZ:I also have in here,I usi Program at Ilrowns Ferry and offers an uninhibited 'ps) found when you were out.1 have a tocibox topics l p4; opportumty to express employee concerns.Our 04) which has exactly the same information provided on l pst policy at Ilrowns Ferry Nuclear Plant prc,vides SWEC .ps) it, and this is distributed to all Stone & Webster no employees with several options for expressmg pai craft,and that is what is used at their weekly on employee concerns without fear ofintimidauon, :Un toolbox meeting. And they actually.ifI'm not per harassment or reprisal. pai mistaken,they sign an attendance roster that says ny That is the first paragraph, underlined l pol that they have been at this toolbox meeting;and m and highlighted as it was presented. 1901 this information has Lcen provided to them.
pq MR. JOHNSON: Okay. At this point, what ipy MR. BISHOP: As stated previously,the pa i would like to do is take a short break.You all !pel Monday morning before work shift;and.of course,we pa: can remain here if you would like.We will ga to a ;p21 have other shifts;but generally speaking. Monday pq separate room and see if we have any further p41 morning we have a toolbox session;and we were ps) questions.1 don't think we will take more than :ps) saying that that was included in there;and we do, 7----~-
BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripte (25) Page 87 - Page 90
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE a WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Page 91 Page 93 p1 in fact.have an attendance roster and a sheet vi MR. EHELE: That's correct.
pi statmg they were there, p1 MS. WATSON: And now you supervise the pi MR. JOHNSON: Who were there? pl whole time?
pj MR. BISHOP: All the craft,and then this p1 MR. EHELE: At that time,I was managing tsj was or:e of the same meetings that liarrison raised tsi the activities th3t were going on within the dry mi the fire watch concerns over on February the 1st. l 51 well, but specifically the ironworkers in general m That takes place on Monday morning of each shift. m because they were the largest craft in there.1 was pj MR. DODSON: Not the same actual meeting. p) also aware of the activities being pert'ormed by the p) the same type of meeting. pl pipe fitters and the electricians at the same time.
pq MR. BISHOP: The same type of meeting. pm The ironworkers were the largest bulk of people in to; yes. v4 the dry well at that time.
pa MR. DODSON: On the 11eads Up posting that na MS. WATSON: And who was your pai ! was talking about,it's a thing that was posted in val copervisor?
p4) a comnxm area but doesn't specifically require the p) MR. EHELE: The gentleman's name was psi person.or that we could show that that person saw pst Jimmyllutts.
om the thing.It's there for him to look at in common psi MS. WATSON: And what was his title?
pq areas: whereas, the other one,there was literally a .pn MR. EHELE: lie was a field manager.
pai roster. ice MS. WATSON: So he was over all the poi MR. JOHNSON: So the workers at the ! poi supervisors?
poi toolbox meetings, we know that they received it;and 'am MR. EHELE: That's correct.
pq we know what was posted:but my question also :po MS. WATSON: And the three supemsors pa related to the supervisors. pa who reported to you in the irtmworkers, what were pal MR. BISHOP: Welt.the supenisors also : pal their names?
p41 attend the toolbox meeting. ipy MR. EHELE: Mr. Joe Fontay, John Cerowig ps) MR. JOHNSON: Okay.The last question we ips; and WayneTennison.
Page92i Page 94 p1 had was, Mr. Ehele,could you confirm what your ' p) MS. WATSON: And Mr.Tennison was R1 position was at the time of this incident in a Mr.llarrison's supervisor?
p) approxtmately early February of '93. ' pi MR. EHELE: Yes, Mr.Tennison was the i
si M9. EHELE: I was assigned as the dry p) one who relayed the information to Mr. liarrison, ist well manager,to oversee the work in the dry well by , is; talked to him about it,that's correct.
ist all crafts,but specifically the ironworkers. ' im MR. JOHNSON: for the NRC staff,those m MS. WATSON: Is that the same positic.s ' m are what I remember to be our final questions.
p) you havr now? . p1 Dick, do you have any questions?
pi MR. EHELE: No, ma'am. ! pi MR. R ASON A: No.1 don't.Thank you.
og MS. WATSON: So your title now is the : poi MR. JOHNSON: DoesTVA or Stone & Webster pq chief construction supervisor? 'pq or Mr.Ebele have any additional comments?
pa MR. EHELE: I carry the same corporate pa MR. MEDFORD: No.
psi title now as I carried then, chief construction !na; MR. DODSON: No.
pq supervisor.The manager title is one that was used 'pm MR. JOHNSON:I would like to close the psi specifically at lirowns Ferry because of 'os) enforcement conference.1 would hke to also remind psi corresponJmgTVA positions. lpe Mr.Ehele that he has the opportunity to meet pn MR. BISHOP: As he also stated, now he is 'pn separately with us,and it is my understanding that om supervising the other crafts. ps! you have declined that;is that correct?
poi MR. EHELE: Yes. several crafts, ps; biR. EHELE: That's correct, pq includmg ironworkers,again, pipe fitters and sheet 'pm MR. JOHNSON: In closing.1 want to pu metal and all other mechanical crafts as a part of pq remind TVA, Stone & Webster and Mr. Ehele two pa the umt 3 recovery pmgram- pa things.first,that the apparent violations are n MS. WATSON: So the difference is at that ; pal subject to further review knd may be subject to p4) pomt m time, you were supervising the crafts lpm change prior to any resulting enforcement action.
pq mside the dry well? :ps)
And secondly,that the statemees or _
Page 91 - Page 94 (26) Min-U Scripts - BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE O UEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 Page 95 its views of any NRC employees at this enforcement m conference are not intended to represent any final j p1 agency action.With that,I conclude the !
w; enforcement conference. 1 isj - (Proceedings concluded at 3:40 p.m.)
01 A !
la!
I 181 l
Pol l")
0 71 Dbl Del D51 D81 Dn ps; Ds) pol l
pti ;
pri [
ini l 9 41 12 51 Page 96 pi STATE OF GEORGIA:
COUNTY OF FULTON: l m ,
p; I hereby certify that the foregoing ,
p) transcript was reported,as stated in the c.sption, tsi and the questions and answers thereto were reduced i m to typewriting under my dirtcrion;that the i m foregoing pages 1 through 95 represent a true, iar complete,and correct transcript of the evidence tot given upcm said hearing,and I further certify that !
poi I am not of kin or counsel to the parties in the on case:am not in the employ of counsel for any of _i pri said parties: nor am I in anywise interested in the ,
psi result of said case.
par Disclosure Pursuant to O.C.G.A.91128 (d):
osi The party taking this deposition will receive ,
l
. Dei the original and one copy based on our standard and on customary per page charges. Copies to other parties pai will be furnished at one half that per page rate.
na incidental direct expenses of production may be poi cdded to either pany where applicable.
pq Our customary appeannce fee will be charged to p2) the party taking this deposition.
ps) This,the 3r; day of November,1995, 9 41 GAYLA WIIITE, CCR-B-1324, RPR psi My conunission expires on the 26th day r fAugust.1996
' BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 = Min-U-Scripte (27) Page 95 - Page 96 j
W w Lawyer's Notes
I J
DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ESTORCEMEST CONTERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995
~
l 2nd 18.10; 19 6,16; ! 90 74:12 l 74:22;79.4;82:21:85:22; ! anybody 29:25;32:2; 1 ; 22:23,25:23,32:t 3a 5, 9i6713 ; 90a0 ; 52:isc2:i3
' 35:7;46:15,21;48 6; 92 48 6;67:16 addressed 30:4,17; j anymore 29.2,6; 30.24; I
1 39.16,86:12;87.22 l 5124 5411;60:21; 93 27:13;73:25,92:3 l 31.8,32:25;3814.44:10 42.6 10 7:19;8:3,6,12.5.6,24; ! '
! 94 69 6;70.7 l
- anyone 22t 25 25.
a uste R 2R M 59 2.61:21;65:22;74:13; I ! 95 69 10,73:24 lM22 87:3 i 3 l 98 801,22 l adj urned 31:3 i Administer 3.2
, anyplace 71:1 10-minute 3:24 l anytime 45:9
- 98.1 69.2 d n strative 17:16; 100837;802 1 3 16.15;18Il4;19 9,21; I . apologize 4:13 98.9 69:1 4 11 65 3;86 8,13 l 20 23;23 8;25 8;50:20, >3 t l 8PParent 3:14,15;5.25, 99 83:25 5 91 2 51th 20.l; 5011 , 55 12.81:5;82.7;92 22 '
99,7 gy4 , 64:4,10.16;77:1,15; i 30 22 18,25:12;29 13; i , 9.17;12.3,18.22;13 8 12 66.19 78:24 124 68.13 127 68:12 j 3516; 3&t 38.25 i 30-minute 33:20; 3916 A ! Administrator 10:5 j admittedly 81:21 l 8PParently 5915;66.16 12th 53 2 ! 30th 6 3; 5418 '
1, gy $73 l adverse 13:13 f f[(5 5 21, l(,78 2 13 M7 j M m2 absence 6:19; 32.11; I adversely 8t? , ,pp,gg 3,g 9; 33g, .
13th 5319 i 3208125 54 5 i advised 20 8.53:4 699,8010 14 76 12 i 347 67:12 absolutely 17:4 affidavit 4417 ) Appeals 16.8;17:19, 14043:9 l 3:40 95:5 1
abuse 9 25 ! afford 13 9 ! 7:19,22 14th 67:2;73 25 3rd 23.10;32:5;37:14, afforded 35:25 ! mppeared 22:12 I accept 30.22;63:4 15 2':5 ! 18,38 6;43 22,25,53:18 ' accepted 25 4;305; I afternoon 3:3;15:21; ! appears 38 5 3 28.22:40:25;47.15 16 7:20,54 22.66 17; l 42.10; 55:18; 6t10 application 9.10; 13:22;
'9 15 , _ _ . _ . _ accomplish 10 9;42.14 afterwards 53:18 16 18;58 22,59 9.65:16 1600 6 4 accordance 6:1; 55:17 . again 20 5,6;25.?7; approached 23 5 16th 54 6 ~~~
4 according 46:21:51:22 28 8 29 42 2
, appropriate 8:17; 26 3 171 84 22 achieve 6319 82 6;83:21;92.20 appropriately 8316 181837,8 4184;81:9 acknowledged 78 23 ' against 7 H,17;8.1; approved 19:2 18th 71 43 68 25 acknowledges 60 7 10.24;11:6;12:15,22. approvement 63:21 19 85.21 471 68 25 ' 7' 7 ' g3 3, g4;45 3;55:9,57:2; approximately 92:3 jg2 gg 3 4th 52 21; 53 2; 56 9. across 51:5;82.25 , 79.22;80:19,87.11,13 Aprit st6#>1-'
57:13 Act 7:10, i1:4,15 5 agency 10:3,61:2t 95:3 area 1815,22.18; 2 L7, 1969 26 25 1991 ' 20.26 14,16 acted 6514; 77.6; 80.14 agenda 3:8,15:22;22.8 ' 31.21,25.32 6,14,20 1992 10 15.18.7,10; Acting 3 2; 51:20,64 6; ago 22:25; 2511;65:22 + 33:24,25;38 18,25, 19 6.17,20 1;25 23;50 9 -
~7:3 agree 11:17;42:20; 40.13,42.10,5';14,20 11.53 14 action 3:20,6:10,7:17, 70 18;87.15 ! 58 21;59 20,61:8,9, 5 22 ';58 6.85 12 23;817,24;9 A 29.24; agreeable 14:18 82:25.91:14 1993 to 23. 20 5.12- 50.5719,86;126 22 23;23 10,26 8,44 10, 10 17,20.13 'A ' agreed 30.25,25;37.11;
! areas 58.20.Ris;9117 4' 21;50 16;52:3,21; 50.7 8 3.12:5. 2t72 6 argue 15 20 76:3,16,18.87 3 4 42:11;44:1;502,86.15 54 2,18,21,25;54 6,18. :16,18,78 5,8018 around 18:19,39 6; 86.1,2;87.1,24,25, agreement 30 7,24; 21.02.55 5;58 7,66 18 -
42 'n 44 6;60 21;87 6 41:21 21,67 2 H.2 t;68 3,831, 5th 56:21 91 21;95:3 ake~a 31:5;45:11;58 14 arrangement 39 3
,g y, _ - _ . _ . . _ . _ . - - actions 7.22,8 21;912; '
' arrangements 7:5; ..y-,
1994 55 8.8V3,24 1995 6 3.25;56 2.69.16 ---
h 11:18,21;16 5,9,10, 26.7.29 7.5017,66 21; ALARO 1818 ALG 85 20 , ascertam st:13 20.82:20,85.24
- 73 13,74:2.79 4,9,14; '
allegation 78.13 ! aspects 14 3 I ! allegations 66 7; 8tl6, t
assessed 5.25,85 25 1 st 22.3. 21,22: 29 8. 9, 86 .
319.23;36 9,14;37 1, activities 8:2,10.41:23; : 85 16 assessing 87:1 6th 20 5; 50 0,16 43.2;32:12;62.24;67:25; 15,38 2,43 6;46 21;47:4, alleged 16 4 assessment 6 5; 16 4; 4 25.9L5,8 H:5; 81:9,12,25; 82:9 I2.50 5,53 20,55 5. allow 29:13 57,10.13.59 23;91 6 7 Etivhy 2217; 58 23; 59 1;5;60 5.61.8.12,16, aHowed 36 L U14 uset 3H 3 almost 36:20 assigned 30:16,19; 2 75315 acts 7.14; 45 4 alone 62:11.13 38 18,24;39.2,92 4 along 1918; 21:13; assignments 5i:25
- - actual 918 22:12;28.19.33 9.721 2 as W s u 2 14 25;16 1,25 21; 30 13.13;35 5;39.15; 8 Actually 14.12,62 19, already 2718,39 6; associated 8:19.76 2
__ 99 ,7
' ' 623;W2L 25;W6 associadon M 8":21;913;5016 add 518 211 54.19,58 24.59 4, addition 9.9,11:9,19 8, l always M ,assunw 251 M M 6625,701;8-1:15 80 43:10 ,4 6,8 23 18,39 ",6' 19,'4 7; assumed 8010 22nd 6 25;56 2,7319 8th 2V14;518 American 62 9
, gy4 assurance 70 3 among 62.5 24 10 19 additional 3.11; 17:2, j assure 11:1414 3; 2545:1 l
$ ' 41:18.25,9111 amount ,.8:23,73:7 53:25;79:10
,26 66 24 address i1.18,21; ' annual 69:14 attempt 81:24 28th 5021 95813 18.16;29.15;47:16; answered 74:18 attend 91:24 BROWN REPORTING, INC- (40 0 876-69'9 MLi-U-Scripts O) 1 - attend
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGIAS W. IIARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE G WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION attendance 30.1; 32 22, l biggest 73:1 77.8.25 Clerk 5818 l 70 5,15;75:12;76:21; 33:1;90:18,91:1 ' BISHOP 419,19;14:19, called 21:1,9,90 4 close 14:16,77.8. 25; I 78 11,13;79.8,11,16,21; attended 29 9 15:25;16:3,8;18 2,4; came 20 8; 2120,24:16; 78:24;94:14 j 84:21,22,74;85:1,2,5; 24 5,35:14 20,36:20; 25:15;28:21;38 7;39:1; closed 3:6; 10:11; 29 21 86:21;88.12,14,17;89.8, codit 69.14 cudited 681;31:22 l 38.14;48.4.19,24;50:7; 46.18,47,8,55:20;56:9, closing 4:2; 16:14;94:20 Augu:16 25;2614;56:2; ! 3, 518;52:22,58:13;65: 60:1I conclude 15:17;84,6;
} 2t;7010.13,17;71:1; can 3:24;14:25;19:3- I , 913 58 16,66 24;73 19 i 72,7,16;73 3,11,24; ! 28 17;43:14:44.22;45.9 j c mbmed 70.2 concluded 7.8; 5311:
Authority 12:13,23, coming 32.17 l 89:9;95.5 13 2,61:19 l 74:16;83 15;90 21;91:4, ! 46:1I;49.13;51:11,12,
- 10,23;92
- 17 15;54:14,16;57:15,20, comment 46:1;64:5,7,9; l concludes 53:7;68.16, cvritability 80 6 ' bit 17.22,3212,44:11; l 5919;62:19,63:22,65.7; 72:24 i 22 cvritable 615; 51:15; 50 7 72:25;74:20,75:22;88:23 comments 14:15;94:11 l concluding 39.22 53 19,67.21;69.18, I blatant 79.13 care 33:7,45:13 Commission 10:15; 26 6 conclusion 39:17,56 3, 71:10,86 9,14 ) blower 45.4 Carolyn 4.10 Commission's 6:l;7:25 64:21;87.7 cvdd 72A blunt 3610,14 carpenters 19.4,10 committed 79.20; 8811 ' conclusions 64:23,77:5 tw r311:14,20,45-2; Bob 5 4; 16 6; 58.14;65 6 carried 92.13 common 8.18,20,21; concurrence 66:14 67 21;76 H,93 8 carry 29.5,92:t2 body 62.12 13 12;75:5,5,17;91:14, concurrent 19:7 cw ran:ss 68 I8,73:20 l both 12:23;17 3;I8.16; case 6 22;7.11;9 8,9, 16 cw y 29 5;73 21 16;10 8,23;11:9,11,23; concurring 48:7
, 38 15;79 4;84:23;86 25; corr;municate 45:18;
- - - - 89 23 17:23:36 4;45 12,62:2,6- 73 2 conducive 79:10 B Brad 4 2i;i5:20 ; i6,66 i2,25,72:i7;73:5. ; communicated Hi;22 8,22 Mlp615,723,
~~ ~ ~ - Branch 4:17 79 2,82 3,13;84.7;85 13, communicatin9 79 25 break 3 24; 22.14;33 24; i 18,86 23;87:2 66.13;67.6,68.25,75 15 back l 4:16,1612,18 6, , communication 84:25 conference 3 4,8,18, 9.20 2,21;21:7.20,24; >
i cases 6 9;62:17;72 5; communications 80.23 21,23;6 13.23;7:6.8 11, 2
23 2,3,23;27:l',28 5, 82 17 company 58 21;75 20 14;9 1,18,22;10.I,4,12;
- I 20.22,31 24,38 14;43 5, 4 '
categories 82 22 compare 82:24 17.7;91:15;95:2,4 45 1;17 3.8,50 2,10 D'I'I 3 9 conferences 10:11,13, categorizing 6 6 complainant i2:16, 56 4,10,57.22,59 25; briefly 3 24;84:10,8512 ' category 7011;86:10 ! 78 20 14 63 25,65 6,11;'3 20, briefs 15.15 causes 7:24;8 4,18; cornplaint 54:13,19 confidence 68.15 80 25,81. ,83 21;86 4 bring 22 5;4510,7517 i 13 12 , complete 29.23 confirm 92.1 bir immg 2317,25 6 brings 59 6 ' Cerowig 94 24 completed I 4:24; 29.22; , confirmed 68 3 broader 76 I certain 8 2 83 6 confirms 53.23 b:ce 8310,19 brought 21:23,24 22- certainly I1:20.18 23; b:ced 67,18. 23,11:22. 29 20,82 3 completion 26 23;41:19; l conflict 32:1
! 20 18;31:22;32 2.61:5. 55 13 i confused 34 8 Dm complex 20.19 i 13 , ; 62 25,72.9,74:16,20, 5 3, yns 3.5; 4:9. 20,25,,;12:13;13 3,15 conjunction 10 5,16-21 g l,,, , 21 17.l(. 18 22,26 12,13. compliance 46 24;47.2, l consequently 42.7 b :ic 15 21,62 8 certified 261: 51:21 5'481 18,45 20,55 12,60.19' conserved 78 2 B;2icclly 27.23.30 19, : cetera 47:1I comply 84:14 68 8;6r 16,70 8.17; i consider 13:23;31:20 44 22,23.57 8 82 9,23. *f 2.14,17,20, change 919,40 22; comprehensive 8:23; l consideration 77;17 bals 118.1313,17.24; 81 8,86 7,19,88 13,15; 94:24 , ,9 3 l considerations 13:21; 61.' 92.15 ' changed 3214:37:14, i conceived 60.14 '
16:13 bec:me 6 2,?:19,34.1, I'runo 310,4 6 23 concept 59.7 ' censidered 7:11;8:7; 1012;44 3 build 27:10 charge 3510,11;70.23 concern 2210,20,22; check 7315,76 6 i9 become 3610 bulk 93.10 24:15,25:9.33:16,17; ! co.3 g
,! 34 9,23;36.10,i1.15; nsidedng 31:22 becoming 5019 bull 23.18,32 24; 331. ; checked 31:3 j Chief 4:18,21,12:11; 3834 47 9 began a410 11 2 i
.611,9211,13
,,, 3g ! Construction 4 25; begin 81.6 bullet 23 25. 56 5,58 7, 12.11;18.20.20:26:12, 2 4.83 3;8' 8,13,15, b gun 53 9 70 7.82 10,87 5 chilling i1:10. I315. ,,,20,22,88 1 25;52.7;75 7,19,92.11, bulletin 90 3. 4 II 9- I 3 I5' belieta 10 3 m aggg g 13 believa 915,1 L 22, bulletins 88 8 , 24;27:'2;38 7;57.21; contact 26 24;4317; C 8' 3 16 16, '4,l' l.22.46 4; , bump 20 3 64 8,81:10 47:18,21,22:56 7,7 61:6.621,20.21;6418, burning 3918 . chose 49.14
- contacted 52:24;56 6 t
i concerning 28.21; 64 19,22.25,76 14; business 33 7
' Circuit s818 813;796.858 contemporancous
" 21,78.3.79 17,18,19, , circumstance 1516 80 8,11,13,86 25 ' bust 23 2 Concerns 5:2,16;11:1, ; 82:14
- circumstances 31:22; 16,12:17,13.7,18,15:4, continue 28;16,80:4,9, believed 87 21 86 22 10,13;16 10,16,17:12, 12 believ s 46 5 civil 6:16.17; lo 18; 18 18,23:13;29 16. continued 86:7 below 45 8 - 78 10 30 18.44 13;45 10,12, contract 70:9,75:7; claimed ST 13 14.M M IM M2, Be ide3 32 21 g3 y9
~ clarify 26 7,461 I; 4816
' ~ ~
belt 63 21;?5 22,23
$ contracted 13 2 82 1 C.F.R 7 . >; 8 3,6,12:5,6, clear 44:21:48:11:54:22, ' 66:2,3,6,8,11,13,15,17, contractor 12:12; 68.18; better 63 21;73 I;78.2, i 24;873 + 59.21;60.2;81:19 20,23;6".4.8,10,14,16, ' 71:13;83:14;84:22;85 1, 83 12 C.R 71:1 cleared 46:18 23:68.2,5,10,11,13.24; , 3. 6 bey:nd 78 20 call 22 4,23 5,18;70.18; clearly 72 20,81:18,22 69.2,3,5,9.I2,15,17,25; : contractors 7:14;11:14; tttendrnce - contractors (2) Min U-Script @ BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGIAS W. HAERISON v. PREDECISIONAL EhTORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 84:2,11,14,20 l cut 20:2;31:24;42:7; desire 14:10 distribution 71:3;90:ll ; effectively 45:18,79.18 contracts 84:13 50:2;57:22:59:25;63:25 desired 63:17 Division 3:13; 54:22; i effectiveness 16:11 cutback 63:6,12 77:14 17:4:66-19;68:1;79 7,17, c ntractual16:22 desires 14:9 C ntrols 37,10,10 ; cutbacks 53:8,64:2 details 15:20 Division's 17:18 l 25;80:5 controverted 62:19 determinations 10:3 document 54:3 l ehets 68:22 c:nvenes 23:16;25 5 D determine 3:25;17:3; DODSON 4:21,21; l efficient 18:13;21:18 15:21;74:22;75:3;76:11, l effort 48:20,21 c!nversation 20.10; 33:13;67:7 50:18 determined 9:22;38:10; ; 14;80:22;88 4 903,5, ; egregious 79.13 d* .
10,91:8.12;94:13 i Ehele 3:5;4:24. 24F:5, c conveyed 45 6 i 58:17;78.7 l done 15:10,16:20;35:4,i 16,9:9,12:4,10,15:14:7 c:nvincing 54:23 i !'determining 3:19;8.17'. ,
85:24 i 36:19;42:17,21,23; i 7,11;16:3;21:2,7,20, c:nvincing!y 87:24 dates 82:16.17 N'" l 54:10;76:5,77:12;78:6; i 22:20,23 6,15;25:2;26:3, cool 34:ll,13; 48:11 devel P 57:3 82:18,18 j 5;34:14,25:35:3,8,21; day R9, WJ34 8; 3&l3,18,24;37:2,11,17, cool-down 22:13; 33:21; 25:4,10;28:20,31:4,16; dialogue 76:7 doubt 87:21 34:16;35:24;39 16;43:3 Dick B9.3; 94:8 22,2t 38:13,20,22M 2, 40:15,25;47:4,8;56:21; Doug 19:18,21: 20:1,3, cooperate 84:16 68 8 , dictates 77:21 6;21:23,24;22:7,9,23; l 13; 40.7,11,19,23; 42.5, cooperated 44:12,20 23:4.6,10;50:9,17,23; 2 t22, R
< days 65:22 i difference 43:14;89:24; j g 3, } 5 coordinates 66:9 i 92:23 52:24;54:6.8.12,18; i 12.15,18,24:56:3,6; 3 deal 72:5 crpy 7:2;15:23;65:16; different 12:16;I 3.6; 55:4,10 i 51:10,23;32:8,13;53:23; I dealing 15-6;43:9;52:2; 88 7; 90 6, H '
70:14 26'19;39:7,25,71:8 l Douglas 7.1;12.15:13:4; i 56:18,21,22;59:10;60:2, csrporate 92:12 ! difficult 20.19 , 18:7,81:9.18;85:16 ' 20;62:18,21.23;63 9, l deals 12.4 carrective 8 21,23;9 4; i decided 31:14:43:23; l direct 15:14:43.7 l down 19:22:20:9;31:10, : 64:1,5.8.12,15;72:23; 13:22;53-24:54:2,79 4 55:14;63:22;89.21 i directed 27:25 j 33:2Mll,132,1; ; 77:2;92:1.4,9,12,19; c:rrectly 15:5;72.25 i decision 6 22,24;7:3,7 i direction 21:14 f7 5 2 l:4 ,6, !
, 92 c:rrespondence 8016 ' 13,15;8:13,9.7,16,21; ! 19;74:4,9 20 10.7,22;i1:23;13:17; l directly 15:12,21:11;
' 37;15 f Ehele's 56:23
, 14'l:16-7;17:9;30 7; ld grade 89:ll either 9:5; 27:10. 55:20.
c rresponding92:16 Director 3:2 12; 4:6,12 " '
cast 51:11 31:5,9.39:15;45:24; ' 20,75:19 I
46 22,53:5;55 8:56:1; ' dress-out 32:14 69.3;89:12,13 c:sts R25 m 16. 59 24,25;60 7, disagree 17:16 electricians 19 4,21:4;
' drew 38:3 c uldn't 47:I8 61:23,23,25;62;3;63 3. discipline 28:12,41:5,5 ! dry 18:14; 19 9,21; 20.7, 32:9;37:3;93 9 C:unsel 4:ll: 514,12.1 13.73:18;77:19.23; disciplines 26:20,28:11; i 21;21:12,22;22:11:23:8. ' element 11:15 c unselor 12 21 4 82 15;85:19,20,21,24 l 31:8;51:6 i 11:24:1,7,8.9;25:8.16, ! elevation 19:9;39.13; couple 50 8 decision-making 3:22 I discredited 63:10 , I8;27:15,17;32:10,22; 40:1;41:10,23;49:1,2; csurse 20.71;90 22 decisions 11:8;316; i discrepancy 89:16 i 33:19;34:18,39:3;43:11, 55:11 Ccurt 16 8,17;19,"7:19, 55 3 discretion 79.1 1
16;49,1;50 20;51.18; elevations 39.7
' declined 94:18 discriminated 7:8; ' 52 8,11:54:4;55:12. I Eleventh 58:18 22 61:10; 10:24;12.14;13:3;57:1; 56 12 7 ,9 '
c:ver 26 4:43:3;54:4 ' deemed 78:9 ,
c verage 29.4;42:14; deeper 26:10 , 87:11,12 during 1&20,25:9 Ellis 3:12:4:12;81:7 59 6 definite 5?.5 Discrimmating 8.1 23:27:21:28.7;34:13; I else 25:25.45:14.16; c:vered 48.12 discrimination 7:9;11:4, ' 26: I 59:11;70:22;74:9 definitely 20:22,45.19 35:24;39:16,46:20; c workers 61:13 6;12.6,25;15:18;16 4; ' 48:11;51:8,16;54:5; elsewhere 82A definition 58 22 cr ft 27:16,22,28:10- delibi. rate 7:18. 23; 8 3; '
67:25;79:19 , emphasize 80.5 9 '
3014,375395,405 12.7 72:4. 5,21;k'7:8,10,24'- ! duties 34:11;41:10,17 ' emphasized 45 4 fj 18 gl33,9.1:90%; deliberately 12:14 78 14;79 2,13,14.22; ! duty 86:12 + employed 12:11;86 5
! 9 ' Employee 5:2;8'l; )
cr:.fts 27.7; 29.16; 30.10; b916 discriminatory ':17 l d**ll 84: ' 11:16;15:10,13;16:16; 35 l1;40 13;45 7;55:4, 60 23.67:21;71:23;92 6. demonstration 78 4 discuss 3:10. I3; i1:24; i 12:3;14:2;16:1,4,9,18, E 44:3 3; 52:25,59.5;61:lt f 65:4,25;66:3.8,11,13.
18,39,21,24 demote 55:3 17:13,I3,23 16,67:14, 17,20,67:3, *,10,16; crcftsmen 26 23,28 3 5'- demoted 12.15,13 5; ' each 3:14;10:7;19:9; 17;75:4;85 12 68.2,7,10.69 5,12,15;
, 1730 discussed 9:17; 12.9, 75 I3A 9I 'I J 72:15;"< 8 11: 79.7,16, 20, created 30 20,7314 demoting 10:25 t 84:21,22,85 8;86:21; 57:7;58 10;59'1;61:20' credibility 62.7,11;63 6 demotion 55:1 , g ! 72:20;81:8;83:16;86 earlier 6817;70.19; 19, ; 88 12,I4,17;89 8 credible 77:3 Department 16:5;17:17; g g . 89:14 , employees 11:2,10,
' I 8'
- O' i earnest 6013 45:183,61M:15;684,12, credit 63:8:64:4 g5 ' discussion 22:10,43 7; crew 20:7,17,55 20 '
- early 28:3;47:20,57:2; 23;69:7,11,24;70.4,8.9; ,
crews 2015.19,21,22:5
- 79 20,87:4 92:3 l MNN23.8%, W,
' j derives 7:12 ' discussions 1810+ 21;81:3;82:22,23;83:1.
1 Ed 513
, ," ' describe 16 25,17:21; :
effect 11:10,12:10; ' ' '" b I
cross-pollit, ate 75 22 curiosity 74:11 i described 7:20.9.12.
16 12;25:15;72.20 disposition 66:15,85:9 disregarded 64:20
' 78:7,14;85:23;87:2 5[ employer 58.24;79.3
! employment 13:14; extious 32.12 - > Ha 11;87:19 i E;stinguish 62.14 I effective 6:2,7:20: 9:3; 51:14;87:24 crrrent 68.17 , describing 17.6 > distributed 90.15 , 16:17,24;17:2;70:3;79:4; i er. closed 7;3 crrrently 26 21 I designated 26:17 distributes 6911 80 8.9,88:12 I encourage 16 9;65:4 BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Scripts (3) contracts - encourage
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE G WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION cocturaged 9'14 86:11 feedback 74:15 fitter 37:3,7,8 7,58:20,64:22;72:14; end 20:12,22:15;2110, examples 63:2 feel 15:11;29:1;45:9; fitters 19.4; 21:3;26:22; 74:25;75:1;82:12,21; 31:l;33.20,48.11 60:17,61:14;64:3;68:14; 32:11;40:14;43:10; 83.7,25,84:2.17,23; except 52:16 85:15;89:12;93.6 cndorsement 60:22 exception 68.7 69.25;70 2 92:20;93:9 five 41:24;89.1 generaHy 90:23 enemy 63 21 exercise 76:2 l feeling 11:3 feelings 27:9 floor 29:24 generation 25:13
. Energy 7:10,11.4 existed 7710,78:22 fellows 20:23 flow 71:18 gen & man's 9114 cnt:rc2 8-15 j er!sts 13:15;87.3 gentlemen 5:22;30:17; Cnt:rciment 3 4,10,20, i exited 39:21 felt 28:5;38:1;56:11; l focus 83:18 4 7,16,5:20.24;6:1,3, ' 7i focused 83:17 expect 11:18;81:2 10,13,14,23;7:21,21, expectation 69.24; 801 3 ,20, 2M 3, goggg,45 9 @M 23;8 6,i1 13,17'25 ,;12:14;I3:3;I5:1,7; given 3:15;72:2,19, expectations 70:14; 17:10,18:22;26:12,14. follow-up 4:1; 67.6; 74:4; 73:21;77:23;82:17,25 912,13,16,20,23, Ik16, 86:1,2 79 5 l 18;47,20,5512;60:19; giving 26:6
- 7. I 1,17,20; I 3:23,16.I3; expected 49.5 l 68 8,69.7.16,70.8,17; Following 3:9,23;10.4; go-around 73:5 17.7,76 15;77:18,78 17; experience 27:1; 36 7 82:9,24;83:2,15,18.20; 31:4;39.17,42:12;43:24:
79.1;9015,24;95 1,4 explain 64:12;89.15 8I H,86:7,19,88.13,15; 56 20,76:17 cngage 59 5 :15 explained 60 20,62:23; ; follows 77:20 54:10;58:4;77;3;78:16; sngaged 61:12;64:18 few 3:11; 5:23;89 6
(>t8,72 6 l Fontay 93:24 89.23 engaging i1,3; 60 4 Iewer55:14 i footnote 39:14,16 Engineering 511; 7.2, eXPl ains 60.11 f gospel 20:18 12:12,13:1,5 exP lore 57:2 Ife Ij l force 60.19 granted 23:9;65:13 foreman 17:10,11; graph 3:9;71:13 sn: ugh 39.25; 41:12, l express 88:14 ;
42.14;47.l;57.6 j expressed 22:22:3014; 65 18,20,21;82:13 19:19,20,24,25;20 2,2, grinding 39.18 3,4 7 1 l 56:19 , filled 28:15 l 22:2M2[1 15,15;21:24-fg]up 7:2;12:12;I31,5; expressing 88. I6 3;24:14,15,22; ,,
tr 2 ' final 7:18,813;10 3,17; 25:20;28:1,15,15,25,
~
snvironment 153,175, express;on 8(r20 -
[ 29.4;31:7,7,10,10,11, guess 74:10;89:15,22 91:7 95.2 6622;796,10.829,818, expressions 9.25 Finally 10.17;61:9,84:1; 12,32.24;33:13,41:3,7; , guessing 65:21 86 20 i extended to 16; 54:7 gggg;37 3 , 49.11:50.10.10.18:51:1, I guys 41:25;44:6 I
equ:lly 89 23 i extension 61:15 ' find 17 21;32:20;34 3; l i 53 6,12,12: 54:10, -
, 551,11,16,16,56:15,24; etc111 tid 6'10 stecchtian 9 5,13 20 extent HI 9 38.3,15;63:13,15;76:16
- b8 H
- ' finding 17.23;55 8,23;
- seetnthily 8.12,12.3 F 61.6. 7, io. 65:i; 77 8. i 3. ' 'e**" s zi:25; 22.25 : t astIbli2h 105;81'21 -.
24,79.12 i foremen 21 6,7,22; l handle 72:17 l 27.23,24,25;29.1;39.25, ! handled 25.7; 45:13 c2tibli hed 18 I8,25 22 findings 17:15;54:13, 6&lH,6424J7:24 W M M M 2,14,23; handling 54:13 st 47'11 facilities 74.24; 75:10
' I 4;"3:17' 4; i handout l4:24;16 2, finris 52.23; 53:17:54 22, fact 14:1;15 3,5;16 20, } 55 jo ; 4 22,22 18 5; 81:6; 82:7; 8t9 tvilutt.i:n 10.16 19 23;2023;34 4,12; ! unately 20 23 handouts 14:22 sviluiti:ns 78 6 40 6,42 8,57:20,60 6; { fine Iti?,19'25:21 forward 15:12 } happen 36:5,70.21,23 EVANS 4:10.10,4810, 62 5.63 11,12.24;73:14; . found 13:1;25:2,43:25 -
's:5,766.'83;91:1 finished 22.9,14 51.4,5? 15 45:12;54 3,4,24;55:16, ,g finishing 19 23 avsn 17 2,54 21; 5916 fact finding 78 24 , 77.1,9,73:15;90.13 ;
fire 11:1; 12:18,13:7; "
60 ?,62 19,63 9,13. factors 9.11 ' founded 8011,13 l 71:14;'4 1,78.9 , facts 818,13:12,14 2, 17:42;18:11,13,17,24; four 6 6; 10 9 27:23 '
svInt 1618.19,19.17:3; 17:23 19.1,2,7,8.I1,13,15,
' 51101505h8d'3 ! 0'l8'88 l8 II' I I ' I 9' 59 21 factual 64 21 i frame 11:8; 52 ' -
13 1 1;17.13,18 3, . failed 25 3; 5L4 ',10.2.
) 2 31:1; ' frar4fy 15.6 1
3 g $
f ailure 5316 32.23;33:12,18,25; free ll:3;15 ll;69.8, sytry 22 3,391,4t20; fairly 71:3 3110,12,35:1,4,11; 70 1:79.20 ! N"d**" D ' E E
' " fairness 77:21 36 16;37:5,7,8,38 5; ! fre:ed 41:17 5 sv:rybody 33 2,42:22, I I I5 I9' 38'7; 19'I9
faith 77:3 ' 20.1,6,21:23,24,'2e:7,9.
44I4;44 23;74 3,8,9 ;; 39 8,20;41:4,10.16,20,, , , frequent 84:25 tall 86 to f frivol usly 81:19 23;23:4,7,10,25; 2t 4,6, svarybody's 8510 ! 48U120,2M2:19 28 24;29.2,10,21;31:9, fammar ms 53:9;55:5;56 12;57.6; ! full 2517;55 6 svIrysn217.5,59 II 21 92 1 2 7; family 27:11 l 59:14;60:18,24;61:3; , fully 8115 t sv:rything 62:20. 21 svIrywhere 40 2 far 5213,16; R19, ; gM208M M & funcdon 4822 ! 49 6[11,14;50 1,9,17[
72:17 0 3 17,20 : 91
- functions 66 4 1 52 24;54:7,8,9,12,18, cvidenca 17.20,25 3 fire-generating 22:17
%4 3,23,59.1;61:22$2:1, favor 7713 , further 9:19;10.16; 55 3,4,9,10; $6 6,18, 2,67 9,76 18,7".5,79.12 fear 11:3,12,68 24;70 5 : fires 51:18,24;52.6,6 17:21;28 6;88:24;94:23 ! 57:1,4,17,19;58 1,8,10;
' 60:1,t61:10,62:20,25; 88 17 ; first 12:2. 4; 19.2t 23 9; sv:lved 60 9 Exact 51:9,13,6319*. Febrwry 22:3,21,22, 23;23 10,26.8.29 8,9, t
21:18,2415; 26 5,2t
- 33 3,14
- 19 8,50 14.24, G 4 l
6 'o ' ,24;6+6 66 i2.
16;73:22,78 18,81:10,
-,6 4 18; 82:13; 8t7;86.6,23;
! 32 3,5;43 6;46.15:47:4; 51:23;53:17;56:5;58.7, cxactly 5913; 80 24, < 50.5,52 24;53:2,18,20, ,
21;68 8,82:10,23;85:14; gave 4414,16; 66:17; P7.7; 89.21. 25; 91:5; 904 9" I 4 ' 25;55.5;56:10,11;58 7; ! 86 19,88:9,19;89.7;90.1; H3:15 . Harrison's 10:23;13.16; cximine 62.10 59 13,23;60.15;61:11; i 94:22 i General 5:14;22:10, !
40 17:53:9,12;55.1,15, cximple 40 5,72 6;73:9 - 91:6;92.3 ! fit 40:10 ' 31:10;32:2t 3313;41:3, 17,19; 59.I t 62:20 encouraged - IIarrison's - (4) Min U-Script @ BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
I DOUGILS W. IIARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONTERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 64:15,76:24,85:16;94:2 l impact 13:17;78 20 83:7,24;84:1,17.23; l 84:4;86:6 i ,
head 51:7;61:24;75.7 impacted 8t7 85:15 f issued 6:18,19,25;9.7; ) I headed 2917 3 implement 13.21; 30:9; instance 82:3 ; 10.20;19.5;4& 6,8;'35:7; ,-
heading 40 24 31:5 instances 51:20 i 67:1:73.12,19,80.16 Labor 7.7,13,15; 9.3, implemented 42:1I; instruction 21:14 ' issues 8:22;11:3,12; ' 12:25;13:17,16 5;17:15; j headquarter's 10 6 headquarters 5.20 43:21,65:25 intend 17.6 ' 15:12;17:20,22.6;58 25; ' 25:5.19;30 8,41:5.44:4, 2 21 25, heads 75 4; 88 7;90 4; ; implementing 88:12 intended 10.2;95:2 61.20,21,71:1;72:15; ,
91:12 important 3:21;9 21; i intent 62.22 1 75.12,18,21;78:22;79.6; ; g' l health 6.20 18 16;69 23;70:22; ! ntents i 77:4 l8C38,19;86Ib8E18 ! Labor's 6 24;7-3;10 22- I
- 71
- 25;81:17;82:1 hear 2021 i l interesting 72 24 i items 22:9 i 11:22,12 8;17:8.17; heard 3:25;22:20; 3til; { I*P ** "LII ' internal 77:ll l .itself 29:18.65:21 l 39:15;45:23:46:22,85:20 37.14;59 10,64 11;89.9, ! imposed 78:10 interpretation 61:16 i , laborer 35:15,18,38:16, l impressed 4517 ! 18,39:23;40 9,41:1,2,20 14 hearing 55 6 improperly 6t20 interpreted 30:4
- interrupt 34 8 i
l J I laborers 19.4; 2t 14,17, hears 62:11,12 improve 66 22 interviewed 86.8,14 ' 22,24;25 3,17,32:8.
h~;ld 613; 2610 38 8, i improvement 63 22 f interviewees 83:8,22 33:17;304.12,17,18; i, January 20.5,12;27:13;
,, > 1 35:5.9;3&l8;3 0; 67 20,90.3 l inadequate 47:9,56:12 t 25 1;39 , 4 9, f Jimmy 71:20;93:15 1
h:Ip 50.7,72 8 I inadmissible 61:6 ! ;nterviewing 53:3 h:lper 18 21; 19.12,13 l inappropriate 44-1,2 ' intimidation 66:7;79:22; l job 20 20 21:17,25; $ $
22:25;23:5,17;54:10; hilpers 25 24;42 3 , incident 78:18;92 2 f 8018,88:17 : 57;20;'o 22,89.25 h:nce 5515 include 8.7,70 8;77:10 into 6 6; 26:10. 27:lt :
302,18,39.2.40:10,60:9; , obs j 27:6;30:2() ladies 5tl6 h:y 50 21 included 90 9,25 high 11:2; 1815. 5718.
Joe 93:24 language 6212 including 56 24,92.20 ]2 t U2 increased 6819 introduce 4 4,5 !
large 71:3 higher 61:18 indeed 59.16; 62.16 n largest 27:16;93:7.10
, introduction 14 24' highlighted 88 20 JOHNSON 3:1,2;9.18; last 8:12,28.7,23,73.7, Independent 77:9 ' 15:25 highly 59 7 1 t o 10,21; 13:25; 1 C5,12, 't 23; 87,5; 91 :25 independently 66 4 invalid 60.20 himself 59 6,*7 7 78 20 17,20,37:9,42:3:51:17, lasting 8 23 indicate 10,';15:11;90 ' ' investigate 661; 8t15 hindsight 8716 indicated 78 5;83.2.4,8, investigated '812' 2 i L 2m2 Win Lastly (2 88 21;89:3,6.19.90:2. 6, later 21:9. 23 4; 2012, hired 18 ' 22,81 3;8514,8&l9, 85 15 ~
91:3,19, 25,9t6,10, i t 25:t 38 5; 51:25,5319; hi:torical 82 5 ' 89 10 investigates 531,15 i hiltory 27:1 indicates 10.23;87 6 ' investigating 66:5
- U' # "
5 "'"'Y**" I "
h:Id 6 23 indication 78:19 I investigation 15:16, Judge 4119,55.7. 21; llates N
- Law 17
- 16; 4t19,55.7, holding 317 ' indications 15-7 i 4011;52:23;509.6&l4; h:me 36 3;4015 individual 9.12,12 2,19; l 8 017; 89 8.9 59:11,22,62 8,10,6t 10, I 24;56 3;59.11,22,62 8 16,77:1,15 63:5; 6t4,10,16; 77:1, h nest ??.3 19 2,21:14,23 20;35.11; investigative 66.9 8.24 h:nestly '6 3 37 5,6,38 17,21,22; involved 10 8 13:19, Judge's 17:17,56 3, 63 5,60t78.24 l
h:nesty 6: I 39 19,50 19 0{2 f, 3f h,4lyy20, ; 9, hook 47.19,7t6 n n fu n 10 216,21; 2t i t it 22; individually 28 i involves 6 5; 1018 July 10.15; 69 6.70.7 25:19,27:24,28.1,15,21; h:t 2118,25,25 4,9, individuals 7:22, e2, 34 21,34 3,45 15,24, involving 7.22,7818 June 6 4,18.7,51:22 29.1, t 317; 49 4,5,10, 21 RM, % 13, MG I' "'
46 12,37 21,38 15, on 41:19 junior 20 3 49 18,22,40 8,12,18, i , 51:1,3,15;53 6,12,
, If0 Of fI I 18 8; ' jurisdiction 30 5;36:21; I 53 16,17,56 5,56.14 industry 27.3 5010,55 1,10,16,56:21; H ur 17.18,54 22,77.14, information 8.16; 91, b 8,23; 38: ibm 3'I5 37.16 , M 4, 5,60:1;63207622 se,19 10,15;13 10,25.22,26 4, ~
jurisdictional 24 20, !'leading 22 8 I
1 22 6, 60 8 leads 46 4 h:urs 1019,2516 2?,"2 12 ,1 ;
201,2,8,16,16,23; ! jurisprudence 62:9 : learned 37:19,46 21; 25,72 12;73:12,74 5,7, 26 22,27:16,22;28.11. ! jury 8612 1 72:24;73:1,4,10,75 23:
} 9014,20,904 2 , 2
- --- informed 22:24;4'.25 ,
,9 3 5 idea 30.15;3':13 informs 54 8 23;35:14,21:36 6;37:1, K 60 is.n u 8.Hi.iv; identified 5:25,6 18, infrastructure 7511 2, I t 3918,21; 40 4, I C t 82:14;85 6
'29 initial? 5,58 4 41:24,43 10,46:23.51 5. leave 518;74.21
- 5 keeping 4 It 25 8 identifies 7
- 16 initially 60 7 ,
. 9j s9. lb, kept 50.25; 57:25; 58:3 led 1714,47:10,5125 identify 2014,86.15 mitiate 75.24 9g g ,g g ' i key 11:15;69 21;71:10, left 312,577,9; 58 I Ignition 34 20,39 8 initiated to 14;19.16, 81:11 legal 5:5; 17:20,59 8.
isolated 7819 II 3 3M issuance 80.2-) kind 11:11,27.22; 43:25, 64 23 illegible 53 22 initiating 67 4 74 15;78.4 less 20.19,20; 42:9 i inquiries 302 , is u 2 3 7CI1 imagine 73 g g5 ,gl ), 2 0, kinds 75:18 immediate 56 23 78 4 i inside 32:6;92.25 21: 4tt 4,5; 59.17,18; knew 49:20,89:25 LESSER (17, l' immediately 39 22; inspection 67:25 60.10,12;61 14;81:17, knowledge 62.23,2t lesson 72:24;73:1 4513 Inspector 4 9,82:11,21; I8.20,23;83:5.9.23; 67:7;68.18:72:16 lessons 73 L 10;75 5.
BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min U-Scripte (5) head - lessons
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGIAS W. HARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE a WEBSTER ENGINEEPING CORPORATION 23,76 2,4 l 20.13;25:1;26:15,17; mind 25:8;60 3;81:16, needs 27:2;71:23 OlG 4015; 69.6;81:13, lett:r 8.7;34:14,17;37.4; l 27:15;28.8;52:25;64:l; 19 negative 13:17 15 48 5,8,10;66 24,85:24 l 67:20;71:21,22;92.5,!4; minimum 77;17 negotiate 8:14 OlG's 15:16; 69:14 lett:r3 7.3 minute 22:2,25; 25:11; old 63:20 l 93 37 manager's 63:16 l Neither 81:12 on-site 67:12; 68 25; levtl 611,12,13:18 65:7 new 6:4;25 6;43:21,21, 48.19,20,50 13,56 16; l managerial 76:2 minutes 5:23;22:18; 69:11;72:11 21 70.16,71.4;74:1 managers 11:14,19, 25:12;29:13;35:16;36 5; once 45:12;69:12 next 12:20.32:5 lev;13 6 7,71.8,79 21 28:12,41:5,5;57:16;67.3; 38:25;89:1 one 6 6,12; 12:4,20; non-manual 27.6 liability 72 6 77.2,6 misconduct 7:18,24, I4:22,22;23:20,27:25, managing 93:4 8 4;12.7 m 28 A 8113 29:4;30 5,13;40.1,25; lic:nred 810 # "'
licantee 7:13' 24; 8 4 , manner 21:18 missed 8.19 ! 42:25;45:21:48:20,49.5,
. normally 10:8, i1; 29.12, 6,14:50:1;51:2;52:17; lic:nsees 11:13 I many 21:6,6;51:4,6; mistaken 90:18 5/:22,25;59.7,8,16; 31:23 Lic n:ing 5 8 M23 mitigation 9.5; 13:21 65:7,68.7:70.6,21,23; note 9.21,24; 82:12 likewise 15.22,77:9 March 5018 mod 43:15 73:8.17;74:19,23;75:12, notes 29:14 Linda 4:15 l Mark 4:17,5:10,70.11; modifications 43:19 23;82:11;87:18;88:4. 8; linIS 2212 80 14;87 6 i Monday 243:25:14; ln hing 45:14,16 89:23;90:1;91:5,17; matter 6 25,13.19,1(2; I 42:12,43:20 69:21; #' O ' 92:14;914 li: led 8210,8112 I"
' 4t21;82:2.89.12 90 22,23;91:7 ! noticed 27:21:32.8 ones 32.11: 52:1;73 21; lit:r:lly 91:17 74:17;75:17 gg ., may 611,19;9.5 19. { notices 6:15,17
, monitor 80.4
, 11:11,19,21;54 21; I notifies 23:15 Ongoing 79:9 g j monitored 85:17 61:15;62:25,81:21;9123 -
November 20:1;50.11; j only 15:2.8,28.10; 32:11; maybe 41:11; 48:15; ! monthly 85 3,7 i, 5310558,68:2 i 33:12:37.2,39:22;45 4; locations 69.22,71 10, l 72 8,74 21 i e n h Ki23 NRC 3:10,18,24;4:3; stil;55:1 63:8,23;
" ' mean 318,9.22,71:21, '* ' "' i 72:12J02; 8724 fong 191; 271. I ! 22 12;30 19,20;45 14, l 615;7.13,21;8 9,9.22; ' onto 33:21 73 6 101,5,6,19;!!2;119, longer 29 3; 51.11 ' '
15:9;16:13;45 2,9,61:5, f open 10.14,15.3; 17:5, Meaning 22:13 [j
lo:k 16'11; 214,7,13. . I8;66 23;67:18,68 1,11, , 79 20,86-20 mechanical 26 23,92.21 15,15 2.28 I4;41-13, i morning 3:1;22 3,23:12, t 13,16;69.2,76:16;77;l2, { opened 22:9 62:16,91:16 l MEDFORD 5:10,lo,
' 202,10,2913;32:5;38 7;
,2 '81 4 15;81 21- r i
looked 23 21;39 I 5111;813;82 6;85 II; l 69.21;90.22,21;91:7 82 11;83:1,21;94 6;95 1 l es9 lo: king 6419,80 25
- - i mmings 2912 NRC's 11:9 meet 14 8,75 5,91:16 i Morrow 46 5'7,13,14 i , Operating 75 8 lot 1814,26 8: 4317,20 nuclear 4:23; 12.14; ; o erations 4:23 69 21;809 meeting it2; 21:1,8 Morrow's 46 2 13 3;18 20,26:24;27:2 ,
Iowar 2122,55 II 2 6,8,231(,,21; 2M, i Moses 64 6 45 1;66:1.6;69 8.88.15 , Pjnyn W 10,22,25 5;29.10,18,21, opimons 10.1 lunch 2215,2510 23,313,16,18,3216,20. j mst 1819,21; 21:1,6 number 18:24;40:22; 35 17;36 2,10 15 62:17; 83 6,8t'l ! 47:9;50.23;51:9,13; i opportunities H 19 23,36 8,14;38 1,6 40 21;43 22,45 16,' motives 77:4 l Opportunity 3:15;11:8; lunchtime 3319 ; 56.12;66 21;75 8,10, 83 16,85 14 , I3:10;14 8,26 6;35:25; 46 22,53 25,55 21; mouth 62.13 ;88it9*16 M
"" ' 7 ' > 9 8 9 ' O, 24 meetings 24 12,25 15, rnove 27.i i; 46 6 moving 19 18,46.8 numbers 20.i5,67:ii; 68 11:7012 i
l Options 88.16 i
29 7,11;67 20,23,'O 25, '
- much 16 21;70.18 14 5;50.24;56:1;57:24; ma*Em 45 25;92 9 7g:3,7p53,91:5,20 , I n multiple 75.17 !
U ' 65 11 machinzs 3 619 members 72.1 MACHON 59,9.1412, memorandum 67:1 *-
- orders 6
- 16,18 20,21;85.' 69.11;'l:2 must 61 A 8m, M, esemah.on 3 6 , organization 21:5,15, 16,18,20 observe 2512 , 27:18.70.19,20.71:17 maintained 55 2 men 33 9 maintsnince 2617, ain W l organuahnalM mention 63-13 -
27.11,14.43 20.75 8 mentioned ?O 19,71.9, obtained 66.14 original 82:13 major 25 8.84 20 20 N , obviously i4 25;63:4 , others 19:10,22.6,14; makts 813,75 20 merits 7':15 occurred 9:23; 15:18, i 51:4 making 27:14,28 9.64 2 53 8; R24,76:16;7810; out 5 20,20 25; 2214 Merschoff 312,t12,12 name 51,13,15;'l:21; 9334 8 2W, 23: 2W,289,13.
man 41.18 112t 12.1: 34.7. 22,35 2, occumnce 7819 i M, H . M M M man-hour 48.17 7,I8;36 6,17,22;37.1, names 43 21;93:23 13,18,23;40 21;42:13. nature 36 8; 56, October 7.4,18.10; 19 6 ; 31:17;32:21;302,4, man-hours 42 8 I6,I8;25 23;30.6;34:15; , 35 17;36:2,2;38 3 .,
18,46.20 47.24;48:10' .
9 IS,22;52 4,10,57:10; I
- 36:25;48 6;50 9;58:19, 391 @ I4. IWII. II-man.9. vnt 1319- 6 6,13,70 6;82:1;87:5' i necessarily 43:3:47.19, ! 60 21;67 8,23;69:20, 12;44:7;46 24;47:2,5; 15.13,18 11:30 8,25; 10,i1,1;8.3 j 87;I4 l 73:23.2g I 59 20,63:9,70:23;71:13, 45 5,48 5'. 53 t 57 8.
message 80 2 , necessary 28 2,14 !' off 20 20 516;87:4 l 22M3,5,6,8,8a2; 66 3,5,68 14.I5,69 4,9, t need 8 23;911;23 23; I ' ' '
ott. hand 617 24 '"I .2. 4; 80 I7; 81. I 3, me 37:9 28 3,I6;29.23,31:2,33 4, 888 9RI5 83 3,5,9,23;81:5,18. metal 37:3,92-21 6,'A6. 8, 4 5: 17,19; N8 88 I3 { outside 23:7;46 3;55:20 86.16 ; metalers 26.22 l 49 9;50-13,22,73:1;78:4 , office 3:3,5:14,21;10:5 l outstanding 20:24; management's ?6.19, , might 30.21: 51:25, needed 29.1; 36 5; 42:15; officers 18 12,19.7 , 29.19 80 1;87:I8 3 57:16;'7;19,81:15,88 9 44:15,17;47:6;503; offices to 6 . over 18:2; 27:15; 29.14; Manager 5 8,16; 19 6 Mike 5:15 55:15 often 39:1; 52:6 ' 35:13,43:9,16;49.8.73:';
letter - over (6) Min-U-Scripts BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
DOUGLAS W. IIARRISON v. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 75:18;91:6;93:18 l periodically 84:23 possibly 8.8; 40:18 66:20;67:4,4,8;68:2,11, !
overall79:5 l permit 2018,25:33:22; post 69:22 19;69.5,12,15;74 3; j R 35:15,23;36:12;37:21; 75:25;78:7;79:16;80 5,8. 1 -
cve see 92:5 posted 71:16;91:13,21 j 40 8,52;18;59:19 l 9;8021;85:2 t88:13; ! RADER 5:4.4;16 6 cverseeing 52.11 posting 91:12 l Permits 25 4:303; j 89.8;92:22 I 17:21:51:12;58:15[
cverview 15.25 I 53 I7'38' 80 s l Program's707 65:10,!4,19 overwhelmingly 69.8 l .
raise 11:3;15:4;68:9,13; cwn 15.8,37.7;40 6; Postponed 77:18 i Programmatic 79:13
' person 27;7;50:15*. li 69.1.3,8,70 4;81:18; 55.20,63:13;6016;81 21 i 52:14;91:15,15 'f potential 6:9 II:10 25,l Programs 70:3'f.23; 2,8t22; 853,3 839,878 13:17; 33.25;68:4,2f; l i personall5:15 l raised 10.25;12:17;13:7; P
Personally 27:9;45:5 l 72:5;85:23;87:2 l Progress 53 8;55:17 1 12 1 53 7 4 personnel 54:25; 56:12, i Power 18 20;26.25,27.2 , prohibited 7:9 powerful 81:1,3 i prohibiting 8 9 9g p.m 95:5 68:3;69:16 i pre 72.9 f prohibitions 11:6 raises 61:17 p ge 14:25;16:1,15; Persons 7:19 perspective 60:11;86:18 pre-employment 72:10 { prohibits 12 6,24 ? raising 11:12;55:4, 18.4;22.7;39 15;52.22; 561 6;57:2;60:5;61:13; 53 15;5016;56 4;58 6. Pete 4:19,26 8,28 8, predecisional 3 4;6:12, ! Projects 313;(13,18 13;59.1;61:21;65.3; 2911;30 5;32.25;83:15, 23;8:11,25;10.10;17.7 l promoted 19:19,50 9, l 66:23;76 23;79.6,II; 3
12 ' 87:13 66 19.70.7;76:12;79:15; 16 prepared 15:19 81:5;82.7,8,809,10,12; petition 16.7;58:18 present 26:ll: 31:18 l pro,17
, mpt 79:3 r random 68:21 8 M 2,W 17 RASONA 89 5;9C9 phone 89:4 i i P ragraph 88.9.19 ! presentation 14:6 l Proper Promptly 15:5 rather 35:16; 8319
. phrase 57.21 pruentations 1414 6t19;80-14; 87:1 ,
[ ratio 63:17 ase gy 8 2tS83 ! presented 37:25;40-20, i Properly 52:18 '
11 4; .2 9 21 C8 ratios 20-17 j 41:8;88.20 .
p rticipate 60 24 ! P ipe 19 4;21:3;26 22; ! President C20,22;5:11 ! proposed propose 14:15 10:18; it5;
, RCA 18:15 ptrticular 6:22;18 25. *'4 I4; 25:20 reach 107 2919. 37.t 3818,25, i press lo 19 ,
Reactor 3:13;(13,18 I presumably 46.25 i 2;58:22, ,
56 14;59:9;61.8,73 5. ' Protected 8: '
read 45.24; 60 6; 88:9 59 3 5;60 5;61:7,12,16 MU 79 5 3; 5 g, f pretty 36:9,52.5; 59.21 reading 46 4;81:13 p rticularly 49.1;81:17 ' previous 30 6;42 23; ' protection 30:9,46:25;
,9 18,80 8,9,91;7 ** I p ng M 6 l WI3 b ##' M places li:2,39.25;75:1 78.21;81:10 ready 41:17; 5813 ;
p rty 10 7,37:21;4t11 ' plan 3 23,I(l(6019; l Previously 25:20;31:6; ; proud 17:1;79.15 . real 2tl5;71:21 l pmsed 2818,33:9; 61:076:t ?8 21 l 35.4;42:21:46.15;90 21 i
- Pride 15 2,1 l provide 12,9:14;11:7, I really 28.2;33:15;43 6.
'2 12 planned 8:21 Pmsing 21:13 Primary 610 62.5 t 131R il It6,15;153; f IW;5918, Mil planning 3216 51:11.12;70.3;74:16.20, ' reason 31:13;63 7; p th 2U22,21 t Principle 62 9 6011;80 7;86:13 plans 13 21 0 p; trol 3912 Plant 12.14;13 3;2C:25' principles 5518 M W3, p y 65.11 32:7;43:15,16,88 15 Prior 9.19; 2111,21; ; fyy' ; pas ns 2463A ,
+ 26.13,27.6; 29.7; 4316, , l prying 44 8 plants 18.22,24,27:10'
, Pf0Vl des 88:15 , reassigned 17:11;23 7
- 50 4.19,53 6,9,55.4; Pedro 5.7 75 8 + 59.13; 87:25;94:24 providing 75 7 I recall 73 21;7019 p2nalize 221 play 63 3 Prudent 42:19 received 15 8,49 22; Probably 28 4; 42:16 psnalties 616,17 players 27:19 43 6,7.10;50:20 public 3 6;6:20.10:12 1 51:20;90 7;91:20 pInnity 10 18,'8 10 please 12. !;15 21 , problem 23:17;2119, ! publications 718,18 i recent 13:16;83:6,81:1
' Published 6:t 20:14 ' recently 6.2
,2 ; 2 513435 8 4, t 5 5, 4 4 recess 89:2 11;59 16,73:11;74 10, - purpose 8:14,15; 11:7 people 15 11;20.16,20, i pmbfem 2MW"'*- i pursue 28 6; 58:17 i
recogmzed 43 8 30.20,32 7;42:9,43 21, 11;76 4;77:12;82:I6; ; ,' 3g, g ! put 12.1, 20;29:5,14 l recollection 47:12,25 21:47:21:49 9,20.71:11, ; 83:15;8(r23;87:22,23; e ocedure 18 24;19.11; ;
12,72:11;73 20,76:9; < 88 21;92:24 ,
i recommendation 21:21-93'10 pointed 28 9,29 II; j proceegings 95 5 ! puttinn '9 +
per 23:20; 3913. 41:10 306,311,63.9 i_
Pr cess i5812; I recommended 50.1; perceived 6012 policed 39.23 ON 55 8 percent 6712,13.16; policing 3919,40.6 gg3 68 25;691;7t12. It policy 3:11;5:24;6:1,3; r , I record 78:17;87 4 esses E22, W19, Q A 512 831,4,7,22,25,812 7:21;9-13;13 23;88:15 records 51:13,14;63:23 3
portion 29 20,22 9"" 5 ;5 4' recovery 2012;4319; perform 3410; 3615, produr.e 63:23 37 6,41:16,18 posing 30.3 j ! quality 21:17;27:8,65 5; ' 92 22 Performed 39 9;93 8 . position 9.7;12.17,13 6'- ' Production 27:24;41:18 69
! i 66:2,6,22; 6t22; 68.23; l Red m 17,25;70.4 20 4;26 11;27.6,31:11 mdesigne 201>
performing 27.24; 39:10; ! !4,25;46 3;49:21; 52w; Program 1013,15, questioned 37:25; 38.2 i 41:10,22 1116; i tlo,13; 1&l6, i reduce 25:1431:9;49.5; 53 6.55 2;60 2;62 13, quibbles 63:16 9 ' f performs 68 20 17.19,2 L 23,24,25, ' ' 9
! 92 2,7 quick SI:17;6515,70 6- 4 uced 19.20 2a9, perhaps 25.24 1 1; 1818,22,2t 191 Positions 26.15;27.8; : 8,16;22.20,2516,19,22; I 7t2;81:13 i l 21:16;28 25;29.2;50 to Period 22:13; 33:21,- ,
3 016;35.1.25;36:16; , 28 4,!6,1,;31:6;92.16 I 30.10;41:8,9,42:10, quickly 8.7 ! $1:5; 5010; 56:15; 57.21' 38:5:39.17:43:3;46 21; ' Positive 8 410 4t13:45.2,46:25:48.17; Quite 15:6 4011:57,21 I 90 1 4'" 12; i t :16.19,79.19 possible 54 D, *? 17 5219;53:1;65:4,25; ' quote 72 25,'18,25 reducing 28:17 BROWN REPORTING. INC. (404) 876-8979 - Min-U4cripts (7) overall- reducing
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. HAARISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE a WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION reduction 22:24; 53:12; 21:11;65:4;67 22 return 16.8 93:9 } shift 23:12;24:2;33:20, 3 39.3;90:22;91:7 55:16,17;60.16 reports 84:24 returns 54:7 sanction 8:15;9.6 reductions 51:5; 53:13; represent 10..',;95:2 reversal 78.23 sanctions 6:15;8.6 shifts 90:23 76.22 representative 5:3,5; reverse 36:20 Sarah 26:25 shop 85:10 reemph%cizing 69:23 66 4,13;78:1I reversed 65:2 sat 27:17; 41;1, I short 88:22 refer 24:13 representative's 79.8 review 3:24;9.19,10:22, satisfactory 29:3 shortly 44:14
' refersnc3 82.20,83:13 represents 23:19 15:15,23;16:5,7,22; satisfied 66:16 show 51:15;63:23; refuro 202,10 17:17,18,28:9,19;53:5; 77235;93 35 reprimand 8.8 savings 5011 refuted 21:24; 2313; 5024,'8:18;79.8;9123 showed 32:8,9;67:9; reprisal 53 A 68:24; saw 28:10; 33:2,91:15 24 3;31 11,14;58:9 -o,5; g8 la reviewed 22.25; 53:20 saying 203:57:11; r:g 6 4,18.15 reviewing 20:25;55:13 63:20;7014;90.25 showing 61:2 reps 25 6,85.6 regard 15 10,57" ); reviews 77;l1,11,12 shown 3:8;87:23 request 23.8,55:20,25; schedubng 39.21 59 3,6414;83:ll; ns 8 6t16;71:5;76:25,86.1 revised 6:2 shows 76:18;77:5 scope 40:2 regarding i2:7;29.16; requested 23 6; 46 8,13, Rick 5:9,19 Sea 6t7 shy 36:7
( 24;63 6,65:11;72 3; 14;65 8,85:22;86 2 right 26:24; 32:5:41:12; sick 507 second 19:20;47:8; requests 23:1 49.6;64:13;82:2 50:17;58:25;59:2,70:7; side 43:15,15,16;74:10
" 98 0 Rockville 5.21 85:17;90:2 sign 25:3; 53:16;90:18 require 16:22;18:25; R 2 ion 4 7 25:11;71:6;91:14 roll 67:4;70.20;71:6; secondly 51:19,86:22; signatory 48.7 R:gional 3 2,3;t10, required 18:15;35:22; 7C3 9025 signature 19:7 30 4 , 58 23;59 4 room 43 9; 88.24 Secretary 6:24;7;2,7, signed 3018; 35:14,19, rsgular 75:10 l requirement 85.2 , root 818 12,15;9.8;10:22;11:22; 23;38:15;40:7,11;52:14, r:gul tion 8 5;42 9 12:8.25;13:16;17:8.15; 15,17;53:19,21:59.19 l requirements 7,25,11:1, l Rosano 5:19;65:15,19.
ragul:tions 11:5;45 2; > ); 12.18,13 7,16.22, i 23 39:15;45:23;46:22;56:2; i significence 6.8;8:22; 61:5 17 12;48 17:51:22;61:4; ' roster 20.13;28:10,53:4; j 60:10;61:3,10,24;62:6, j 9:3; I3:13 i
riguiltory 6.7 71:18,8011,13 f 90.18,91:1,18 }2 ,2t j significant6:20,17:20; r inforced 79 21 requires 2216 rosters 21:1; 55:14 i 82:14;85:20 rijects 56 2 rereeding 81:14 l routine 2918,31:23, , , j signing 2017,2t 33:21; ec r&lita 43 It 58 25,61:21 researching 82:5 753,6067 , f,g 6 7 12 i
23 33;!3 ril;ted 12.17,13.7, , reserved 36.7 routinely 75 20 73:18;85:23 l rover 48 20 . Section 7:21;9:13; 60 It 91:22 Resident 4 8 ,
40:1,10, 1 5019;5823;59:0 66:25; simply 12:4:47:1;59 8, ral:tts 4 2.8,58 21 ! Resolution 5:16,65:9, rslitiva 9.7;7014 l, 17.22;42:13.47:1.9, rovers 39:23: 701;8(15 12;60:19 12 sincm 81:23
. r:l yrd 94 4 f res,8024;85 5 olve 23:23; 45:11 f r48 I ' 19 secured 71:15 I7' .8,38:19,20, seeking 9 4,10 sincerity 63:25
' resolved 23:14;32 18, ving rale: e 10.19 i single 20:7;78:19 rIlevsnt 9 5,15,13 24 66 2,78.12 j 21,22;3%,10,12,R21 l select 63:9,1 a;80:20
- selection 28 25;49:19, sit-downs 73.8 resolving 66 6 rsluctInce 68 9 -*
Site 4 5 1 raluct:nt 6M 4 resources 78 2;82.4 l2 ; g3 l 21 g
rsmain 28 16,31:14, respond 3:15 ' selective 10:13 j 049R Cd l 21,22,75:12,23;85:5,6, 35 24;'9 19,88 23 rsmainder 61:20 responded 69 3
! respondent's 39:20
, g l sending 38:12 j semor 50:15 51:3 9;86:7;88:6 rsmaining 51:1 l response 66 23;83:2t ; seniority 53:13;55 2,18; sites 52:7;75:13,21;76:7 r$marka 3:9,i1;43; ' 84'1,19,86:1 safety 6 7,21; 11:3; l 89.15.21,24 sit'N 33 2 1614 responses 38 4;82 24 .
, *I sensitive 45:19 i sitMtion 79:5,81:12; rsmedy 65 7,8 , responsibilities 11:15,
' ' ' separate 70:10,88:24 l 83:11;86:18 N 20 2M 8,9,11 rsmember 18 15;28 3. , 20 29:10,11,14,15,16,23; i separately 14-8;91:17 i six 10:9 i September 7:20;67:1; 917 responsibility 21:17 i 44:4;59.17;60.5,9,12, smaller 49:2 rimind 317,42 21; 25 18,34 5,35:10,24; l 5;65.5;66:2,6, M; j 69:15;73 25;85:24 I somebody 61:18
- 9115,21 52.16;58.24 7
- 22;68.23;F .1,17,25; sequence 16:1;17:13; 18:2,6,76:22;87:19 ' someone 31:24:32:13 r:motzly 60 i 4 ' rer;ponsible 4:22,:14; 70 4,15;76.21;78:12,22, ,
33 2 0 34:1;35 16;37:21; 79 6,11,21;81:20,23, , Services 5:ll
- something 12.9 Reorginization 7.10, s mewhat 82.19 38 8;39.19,40 6,8,12 83 3,5,23;84
- 4;86:16; session 22:4,21;90 24 11.4 rest 41:14 87 4 13,15,17,20,22,25 somewhere 28 23 tip 23.5,66-8,17;67;16; g $g 3 85 5,9 ' restricting 8.9 safety / quality 68 4,9 settled 74:1 ,
r: pelted 23 i result 17.8,6319;8513; ' SALAS 5 7,7 i smrd 18M 2&l9, l $ unded 46:7 r pratediv 79.21 86 2,87:13 ; SALOWITZ 5:1,2;44:12, 62:3;63:2;73:7;75:5; ; sounds 41:11 resulted 55:21 j 52:25;53:1.7.11,15,23, ' 88:16;92:19 source 34 20; 39:9
' repercu: ions 72 21 54:1,8,14;56 5,9,20; repstition 26-9 , resulting 9.6,20;9t24 severity 6.7,11,12, i sources'7:9 18 58 11;73:23; '
report 6616;67:10,68 4, results 12.8,509,669, ; )7[1' , 13:20 ! spark 22:16 23;69 17.25,74 13,14; . ' 67A 69.1;70:12;78:5,6 j l 81:14;82.17.18,21;83 2, j retaliation 45:3;55:9 2bl 1219 , share shared 57:15;70:11;75:11 i spark-producing 41:23; 59.15 43:2 26:4 28.10,18,31:56 5,23;8 4:t H5 4,7 j retaliatory 72:22 4t23: 46:20,47:t 50$21; shares 66:9 speak 47:6;62:11;65:7
. report d 28 5,93 22 g retrospect 81:20 , 62:25;83:14,20 90:14; , sheet 26:22;37:3;91:1; 8 Peaking 61:11;90:23 reporting 13 18,16 9, I retrospective 81:25 l 91:5,8,9,10;92:7.12; } 92:20 speaks 23:11: 24:1; 58.8
. reduction - speals (a) Min U-Scripte 15ROWN REPORTING, INC. (404') 876-8979
DOUGIAS W. HARRISON v. PRFDECISIONAL ENTORCEMENT CONTERENCE
. STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION October 30,1995 special67:19;71:23; Stone 3:5; 4:22; 5:2,5; 71:2;72:3;73:6,9;74:24; 53:21;74:1 ! 73:21;89.22 72:2 7:1,4,S,11;9:2;10:23; 75:2;80:14;81:4;89:10, thought 24:23;33:15; { turn 14:25;18.1:20:25; cpecialist 5:20 12:12,22;13:1.4;14.6, 91:22,23;93:19,21 34:9;36:13;37:16:57:1. ! 33:5,8;56:4;81:5;82.7, 15,18,23,15:19,16:2,6 l supervisory 26:15; 10,60.4,8 l 84:8,85:11;8617 specific 21:13;30.10, 41;16;71;16;76:5;80:20; 15;17:18;18.5,8,11; 31:24;70:16 three 6'12,14; 12:3; ! TVA 3:4;5:7.9,12,14; 82.10;84:13;85:2;88 6 19:5,24:18:25:1;26:11, supplemental 60:25 21:11:36:23;41:9,13.21; I 7:4,12,13;9:2;14:6,22.
I 2 0 23: 15:1;16:21:18:11; Specifically 12:10, -
g 52 2 support 15:20;60:22; j 42:18,49:18;63:11; 13:11;19.22:26:15;27:4, ! [5;53:3;54:20;55:13*. '
2 g3 5 61:22;623;82:18 ! M 82 M 2 m 21 WEWMA 47:15;48:16,52:18;54:2:
15,25;28:21;30:13;37:4; I 56:22;58:16;60:21; supported 62:1 throughout 31:7; 44:25; 39 4;41:2.42.1:43:1; l 69:22;71:10 l 60:21:66:10,14;67:1.,
- ' 62
- 18;65:3,24;66:1,4,8, . sure 9:1;11:19;17:4; ! 68:11:69:2,6,14;72:13, 44:3;48:14;52.1;73 12; i1,12,19,21;67:3,15, ' 22:19,73:3;75:13.15,22; l throw 71:21 80.17; 8515; tn4; 88.6,
' I O *' ' '
i 17,20,68:1,3,7,10,12,
' 76:13 thumb 20:17 91:14;92 6,15;93 6 ! 20,22;69:4,10,14.23; I surprisad 15:6 times 41:11:66:21;75 6; I g :9,11, ,23; g g,,
tpecifics 76:1 # 70 2,9,24;71:12:72:12; , 85:14
- survey 67.6,12;68:21, ! ! l3,15;86:25;87:6;92:16;
' 74:23;76 9,19,77:2,6, timing 76:21 IPent 82:4 ; 24;69:7;70.7;74:4;83 1, 94:10,21 Po 2 6;33:5:37:19; 3 6 8 , ,
4,6,21;84:2 title 92:10,13,14; 93:16
) 7, TVA's s:16;19;7,37:10;
' 18;87:7,88:11;89.7;90.8, , surveyed 67:13,14,17; today 814,15; 11:7; , 48:1;51:22;68.18,78.21; epot 23:3 i 15,94:10,21 68.6,12;69:17;84:3 ; 25:23 l 81:9;86:18 CPots 25:9;54:5 l stoppage 23:24:44:3; surveys 68:17;73:13; i together 16:23:22:5 i two 612;14:13,22; ctaff 4 4,7,16; 5'17;8:13; } 47;l1;55:22;64:9,18 f 74:6,12;78:5;82:11,25 l told 19:22;24 4; 30:24; l 21:2I;27:24;29:1;39.11, 10 1;84:24;94 6 ! stopped 22:17;25:13; j SWEC 16:4;84:20,85:22; i 31:9,21:32:13:44:23,24, ! 23:40:1.9.17;42:13,16; stage 9.I 57:23 l 86 4,24,25;87:18;88:15 l 25;46:5;47.12,14;50.12, 46:25;48:12,16.49 4,10, Etages 47:20 l 21;54:9;56:10,15;57:8; 51:17;58:20,82:11,22; story 31:2
+ '0 ',2,2; 59:10,89:20 i 86:10;87:17;94:21 stand 26 21 st:ndard 54:24 Strawn 5 5 !
T ; tolerate 79:21;80:18 ! type 72:15:91:9,10 strict 11:5
' took 7:16; 20:4;25:2; , typically 85:6 Et ndpoint 18.17,17 strictly 43:18,19,20 .
EtIrt 4:3;I4:23,18 6,6- strong 83:10 22:19 26:16,28:1 ".
structure 75:9
, talk 5.24; 16 6,13; 18.2, l 22:5;47:16,17;56.17;
- 67
- 23
! toolbox 22:4,71;90 13, g
29 lb 321;"'041 su 56 17,19,24;91:20,24 ettried 30 3;32:. talked 44:16,48 5,57,12; toolboxes 69.21 ultimate 47:11
, subjes:t 7:23;9.18,19; ct rtling63:14 94:23,23 e 80 23;9t5 gy jmh4M st:rts 71:1, i subordinates 28 2,19, l talking 42 4;49:2; 52 8; top 51:6;74:9;84:12 unauthorized 64:18 atite 37 4;60 3;m 25 31 8,46 16 ! 62 22;89.10,17;91:13 unavailable 8611,13
- top-heavy 21
- 5,15-
' $ I; subsequent 5519 tasks 41:17 { 27:22 . Under 7'17; 39 20; 58:7
, 355 4 g'9-subsequently 40:22 ' taught 35:2e 1 23;59 4;61:4,25;62:9,
,,, ! topics 9013 substanhal 59131:22, tear 73:25 ! total65:8;83:19 82:10 st tement 16:3;26.7- 62:1,2;87:21 29,22;46:9,12;52:5;81:2, Technical 5:11 . toward 20:12;27:9 underlined 88:19 substituted 62:6 ' technicality 59 8 understands 17:5; 3, g9 3 g l trade 19.3 summarize 84:10,8618 telephone 519 7 O' 0 etItements 9:25; 26 3. trades 21:4 summarizing 67:3; i understood 24:19; 29 20,46.2;94:25 { telling 3416;62:14 traditional 61:16 ctates 12 9,46.21;61:25 ' 6912 tend 36.7 trained 19.1,11:25:25 etating 91:2
, summary 1&l3,M3; Tennesse:c 1213,23; 52:18 nformnateh 6M O 13.2 uninhibited 88:13 etatistics 83:16 ..,
Tennison 93:25;94:1,3 l training 35:22,72.3,8, ! union 18:25;23 4 10,11,15,17,19,75:l; ttatus 85 4,8,9 E ' ' termination 13:16 l 76:5 i unions 23:20 etatute 59 6,61:15 clay 22:18; 2512; 31:12; supervised 21:3;26:19 1 terms 74.23 transcribed 3:7 { unit 18:14;19.9,21; 35.16;36 4;65 8,11,17 supervising 26 21; i ested t 19:2;25:25 transfer 55:19,25;64:15; ; 20.23,23.8,17;25 6,8, 76:24 20 3M 3, BM M, steel 18 21; 20.21,21:22;
. testified 39 24;44.18; l; 9M2:23;M24 W12; 553g supervision 18.11; 64 15 ' transferred 12:16;13 6, i i 21:10,19;21:13,25:5; 3,17 step 3:21;812 27:23;30,1;53 3:61:17; ; testimony 55:7;59:22; l 31:25;46: l 92:22 e%ps I1:13,17.2 66 3;68 14;69 2,4,9; ' 62:17,17;63:8,10,16 : transferring 10.25; Steve 4:24; 51; 12:10, '1:5;75 e testing 19:12 31:20 i transition 27:14:37:4 unjustified 61:14 21;2,"',9,20;22.20,23 5, ! Thanks 10.21 15,25:1,4;26 3;50 19; I tremendous 73 6 unlicensed 7:19 supervision /rusnagement themselves 4 :4; 11:12; 52 24;53 1,"',11,15,17, 71:24 30 11;34:10;81:14 $
trend 83:9 unrelated 66.24:73:25 23,23,54:1.8,14,72.8 Supervisor 4:25;7:16; i thereattpr 44:14 i trial 10:13;62.10 unsatisfactory 64:23 19 . 12:11;23:16:26:12,27.4; Therefore 33:23,61:7 I tried 27:17:47:18 ; unusual 47:19 tieward 23:5,17,19,19, ! 28.8;31:17;49 3; % 23; , trigger 58 24 up 5:21; 12:1,20,1812, e 9' i&2 23,31:18.19,32:23,24; , 67:15; 89:1 J , I L 92.11. 21:23;22:9'21:18,25 6 335,5,8,41:23;445 i 14,93:13;94:2 third 28 4;42 25;82.13; triggered 64:9 15;29 20,24:31:4;32 8
' truth 62:14 9;33 9; 4 g;;7;43 5,4 4 g, ctewards 32:25;33 3,12; ! supervisors 21:2,3,'ll; i 1
37.19,44:1 2M; 45:7; 19:18,25; , thorough 66:14 try 17:4;33:13:44:21; I 21:45:9;47:19,23:49.3; still 25 23; 29.3; 32:14; 56:22:59:12;63:11;61:2; i 47:22 73:13,20;74:7;82:3:88.7; 62.20,89:3 ;.
67:2;68:10;69:18;70;14; ; thoegh l thoroughly 29.1:35:14;38:1; 7812 i trying 18.12,38:2;72:25; i 90.4,4:91:12 BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979. Min-U Scripte (9) special- up
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DOUGLAS W. FARRISON v.
October 30,1995 STONE O WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION upon 37:11;39.22;42:1I; 42:2;51:21;52:19,53:10; w thin 27:2; 40:2; 59 6'-
45:17;65:14 55:5;56:12;57:6;59.14; 60 24;66:15;86 6;91:6 93:5 !
Urye3:10,4 6,6;5:18 10:21:23:25;39:14;40:9, watched 34:17 without 11:3 68:24;70:5; 16,49 4,10,13,17,22, wateher 25:12,26:1; 80.25;88:17 25;50 4;56 4,17,25; 41:20 58 6,12,70.13;72:2,14, witness 62:7;63:5 watehas 41:22; 51:20'.
73 4;74:10;80 15; 62:11 witnesses 62:10,18 atching 37;8; 38 25; wonder 34:7 use 25:24;67:7 39.8.20 used l6:20; 25:20,30.13; WATSON 4:15,15; 38:17' wondering 36:8;46:6 50.24;60.25,76:4;80 20, 21,24 39:1145 21J3; words 19:5;62:12;80:20 24,88 6,8;90.16;92:14 46:1,i1;92:7,10,23; work 15:2; 16:23,19:14, utilize 30 to 93:2,12,16,18,21;91:1 way 23:22,24; 33:6; 23;20:19;22:13;23:13.
V ! 40 20,44:i2,20:57.9,
' 64:19,74:8;80 14
- 23.24 24:3, i i, i i, i 8, l 25; 25:4;27:9,10,24; v! lid 77.6, ..1:21 29:13,17;30 15,19,20, f,, , 22:31:2.4.21:32.6.7,9, V!lley 12:13,23; 13:2 ! Webster 3:5:4:22;5:6; l ,
v;lue 11:2;81:24 i 7.1,4,8,12;9:2;10:24; 4,4,8,10,11, i f f 10,17;33:
v; lues 50:24 ; 12:12,23;I3:1,4;I4:7. ' 21;34:3;35:15,23;36:12; V:rious 75:21;80 22 ; 15,18.23.15:19;16:2,15;
> 17.18; 18:5,8, I 1; 19.6; i 37 6,21:38.15,19,39:18, verified 66:20,78.15, '
30.3 ' 21:19;26:11,18:27:5,7; l 22:40 6,8,12;41:19.25; l 30.7;40:21;45:5;48.8, ! j v:rify 1610 52:22,25;53:3;54:20; l 44;3,7,9;45.7,g;47;g g; ,
ver:us?,1 55:13;56.22;58.16;
,; 48.11:50 13,20;52:17, l Vic3 419,21,5.10 60 22,62.18;65:21;66 5, ! 53:17,17;51:7;55 21; view 3 9. 40 2 13,20,21;67:3,15,17, 56:14;57:23,23'58:9, i
views 95-I , 20,68 2,3.7,12,20,22, i 61:8,18;66:22;68.8;79:5, t VIGLUICCI 5.13,13 . 69:5,10,70 9,24;71:12;
, ; , 22; l
violation 3.14,16,19' 4; I 5:25;6 6,11,20,7:11,2 I l' - 8 II* I 92:5 i
j 16.16;79:9;80:4,16; '
8 3,5,6,8,9.23;i1:18; g3: 3 7, 3 8, gg; 3 g ; g9.7'. l workday 22:15 ,
!2 9,!9,22,13:20;60 18; '
61:3,5;76:16,18;78 9,
'I '2I l worked 21:10,19;23:11, ,
'21,22,87:3
?
ebst s 21 i 24.8,25:21;32:22;33:25, !
5 f violatiln3 6:16,17, t8, 11;68 10,69.15,24;77:2; I 40:3;42.8;49:19,56:22 l
'19,8.20,9:17;11:25,12:3; 87 ' > Workers 91:19 ;
} 3 g,3 3;9 t22
- 3 !
visitations 75:20 working 19:12,14'-
week 28 4,7,23;50.21, I' v;funtiry 76 24 21;65:20,22 20.16,27,5;39:25:41:24; '
weekly 20:14;28 9;85.6, ' 43:11,13,15,16,18,20, '
vuln:rrble 64:25 90.16 ' 78.8;79.18,82:9;86 20 1 weeks 10 9 N I 2 W22; Ril l
___ _ __.. __ _.- l welder 19:12, t 4 i welders 18.21,21;25.24, W;ge 17:17:54 21; ,
25 l works 40:18 m:14;85:19 ' welding 3419;37.8- ! workstation 76:10 '
wait " 22 39.17:40.4;48-23 workstations 39.20,23 i waiting 4:14; 32.7 well-used 79:17 walked 43 8 weren't 3012; 32:16; wrap 21:22 i Wallaco 47.6,15,18,22; ,
5" " > wrong 82:2 48 - What's 47:11 warnings 81:1I whereas 91:17 Y
wart:nted 7615,79:1 whistle 45 3 ,
' watch 11:1; 12:18; 13:7; who's 5:19 ,
- 17:12,18:13,17.24;19:1, whole 40.13; 43:17;93:3 1~
~ 2. 8,11,13,15,22:11,16 j whose 61:25 y'all 44:24 i 18,24:13,14;23:7,18, willing 68 23;8615 year 58:36;*5 6,16 27:18;30 3,9,10,23, t willingness 67:9 i 3!:I,1; 32:23; 3313. Ih, ; years 27:5;44:25:45:1; ;
34-10,13,20,35 1,4,12, naton 54 , 73'7
?36:16.37 6,7;38:5,18, . wish 3:17;58.3 j l 39.8.40.18;41:4,10,16; wishing 70.4 : yourselves 4:5 3 [
tpon - yourselves (10) Min-U-Scripte BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979
Lawyer's Notes e
w k
i p, --
- - - __ m._____ -_. _- . ..