ML20210T496

Investigation Rept 2-96-036.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Investigated:Allegation of Discrimination Against Equipment Qualification Engineer for Raising Technical Concerns Re EQ Practices

ML20210T496
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	05/29/1997
From:	Mcnulty W, Robinson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210T489	List: ML20210T487 ML20210T496
References
2-96-036, 2-96-36, NUDOCS 9709150160
Download: ML20210T496 (11)

Text

-

1

w- . -- -w p CASE No. 2-96-036

,s>nm, e% s,' '. -

United States ki $

Nuclear Regulatory Commission \,,,,,/

. = .-

Report of Investigation BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT:

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION (EQ) ENGINEER FOR RAISING TECHNICAL CONCERNS REGARDING EO. PRACTICES Office of Investigations

.j ,

Reported by 01:

Ril EHCLOSURE l 9709150160 970529 PDR ADOCK 05000324 G PDR

7

,.~ --

Title:

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT:

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION (EQ) ENGINEER FOR RAISING TECHNICAL CONCERNS REGARDING EQ PRACTICES Licensee: Case No.: 2 96 036 2C~/"

Carolina Power and Light Company Report Date: May 29, 1997 P.O._ Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 ,

Control Office: 01:RII Docket Nos,:

., . 50 324: 50 325 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:

/ .

VICW7& ,

\

d,afry'L, Jcbinson, Sp'ecial Agenf William J. McNJ1ty, Director \

Office of Investigations Office of Investigations }

Field Office, Region II Field Office, Region II q

i THE! CONTENTS OF/THIS REPORT QF INVESTIhATION OLffSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF JHE APPROVING OFFICIAL Off THIS REPORT. UNAlRHORIZED DISCLOSURE MAY RESULT [N ADVERSE ADMINISTRAVVE'. ACTION AND/0R CRTHINAL- P ' ECUTION, y/--

(APPROVED FOR RELEASE _0N AUGUST 29,.1997)

m n

SYNOPSIS The Office of Investigations (01), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, initiated this investigation on September 26, 1996. An Equipment Qualification (E0) engineer, employed by Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, alleged that he had received an adverse performance appraisal and had been subjected to a hostile working environment because he had identified E0 deficiencies to his CP&L supervision and management, and had highlighted some of these deficiencies as being violations of regulatory requirements.

01's efforts to accom)lish a voluntary interview of this engineer, both directly and through ais attorney, were unsuccessful. OI obtained and reviewed documentation of investigations of this issue conducted by the Wage

'~ ~

' and Hour Division of the Department of Labor and by the Office of General Counsel, CP&L. OI determined that this documentation was adecuate in scope, and contained sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarcing this engineer's allegation.

Based on 01's review of the evidence obtained in this matter, it is concluded that the allegation of discrimination is unsubstantiated.

[ f N0b.PUBLIC DISCEOSURE WIUiOUT~APPROVA Fi1 ELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,, OFFICE: OF INVESTIGATIONSp 4 O V V V , REGIONNII V G Case No. 2 96 036 1 J

~

,~ p t

i i

Tills PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY MOT FOR4DEUC DISCLOSUREsWITFIOUVAWROVAL 0%

IELD O y E'DIRECTO jRFFICE OF ESTIGATI0gREGIONIIN Case No. 2 96-036 2

~ ' ' ' ' ' - - - - - - '

' ~

('

TABLE OF CONTENTS Ea99 SYN 0PSIS................................................................. 1 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION................................................. 5 Appl i ca bl e Regul ati ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Pur>ose of Investigation........................................... 5 12

1. Bactground........................:.'............................... 5 Efforts to Conduct Voluntary Interview of Alleger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Evidence...........................................................

Review of DOL Wage and Hour Division Investigation...........

6 6

Review of CP&L Office of General Counsel Inv 6 Concl usi on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................

. . . . . . . . esti gati on 6

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION................................................. 7 LIST OF EXHIBITS......................................................... 9 i

i I

~

AQT FORJUBLICTISCLOSUREWHOUT APPROVAL 0F G JIELDOFF{CEDIRECTOR.OyICEOFINVESTIGATIONS.REGIONI(

v Case No. 2 96 036 3

p.

1 TlilS PAGE LEFT Bl>WK INTENTIONALLY

^

OT FOR PUBLICtISCLOSURE WI,TliOUT' APPROVAL %

FJE OFFICE (DI3ECTOR,OFFICEOpINVESTIGAT,I0NS,REGIONII/q-Case No. 2-96 036 4

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Re.gulatiolts Allegation: Alleaed Discrimination Acainst Eauipment Qualification (EO)

Engineer for Raisina Technical Concerns Recardina E0 Practices 10 CFR S 50.7: Employee protection 10 CFR S 50.5: Deliberate misconduct '

Purpose of Investiaation The Office of Investigations (01), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

. _ _ . Region II (RII), initiated this investigation on September 26, 1996 (Exhibit 1), to determine if Maged F, GABALLA, Equipment Qualification (EQ)

Engineer at Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Brunswick Nuclear Plant (BNP) had received an adverse >erformance appraisal and had been subjected to a hostile working environment aecause he had identified EQ deficiencies to his CP&L supervision and management, and had highlighted some of these

deficiencies as being violations of regulatory requirements.

I Backaround l On April 10, 1996, GABALLA's attorney, David K. COLAPINTO, of the Law Firm of i

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, contacted the hotline of the NRC Office of Inspector General and alleged the aforementioned discrimination, and EQ deficiencies at BNP, on behalf of his client. On May 1, 1996, this information was referred to RII for disposition. 01 initiated this investigation of the discrimination, and the RII inspection staff addressed the technical EQ issues. On May 15,1996, COLAPINTO filed GABALLA's discrimination complaint with the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL), On July 7, 1996, COLAPINTO filed an amendaent to GABALLA's DOL complaint with the provision of clarifying information regarding the allegedly adverse performance appraisal.

Efforts to Conduct Voluntary Interview of Alleaer Numerous efforts by OI to contact GABALLA telephonically at both his place of employment and residence, in an effort to schedule an interview, were unsuccessful. Several 01 contacts with the Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto Law Firm, for the same purpose, were also unsuccessful. Finally, OI sent a certified letter (Exhibit 2) to GABALLA, requesting that he contact OI within 10 days of his receipt of the letter if he had any information regarding his allegation beyond that contained in his DOL complaints and DOL interview. GABALLA received this letter on April 8,1997 (Exhibit 3), and did not contact OI with any additional information. On April 29, 1997, Joyce CLARA, contacted 01 telephonically, identified herself as an associate of COLAPINTO, and requested that 01 not "close the case' on GABALLA.

[NOT FOR BUBCICSISCLOSURE11T110lR APPROVAL/1Fi

,, FIELD OFQC,EAIRECTOR.

E EICE OF INVES yTIONS, REG 3 H Case No. 2 96 036 5

4 CLARA made no effort to schedule an 0I interview of GABALLA, and was not certain that GABALLA could provide any additional clarifying information. The DOL interview report of GABALLA is Exhibit 4.

~ Evidence Review of DOL Waoe and Hour Division Investicatior OI obtained the DOL Wage and Hour Report of Investigation, and associated exhibits, from the DOL office in Raleigh, ' North Carolina. 01 review of this Reaort of Investigation of GABALLA's complaint (Exhibit 5), and the supporting ex11 bits determined that no supplemental investigation by OI was necessary, and that the evidence obtained during the DOL investigation was sufficient to support a conclusion regarding the allegation in this 01 case. The exhibits to the 00L investigation are available for review in the 01:RII- case file upon

~

request.

Rgview of CP&L Office of General Counsel Investiaation 01 also obtained a Report of Investigation of GABALLA's allegation, conducted under the auspices of the Office of General Counsel, CP&L (Exhibit 6). This report was obtained from the CP&L- Office of General Counsel, located at CP&L

• ~

corporate headquarters, Raleigh, North Carolina. OI review of this report and supporting exhibits provided supplemental evidence for 01 consideration in its conclusion regarding the allegation in this case. - As with the DOL' exhibits, the exhibits to this CP&L report are also available for review upon request.

Conclusion Based on 01's review of the evidence obtained in this matter, it is concluded that the allegation of discrimination is unsubstantiated.

^

NOT FOR,PtJBEIC DISCLOStlRE WITliolfT,APPF0 VAL OP 7 FIELD ICf? DIRECT ICE O ESTIGATIONSfGIONII j Case No.- 2 96 036 6

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION The findings of the DOL Wage and Hour investigation, as documented by the September 4,1996, letter from the Assistant District Director, DOL Wege and Hour Division to COLAPINTO (Exhibit 7), were appealed by GABALLA, As of the date of this Report of Investigatiori, a final decision has not been issued by the DOL Administrative Law Judge.

l ,. Y ,

l_ -

OOT FOR EUBLIC,'DISCLOSufEWITHOUT4fMVALAQ

/ FIELD DEEICE4RECTOgRICE OFySTIGATy/REGIONp Case No. 2-96-036 7

O P

e THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTEfffl0NALLY i

M FOR PUBLiCTISCLOSURF WITHOUT APPROVAL 1h IONS, REGION

,, FIELD O g DIRECTOR, 3 CE'0F IN ,

Case No. 2-96-036 8

r p LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, dated September 26, 1996.

2 Letter from 01:RII to GABALLA, dated April 3, 1997.

3 Copy of Return Receipt, showing receipt of Exhibit 2, April 8, 1997.

4 DOL Personal Interview Statement, dated July 6,1996.

5 DOL Wage and Hour Report of Investigation, dated August 30, 1996.

6 CP&L Report of Investigation, dated May 20, 1996.

7 DOL Letter to COLAPIni0, dated September 4, 1996.

NOT FOR PUBLIC4ISCLOSURE)lMN0 TIT APPROVAL--OFs FIELD OFFICE OIRECTOR OFFICE,0F INVESTIGATIONS, REGIDN Q ~

j V U V ~

Case No. 2-96 036 9

.k