ML20211F268
| ML20211F268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1999 |
| From: | Dicus G, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211F274 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908300286 | |
| Download: ML20211F268 (28) | |
Text
3R p Rf?
UNITED STATES g -
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20$55-0001 e
k.....,/ August 19, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-2107
Dear Congressman Markey:
In a letter dated April 22,1999, former Chairman Jackson provided you information regarding the findings of an Office of Investigations (OI) investigation involving the North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's Seabrook Station. Specifically, information developed during the 01 investigation indicated that a contract electrician, employed by the Williams Power Corporation at the Seabrook Station, was discriminated against by Williams Power Corporation for having raised safety concerns. The safety concerns involved Williams Power Corporation personnel willfully failing to follow procedures, which resulted in inaccurate information on a check list, and failing to properly initiate an adverse condition report to document a problem with control building air conditioning system circuitry.
You were also informed in the earlier letter that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offered th:.; North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation and the Williams Power Corporation an opportunity for a predecisional enforcement conference to discuss these findings. The individual apparently responsible for the alleged inaccurate records and discrimination had also been offered such a conference. These conferences were held on June 2,1999. The NRC has issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty to North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, and Notices of Violation to the Williams Power Corporation and the individual, for discrimination against the contract electrician. However, based on information provided in the conferences and on further evaluation of the 01 findings, the NRC determined that the other allegations were not supported. I am providing you a copy of those actions, as well as the redacted version of the Ol report that formed the basis for those actions, in keeping with the commitment we made to you earlier.
I hope that this information is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, l
A . McAo
, ..,~
Greta Joy Dieus m 'v
Enclosures:
As stated Oh 9908300286 990819 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
s .~ a neo ug UNITED STATES
- y
., S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 0 $ REGloN 1 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRUsstA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
%'+, * * * *
- p/
August 3, 1999
)
EA 98-165 l Mr. T. C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Seabrook Station l
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation c/o Mr. James Perchel l Post Office Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 ;
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $55,000 -
(Office of Investigations Report 1-98-005)
Dear Mr. Feigenbaum:
This refers to the subject investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) at North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's (NAESCo) Seabrook Station. Based on the findings of the investigation, apparent violations were identified involving: (1) discrimination j by Williams Power Corporation (WPC), a contractor of NAESCO, against an electrician for 1 raising safety issues regarding electrical wiring in the control panel for the control building air conditioning (CBA) system; (2) creation of an inaccurate record by WPC regarding work j completed on the CBA system; and,(3) the failure to promptly correct the incorrectly terminated cables of the CBA system. The synopsis of the subject 01 report was forwarded to you with our letter, dated March 16,1999. Our subsequent letter, dated April 8,1999, provided a summary of the facts that led the NRC to conclude that violations may have occurred. On June 2,1999, a predecisional enforcement conference (conference) was held with you, members of your staff, and representatives of WPC to discuss the apparent violations, their causes, and your corrective actions.
After review of the information developed during the investigation, the information provided during the conference, and other information provided subsequent to the conference, including the additional information provided in your letter dated June 15, 1999, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). The violation involved discrimination against the WPC electrician who raised a concern regarding a wiring discrepancy in the control panel of the CBA system. Specifically, the WPC electrician identified that two electrical conductors in the CBA control panel were terminated in a configuration opposite that shown in the applicable design documents. The electrician first raised this concern to his foreman, and later brought the discrepancy to the attention o* a NAESCo quality control (OC) inspector on January 7,1998. Subsequently, on January 16, 1998, the WPC foreman selected this specific electrician for a layoff.
& &b'7ivi$'{^ f.
North Atlantic Energy Service 2 Corporation At the conference, you contended that the electrician's raising of the safety concern was not l
a factor in his selection for layoff, noting that there were legitimate reasons for this action.
While legitimate reasons supporting the layoff may exist, the NRC has concluded, based on the evidence developed during the Of investigation and the information provided at the enforcement conference, that the layoff was motivated, at least in part, by the individual's engagement in protected activity. Specifically, the NRC has concluded that the foreman selected the electrician for the layoff at least in part in retaliation for the manner in which he raised the wiring discrepancy; i.e. by bringing it to the attention of the OC inspector. As such, the NRC has concluded that the electrician was discriminated against for raising a safety concern which constitutes a violation of 10 CFR Part 50.7.
The NRC recognizes that these actions were taken by one of your contractors. Nonetheless, j the NRC holds the facility licensee responsible for the acts of all personnel employed at its facilities, including contractors. The NRC also recognizes that you took prompt action to review the circumstances of the electrician's layoff, and that you promptly had the electrician reinstated after recognizing the potential chilling effect that could result. Nonetheless, the actions of the WPC foreman resulted in a significant violation of the employee protection ,
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.7. Given that the violation was caused by an individual who was acting as a first line supervisor, the violation is categorized at Severity Level lil in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600 (Enforcement Policy).
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is considered for a Severity Level lil violation or problem. Sinco this violation was willful, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for /dentification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. In this case, the NRC recognizes that you investigated the layoff of the electrician; however, you did not recognize that discrimination occurred. Accordingly, credit is not warranted for identification of the violation. With respect to corrective actions, eithough you did not conclude that the layoff was motivated by retaliatory reasons, you recognized the potential chilling effect that the layoff could have on other contractor or NAESCo employees.
As a result, you recommended that WPC: (1) reinstate the electrician; (2) inform its supervisory and craft employees about the event; (3) improve the quality of documentation supporting personnel actions; and (4) reinforce its commitment to a safety conscious work environment to its entire workforce at the Seabrook station. Additionally, you designated a NAESCo manager to provide additional management oversight of all initiatives devoted to maintaining a safety conscious work environment (SCWE). Further, you conducted an assessment which concluded that a healthy SCWE exists at the Seabrook Station. Therefore, credit for corrective action is warranted.
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of continuously assuring a work environment that is free of any harassment, intimidation, or discrimination against those who raise safety concerns, and to encourage prompt identification of violations, I have been authorized, after l
consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to propose a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 for the violation set forth in the Notice.
i
North Atlantic Energy Service 3 Corporation Based on the information provided at the conference and on further evaluation of the results of the 01 investigation, the NRC has concluded that no violations of 10 CFR 50.9,
" Completeness and Accuracy of Information," or 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI,
" Corrective Action," occurred. Specifically, the NRC concluded that, because the wiring discrepancy was noted in the work document, the documentation of the CBA control panel work activities was accurate. Additionally, because the wiring discrepancy was corrected before the CBA system was returned to service, the NRC concluded that your corrective actions for the discrepant condition were not untimely. However, the failure to terminate the conductors in accordance with the applicable design document, and the failure to generate an Adverse Condition Report (ACR) for the wiring discrepancy by the end of the day on which it was discovered, constituted violations of requirements contained in Seabrook site procedures.
These violations were of minor significance and are not subject to formal enforcement action.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
Sincerely, H rt J. Miller Regional Administrator Docket No. 50-443 License No. NPF-56
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty l
North Atlantic Energy Service 4 Corporation oc w/ encl:
B. Kenyon, President - Nuclear Group J. Streeter, Recovery Officer - Nuclear Oversight W. DiProfio, Station Director - Seabrook Station j R. Hickok, Nuclear Training Manager - Seabrook Station D. Carriere, Director, Production Services L Cuoco, Esquire, Senior Nuclear Counsel W. Fogg, Director, New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management R. Backus, Esquire, Backus, Meyer and Solomon, New Hampshire D. Brown-Couture, Director, Nuclear Safety, Massachusetts Emergency
- Management Agency F. Getman, Jr., Vice President and General Counsel - Great Bay Power Corporation R. Hallisey, Director, Dept. of Public Health, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Seacoast Anti-Pollution League D. Tofft, Administrator, Bureau of Radiological Health, State of New Hampshire S. Comley, Executive Director, We the People of the United States W. Meinert, Nuclear Engineer 4
4 i
e 1
4 ENCLOSURE IUilCE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Docket No. 50-443 Seabrook Station License No. NPF-56 EA 98-165 During an NRC investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) between January 29,1998, and May 27,1998, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1800, the NRC proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act),42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.
The particular violation and associated civil penalty are. set forth below:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits, in part, discrimination by a Commission licensee or a contractor of a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, reporting of safety concerns by an employee to his employer.
Contrary to the above, on January 16,1998, a licensee contractor discriminated
_ against a contractor electrician due to the employee's involvement in protected activity.
Specifically, the contractor electrician was selected for a layoff on January 16,1998, due, at least in part, to the fact that he had raised a concern to a licensee Quality Control inspector on January 7,1998, regarding a wiring discrepancy in the control panel of the control building air-conditioning (CBA) system, a safety-related system.
(01013)
This violation is classified at Severity Level lli (Supplement Vil).
Civil Penalty - $55,000 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation ,
(NAESCo or Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written , statement or explanation to the l Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each l alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the i violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been l taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further ,
violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for information may be j issued as why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other ;
action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the I response time for good cause shown.
-Md i A W
s Enclosure 2 Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Ucensee may pay the civil penalty proposed above, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254 and by submitting to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director,. Office of Enforcemen'., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Should the Ucensee fail to answer within the time r,pecified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Ucensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an
" Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violation listed in this Notice, in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed in addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy should be addressed. Any written ar swer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Ucensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty. .
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act,42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, statement as to payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can.be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted l copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such '
material, you Gmat specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential i commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an '
acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
l
[
., .t Enclosure 3 in accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
. days.
Dated this 3rd day of August 1999 l
l l
l l
l l
I l
l l
I l
1 ; 37. t~
.', 4 %
k i -
UNITED STATES
~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N i R6GON1 '
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
- \ * * * *
- KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1416 August 3, 1999 IA 99-003
- Mr. Gary Pageau HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 2.790
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC 01 investigation 1-98M5)
Dear Mr. Pageau:
This refers to the investigation conducted by the NRC Region i Office of Investigations (01) at North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's (NAESCo) Seabrook Station. Based on the findings of the 01 investigation, apparent violations were identified involving: (1) dL crimination by Williams Power Corporation (WPC), a contractor of NAESCO, against an electrician for raising safety issues regarding electrical wiring in the control panel for the control building air conditioning (CBA) system; (2) creation of an inaccurate record by WPC regarding work completed on the CBA system; and (3) the failure to promptly correct the incorrectly terminated cables of the CBA system. The synopsis of the subject 01 report was forwarded to you with our letter, dated March 16,1999. Our subsequent letter, dated April 21,1999, provided a summary of the facts that led the NRC to conclude that violations may have occurred. On June 2,1999, a predecisional enforcement conference (conference) was conducted with you in the NRC Region I office, to discuss the apparent violations identified during the investigation, their causes, and your corrective actions. The violations were also discussed with your employer, Williams Power Corporation, and NAESCo during a conference, in which you participated, on the same date.
After review of the information developed during the investigation, the information provided p during the conferences, and other information provided subsequent to the conferences, l inck ding the additional information provided in a letter submitted by your attorney on your l behalf dated June 15, 1999, the NRC has concluded that you engaged in deliberate !
l l
misconduct while acting as a foreman for WPC by selecting a WPC electrician for a layoff, at l least in part, in retaliation for his having raised a safety concem. Specifically, the WPC !
electrician identified that two electrical conductors in the CBA control panel were terminated In a configuration opposite that shown in the applicable design documents. The electrician l first raised this concem to you, and later brought the discrepancy to the attention of a NAESCo quality control (OC) laspector on January 7,1998. SuMe/Jy, on January 16, 1998, you, while acting in your supervisor's absence, selected this specific electrician for a l layoff.
J ,
Mr. Gary Pageau 2 At the conference, you contended that the electrician's raising of the safety concern was not a factor in his selection for layoff, noting that there were legitimate reasons for the action.
While legitimate reasons supporting the layoff may exist, the NRC has concluded, based on the evidence developed during the 01 investigation and the information provided at the enforcement conference, that the layoff was motivated, at least in part, by the individual's engagement in protected activity. Specifically, the NRC has concluded that you selected the ]
electrician for the layoff at least in part in retaliation for the manner in which he raised the wiring discrepancy; i.e. by bringing it to the attention of the QC Inspector. As such, the NRC has concluded that the electrician was discriminated against for raising a safety concern which ,
constitutes a violation of 10 CFR Part 50.7.
By discriminating against the electrician for raising a safety concern, you deliberately caused j
NAESCo and WPC to be in violation of NRC requirements. As such, you personally violated !
10 CFR 50.5(a) which specifies that any employee of a contractor of a licensee may not engage in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Nuclear Regdatory Commission. Given that you were acting as a first line supervisor when you selected the electrician for the layoff, the violation, which !
is ' set forth in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), is categorized at Severity Level til in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600 (Enforcement Policy).
You should be aware that NRC regulations allow the issuance of civil sanctions, such as a Notice of Violation, directly against unlicensed persons who engage in deliberate misconduct, causing a violation of NRC requirements. Deliberate misconduct includes an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure or training instruction., An Order may also be issued to an individual to prevent his or her engaging in licensed activities at all NRC licensed facilities. The NRC gave consideration to the issuance of an Order in this case. However, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, I have decided to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and refrain from issuing such an Order.
In reaching this decision, we considered that you were an acting supervisor. In addition, we considered the information provided during the enforcement conference by a number of electrical workers that appeared to indicate that you have in the past been supportive of workers raising safety concems to you. Nonetheless, we emphasize that an employee has an absolute right to raise nuclear safety concems, including raising them directly with QC inspectors, and that discrimination against an individual for raising a safety concem in the future may result in more significant enforcement action.
Based on the information provided at the conference and on further evaluation of the results of the 01 investigation, the NRC has concluded that no violations of 10 CFR 50.9,
" Completeness and Accuracy of Information," or 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI,
" Corrective Action," occurred. Specifically, the NRC concluded that, because the wiring discrepancy was noted in the work document, the documentation of the CBA control panel work activities was accurate. Additionally, because the wiring discrepancy was corrected i before the CBA system was retumed to service, the NRC concluded that the corrective actions for the discrepent condition were not untimely. Howuver, the failure to terminate the conductors in accordance with the applicable design document, and the failure to generate an Adverse Condition Report (ACR) for the wiring discrepancy by the end of the day on which it !
u Mr. Gary Pageau 3 was discovered, constituted violations of requirements contained in Seabrook site procedures.
These violations were of minor significance and are not subject to formal enforcement action.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, with your home address redacted, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. q If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Clifford Anderson at (610) 337-5227.
Sincerely, Hubert J. Miller Regional Adminisustor
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation
- 2. Letter and Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty to North Atlantic Energy Services Company ec w/encis:
Mr. T. Feigenbaum, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, NAESCo Mr.- Kenneth Robuck, President, Williams Power Corporation 1
4
w i
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION l
Mr. Gary Pageau lA 99 - 43 During an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) at the Seabrook Station between January 29,1998, and May 27,1998, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 50.5 requires, in part, that any employee of a licensee, or any employee of a contractor of.a licensee, may not engage in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of any NRC requirement.
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits, in part, discrimination by a Commission licensee or a contractor of a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, reporting of safety concerns by an employee to his employer.
Contrary to the above, on January 16,1998, you engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused North Atlantic Energy Services Corporation, an NRC licensee, to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, in that you discriminated against an electrician employed by Williams Power Corporation at the licensee's Seabrook Station facility, as a result of his engaging in protected activity. Specifically, you retaliated against the electrician by selecting him for a layoff at least in part because he had raised a concern on January 7,1998, to a licensee Quality Control inspector regarding a wiring discrepancy in the control panel of the control building air-conditioning (CBA) system, a safety-related system.
This violation is classified at Severity Level lil (Supplement Vil).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, within 30 days of the date of the latter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This l reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, and (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations. Your response may reference or include previous t
correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response, if an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order or a Demand I ?$E!v hf.
4 Enclosure 1 2 for Information may be issued as to why you should not be precluded in the future from involvement in NRC licensed activities, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulato;y Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information.
If you request withholding of such matarial, you mM11 specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy).
Datad this 3rd day of August 1999
s u e f **%
t UNITED STATES
$= g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E [ REGloN I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD p
f KING oF PHUsslA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
+,
August 3, 1999 EA 98-338 Mr. Kenneth W. Robuck Williams Power Corporation 2076 West Park Place Stone Mountain, Georgia 30087
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Office of Investigations Report No. 1-1998-005)
Dear Mr. Robuck:
This refers to the subject investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) at North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's (NAESCo) Seabrook Station. Based on the findings of the investigation, apparent violations were identified involving: (1) discrirnination by Williams Power Corporation (WPC), a contractor of NAESCO, against an electrician for raising safety issues regarding electrical wiring in the control panel for the control building air conditioning (CBA) system; (2) creation of an inaccurate record by WPC regarding work completed on the CBA system; and (3) the failure to promptly correct the incorrectly terminated cables of the CBA system. The synopsis of the subject 01 report was forwarded to WPC with our letter, dated March 16,1999. Our subsequent letter, dated April 19,1999, provided a summary of the facts that led the NRC to conclude that violations may have occurred. On June 2,1999, a predecisional enforcement conference (conference) was held with you, members of your staff, and representatives of NAESCo to discuss the apparent violations, their causes, and your corrective actions.
After review of the information developed during the investigation, the information provided during the conference, and other information provided subsequent to the conference, including the additional information provided in a letter submitted by your attorney on your behalf dated June 15,1999, the NRC has concluded that a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred. The violation involved discrimination, by the WPC foreman, against a WPC electrician who raised a concern regarding a wiring discrepancy in the control panel of the CBA system. Specifically, the WPC electrician identified that two electrical conductors in the CBA control panel were terminated in a configuration opposite that shown in the applicable design documents. The electrician first raised this concern to his foreman, and later brought the discrepancy to the attention of a NAESCo quality control (QC) inspector on January 7,1998. Subsequently, on January 16,1998, the WPC foreman selected this specific electrician for a layoff.
At the conference, you contended that the electrician's raising of the safety concern was not a factor in his selection for layoff, noting that there were legitimate reasons for this action.
While legitimate reasons supporting the layoff may exist, the NRC has concluded, based on the evidence developed during the 01 investigation and the information provided at the MC % ).C l l 0 -f g
i Mr. Kenneth W. Robuck 2 enforcement conference, that the layoff was motivated, at least in part, by the individual's engagement in protected activity. Specifically, the NRC has concluded that the foreman selected the electrician for the layoff at least in part in retaliation for the manner in which he raised the wiring discrepancy; i.e. by bringing it to the attention of the QC Inspector. As such, the NRC has concluded that the electrician was discriminated against for raising a safety concern which constitutes a violation of 10 CFR Part 50.7.
The NRC recognizes that you reinstated the electrician at NAESCo's recommendation after a NAESCo investigation recognized the potential chilling effect that could result from the layoff.
Nonetheless, the actions of the WPC foreman resulted in a significant violation of the employee protection standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.7. Given that the violation was caused by an individual who was acting as a first line supervisor, the violation, which is set forth in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice),is categorized at Severity LevelIllin accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600 (Enforcement Policy).
The NRC acknowledges the actions taken by WPC to address the environment for raising safety concerns at the Seabrook Station. These actions, which were described at the ,
conference, included, but were not limited to: (1) reinstating the electrician; (2) informing your supervisory and craft employees about the event; (3) improving the quality of documentation supporting personnel actions; and (4) reinforci..w your commitment to a safety conscious work environment (SCWE) to your entire workforce at the Seabrook station. However, to emphasize the importance of continuously assuring a work environment that is free of harassment, intimidation, or discrimination against those who raise safety concerns, I have been authorized, after consuitation with the Director, Office of Friforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation to Williams Power Corporation for the Severity Level lil violation described above.
Based on the information provided at the conference and on further evaluation of the results of the 01 investigation, the NRC has concluded that no violations of 10 CFR 50.9,
" Completeness and Accuracy of Information," or 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI,
" Corrective Action," occurred. Specifically, the NRC concluded that, because the wiring discrepancy was identified in the work document, the documentation of the CBA control panel work activities was acct ste. Additionally, because the wiring discrepancy was corrected before the CBA system was returned to service, the NRC concluded that the corrective actions for the discrepant condition were not untimely. However, the failure to terminate the conductors in acemdance with the applicable design document and the failure to generate an Adverse CondiQn Report (ACR) for the wiring discrepancy by the end of the day on which it was discoveod, constituted violations of requirements contained in Seabrook site procedures.
These viobtions were of minor significance and are not subject to formal enforcement action. j i
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the '
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurre,nce. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
1 1
I
l l
Mr. Kenneth W. Robuck 3 in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy or proprietary information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
Sincerely, s
Hub rt J. Miller Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation
- 2. Letter and Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty to North Atlantic Energy Services Company cc w/ encl:
Mr. T. C. Feigenbaum, Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, NAESCo l
I 1
l l
- i
4 ENCLOSURE NOTICE OF VIOLATION Williams Power Corporation EA 98-338 During an NRC investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) between January 29. 1998, and May 27, 1998, at the Seabrook Station, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is set forth below-l 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits, in part, discrimination by a Commission licensee or a contractor I of a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, reperting of safety concerns by an employee to his employer.
Contrary to the above, on January 16,1998, Williams Power Corporation (WPC), a contractor for North Atlantic Energy Services Company, a Commission licensee, discriminated against a WPC electrician due to the employee's involvement in protected activity. Specifically, the electrician was selected for a layoff on January 16,1998, due, at least in part, to the fact that he had raised a concern to a licensee Quality Control inspector on January 7,1998, regarding a wiring discrepancy in the control panel of tha control building air-conditioning (CBA) system, a safety-related system.
This violation is classified at Severity Level hi (Supplement Vil).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Williams Power Corporation, a contractor to a Commission licensea, h, hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406, and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the facility that is the subject ,
of this Notice, within 30 days of'the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation 1 (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each vioistion: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the l results achieved, and (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations. ]
Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the i correspondence adequately addresses the required response, if an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commis,sion, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Di UbiSutSi Nf.
Enclosure 2 Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy or proprietary information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you MW11 specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the informa-tion required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information).
rd g ggg Dated this 3 l
l l
l E
2 I
Title:
SEABROOK STATION: .
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN ELECTRICIAN FOR RAISING CONCERNS REGARDING WORK ON CONTAINMENT BUILDING AIR HANDLING SYSTEM PANEL WIRING Licensee: Case No.: 1-1998 005 North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. Report Date: May 27, 1998 P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Control Office: OI:RI Docket No.: 50 433 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Re'v ed and Approved by:
k%
William J. Davis. Special Agent BarfyRfLetts, Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Field Office, Region I l
I I
t 1 I
p .., .
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the Office of Investigations (OI),
Region I (RI), on January 29, 1998, to determine if an electrician working at North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's (NAESCO) Seabrook Station (SS),
Seabrook, New Hampshire, was discriminated against by Williams Power Company (WPC) management, a NAESCO contractor, for raising safety issues regarding electrical wiring in the control panel for the Control Building's Air Conditioning (CBA) Sub System. Once initiated, the investigation was expanded to determine if the electrician and his supervisor provided incomplete and/or inaccurate information on a Cable Termination Checklist for work performed on January 7,1998.
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, OI concludes that the electrician was discriminated against by a WPC supervisor for raising a safety concern. In addition, the same supervisor deliberately chose not to .
i comply with SS procedures, requiring compliance with design documents, and deliberately caused an inaccurate document to be created with regards to the work performed on January 7, 1998.
Case No. 1-1998 005 1
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTERTIONALLY Case No. 1-1998 005 2
d
.. l TABLE OF CONTEES
. EA22 SYNOPSIS
................................. 1 LIST OF IEERVIEWEES ........................... 5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION ......................... 7 Applicable Regulations ....................... 7 Pur mse of Investigation ...................... 7 Bac(ground ............................. 7 Interview of Alleger ........................ 8 Coordination with Regional Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Allegation 1 (Discrimination Against FOREST by Williams Power Company (WPC) Management for Raising a Safety Concern) . . . . . 13 Relevant Testimony and Documentation ............ 13
. Evidence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Agent's Analysis ......................19 Conclusion .........................20 Allegation 2 (Falsification of a Cable Termination Checklist by an Electrician and His Supervisor with Regards to Work Performed on January 7, 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Relevant Testimony and Documentation ............20 Agent's Analysis ......................21 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................25 Case No. 1-1996 005 3
o' THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Case No. 1-1998 005 4
I i
1 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit l BERRY, Bubba, Site Manager, Williams Power Company (WPC) . . . . . . . . 23 CARELLA, Robert. Senior Inspector. Quality Control, Seabrook l Station (SS), North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation l (NAESCO). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 COOPER. Tim Manager Electrical Maintenance Department (EMD), SS, NAESCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 DeFREITAS, Tim. Site Supervisor, WPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 DeSTEFFANO, Roger. Independent Contractor, SS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1
DUNBAR, Robert. Supervisor, Construction Services. SS, NAESCO . . . . . . 22 i i
FORD. Joanne. Secretary, WPC ......................21 ,
FOREST. Robert, Electrician. WPC ................ 5, 13 & 19 l
l GAGNON, Bill, Manager. Employee Allegation Resolution. SS, NAESCO . . . . 14 l
GRAM George. Director, Site Support and Services, SS, NAESCO . . . . . . 26 HENRY, Matt, Lead Craft Supervisor, WPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 & 20 l LEWIS. Mike, Manager, Maintenance Services. SS. NAESCO . . . . . . . . . 25 l MANNING. Tom, Supervisor EMD, SS, NAESCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1
\
PAGEAU, Gary, Craft Foreman, WPC .................. 10 & 17 SHAMIS. George, Building Maintenance Supervisor, Facilities Group, SS NAESCO ...................27 1 l
c i
l Case No. 1-1998 005 5
j, I
l l
1 1
1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 1
)
l l
l Case No. 1-1998 005 6
1
. l DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION ADolicable Reculations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (1998 Edition) 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (1998 Edition) 10 CFR 50.9: Completeness and accuracy of information (1998 Edition) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criteria III Purpose of Investication This investigation was initiated by the Office of Investigations (OI),
Region I (RI), on January 29, 1998, to determine if Robert FOREST, an electrician working at North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation's (NAESCO)
Seabrook Station (SS), Seabrook, New Hampshire, was discriminated against by Williams Power Company (WPC) management, a NAESCO contractor, for raising safety issues regarding electrical wiring in the control panel for the Control Building's Air-Conditioning (CBA) Sub System. Once initiated, the investigation was expanded to determine if FOREST and his supervisor Gary PAGEAU, 3rovided incomplete and/or inaccurate information on a Cable Termination C1ecklist for work performed on January 7,1998 (Exhibit 1).
Backaround On JLuary 16, 1998. FOREST informed Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Resident Inspector Javier BRAND that WPC had laid him off because he had brought a safety issue to the attention of Robert CARELLA, Senior Inspector.
Quality Control (QC) (Exhibit 2).
FOREST informed BRAND that on January 7,1998, he had landed two wires in the CBA's control sanel in a configuration opposite to that in the design document. FOREST performed this work at the direction of PAGEAU. FOREST then documented the discrepancy in Work Request No. 97W001282 and brought it to the I attention of CARELLA. FOREST stated he did not write an Adverse Condition Report (ACR), because it was management's policy for an employee to bring concerns to the supervisor, and not to write an ACR (Exhibit 2).
On January 19, 1998, WPC put FOREST's layoff on hold, and he returned to work on January 20, 1998, pending the results of an investigation by NAESCO's Employee Allegation Resolution (EAR) Program (Exhibit 2).
l On January 28, 1998, an Allegation Review Panel at NRC:RI reviewed FOREST's allegation and referred the discrimination case to OI for investigation (Exhibit 3). '
In a report dated January 30, 1998, EAR did not substantiate FOREST's allegation that he had been laid off for raising safety concerns. However,it l Case No. 1-1998 005 7
1 reported that WPC had voided FOREST's layoff due to their inability.to document the reasons they selected him for a layoff: 1.e., tardiness and misuse of a computer (Exhibit 4).
Interview of Allecer (Exhibit 5)
FOREST was interviewed by OI February 10, 1998. Present during the interview were NRC Resident Inspectors Ray LORSON and 8 RAND. FOREST stated that WPC laid him off on January 16, 1998, because he brought a safety concern to the attention of NAESCO's QC department on January 7, 1998. FOREST's second concern was that WPC did not want their craftsmen to write ACRs.
FOREST is an eighteen year member of Local 490 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and has been em)1oyed by various contractors at SS for fourteen years. During this period he las worked both outside and inside the protected area. Work inside the protected area has included modifications to the control room main control board, and most recently to plant systems, such as the C8A. In December 1997 and January 1998. FOREST was one of eight electricians supervised by PAGEAU and working for WPC inside the arotected area. PAGEAU Craft Foreman for WPC, is also a member of Local 490.
PAGEAU reports to Matt HENRY, Lead Craft Supervisor for WPC. HENRY represents the first level of WPC corporate management at SS (pp. 7 9).
AGENT'S NOTE: On January 1,1998. WPC took over a contract previously held by Raytheon Corporation (RC). HENRY is one of several RC supervisors who were carried over by WPC. HENRY reports to Tim DeFREITAS, WPC's Site Superintendent: who in turn, re) orts to Bubba BERRY. WPC's Project Manager. BERRY interfaces witi Mike LEWIS, NAESCO's Maintenance Services Manager, and Bob DUNBAR, Supervisor, Construction Services (CS), NAESCO.
Safety Concern FOREST stated that in late December 1997, and early January 1998, he was performing modifications to the CBA control >anel when he discovered that the configuration of two wires termed on device J7F was opposite that shown on the
[ design] drawing. The discovery was made on either December 27th or 28th,
~ during modification prefab, which included running wires into the control panel and preparing them for termination. FOREST immediately informed PAGEAU of the discrepancy, and PAGEAU told him that he would look into it (pp. 20, 21, and 23; and Exhibit 13).
Before terminating the wires on January 7,1998 FOREST asked PAGEAU if he had a solution to the wiring discrepancy. PAGEAU told FOREST they would land the wires in the "as found" condition, based on his (PAGEAU's) inter the work request, "whether it matched the design drawing or not.pretation of PAGEAU did not offer, nor did FOREST ask, if PAGEAU had received advice from another
. source. FOREST terminated the wires as directed by PAGEAU and documented it on the Cable Termination Checklist (CTC). FOREST stated that he did not agree with this solution, but he does not recall if he expressed his concern to PAGEAU at that point. FOREST, having worked with PAGEAU for many years, does Case No. 1-1998-005 8
1
. , I I
not believe that PAGEAU thought his solution of the problem was correct. He '
also said that this was not the first time he had been in this type of situation (pp. 26 28: Exhibit 9, p. 22: and Exhibit 13). i FOREST stated he did not go to HENRY for help in resolving the issue, because HENRY has not supported him in the past on problems he has had with PAGEAU (Exhibit 13).
OI showed FOREST a copy of the CTC for the D7F device, which both he and PAGEAU had initialed. FOREST stated that section 8.5.5 of the CTC, which documented that he had made the cable connections per the design documents, was incorrect and did not accurately depict the work that he performed on January 7, 1998. FOREST stated that he initialed and signed the document because he believed that was what he was supposed to do, based on PAGEAU's solution to the wiring discrepancy. FOREST originally stated he was not directed to sign the document by PAGEAU, but, in a subsequent interview, stated that he thinks he might have been directed to do so by PAGEAU (pp. 28 30, 101, 102, and 108: Exhibit 9, p. 22: and Exhibit 13).
FOREST said that he signed the CTC because he did not want to go head to head with PAGEAU, having already questioned him several times on the issue. FOREST believes that if he had not signed the CTC, or if he had made a notation of the wiring discrepancy on the CTC, his job would have been in jeo>ardy for raising a safety issue. FOREST did not want PAGEAU to know that w was objecting to the way the CTC had been signed (pp. 104, 106, and 107).
Quality Control's Involvement Shortly after terminating the wires on January 7, 1998. FOREST made QC aware of the issue by showing CARELLA a comment he had written in the "coments on task" section of the work request and asking, as a ruse, if he had spelled
" opposite" correctly. The coment said that the " . . . terms on device D7F are physically opposite." FOREST said that PAGEAU had instructed him to make l some " comments on task," but he is adamant that PAGEAU did not specifically tell him to note, or even imply to him, that he was to include comments that they had landed the wires site to the requirements of the design drawing (pp. 40 and 41: and Exhibit , p. 6).
1 During his conversation with CARELLA, FOREST told him that PAGEAU was aware of '
the wiring discrepancy. CARELLA advised FOREST to tell PAGEAU that he (CARELLA) had examined the control panel and it appears that they should write an ACR (p. 42).
At a later meeting in PAGEAU's office FOREST told PAGEAU, in the presence of ENRY, what CARELLA had said. He showed both PAGEAU and HENRY the notation he made in the " comments on task" portion of the work recuest. FOREST said that PAGEAU commented, "We knew this would happen." PAGEAL then ex)lained the issue to HENRY, who stated, "We will take the ACR." Based on ENRY's reaction, FOREST opined that this was the first time that HENRY had heard of the wiring discrepancy (p. 42 and Exhibit 13).
Case No. 1-1998 005 9
I FOREST believes that if he had not brought the issue to QC, through CARELLA, that neither PAGEAU nor HENRY would have written an ACR. He stated they would '
have attem ted to " slide it through and let let the plant or somebody else find it" ( . B4).
Termination FOREST stated that on January 9,1998. PAGEAU called him to a meeting in the cable spreading room and told him th it looked as if.there was going to be a layoff, and that i ouId be on it. PAGEAU. who in '
FOREST's opinion a>peared upset asked ORELT if had spoken to QC. FOREST denied that he spote with QC, ou,t of fear of retaliation by PAGEAU. FOREST stated that PAGEAU also asked him if he had knowled of a QC letter [E mail]
sent to LEWIS by CARELLA. FOREST told PAGEAU that was not aware of the b letter (pp. 57 60, 67, and 75).
AGE F S NOTE: CARELLA sent an E mail to LEWIS, with a copy to HENRY, on January 9, 1998, at 10:03 a.m. The E mail was critical of CS and detailed the safety issue raised by FOREST. The meeting between PAGEAU and FOREST occurred between 10:22 a.m. and 10:31 a.m. (Exhibits 7, 29A, and 29B).
FOREST stated that PAGEAU also told him that if you make your su>ervisor look '
bad, he will come back to get you. FOREST responded by saying t1at he did not like his job being threatened for reperting a sefety issue to QC (pp. 62 and 64).
AGENT'S NOTE: FOREST documented these statements in a letter to GAGNON on January 16, 1998 (Exhibit 6).
i When asked, FOREST recalled a January 12th meeting he had with Tom MANNING, Su>ervisor Electrical Maintenance Department (EMD), during which he told i MAhiNING about: the incident involving the wires on the control panel: the intervention of CARELLA: and, the context of his conversation with PAGEAU on January 9th (Exhibit 19).
AGENT'S NOTE: This meeting first came to the attention of 01 during an interview with MANNING on March 3, 1998 (Exhibit 16).
On January 16, 1998, FOREST received his layoff slip from PAGEAU. FOREST said PAGEAU did not tell him why was selected for the layoff, but he (FOREST) ;
inferred it was for past tardiness. FOREST said he was selected for the layoff while electricians with less seniority remained on the job; specifically, ALLEN, Gerry TOEWE, and Derek OSBORNE (pp. 69 72).
FOREST admitted that he has been counseled by PAGEAU and HENRY, in the past, for late work starts and alleged misuse of a computer; but, he considers himself a good employee, having received a Raytheon Spot Recognition Award in October 1997 for identifying a problem on the control board in the main control room (pp. 13 and 16).
Case No. 1-1998 005 10
1 On January 20, 1998, FOREST returned to work and met with PAGEAU, HENRY, and BERRY. BERRY told him that he was selected for the layoff on January 16th because of past tardiness. He added that the only reason FOREST was returning to work was because some plant >ersonnel perceived that WPC released him for bringing up a safety concern. 3ERRY also instructed FOREST to bring any safety concern to his supervisors (pp. 33 and 34).
Upon returning to work, FOREST said that WPC management did not permit him to use the LAN computer system. He stated that he is the only electrician in the
" core" group without LAN access. In the past, FOREST had used the LAN to help him in his job. For example, he used the LAN to: track ACRs: check air temperatures in the containment building; check the o>erability of plant '
equipment; and, review equipment trade journals (pp. 30 82).
Adverse Condition Reoorts FOREST stated that he would have liked to have had the privilege of writing an ACR when he brought the wiring discrepancy to PAGEAU's attention. However, during his employment at SS, he has been instructed b more recently by BERRY, that if he detects a problem,y he isPAGEAU and HENRY, and to notify his supervisor. FOREST said he followed this procedure by notifying PAGEAU of the wiring discrepancy when it was first discovered during the prefab work in December (pp. 25, 31, and 34).
FOREST's perception has been that management would screen safet issues'to determine if an ACR was appropriate. In this scenario, the oyee who reports the issue to his supervisor does not know if an ACR ha been initiated, or how management resolves the issue, if at all. FOREST said the impression that he received from PAGEAU, is that he did not like writing ACRs because they caused a problem. FOREST believes that PAGEAU may have had a bad l experience in the past writing ACRs, possibly being a victim of retaliation q from the person against whom they had written the ACR (pp. 35, 37, and 38). ;
FOREST stated that both WPC and RC management would rather have let the wiring discrepancy go unnoticed and be discovered by somebody else, rather than write an /CR. This feeling has kept him from writing ACRs in the past and is the l reason he went "through a back door" [QC] to address the wiring discrepancy (pp. 39 and 44). I FOREST said that he had received instructions in writing ACRs at SS when he was assigned to the plant for the 1997 spring outage. During that assignment, he felt free to address safety issues and discuss ACRs. That feeling changed when he came back under the supervision of HENRY and PAGEAU (pp. 50 and 57).
Previous Problems In mid December 1997, while he was working on the modification of the CBA's B train control panel, FOREST observed that the procedure used by the vendor to label the wires differed from the normal procedure used at SS. FOREST reported this discrepancy to PAGEAU, who said he would discuss the problem with the Engineering Department (ED). PAGEAU later told FOREST that, although Case No. 1-1998 005 11
I the system was different, it was correct and the job could continue (Exhibit 19). l l
AGENT'S NOTE: The information about FOREST questioning the B train :
labeling procedure came to the attention of OI during an interview with l COOPER on March 4, 1998 (Exhibit 18). ;
FOREST was not comfortable with the answer he received from PAGEAU and attempted to research the issue in the EMD. During his research, Tim COOPER, Manager of EMD, approached him and offered Mark TANCREDY's assistance. After a review of the was acceptable, procedure, althou TANCREDY h it differed advised from SS's FORESTofthat norm. Because his the vendor's procedul inquiry, FOREST stated that TAN REDY relabeled the conductors in the control panel to eliminate any future confusion (Exhibit 19).
FOREST said that PAGEAU was upset with him for questioning the labeling !
discrepancy, and for later bringing the issue to the EMD, after he (PAGEAU) l had provided FOREST with a response to his inquiry (Exhibit 19).
Coordination with Recional Staff At the monthly DI prioritization meeting on March 10, 1998, the Deputy Regional Administrator changed the priority of the case from normal to high.
Resident Inspectors LORSON and BRAND assisted OI during the investigation to facilitate the identification and resolution of any new issues that arose.
They participated in interviews of the alleger and some WPC supervisors.
On May 3,1998, LORSON advised that the CTC for Work Request #97 WOO 1282'is required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criteria III (Design Control) and by : i SS procedure to certify that modifications performed to the safety related CBA Control Panel-1T/ were installed as designed. Contrary to the above, LORSON 3 determined that the electrical conductors for device D7F were terminated j site the position required by the design document, included as Attachment
. Page 8, of the aforementioned Work Request. ;
On May 11, 1998. Robert SOffiERS, Project Engineer, Region I, advised that the .
information in the CTC is considered material, and that the inaccurate i document prepared by the supervisor depicting the cable tensination to be in '
agreement with the design document is a potential violation of 10 CFR 50.9.
Case No. 1-1998. DOS' 12
Alleaation No. 1: Discrimination Against FOREST by Williams Power Companyl (WPC) Management for Raising a Safety Concern Relevant Testimony and Documentation While >erforming prefab modifications to the CBA on December 27th or 28th, 1998, 0 REST discovered that the configuration of two wires termed on D7F was o
- pposite that FOREST 97W001282. shown on the design stated that he document immediatelyincluded re in Work Request PAGEAU (Exhibit 5, pp. 20, 21, and 23 Exhibit 9;and ported the13).
Exhibit discrepancy to PAGEAU initially stated that FOREST brought the discrepancy to his attention during prefab work that he thought occurred on January 4th or 5th. After he was shown copies of SS Security Logs which documented that he and FOREST had been in the control room together on both December 27th and 28th, for')eriods sufficient to have performed the prefab work, PAGEAU conceded that FOREST had "probably" informed him of the discrepancy on one of those two days
(: Exhibits 10, 17, 29A, and 298).
PAGEAU also stated that he informed HENRY of the discrepancy when he was made l aware of it [ December 27th or 28th]. HENRY contends that he did not learn of ,
the discrepancy until after the wires were terminated on January 7th, and I after FOREST informed CARELLA of the situation. He stated that this delay did not meet his expectations (Exhibits 11 and 17).
. AGENT'S NOTE: SS's Operating Experience Manual. Section 1.3.2, states !
that it is the responsibility of each employee to re) ort any adverse condition by documenting that occurrence on'an ACR (Exhibit 31).
CARELLA stated that at approximately 10:00 a.m. on January 7,1998, while working adjacent to the control room, he observed FOREST making modifications to the CBA. He asked FOREST how things were going FOREST responded, "I'm '
just doing what my supervisor [PAGEAU) told me to do." CARELLA recalled that FOREST showed him the prints [ design documents) he was working with and the
" comments on task" page, which referenced wires being terminated opposite.
CARELLA realized that FOREST was concerned about two wires on the elapsed time meter that were landed o))osite than as depicted on the design document.
CARELLA recalled that FOREST appeared relieved that he was able to explain the situation to a QC representative (Exhibit 12).
PAGEAU said that he met with CARELL% on January 8, 1998, and discussed the wiring situation with him. CARELLA asked him what been done to correct the situation, PAGEAU replied that they re wired the control panel as they had originally found it (Exhibit 10).
- On January 9th at 10:03 a.m., CARELLA sent an E-mail to LEWIS, with a copy to .
ENRY. CARELLA addressed what he described as the aversion among workers in CS to identify adverse conditions, and he was critical of the way the -
supervisor [PAGEAU) handled the issue of the control sanel after the electrician [ FORES 1] identified the discresancy. CARELLA said that work should have stopped immediately, with an A;R initiated (Exhibits 7 and .12).
Case No. 1-1996 005 13
l 1
On January 9th FOREST met with PAGEAU in the cable spreader room bet a.m. and 10:31 a.m.
would be in the next FOREST allekes that PAGEAU told him thatPA EAU a!
layoff. ,
if he knew of a letter CARELLA sent to LEWIS. FOREST states that i PAGEAU told him. if you make your supervisor look bad, he will come back to : l get you. FOREST told PAGEAU he did not like his job being threatened for bringing a safety issue to QC (Exhibit 5, pp. 57 75: and Exhibits 29A and 298).
PAGEAU, at first, did not recall this meeting with FOREST. Only after he was advised that the topic of conversation included an E-mail CARELLA sent to l LEWIS concerning the wiring discrepancy did PAGEAU recall the meeting. PAGEAU initially said he did not recall how he became aware of CARELLA's E mail, t,ut later presumed HENRY must have informed him. PAGEAU said that he was not cpset during this meeting with FOREST. He denied the allegations made by FOREST: specifically, that he had asked FOREST if he had gone to QC, and that he told FOREST if you make your supervisor look bad he'll get you. He also denied that he told FOREST that he could not protect him again in case of a layoff (Exhibit 17). .
HENRY stated that he learned on January 12th or 13th that his group would probably lose two individuals to a layoff. He told A names for the layoff. PAGEAU gave him the names of and(l,#
FOREST (Exhibit 11).
On January 16th PAGEAU, the acting supervisor in HENRY's absence, selected i FOREST for the layoff. PAGEAU stated that he selected FOREST because he had a -
history of coming to work late and leaving early, and had also misused the l coexiter system. PAGEAU admits that none of these actions were documented in FORLST's personnel record. He also' explained that seniority was not used as a
]
l factor in selecting FOREST for this layoff, nor have they used it as a factor "
in past layoffs (Exhibit 10).
FOREST's termination letter.was prepared and signed by DeFREITAS. The stated l l reason for the layoff was lack of work. DeFREITAS. who began working at SS on i i January 12, 1998, stated he did not know that FOREST had raised a safety issue '
on January 7th. In addition, because he did not have an electrical background and did not know the personnel, DeFREITAS said he relied upon his acting supervisor, PAGEAU, to select the individual for the layoff. Once the selection was made by PAGEAU, DeFREITAS said that he had no reason to question it. He added that he is not aware of any other WPC employees being selected ,
for a layoff based on tardiness; and, that there were no WPC policies !
governing terminations or disciplinary actions in effect on January 16th (Exhibits 8 and 15).
AGENT'S NOTE: Neither RC nor WPC were able to comply with OI's request to produce personnel files for the union members employed by their respective companies.
On January 16th FOREST filed an allegation of discrimination with the NRC and EAR. GAGNON immediately advised George GRAM, Director of Site Support and ,
i l
r Case No. 1-1998-005 14
Services for NAESCO, of the situation. GRAM became involved in the investigation by EAR because of the " climate" involving a Northeast Utilities (NU) subsidiary; and, because he did not know how sensitive WPC's management was to employee discrimination issues (Exhibit 26).
On January 19th, following a series of interviews with the involved individuals, GRAM recommended that BERRY allow FOREST return to work pending the outcome of the EAR investigation. GRAM based his recommendation on the following:
- 1. The employee, FOREST, believed that he was selected for the layoff as a result of raising a safety issue;
- 2. GRAM believed there was a perception among plant personnel that FOREST had been selected for a layoff for raising a safety issue.
- AGENT'S NOTE: Both COOPER and MANNING had independently left telephcne messages with GAGNON, on January 17 and 18, 1998, indicating that they believed that FOREST's selection for layoff was linked to his raising a safety issue.
- 3. WPC was unable to provide documentation to support their allegation of tardiness (Exhibit 26).
On January 20th FOREST returned to work.
On January 30th GAGNON issued his investigative report, which did not substentiate FOREST's allegation that he had been selected for a layoff as the result of raising a safety issue. GAGNON explained that he did not substantiate FOREST's allegation because "there was no smoking gun."
Specifically, GAGNON stated that FOREST was unable to provide a witness to support his claim that on January 9th PAGEAU had confronted him on the following issues: going to QC with a safety concern; telling FOREST that he did not know what he was trying to accom)lish by making a su>ervisor look bad; and telling FOREST he could not protect lim from a layoff. GAGNON admitted that his investigation did not explore the proximity, in terms of time, between FOREST raising a safety issue on January 7th, and his termination on January 16th, nor did they do in depth interviews with either MANNING or COOPER (Exhibits 4 and 14).
Evidence Analysis Protected Activity On January 7, 1998, while performing a modification to the CBA, PAGEAU directed FOREST to terminate two wires in a configuration opposite to that of the design document. FOREST reported the incident to-NAESC0's QC Department, through CAREU.A. who instructed FOREST to inform his supervisors that an ACR I was required. As instructed. FOREST infor1med both PAGEAU and HENRY of CARELLA's recommendation (Exhibit 5, pp. 20. 21 and 23: and Exhibit 13).
l l
Case No. 1-1998 005 15
During the EAR investigation in January, and the subsequent investigation by 01, neither WPC management reor NAESCO questioned the legitimacy of the concern raised by FOREST while he was engaged in a protected activity (Exhibit 4).
Knowledae of FOREST's Protected Activity Both PAGEAU and HENRY recall being advised of the wiring discrepancy by FOREST and having conversations with CARELLA over the need for an ACR. In addition, in response to HENRY's request that the ED review the discrepancy, a Scope Change (SC) was issued by the ED on January 9, 1998. Following receipt of the scow change, HENRY wrote an ACR on the discrepancy on January 9,1998 (Ex11 bits 10, 11, 17, 28, and 28A). l Adverse Action Taken Aaainst FOREST On January 12th or 13th, PAGEAU gave HENRY the names of three electricians for a proposed layoff, one of which was FOREST (Exhibit 10).
1 On January 16, 1998. PAGEAU, the acting WPC supervisor in the absence of l HENRY, selected FOREST for the layoff-(Exhibit 10). ;
Did the Unfavorable Action Result from FOREST Enoacino in a Protected Activity WPC management has stated that the selection of FOREST for the layoff was l predicated on his tardiness and misuse of the computer. l Tardiness as a Reason for Selection Joanne FORD has been employed as a secretary by RC and WPC continuously for fifteen years. Besides her secretarial duties, FORD has been responsible for the payroll for both RC and WPC. She explained that RC's policy for disciplining employees for tardiness was to dock their pay in increments of six minutes (1/10 of an hour) (Exhibit 21).
FORD reviewed copies of RC's computer payroll statements for seven RC employees for a six month period ending Decemoer 31, 1997. She concluded that RC had not docked FOREST's pay during the six month period. The records show that RC had docked pay for only two employees during the period, but she was not able to determine the reason by looking at the computer records (Exhibits 21 and 32).
AGENT'S NOTE: These doctaments were selected from payroll statements for fifty one RC employees provided to 01 by RC on March 20, 1998.
FORD then performed a random audit of time cards for RC employees for 1997.
The sampling consisted of time cards for seven pay periods between March 1997 and December 1997, with smcific attention paid to electricians. The audit documented that, during t11s period, no RC employee was docked pay. The audit did reveal that FOREST routinely clocked in very close to his official reporting time, more so than other employees, and that he had been tardy on Case No. 1-1998 005 16
occasion. Th 'd cuments show that other electricians in his group,f M were also tardy on occasion (Exhibit 21).
{
FORD has no recollection of any RC or WPC supe disor docking FOREST's pay, or any other. electrician's pay, because of tardiness. Also, she is not aware of any progressive discipline being initiated based on tardiness (Exhibit 21).
Roger DESTEFFAND, former Site Manager for RC, acknowledged that RC had a policy by which they would dock an employee pay for being tardy, but he admitted that it was not used very often. He also acknowledged that there was an unwritten progressive discipline policy that would call for verbal warnings, followed by written warnings, suspension, and termination, if warranted. However DeSTEFFANO does not know if any written warnings to employees were included in their personnel files, nor does he recall ever issuing a written warning to FOREST for being tardy (Exhibit 24).
DESTEFFANO joked that, although FOREST had almost perfected the ability to punch in at the last minute, to keep from being " officially late," FOREST's tardiness did not outweigh the quality of his work. DeSTEFFANO said that as of December 31, 1997, his last day as site supervisor for RC, tardiness would not have been a valid reason to select or even consider FOREST for a layoff (Exhibit 24).
DESTEFFANO advised that FOREST was one nf two electricians who was recommended by CS to su)plement NAESCO's staff during the 1997 spring outage. DESTEFFANO said that w1en COOPER asked George SHAMIS, CS Supervisor, to recommend two electricians for positions he would open for CS, SHAMIS provided the names of FOREST and Jim CASEY. DESTEFFANO said that CS was electricians to try to "open the door for others," providing two and have the of their EMD gain best
" confidence" in the technical abilities of the CS electricians. DESTEFFANO added that HENRY was reluctant to give FOREST up during the outage because of his technical abilities and the quality of his work. DESTEFFANO cited other examples of FOREST's quality work asi his regular assignment to deal with modifications to the control room electrical panels; his ability to work without much supervision: and, his questioning attitude (Exhibits 18, 24 and 27). 4, When informed that PAGEAU had identified FOREST, Ifor the tential layoff, DESTAFFANO stated the ave M He was not knowledgeable of reputation (Exh .1 24).
DESTEFFANO opined that if FOREST's name had been presented to him for a layoff, he would have laughed, thinking it was a joke. He said that PAGEAU would have had to present stronger evidence than FOREST's tardiness to justify FOREST's layoff (Exhibit 24).
Hisuse of Comouter as a Reason for Selection In interviews with GAGNON on January 19th, GAGNON said thatboth PAGEAU and HENRY said the misuse of a computer was one of the reasons FOREST had been selected for the layoff. They said that FOREST had misused the computer by Case No. 1 1998 005 17
sending an E mail to PAGEAU describing a potential safety issue involvin Teledyne pipe bender, rather than calling him on the phone (Exhibit 14).g a FOREST admits that PAGEAU and HENRY counseled him about the use of another employee's computer and how much time he spent on the com) uter, but stated that his use of the computer was work related and helped aim in performing his assigned tasks (Exhibit 5, pp. 80 82).
FOREST contends that he used the E-mail to document a safety issue, and he followed u) with a telephone call to PAGEAU to alert him to the issue. FOREST said that le was not aware that his supervisors considered his use of the E mail an improper method to make them aware of a safety concern (Exhibit 19).
On January 20th FOREST returned to work and attended a meeting with BERRY, HENRY, and PAGEAU. At the meeting, they told him that he had been selected for layoff because of tardiness. There was no mention of the computer issue (Exhibits 10, 11, and 23).
AGENT'S NOTE: WPC management has not provided any documentation of counseling or progressive disciplinary action taken against FOREST regarding his misuse of a computer.
FOREST's Relationshio with PArJAU FOREST's relationship with PAGEAU appe rs strained by disagreements that arose between them because of FOREST's questioning attitude and identification of potential safety issues.
In December 1997 COOPER observed FOREST to be in an agitated state because of a disagreement he and PAGEAU had over a conductor label;ng issue. In response to questions from COOPER, FOREST told him that PAGEAU was angry with him for delaying a modification, while he researched a potential safety issue (Exhibit 18).
On January 7th FOREST terminated the wires at PAGEAU's direction, knowing that l they did not agree with the work request's design document. Rather than go '
" head to head" again with PAGEAU over the issue FOREST brought it to the attention of QC, FOREST stated he did not go to HENRY for help in resolving the issue, because he had not sup>orted FOREST, in the past, on problems he had with PAGEAU ' Exhibit 5, pp. 106 and 107: and Exhibit 10).
FOREST's safety issue of January 7th came to LEWIS' attention on January 9th, via an E mail from CARELLA. The E-mail was critical of PAGEAU for not initiating an ACR. Immediately following the E mail, PAGEAU had a meeting with FOREST, wherein FOREST alleges that PAGEAU told him that he was going to be laid off (Exhibit 5 p. 67). .
MANNING advised OI of a conversation he had with FOREST on January 12th, wherein FOREST told MANNING that he had gotten in trouble with PAGEAU for informing QC about a wiring problem. FOREST stated that PAGEAU asked him why he had gone to QC, because it makes them (WPC and the outside contractors)
Case No. 1-1998 005 18
A look bad. FOREST told MANNING that he did not know what was going to happen to him, but if he got laid off, MANNING would know why (Exhibit 16).
Both GRAM and DeSTEFFANO opined that there may have been issues other than the tardiness and safety issues that influenced PAGEAU's decision to select FOREST for the layoff (Exhibits 24 and 26). 1 Acents Analysis FOREST has established, and neither WPC nor NAESCO have contested, that he was engaged in a protected activity at the time he raised the wiring issue. On January 7th FOREST advised PAGEAU and HENRY that CARELLA had become involved in the safety issue, and that he (CARELLA) recommended that an ACR be generated. Both WPC and NAESCO were immediately aware of the safety issue raised by FOREST, as evidenced by their own admissions, official correspondence, and initiation of a SC and an ACR. After CARELLA ted the i
I issue to NAESCO anagement on January 9th, FOREST.
i said PAGEAU rebuked him for brin t1e ssue In !
a on, ES elt that PAGEAU threatened him with a layoff for " making a supervisor look bad." l On Janu 12 or 13th, at the request of HENRY, PAGEAU submitted the names of FOREST. Tfor a potential layoff, and, on January 16th, l PAGEAU, s ac ing uperv dr, selected FOREST for the layoff.
PAGEAU,
, said that his selection of FOREST was ;{
based on OREST's history of tardiness and misuse of a computer. A review of
- i time records'shows that FOREST was tardy on occasion; however, neither RC nor WPC could document any type of orogressive disciplinary action taken against j any employee for tardiness. FOREST's former site manager DeSTEFFANO, stated that as of December 31, 1997, he would never have even consioered FOREST for a layoff. He o)ined that the quality of FOREST's work outweighed any issue of tardiness. Wien given the names of the three individuals PAGEAU selected for possible layoff, m opined that FOREST was the best electrician of the three.
With respect to the issue of misuse of a computer, again WPC was unable to document any type of progressive disciplinary action taken against other employees for similar infractions.
In the cpinion of 01, FOREST's history of having a questioning attitude and raising safety concerns, in an environment not conducive to such, influenced PAGEAU s decision to select FOREST for the layoff. FOREST's most recent safety concern, raised on January 7th, was brought to the attention of NAESCO management through CARELLA's E mail that was critical of CS workers in general, and PAGEAU in particular. The short time between FOREST raising the safety concern, PAGEAU's rebuke of FOREST, and PAGEAU's selection of FOREST for the layoff is sufficient to draw an inference between the protected activity and the adverse action.
1 R
Case No. 1-1998 005 19 (j
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, 01 concludes that FOREST was discriminated against by PAGEAU for raising a safety concern.
Alleaation No. 2: Falsification of a Cable Termination Checklist by an Electrician and His Supervisor with Regards to Work Performed on January 7, 1998 Relevant Testimony and Documentation On December 27th or 28th, FOREST discovered that the configuration of two wires termed on device D7F was opposite that shown on the [ design) drawing.
FOREST made the discovery during modification prefab and informed PAGEAU.
(Exhibit 5, p. 20 and Exhibit 13).
After reviewing control room security logs and crimper usage logs for the crimpers FOREST used during the prefab work on the control panel, PAGEAU stated to 0I that it was " probable" that FOREST had informed him of the wiring discrepancy in the control panel on either December 27th or 28th (Exhibit 17).
AGENT'S NOTE: This contradicted earlier statements to 01 by PAGEAU that F0PIST informed him of the discrepancy at a later date (Exhibit 10).
On January 7,1998, PAGEAU directed FOREST to land the wires in the "as found" condition, based on his (PAGEAU's) interpretation of the work request, "whether it matched the design drawing or not." FOREST terminated the wires, as directed by PAGEAU, and documented it on the CTC (Exhibit 9. p. 22: and ExMbit 13). ,
FOREST stated that section 8.5.5 of the CTC, which documented that he had made the cable connections per the design documents, was incorrect and did not accurately depict the work that he performed on January 7th (Exhibit 5, pp. 28 and 29).
FOREST initialed and signed the CTC because he believed that was what he was supposed to do, based on PAGEAU's solution to the wiring discrepancy. FOREST originally stated he was not directed to sign the document by PAGEAU, but in a subsequent interview, he stated that he thinks he might have been directed to do so by PAGEAU. FOREST believes that if he had not signed the CTC, or if he had made a notation of the wiring discrepancy on the CTC, his job would have been in jeopardy for raising a safety issue. FOREST did not want PAGEAU to know that he was objecting to the way they had signed the CTC (Exhibit 5, pp. 101, 102, 104, and 106 108; and Exhibit 9, p. 22).
PAGEAU identified his initials, "GP," and his signature at the bottom of the CTC. He stated that his initials documented that he had reviewed each attribute and that they had been completed according to specifications. His signature at the bottom of the page doctmented that the modifications were made according to design document 94DCR 0025 for Work Request No. 97W001282 (Exhibits 9, 10 and 30).
Case No. 1-1998-005 20
e Only after being confronted with the fact that the terminations were not made according to the design document, did PAGEAU admit that he knew the wiring was incorrect when he initialed the CTC (Exhibit 10).
PAGEAU justified his actions because: first. Enclosure E of the work request shows the " modification circle" encompassing only the wire tags, and not the posts; and, re tagged to secondly, D6TRL 1. page 40 of the work request directs that wire D6TR L2 be He interpreted these instructions to mean that the wires were to remain as originally found. He stated his actions were based on past practice, when confronted with similar circumstances (Exhibit 10).
HENRY did not learn of the wiring discrepancy until after the wires had been
. landed and the issue had already been brought to the attention of QC, He then reviewed section 8.5.5 of the CTC and stated that the document does not accurately represent the work that FOREST and PAGEAU performed on January 7, 1998.
Specifically, the wire terminations in the control panel were not according to Attachment E, page 8, of Work Request No. 97 WOO 1282 (Exhibit 11).
AGENT'S NOTE:
Neither HENRY nor the NRC resident inspectors accepted PAGEAU's interpretation of the work request and the associated modification circle (Exhibit 11).
After terminating the wires and signing the CTC, FOREST made QC aware of his safety issue by showing CARELLA what he had written in the " comments on task" section of the work request.
D7F are physically op>osite." The comment said that the ". . . terms on device FOREST admits that PAGEAU had instructed him to make "ccm ents on tast"; however, he is adamant that PAGEAU did not specifically tell him to note, or even imply, that they had landed the wires opposite (pp. 40 and 41 and Exhibit 9, p. 6).
i PAGEAU claims that he instructed FOREST to make notations in the " comments task" section of the work request to detail the discrepancy (Exhibit 10).
Aoent's Analysis i
Both FOREST and PAGEAU achit that on January 7th they terminated wires in the control panel of the CBA anc' then initialed and signed the CTC, knowing that l,
the wires were not terminatw in accordance with Attachment E, of Work Request No. 97 WOO 1282, as required.
PAGEAU, in his position as superviser, made the decision to have FOREST -
terminate the wires in a configuration which was opposite to that of the design document. FOREST, keeping his objections to himself out of fear of retaliation by PAGEAU, terminated the wires, as directed, and then initialed and signed the CTC.
FOREST then made a notation in "coments on task," in which he described the wires as having been landed opposite. FUKEST, seeking a resolution to the issue, brought the comment to the attention of QC nder the ruse of as ar CARE "A here two )'s in o)posite?" FOREST.
I*
stated tsat, altsough PAGEAU inst ed him to na e a nt Case No. 1-1996 005 . 21
j i ,
on task," PAGEAU did not tell him or imply that he was to mention the wiring discrepancy.
In OI's opinion, PAGEAU, caused the wires to be terminated contrary to the configuration in the design document: initialed and signed the CTC, knowing that it inaccurately reflected the work that was done: and caused FOREST to '
initial and sign the same CTC, out of fear of retaliation. Further, although he was aware of the discrepancy for a minimum of eleven days, he (PAGEAU) did not bring the discrepancy to the attention of his supervisor, deliberately violating SS policy, as set forth in the OEH.
Conclusion j
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, OI concludes that the WPC supervisor deliberately chose not to comply with the SS nrocedure requiring compliance with design documents and deliberately caused an I inaccurate document to be created regarding the work performed on January 7, 1998.
)
i.
Case No. 1-1998 005 22
1
. i SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION -
CS apparently does not support the writing of ACRs by all their contract workers. WPC's procedure, presently in effect, requires that craftsmen, to include those with many years of service at SS, bring their issues to supervisors for review.
The low percentage of ACRs that were Self Identified and originating from CS lends credence to QC's contention that there was an aversion by CS workers to identifying adverse conditions. This supports the alleger's statement that his supervisor would have attemated to " slide it (discrepancy) through and let . . . let the plant or some>ody else find it."
The investigative report issued by EAR, which does not substantiate discrimination, appears to be based on an investigation which did not address:
(1) the compelling temporal proximity between the protected activity and the alleged adverse action; and (2) in depth interviews of su>ervisors in the EMD.
who were able to provide OI with background information w11ch supports FOREST's allegation of retaliation.
On May 14, 1998. David VICINANZO, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) and Chief Criminal Division; and Michael GUNNISON, Esq., AUSA, United States Attorney's Office, District of New Hampshire, were a) prised of the results of the investigation. They requested a review of tie OI investigative report, with attachments, to better determine the prosecutive merits of the case.
l l
1 Case No. 2-1998 005 23
/
ii THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l
Case No. 1-1998 005 24
i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Descriotion 1 Investigative Status Record, dated January 29, 1998.
2 Allegation Receipt Report, dated January 16, 1998.
3 Allegation Disposition Record, dated January 28, 1998.
4 Employee Allegation Resolution Investigation Report, dated January 30', 1998.
4A Employee Allegation Resolution Concern Disposition Report, dated January 30, 1998.
5 Transcribed Interview of FOREST, dated February 10, 1998.
6 FOREST's letter to GAGNON, dated January 16, 1998.
7 CARELLA's E mail, dated January 9, 1998.
8 FOREST's termination notice, dated January 16, 1998.
9 Work Request No. 97W001282, with Cable Termination Checklist, '
dated January 7, 1998.
10 Interview Report of PAGEAU, dated February 17, 1998 11 Interview Report of HENRY, dated February 17, 1998.
12 Interview Report of CARELLA, dated February 17, 1998.
13 Interview Report of FOREST, dated March 2, 1998.
, 14 Interview Report of GAGNON, dated March 2,1998.
15 Interview Report of DeFREITAS, dated March 3, 1998.
16 Interview Report of MANNING, dated March 3,1998 17 Interview Report of PAGEAU, dated March 3,1998.
18 Interview Report of COOPER, dated Nrch 4,1998.
19 Telephone Conversation Record with FOREST, dated March 5,1998.
20 Telephone Conversation Record with HENRY, dated March 18, 1998.
Case No. 1-1998 005 25-
t 21 Interview Report of FORD, dated March 24, 1998.
22 Interview Report of DUNBAR, dated March 24, 1998.
23 Interview Report of BERRY, dated March 25, 1998.
24 Interview Report of DeSTEFFANO, dated March 24, 1998.
25 Interview Report of LEWIS, dated March 25, 1998.
26 Interview Report of GRAM, dated March 26, 1998.
27 Interview Report of SHAMIS, dated March 26, 1998, 28 Work Request Scope Change, dated January 9, 1998.
28A Adverse Condition Report, dated January 9, 1998.
l 29A SS Security Logs for PAGEAU, multiple dates.
298 SS Security Logs for FOREST, multiple dates.
30 Design Chan9e Notices Doctment No. 94DCR 0025, dated December 24, 1997.
31 SS Operating Experience Manual, Section 1.0, Revision 15, dated July 28,1997.
32 Raytheon Corporation Computer Payroll, fro June 2,1997, to December 31, 1998.
Case No. 1-1998-005 26