ML20236U939

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Oi,Region IV Rept of Investigation,Dtd 940511, Case 5-93-023R,which Reported OI Investigative Efforts Re Alleged Employee Discrimination at Plant Units 1,2 & 3.Rept Was Sent to Us Attorney Office in Phoenix,Az in May 1994
ML20236U939
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 12/20/1995
From: Williamson L
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Callan L
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20236U926 List:
References
FOIA-98-273 NUDOCS 9807310187
Download: ML20236U939 (3)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

p j#*'

tJNITED STATES

(

4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s

J Ta'n'a!PJln su"Tf'#"' ""

e ARLINGTON, TEXAS 760118064

\\e..,+/

Decenber 20, 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR:

L. J. Callan, ' Regional Administrator Region IV FROM:

Len Williamson rector Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION/ CLOSURE - PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION: ALLEGED EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION (CASE N0. S-93-0235)

An Office of Investigation (01), Region IV (RIV), Report of Investigation, dated May'll, 1994, Case No. 5-93-023R, which reported 01's investigative efforts regarding alleged employee discrimination at the Arizona Public Service's (APS) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), was referred to the United States Attorney's (USA) office in Phoenix, Arizona, in May 1994. A copy of this report was also provided to your staff. The USA requested 01:RIV i

provide assistance in pursuing the referral.

j

\\

This investigative effort by the USA, with OI.:RIV assistance, was~ recently completed.

This effort involved the analysis of volumes of records, interviews of several witnesses / targets, the use of a polygraph examiner, and testimony during grand jury proceedings. This memorandum is to summarize those investigative efforts and to report the final actions by the USA.

Thomas SAPORITO had alleged he was the subject of discrimination when he was not hired as an contract instrument'& control (I&C) technician for the Unit 1 outage at PVNGS; although, he was employed at the time as a contract I&C technician at the Unit 2 outage.

SAPORITO alleged that he was not hired for this outage because of his previous whistle-blowing :tivities.

The Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative Law Judge P.L4 ruled that SAPORITO had been discriminated against by PVNGS mt.r:;c:ent.

Subseo:ent to this ruling, APS and SAPORITO reached an agreement, including a financicl settlement, that the Secretary of Labor approved in June 1995. All issues j

before DOL have been resolved and dismissed.

i i

The May 1994, OI Repod of Investigation concluded that Frank WARRINER, a second line supervisor at PVNGS and APS, discriminated against SAPORITO by not selecting him for work at the Unit.1 outage.

This report also concluded that both WARRINER and Stephen GROVE, another I&C supervisor, committed perjury during the DOL /ALJ hearing on this discrimination issue.

The investigative effort at the USA was to pursue these recommendations and to determine if there were any other culpable APS management personnel or outside counsel involved in the discrimination or in an attempt to cover-up the act of discrimination. The foi,owing individuals were interviewed during this investigative effort with the USA:

l f

9807310187 980728 7

PDR FOIA

(

ROSS98-273 PDR D

c J

a

(

(

i L. Callan

  • 1 ELE TITLE CONWAY, William Retired, APS Executive Vice President, Nuclear DAVIS, Keith APS Human Resource Director GROVE, Steve Former PVNGS I&C Supervisor GUTHRIE, Stephen Former PVNGS Director Quality Assurance HELER, Dave PVNGS Human Resources Technical Consultant LEVINE, Jim APS Vice President Nuclear Production ROBERTSON, Daniel PVNGS Human Resources Representative STOREY,' Gregory PVNGS Industrial Safety Supervisor WARRINER, Frank Former PVNGS I&C Supervisor Results of Assistance to USA WARRINER plead guilty on May 30, 1995, in federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, to discriminating against SAP 0RIT0, specifically "That I made my aforesaid I

decision to not hire Mr. SAPORITO because I had learned that he had reported

)

concerns to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding operations at another l

nuclear power facility at which he had been employed and because I did not want to hire a whistle-blower." WARRINER was sentenced on August 7, 1995, and the judge ruled WARRINER " understood the seriousness of the crime and therefore incarceration would not be considered." WARRINER was sentenced to one year probation, 75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> of community service, a $50 fine, and other court costs that may be assigned later.

This was the first criminal conviction in l

the nation resulting from violations of 10 CFR 50.7.

GROVE was administered a polygraph examination at the request of his attorney.

1 The polygraph examiner concluded "that deception was indicated when GR0VE answered the relevant questions." During the post-test phase of this examination, the examiner confronted GROVE that he had lied previously and must now tell the truth. The examiner said GROVE nodded his head in the affirmative and said, "Yes I do."

The assistant United States attorney assigned to this investigation declined to prosecute GROVE for several reasons, asserting that a charge of perjury would be a more serious charge than the charge WARRINER plead to.

The USA also declined to charge APS with violation of the whistle-blower statute as " prosecution very likely would be l

unsuccessful, primarily because Mr. WARRINER's current version of why he l

failed to select Mr. SAPORITO for the Unit 1 outage indicates that his decision had nothing to do with the fact that Mr. SAPORIT0 had reported I

nuclear safety concerns to the NRC."

l

l

(

e L. Callan 1 INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE:

The USA also indicated they did not support the NRC Office of General Counsel's opinion as to the culpability of the licensee when the violation was committed by one of their managers. The USA, in mentioning WARRINER's " current version" for his decision not to I

prosecute APS, appears to ignore WARRINER's signed plea agreement and more importantly appears to differentiate WARRINER not wanting an i

individual who reports concerns (in general), to one who had reported

]

concerns to the NRC.

j Evidence developed during the 01 investigation indicating culpability on the pert of outside counsel, in particular during the D0L.ALJ hearing, was referred to the State Bar of Arizona and was not pursued during this supplemental investigation.

OI's efforts in this matter are now concluded with the USA's declination to further pursue issues in this area.

cc:

J. Lieberman, OE L. Chandler, 0GC H. Thompson, Jr., DEDS W. Russell, NRR i

l Distribution:

s/f4,5@-0235) 4 c/f D. Lewis, 01:HQ B. Barber, 01:HQ 01:RIV OI:RIV DGietl h LWilliamson 12/20/95 12/20/95

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236U939&oldid=3930700"