ML20339A446
| ML20339A446 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/2020 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20339A443 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2021-000021 | |
| Download: ML20339A446 (160) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Docket Number:
Location:
Date:
Work Order No.:
Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference RE Joe Shea IA-2020-008 teleconference Thursday, June 25, 2020 NRC-0944 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island A venue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Pages 1-159
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PRE-DECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE RE JOE SHEA (DOCKET NO. IA-2020-008)
+ + + + +
THURSDAY J UNE 25, 2020
+ + + + +
1 The conference was convened at 8 : 00 a.m.,
- Director, Office of Enforcement, presiding.
NRC STAFF PRESENT :
GEORGE WILSON, Director, Office of Enforcement ALEX ECHAVARRIA, Office of Investigations I AN GI FFORD, Office of Enforcement SARA KIRKWOOD, Office of the General Counsel SCOTT LUI NA, Offi ce of I nvesti gations CHRIS
- MILLER, Office of Nuclear Reactor (202) 234-4433 Regulation (NRR),
Division of Reactor Oversi ght NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
MARK MILLER, Region II, Di vision of Reactor Projects DAVID SOLORIO, Office of Enforcement CATHERINE THOMPSON, Office of Enforcement ALSO PRESENT :
JOE SHEA, Respondent SID FOWLER, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea MEGHAN
- HAMMOND, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea ANNE LEIDICH, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea MI CHAEL
- LEPRE, Pillsbury Winthrop Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea BETH WETZEL, Complainant TIMOTHY
- WALSH, Pillsbury Winthrop Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea NEAL R. GROSS Shaw Shaw (202) 234-4433 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CONTENTS Opening Remarks Director, Office of Enforcement Enforcement Policy Overview Office of Enforcement Staff Apparent Violation Office of Enforcement Staff External Presentation Complainant Comments External Response to Complainant Comments Questions.
Closing Remarks Director, Office of Enforcement (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 3
4 4
. 12 15 18 100 100 158 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
P R O C E E D I N G S 8:01 a.Ill.
MR. WILSON:
Good morning, everyone.
My name is George Wilson, I'm the Director of the Office of Enforcement.
Before we get started, Ian Gifford will review the details of today's video conference and answer any questions.
Ian?
MR.
GIFFORD:
Thank you, George.
I'll just walk you through a few features of Webex on your screen.
I see that everyone has joined using their computer.
You can switch to phone if you'd like by selecting the gray audio button at the bottom of the attendee list and swap audio, but we prefer computer if possibl e.
If you ' d like to see all of the participants you can click the participant tab in the top right corner.
You'll then see a list of all of the attendees for today's meeting.
You can hover your own name and you' 11 see a microphone and video.
To the right you can select those to mute and unmute yoursel ves, and t urn on and off your video.
If you are unable to turn off your audio,
the host will mute you if there ' s background noise.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5
Just be aware that if the host has muted you, you won't be able to unmute yourself, and so if you are having difficulties and believe that you ' ve been muted by the host, please see the chat feature at the bottom and select a message to the host requesting control of your own audio.
If the chat box does not automatically open for you, you would just select chat at the top and you'll see the chat box open up under the list of attendees.
Rather than seeing the list of names, if you would like see thumbnails of the videos that are present, you can look at the little box that has three horizont al lines.
It's a drop-down menu; select the drop-down menu, and switch from list to thumbnail and that will show you the active videos, in addition to the active speaker that's in the larger v i deo box at the top right.
This is what it should look like after you click the participant button.
different thumbnail video feeds.
You would see the During the presentation, if you'd like to switch to full - screen mode in the bottom left portion of your screen, you see a tab that says full screen, you would select that and this would be your new (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6
screen display.
You would have a drop-down menu that appears at the top of your screen, if you hover your mouse over the center top.
And you can see the features of mute, you can also select participants and you ' ll see a video box i n the top right corner, you can expand that video box by dragging the bottom left corner to make it larger or smaller.
I f it's covering a certain portion of the PowerPoint slide you'd like to see, you can drag that video all over the screen.
You can also select participants and get a larger view where you see all the thumbnails of all of the videos, in addition to the active speaker.
If you ' re running a dual monitor s,etup, you can also drag that pop-up window over to a second screen so that it doesn't cover any of the PowerPoint slides.
I f you do not want to see the PowerPoint slides and would like to prioritize video, in the top right corner of the video screen there's two arrows that point to the top right and bottom left corner.
That would expand the video to the f ul l screen.
That's what it would look like there, and you (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7
would see all of the active thumbnails of the videos a l ong the bottom.
It' ll displ ay five at a time.
You can select the right and left arrows under those thumbnails if you want to scan through other videos.
This is the screen t hat we recommend using after the caucus, for the Q&A portion of the meeting.
I think that covers it, George.
I f you'd like to take it back?
MR. WI LSON:
Thank you.
The purpose of today's teleconference is to obtain information that would be used to determine if a violation of discrimination occurred, which was contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50. 5 and 10 CFR
- 50. 7 in employee protecti on.
It is important to note that this pre-decis i onal conference is an important step in our four-step process.
We want to offer you an opportunity to make statements t o us so that we can f ully and thoroughly process if you ' re non-compliant.
Our role is not to debate the facts with you, bu t to receive and process information that is pertinent. We will use today ' s information along with information you s ubmitted prior t o the meeting today to inform the final enforcement deci s i on.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8
In a few moments, I ' ll go over the agenda and provide some public meeting guidance. I'd like to begin with introductions.
please introduce yourselves?
Would those NRC staff MS. THOMPSON:
Catherine Thompson, Office of Enforcement.
MR.
SOLORIO:
Dave Solorio, Office of Enforcement, Branch Chief.
Enforcement.
MR.
GIFFORD:
Ian Gifford, Office of MR. M. MILLER:
Mark Miller, Region II.
MR. C. MILLER:
Chris Miller, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
MR. SOLORIO :
Please repeat, Chris.
MR. C. MILLER:
Chris Miller, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Sarah Kirkwood, Office of the General Counsel.
MR. ECHAVARRIA :
Alex Echavarria, Office of Investigations, Region II.
MR.
LUNIA:
Scott Luina, Office of Investigations, Region II.
MR. WILSON:
Would individuals from TVA please introduce themselves?
(202) 234-4433 MR. SHEA:
My name is Joe Shea, TVA. I' 11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9
let my counsel introduce himself.
Mr. Walsh?
MR. WALSH:
Thank you, this is Tim Walsh from Pillsbury. On the phone, also from Pillsbury, we have Mike Lepre, Anne Leidich, Sid Fowl er, and Meghan Hammond.
And here in the room with me is TVA Chief Nuclear Officer, Timothy Rausch.
MR.
WILSON:
Thank you.
The court reporter, are you online?
Thank you.
The agenda for today's teleconference consists of opening remarks by me, followed by an enforcement policy overview by Catherine Thompson, and then an overview of the case specifics by Dave
- Solorio, the supervisor having oversight in this discrimination concern.
Following Mr. Solorio's overview of the case specifics, you will be provided an opportunity to present information for NRC's consideration.
The NRC staff l ooks forward to understanding your perspectives on these issues and we ' d also like you to tell us if you believe there are any errors of the understanding of the facts and circumstances, and discuss any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that we should consider.
(202) 234*4433 Following your presentation, the NRC staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 will caucus in a separate breakout room on WebEx, and upon our return we will a s k additional questi on s as necessary.
You will also have access to a separate breakout room if you wish to use.
At the end of this teleconference, I will be making closing remarks on behalf of the NRC and this meeting will be adjourned.
Now let ' s cover some of the meeting gu idelines of this conference. In accordance with our normal practice, any written materi a l you provi de today will be placed in the NRC's document management system.
It ' 11 be withheld from public disclosure until this matter is concluded.
NRC representatives may ask questions as they deem necessary after the caucus.
This meeting is being transcribed, therefore, i t's important that a l l i ndividuals speak clearly and identify themselves to assist the transcriber.
I n case the transcriber has follow-up questions, please remain in the teleconference for a few mi nutes after the meeting adjourns.
The written transcript will provide the NRC with a record of the information that is presented today and will be used in reaching a f i nal agency (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 decision in the matters that we will discuss.
The transcri p t i s not normal ly rel eased t o the public, however, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act, release would be considered, s ubject to redactions allowed by the Freedom of I nformation Act.
In accordance with the NRC enforc-ement policy and manual, this conference is closed to public observation because it involves t he findings of an NRC Office of I nvest i gati ons report t hat has not been publicly disclosed, and involves personal issues related to discriminat ion.
With the exception of the transcript already mentioned, no portion of this PEC shall be recorded.
And in addit i on, informati on d i scussed in this PEC cannot be discussed in the public domain by NRC staff, TVA staff, or other concerned individu a l s.
- Today, no final NRC decision will be discussed, made, or announced at this meeting.
The parties will be informed in writing if the NRC decides to take an enforcement action.
Based on the availability of the transcript and supplemental information you may provide, we plan to make a final determination by the end of J u l y.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 Does anyone have any questions regarding the agenda or leading guidelines that I
just described?
MR. SHEA :
I do not.
MR. WI LSON:
Wit h that, at this time, Ms.
Thompson will provide an overview of the enforcement policy, followed by Mr. Solorio's overview of the case specifics.
MS. THOMPSON:
We are conducting today's teleconference to obtain information related to an apparent violation of the NRC's employee protection rule, 10 CFR 50. 7, and 10 CFR 50. 5 for deliberate misconduct.
The NRC has determined that you appar,ently engaged in deliberate misconduct because Tennessee Valley Authority, an NRC
- licensee, discriminated against the former manager of emerging regulatory
- issues, Ms.
- Wetzel, for engaging in protected activities. Your actions resulted in a termination of Ms. Wetzel.
To ensure a
safety conscious work environment, a high value is placed on employees being free to raise nuclear safety concerns, regardless of the merits of the concern.
(202) 234-4433 The NRC's authority is limited to taking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 an enforcement action against the licensee or contractor, would we make a finding of discrimination.
As appropriate,
enforcement actions include issuing a notice of violation, assessing a civil penalty, issuing an order, modifying an NRC license, or, in criminal cases, referring to the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Over the years, the NRC has made referrals to DOJ and they have prosecuted some cases.
Additionally, nuclear workers may seek personal remedy regarding discrimination cases via the Department of Labor.
Because this subject matter involves pre-decisional discrimination information and findings by our Office of Investigations, this tel econference is closed to the public.
Ms.
Wetzel was invited to attend the teleconference and she is also on this teleconference.
She will be given the opportunity to provide comments for NRC ' s consideration.
It is important to note that this teleconference is pre-decisional and is an important step in our enforcement process.
We want to offer you an opportunity to make statements to us so that we can fully and thoroughly process the apparent violation.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 Our role is not to debate the facts with you, but to receive and process the information that's presented today.
This teleconference will provide an opportunity for the NRC to ask clarifying questions and it will provide you the opportunity to comment on the information that is provided in the conference letter, to provide or to present additional relevant information, such as aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and to also discuss corrective actions that have been taken, or are planned.
Presently, the concern is being processed in accordance with our guidelines on escalated enforcement.
In accordance with Section 6. 10 of the enforcement policy, the issue might be dispositioned at a Severity Level-I, -II, or -III violation.
The NRC is considering a
notice of violation or a ban.
A notice of violation describes the NRC requirement that was
- violated, the circumstances of the violation, the severity level of the violation, and may require a written response.
The NRC considers issuing a ban to a licensee official when their actions are deliberate and result in the NRC no longer having reasonable assurance that license activi ties will be conducted in (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 an adequate manner.
Bans are typically fixed at one, three, or five years.
When the NRC determines the length of a ban, we consider the position of the individual in the organization and the significance of the underlying violation.
We will conduct an internal agency panel to make a final decision.
In addition to what has previously been developed by the NRC' s Office of I nvestigations, we will consider information presented today.
If the agency determines that a violation of 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 50.7 occurred, you will receive a
public notification of the agency's enforcement action. Additionally, the NRC will issue a press release.
The possible outcomes for escalated enforcement actions include the issuance of a notice of violation, or the issuance of an order for a one to five-year ban.
Additionally, a potential outcome is that no enforcement action is taken by the NRC. Dave?
MR. SOLORIO:
Good morning, can you hear me okay, Joe and Nathan?
(202) 234*4433 MR. SHEA:
Yes, I can.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SOLORIO:
16 Thank you.
At this time,
I'll provide a summary of the apparent viol ation and then I'll turn things over to you, Joe.
The purpose of the NRC Investigation 2-2019-015 was to determine whether Ms. Wetzel was the subject of employment discrimination for participating in a protected activity, in violation of the NRC ' s employee protections, specifically 50.7.
The NRC determined that Ms. Wetzel was apparently placed on paid administrative leave on October 15, 2018 and terminated on January 14, 2019, in part for engaging in protected activities.
Between 2016 and ' 17, Ms. Wetzel raised numerous safety concerns, including violations of Part 26 fatigu e rule at Watts Bar, failure to adhere to the Fukushima requirements at Sequoyah, concerns regarding a Watts Bar 2 surveillance extension request,
and failure to meet NRC commitments in Information Notice 2017 - 03 t o ident ify Anchor/Darling double - disc gate valve s usceptibility to failure at Browns Ferry.
Ms. Wetzel also raised concerns about a chilled work environment.
Ms. Wetzel also wrote condition reports and discussed safety issues during meetings.
activi ties.
(202) 234-4433 All of these above are protected NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 NRC staff reviewed the evidence gathered during the NRC OI investigations, and determined the actions taken against Ms. Wetzel were an apparent violation of the NRC' s rule prohibiting deliberate misconduct, 10 CFR 5.55(a).
Based on the evidence developed during the investigations and subsequent staff analysis, it appears that you, as the vice president of regulatory affairs, engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused an NRC licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, employee protection.
Next slide.
10 CFR 50. 55 (a) states in the relevant part that any employee of a licensee may not, one,
engage in deliberate misconduct if it causes, or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued by the Commission.
10 CFR 50. 7 (a) states in t he relevant part that discrimination by a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited.
Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation terms, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 conditions, or privileges of employment.
Next s l ide.
Between October 15, 2018 and January 1 4, 2019, you apparently engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused TVA, an NRC l i censee,
to discriminate against a former corporate employee for engaging in protected activity.
Specifically, Ms.
Wetzel engaged in protected activity by raising concerns of a chilled work environment to you and a TVA attorney during a TVA Office of General Counsel i nvest i gation.
After becoming aware of this prot,ected activity, you, as t he Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, placed Ms. Wetzel on paid administrative leave and played a significant role in terminating her.
Your apparent actions were based at least i n part on Ms. Wetzel engaging in prot ected activi ty.
George?
MR. WILSON :
Thank you, Dave.
Mr. Shea,
we ' re ready for your presentati on.
MR. SHEA:
Thank you, Mr. Solorio, thank you, Mr. Wil son.
Before we start, just for the recorder,
I've been advised that my microphone is very sensitive and page-turni ng can be d i stracti ng, so if there's any (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 problem with that please let me know.
Other than that, I wi l l get started.
Good morning.
As you ' ve just heard, my name is Joe Shea and I am the Vice President of Nuclear Technology I nnovation at the Tennessee Vall ey Authority, TVA.
During the period of time we'll be discussing today, I served as the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Support Services at TVA.
I want to t h ank you all for the opportunity to discuss the allegations raised in the NRC' s March 2,
2020 notice of apparent violation during this pre-decisional enforcement conference.
I have great respect for the NRC's enforcement process and for the integrity that I have seen the NRC staff and executives bring to that process, dating back to my first exposure to the NRC ' s enforcement process when I was a junior NRC employee back in the earl y 1990s.
I take t he allegations t hat the NRC has lodged against me very seriously.
As I will discuss i n detail today, it is absolutely wrong to conclude that at any time I deliberately took actions that I knew would cause the Tennessee Valley Authority to discri minate against Ms.
Wetzel for engaging in (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 protected activities.
The charge against me is simply not true and you will see that demonstrated in my contemporaneous emails, notes, and documents you have before you.
I will show you that my actions, with respect to Ms. Wetzel, were aimed at remedying a situation where one of the managers in my organization was engaged in inappropriate conduct directed at her s upervi sor, Erin Henderson.
As a leader, I have a responsibility to all of my employees to ensure they do not come to work in a
hostile work environment or a
harassing workplace,
and I had that responsibility to Erin Henderson.
The TVA Code of Conduct that is in place today, a nd was also in place in 2018, makes clear that if harassment is found to have occurred, appropriate discipl inary action, up to and including termination of employment, will be taken.
The TVA 2018 Code of Conduct is provided in Exhibit 1.
The NRC itself says i n its safety culture of traits for a respectful work environment,
that leaders should not demonst rate or tolerate bullying or humiliating behaviors.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 Moreover, the statements Ms. Wetzel made to me were simply unprofessional and unacceptable for a manager to make in any workplace, much less a federal agency, which TVA is.
Today, we ' ll walk through my actions, and the organization ' s
- actions, with respect to Ms.
Wetzel.
By way of outline for my presentation, first I will give you a brief background of myself and my own experience raising nuclear safety concerns.
Then my attorney will give an overview of the legal matters related to this case.
Next, I will discuss how Ms.
Wetzel made statements to me on multiple occasions, about Ms.
Henderson, that I
believe were neither true, nor raised in good faith.
Then I will show you how, when faced with those statements, I repeatedly and consistently asked for assistance from the appropriate TVA resou rces, namely t he Office of General Counsel and Human Resources on how to address Ms. Wetzel conduct.
Throughout this presentation, you will see I was focused on Ms. Wetzel inappropriate conduct, not any protected activities she may have engaged in.
Indeed, none of these issues are nuclear safety issues, these are internal personnel issues I was addressing, and seeki ng hel p to address, within my (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 own organization.
I will show you that I had no preconceived notions when I first referred Ms. Wetzel's conduct to OGC and HR as to what the outcome may be.
And I will show you that I followed applicable TVA processes, namely the TVA Executive Review Board, to ensure adverse employment action against Ms. Wetzel was taken for appropriate reasons, and not because of her protected activity.
Finally, I will show you why I simply would not have engaged in the conduct alleged here.
In a
- moment, my attorney will provide a
short discussion of the legal standards that apply here, and preview why no violation of 10 CFR 50. 5 occurred.
But before he does t hat, I
want to emphasize to you, the board members, that I have been honored and privileged to have been able to have a career of nearly 40 years in public service and I strongly want t o continue in that.
I ndeed, to the best I can recount, every job I have held since I was 18 has been in public service, or in support of public service, at the local, state, or federal level.
In brief, I have served a little over 5 years in the United States Navy, approximately 19 (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 years at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
My time at the NRC included service to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as a licensing project manager; in the Office of the Executive Director for Operations,
as Chief of the Regional Operations Section; and the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response as the Director of Nuclear Security Policy; and finally, in Region II, i n roles that included Director of Reactor Projects, Reactor Safety, and Fuel Facility Inspection.
For nearly the last ten years, I've continued in public service at the Tennessee Valley Authority, and I' 11 briefly describe some of my tenure at TVA later in the presentation.
Across these years of service, I have first been instructed, then learned to experience, and then taught and nurtured the critical importance of being able to ask questions if I feel I
lack knowledge, and to reasonably expect an answer; of being able to raise a concern if I am unsure of something or I think something is not right, and to have my concern addressed; and ultimately, being able to express, with all my skill and passion, an issue (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 4 where I believe my team or organization are standing at a danger, and expecting no harm will come if I have raised the issue within the highest ethical standards,
incl uding with integrity and sincerity.
I truly bel ieve that I have adhered to these principles throughout all of my career.
I will certainly never claim that I am
- perfect, and this experience has prompted me to reflect closely on the facts and circumstances we are here today to discuss.
I would like to firmly reiterate that retaliating against someone for raising a nuclear safety issue would be against everything I have ever l earned, experienced, and espoused in my lengthy public service car eer.
And it didn't happen here.
While I provide some discrete examples of where I have had the opportunity to raise concerns that are reflective of a
range of my personal experi ences,
I offer these examples to you in an effort to show that I personally know what it's like to raise concerns that others may not want to hear.
These examples have instilled in me the sensitivity towards and appreciation for others who themselves raise such concerns.
(202) 234*4433 I n 2012, while serving in my capacity at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 TVA as Vice President of Licensing,
TVA was under extremely regulatory pressure to submit a high-quality license application for a transition to National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 on a
non-negotiable NRC deadline.
At that time, I was struggling mightily with my TVA peers, who I believe were not supporting a sufficient quality standard in terms of completeness and accuracy.
Those senior management and executive peers kept reporting to the Chief Nuclear Officer that our submittal was on schedule,
when myself and my subordinates knew that it was not.
The CNO at that time was nearly exclusively focused on ensuring the application was submitted on time.
That put me, the most junior member of the nuclear executive leadership team, in the position of informing my senior vice president that we were off schedule, contradicting the reports of my peers.
- However, I went into his office, armed with facts developed by my subordinates, presented the issue and recovery plans, and I was supported.
And I think this example shows how I was not afraid to speak up on behalf of my team when I see and issue.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In 2 0 07, as Di vision Director in NRC' s Region II Office, I had a significant disagreement on the NRC' s position on an apparent violation against an individual in the nuclear industry.
To my recollection, I provided my view of the facts supporting my concerns to the relevant NRC leadership, including the Acting Regional Administrator and the Director of the Office of Enforcement.
The discussion was professional but passionate,
and very strong words were used professionally, but very strongly.
I mentioned this instance because in this case, while my view did not prevail, as I hoped it
- would, I
was given the opportunity to raise those concerns and did not suffer consequences.
That resonates with me all these years later because that's how I want others to view their int eractions with me, that they can have professional but passionate discussions and know that the same outcome of no consequence will result.
And f inally, one of the most lasting memories I have in my professional life occurred when I was serving as staff to the NRC's then-executive director for operati ons.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 At an annual NRC leadership forum, the EDO reacted to a presentation regarding diversity concerns among the staff, which reaction disturbed some of the agency's senior leaders.
My
- view, as a
leader,
even the EDO couldn't address an issue if he wasn't made aware of it, including one that had potentially significant impact to the health and culture of that agency.
So, I found the EDO in a quiet setting and presented the facts as they had been presented to me by other senior leaders, and as I had observed them.
And while visibly stunned, the EDO reacted with a degree of gratitude that I had had the courage to be the one to bring this issue to his attention,
and I suffered no adverse consequences.
Collectively, these experiences, and many others that I have experienced across my career, have instilled in me the value of being able to raise concerns without fear of ret a liation.
My team at TVA also felt they could raise issues to me without fear of retaliation, and at least one example from this time period is provided to you in Exhibit 2.
These experiences also support my confidence that I have never intentionally retaliated (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 against anyone who participated in 28 protected activities.
And I am also confident that today's discussion will bear out that my actions, vis-a-vis Ms. Wetzel, were ethical, in concert with processes such as they existed, and supported by counsel from leaders and support organizations.
I will now t urn it over to my attorney to speak on my behalf.
MR. WALSH:
Thank you, Joe. I'm Tim Walsh of the Pillsbury Law Firm.
As Joe's representative here today, I want to emphasize for the NRC the high legal standard that must be met to make a finding of deliberate misconduct here.
I n order to make such a finding, the staff must determine that an individual intentionally sought to cause a violation of a Commission requirement.
Here, in 10 CFR 50.7, it is a very high standard.
As Joe will show you today, his actions come nowhere close to that standard.
The NRC has alleged that Joe has engaged in deliberate misconduct under 50.5 that caused TVA to violate the employee protection requirements of 50.7.
The Commission's regulations, orders, and other statements interpreting these regulations make (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 explicit that a finding of deliberate misconduct requ ires an intent to commit wrongdoing.
Specifically, the rule states that deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or omission that the person knows would cause the licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order.
The facts we will lay out for you show that is not true, but before we get to the facts, it is important to consider the Commission ' s own words when promulgating 50.5.
This is because the Commission crafted a deliberate misconduct rule to apply only in extreme circumstances, where intent to commit wrongdoing was clear.
I will now refer statements the Commission made when promulgating the rule in 1991.
This is available at 56 Federal Register 40654.
In that rulemaking, the Commission explicitly stated that the deliberate misconduct rule applies only to individuals who deliberately set in motion events that would cause a viol ation.
Stated differently, the Commission explained that an individual acting in this manner has the requisite intent to act in a wrongful manner.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 The Commission also made clear that the del i berat e mis conduct rule does not apply i n cases of negligence, honest mistakes, or ignorance, or in cases where people may have made mistakes while acting in good faith.
The Commission has also explained that 50. 5 does not include accidental careless disregard for the requirements.
50.5 is a narrower rule that applies only to deliberate misconduct.
The Commiss i on made c l ear that, quote,
under this narrower rule, the range of actions that would s ubject an individual to action by the Commission does not differ significantly from the range of actions that might subject the individual to criminal prosecu t i on, c l ose quote.
The NRC claims that Joe intentionally took some action knowing that it would cause a violation of 50.7, as to overcome an additional hurdle, and that hurdle is 50. 7(d), which explicit ly provides in part that actions taken by an employer or others, which adversely affect an employee, may be predicated upon non -di scriminatory grounds.
And an employee' s engagement in protected activity does not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or disc i p l ine for l egitimate (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 reasons,
or from adverse action dictated by non-prohibited considerations.
So, when evaluating whether Joe took act ion knowing it would cause a violation of 50. 7, the staff must l ook at all of 50.7 including 50.7 (d).
We note for the record that the Office of Investigations report contains no discussion of 50. 7(d).
While this may be an oversight, the staff must consider that regulation when evaluating Joe's intent.
Joe will show you that he did not act with any deliberate intent to cause a violation of 50. 7,
nor did he act with any careless disregard for 50.7, either.
The enforcemen t manual defines carel ess disregard as where an individual is usual of the existence, meaning, or appl icabil ity of a requirement, but nevertheless proceeds to engage in conduct that the individua l knows may cause a violation.
That definition does not fit the circumstances here.
Here,
Joe took action for entirely non-discriminatory and non-prohibited reasons.
Joe will show you that he believed that Ms. Wetzel was engaging in a pattern of conduct that (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 violated TVA ' s rules and policies when making unfounded statements about her supervisor, Erin Henderson.
Joe will explain to you that he knew, or reasonably believed, that the statements Ms. Wetzel was making could not be true, or not made in good faith.
Joe will show you that when confronted with these statements, he asked for help.
He again acted in good faith by seeking assistance from human resources and the Office of General Counsel in determining what he should do.
At one point during the series of events -- and Joe will show you the emails -- Joe recommended to the Office of General Counsel that Ms. Wetzel be interviewed to find out more about the basis of her statement.
Asking the appropriate internal resources for assistance in how to handle a personnel issue is not the mark of a person who is intending to engage in wrongdoing.
Again, it is worth repeating.
Asking for help in how to handle a personnel matter does not show an intent to violate any requirement; it shows intent to do what is right.
As Joe showed you, the Office of General Counsel disagreed with Joe's recommendation for good reason.
(202) 234-4433 Joe considered that recommendation and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 accepted it.
Ultimatel y, Joe came to the conclu s i on that Ms. Wetzel ' s actions warranted discipline.
The Office of General Counsel reviewed the facts at hand and determined that separating Ms.
Wetzel from the company was legally supportable, and made that recommendation to Joe, either by a no-fault separation agreement or by termination at management's discretion.
Wi th this recommendati on i n hand,
Joe evaluated the facts and circumstances and determined to move forward with separation of Ms. Wetzel from the company, first by offering her a no-fault separation agreement.
Joe then followed TVA ' s process,
specifically designed to ensure that employment actions are not taken for prohibited consideration,
the Executive Review Board.
Joe presented the proposed action to the Executive Review Board, or ERB,
and the ERB concluded that legitimate reasons were the basis for separating Ms. Wetzel from the company.
The bottom l ine is t hat all of the evidence here shows that Joe acted in good faith -every step of the way.
This is not easy : holding people accountabl e for the i r actions, ensu r i ng a harassment-(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 free workplace, fostering a safety conscious work Environmen t.
No one does it perfectly but the evidence shows that Joe's passions were motivated only to ensure that harassing behavior stopped, not any technical concerns or alleged chilled work environment concerns anyone may have raised.
Before I turn it back over to Joe, I just want to note that we submitted to the NRC a set of exhibits in support of Joe's presentation today.
Those exhibits are identified as Exhibits 1 through 33.
Accompanying the records, is a book review summary of the information contained in the exhibits, and a detailed table of contents explaining the relevance of each document within it.
Joe and I will refer to those exhibits today, and our presentation will also be provided to you as Exhibit 34.
I 'll turn it over to Joe now and speak with you again at the end of his presentation.
Joe?
MR. SHEA:
Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
As I mentioned in my opening, I want to first address the apparent violation lodged against me in this proceeding.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 I unequivocally deny that at any time I deliberately took actions that I knew would cause the Tennessee Valley Authority to discriminate against Ms.
Wetzel for engaging in protected activity.
I'd like to expand on that statement in terms of some of the guidance available, that I anticipate you may use in your decision-making, and I'd like you to hear my perspective on those criteria.
With regards to specific criteria in Section 1.1.2 of Part 2 of the enforcement manual, Criterion 1, I do agree and I was in fact aware and knowledgeable that a requirement exists in 10 CFR 50. 7 prohibiting discrimination against an employee for participating in a protected activity.
Criteria 2.
I do not agree that a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred.
- Rather, in proceeding through, and ultimately signing the action related to Ms. Wetzel's termination, I was then and remain convinced that it was taken on non-prohibited grounds.
To amplify, I did understand that Ms.
Wetzel had taken part in, or potentially taken part in, more than one protected activity.
- However, I
acted to separate Ms. Wetzel from the company under a full belief that the action was being taken responsive (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 to finding that Ms. Wetzel had participated in an ongoing campaign of disrespectful and harassing conduct, that included repeated statements that her s upervisor had initiated inappropriate investigations of TVA employees for a v indictive motive, despite having no reasonable basis or specific knowledge to support those statements.
This is a finding that I was provided after I sought input from the Office of General Counsel, whose staff had investigated the i ssues and who were knowledgeable of applicable protections provided to TVA employees.
The finding presented to me from the OGC investigation was consistent with my own experience from Ms.
Wetzel's statements a nd behaviors that developed over the late spring and summer of 2018.
Additionally, it is a lso important t o note that Ms. Wetzel was a leader and supervisor of others,
and TVA holds managers to higher standard of conduct that does not allow for her conduct here.
The TVA Code of Conduct requires managers to, quote, exhibit the highest standards of ethical conduct at all times and avoid behavior that could be reasonably perceived as improper.
Because of this sustained disrespectful (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 and harassing conduct, I acted to separate Ms. Wetzel from the company with t he knowledge that Ms. Wetzel was discharged for legitimate reasons apart from any of her protected activity, consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 50. 7(d).
Returning again to the criteria from Section l. 1. 2 of Part 2, I do agree t hat the actions I took from the point in time that I received the complaint of harassment filed by Ms. Henderson on March 9,
20 18, through signing of Ms.
Wetzel 's termination letter in January 2019, were voluntary.
I agree that I did know the requirements i n 10 CFR 50. 7, in their entirety, were applicable. And lastly, I did not know and do not agree that my actions were contrary to those requirements.
In fact, I had and have multiple reasons to bel ieve they were fully compli a nt with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.7(d).
As I will take you through today, my basis for Ms. Wetzel ' s termination included several factors.
The recommendation from the Office of General Counsel that terminati on was appropri ate, my own knowledge that Ms. Wetzel ' s statements against Ms. Henderson were entirely non-safety-related matters, but rather personnel matters, and the fact that this act i on went (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 through TVA ' s Executive Review Board process to ensure the distinction between a
prohibited and non-prohibited basis existed.
The bottom line is that the personnel action involving Ms. Wetzel is a personnel matter that has an independent basis entirely separate from any protected disclosures.
Specifically, it was solely aimed at the critical imperative of ensuring a harassment - free workplace.
I acted conscientiously to meet the requirements of other governing rules and policies, including maintaining both a safety conscious work environment and a harassment-free workplace, and I did not act out of retaliatory motive.
I would like to transition to today's discussion of a
sequence of events, by briefly describing the evolution of the corporate l icensing organization during my tenure as vice president.
I will then review the harassment-free policies that TVA implements in its workplace.
On this basis, I will get to a discussion of the facts and circumstances that are the reasons we are here today, and show you that I took care and acted in good faith when addressing Ms. Wetzel's conduct.
(202) 234-4433 I joined TVA as a manager for Watts Bar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 Unit 1 Licensing and Regulatory Matters in 2010.
By
- 2011, we were facing several significant regulatory issues, including, for example, the placement of Browns Ferry site into Column 4 of the NRC ROP action matrix, and other significant issues at Sequoyah and Watts Bar, that had the risk of placing them in Column 3 or 4 of the action matrix as well.
My leadership approach in this extreme situation was focused on recovering and restoring regulatory expertise to the corporate office.
Under this approach, by 2014, several of those key regulatory challenges facing TVA in 2011 had moved to a better place.
At that time, that is in
- 2014, TVA senior leadership asked me to focus on long-term organizational optimization and developing f uture leadership capability within my team.
This eventually led to the hiring of Ms.
Henderson into the position of Senior Manager of Operating Fleet Licensing in the summer of 2015.
During the recruiting process for this position, I received a call from Ms. Wetzel where she specifically expressed to me that she felt Ms.
Henderson was too inexperienced to be a senior manager of regulatory affairs.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40
- However, what I was looking for in a candidate was different than what Ms. Wetzel perceived as needed.
I needed leadership in my group.
I had regulatory expertise within the team, but I was looking for someone who had the leadership capability to bring the organization forward, and Ms. Henderson clearly exceeded the other candidates in that regard.
Upon hiring Ms. Henderson, I impressed on her the challenges and themes in the corporate team's morale in improving safety culture.
Ms.
Henderson told me her approach
- included, among other things,
having one-on-one discussions with every individual on the team and to l et them express whatever concerns they had about the existing state of the organization.
I was very satisfied with her overall approach and thought that it showed the mark of a good leader.
I ndeed, from 2015 to early 2018, during Ms.
Henderson's tenure,
the Corporate Nuclear Licensing team had undergone a series of reviews of safety conscious work environment within the group.
These reviews included the NRC's own inspections, ECP investigations, and safety conscious (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 work environment pulsing surveys.
And much to Ms. Henderson's credit, none of those reviews or investigations found that Corporate Nuclear Licensing team members were chilled.
In fact, the data from these reviews indicated an improving safety conscious work environment trend.
That's not to say we were perfect, but consistent with my personal history and strong beliefs in a safety conscious work environment, when we learned of potential issues in the group, we took action.
For example, in my Exhibit 3 is a reply to an Employee Concerns Program corrective action letter by David Czufin detailing the actions in 2016, after a concern was raised in our group.
This 2016 ECP investigation noted there were some indications that the concerned individual was reluctant to raise non-nuclear concerns to Corporate Nuclear Licensing management.
Corrective actions were taken to address those
- concerns, including a
meeting with all supervisors and above in the Corporate Nuclear Licensing group on October 11, 2016 to review and discuss TVA procedure STP 11.8. 4, expressing concerns and differing view, as wel 1 as instruction to all (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 licensing supervisors and above to hold meetings with their direct-reports to open a dialog and obtain feedback.
Also relevant to today's discussion is TVA ' s policies on maintaining a workplace that is free from harassment and other inappropriate behaviors.
For example,
TVA's Code of Conduct, in effect in 2018, states that managers are to exhibit the highest standards of ethical conduct at all times and avoid behavior t hat could be reasonably per cei ved as improper.
The Code of Conduct also states that TVA strives to provide a workplace for employees that is free from menacing or harassing behaviors.
The 2018 Code of Conduct even provided an exampl e where a team member is constantl y insulting another team member and states, a co-workers constant insults are not consistent with TVA values.
In additional to TVA's policies,
I received several sets of training on employee rights and responsibilities for managers and supervisors, and management actions to promote a safety conscious work environment.
In those trainings, it is reiterated time and time again that harassment,
intimidation, retaliation, and discrimination against individual s (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 who raised concerns will not be tolerated, and t hat I had principal responsibility as a supervisor for ensuring my employees are not subject to harassment,
inti midation,
retaliation, or discrimination for raising concerns.
My personal view is to provide a work environment where employees feel valued, respected, and encouraged to raise concerns.
These considerations, Corporat e Nuclear Licensing group performance, safety culture, a nd safety conscious work environment, and our policies prohibiting harassment and inappropriate behaviors,
all came to the fore for me beginning in March 2018.
I will now turn to the matters at hand.
The iss ues had roots prior to March 2018.
As I will describe for you, there were points where I was aware of performance management issues relating t o Ms.
Wetzel.
As I told you, Erin was brought in t o improve the group ' s performance, and t here was some tension in that.
None of this was unexpected, so I worked to help the matters as best I could.
As I stated earlier, Ms. Wetzel called me during the recruiting process for Ms. Henderson ' s position in 2015 to state she believed Ms. Henderson (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 was too inexperienced.
I made no comment to Ms. Wetzel at that time, because I was engaged in active hiring process.
- Again, as I noted earlier,
I was focused on the candidates ' leadership ability, an area in which Ms.
Henderson had clearly exceeded the other candidates.
In fact, Ms. Henderson came to the final interview with a full 90- day plan prepared on how to address performance issues in the Corporate Nuclear Licensing group.
I next recall that in January of 2016 I had a meeting with Ms. Henderson where Ms. Wetzel's performance was discussed.
I subsequently had a meeting with Ms.
Wetzel, and my notes from my meeting with Ms. Wetzel indicate that she was unsure of how to approach the performance management situation she faced.
- There, I suggested that Ms. Wetzel may benefit from a mentor and subsequently facilitated a mentorship for her with Mr. Greg Boerschig, who was the Vice President of Nuclear Oversight at the time.
As I recall, this mentorship lasted u ntil about 2017, when Mr. Boerschig had to take over as a temporary Site Vice President of Sequoyah.
My handwritten notes of this meeting with Ms. Wetzel are (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 provided in Exhibit 4.
In my view, pairing Ms. Wetzel with an experienced nuclear executive would provide a unique opportunity for growth and development and exposure on how to develop, as the company ' s expectations of its leaders were elevated.
Ms.
Henderson continued experiencing performance issues with Ms. Wetzel and in April of 2016 Ms. Henderson rated Ms. Wetzel as off-track in her midyear performance, as I provided in Exhibit 5.
Ms. Wetzel came to be very concerned about this off-track rating.
I engaged with Ms. Henderson on ways to performance-manage Ms. Wetzel.
At the end of 2016, Ms. Wetzel was not placed on a performance improvement plan and, in fact, was rated solid.
On July 3,
2017 I
have notes of a discussion I had with Ms. Wetzel about her performance on a written work product, where I provided direct feedback,
and frankly,
disappointment that some significant talent is in that work product, and we discussed how she could improve.
However, on the Anchor/Darling disc gate valve response to the NRC that Ms.
Wetzel was responsibl e for, there were again similar issues with that work product.
Namely, Ms. Wetzel provided a (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 written work product with significant quality gaps to Ms. Henderson very c l os e to when signature on the product was due.
Both Ms. Henderson and I had to challenge Ms. Wetzel and her staff to increase the quality in the product before it was submitted, which she ultimately did do.
I raise these performance issues only because they informed my understanding at the time that there was some tension between Ms. Henderson and Ms. Wetzel, based on Ms. Wetzel ' s performance issues.
Al though they represented a source of tension,
I did not in any way perceive that my organization, myself, or Ms. Henderson were being unresponsive to nucl ear safety and qua l ity concerns.
Rather, as the Anchor/Darling situation reflects, the tens i on arose from efforts to ensure we were elevati ng the quality of our regulatory products.
Thus, I was not unaware of that tension when Ms. Wetzel approached me in mid-February 2018 about the idea of a multi-month and potentially multi-year loaned employee arrangement up at the Nu c l ear Energy Institute in Washington D.C.
Based on my recollection, I
had a
favorabl e impression and reaction to Ms. Wetzel ' s (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 proposal.
I personally believe that the industry was best positioned to help itself through NEI by committing talented utility people to work on these issues and initiatives.
And I
also recall that Ms.
Wetzel indicated that an assignment could have had an additional positive attributes, namely, removing her from her stressful situations from her boss.
But I recall that Ms. Wetzel only made this comment in passing at the end of our conversation. Nevertheless,
the comment was not a surprise to me.
I will now turn to describing our process to loan Ms. Wetzel to NEI, but in adhering to the timeline, I first want to discuss Ms. Henderson's harassment complaint.
On March 9th at about 3:45, I received an email from Ms. Henderson in which she attached a written statement alleging a hostile environment.
This report followed a set of events and circumstances in the days preceding, in which Ms.
Henderson had become extremely upset with what she expressed was a sustained pattern of individuals across the themselves (202) 234*4433 regulatory organization conducting in a
highly disrespectful and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 unprofessional manner, the result of which, in her opinion, was a hostile environment in which she was precluded from fully discharging the requirements and responsibilities of her position.
She was so upset that she nearly quit, and as Ms. Henderson explained to you earlier this week, her March 2018 complaint was not the first time I learned of these issues.
She reported some previous occurrences to me and I tried to address them without s uccess.
Looking back at this time,
I readily acknowledge that Ms. Henderson should not have faced a situation where she believed her only recourse was to quit.
address To the extent that I did not do enough to her earlier
- concerns, I
accept full responsibility for that.
Based on discussions with human resources, the Office of General Counsel, and my management, it was determined that the Office of General Counsel, or
- OGC, would conduct the investigation into Erin's complaint.
To the best of my recollections, this decision was made for a couple of reasons.
Human resources was short-staffed at the time, and ECP had a lready reviewed similar or related issues within the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 regulatory affairs extended organization over the previ ous two years, a nd might no longer be percei ved as sufficiently independent.
I recall that after a consultant wi th senior management, i ncluding the Chief Nuclear Officer,
Ms. Henderson's complaint was provided to OGC.
I was initially the management point of contact for Ms.
Henderson's complaint for approximatel y one month, as I recall, but that rol e transitioned to David Czufin. Thereafter, I expected the investigation would proceed on its course and reach the result it would reach.
In turning the matter over to OGC in March, I had no expectation that i t would find for or against any one of the specific individuals listed in Ms. Henderson 's compl a i nt.
- However, over the course of the next several months, I was confronted with information from Beth Wetzel that I believed could have been related to Ms. Henderson ' s harassment complaint,
and some of which i nformation I believe or knew to be unfounded.
As I will detail now, I acted in good faith to see that this information was addressed in accordance wi th TVA' s pol icies and procedure.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 I will now turn to summarize the process to impl ement Ms. Wet zel' s NEI l oan assignment.
This process began almost immediately after she raised the opportunity in mid or late February. By mid-March the process was well underway.
Between March 19 and April 27, 2018, I was copied on numerous emails regarding the contract between NEI and TVA for Ms.
Wetzel ' s loan reassignment, as well as discussions regarding Ms.
Wetzel' s NEI l oanee confirmation agreement, and her travel reimbursement memorandum.
These emails and documents are included in Exhibit 6.
While these emails might seem like minutiae, I think it is important here to reit,erate how quickly the organizati on was able to take Ms.
Wetzel's request from idea to fruition.
Numerous people,
including myself,
Ms.
Henderson,
Wes Wingo from human resources,
and Jennifer Grace and David Codevilla from the Office of General Counsel were able to effectuate her request.
While the information available in Exhibit 6 details those interacti ons, I will highlight a few examples for you here and also on your screen.
On March 21,
2018 I
had a
meeting schedul ed for an NEI contract discussion, which (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 included Ms. Henderson, myself, Wes Wingo from HR, and David Codevilla from the Office of Gener a l Counsel.
The next
- day, March 22,
- 2018, Mr.
Codevilla sent the contract drafts to NEI's attorney.
On March 27th, Ms.
Henderson sent a follow-up email to her contact at NEI requesting the status of Ms. Wetzel ' s contract.
She then forwarded NEI' s response to myself and Ms. Wetzel.
Using her own contacts to move Ms. Wetzel NEI ' s contract forward showed that Ms. Henderson was working to facilitate Beth ' s assignment.
This qu ick progress in evidence that Ms.
Henderson was diligently pursuing the matter, was why I was surprised when I was contacted by Ms. Wetzel while I was on offici a l travel i n Oregon on either March 28th or March 29th indicating, in essence, that Ms. Henderson, was foot-dragg i ng on Ms. Wetzel's NEI loanee assignment.
Her claim was p u zzl ing and unfounded because, at this time, I was aware of t he progress that had been made, particularly that Ms. Henderson had just reached out to NEI to follow up on the progress.
In addition, Ms. Henderson forwarded that email exchange with NEI to Ms. Wetzel.
That email (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 exchange is included in my Exhibit 6.
I did not do anything in response to Ms.
Wetzel's comment at that time, other than to make a mental note of it.
Next in my presentation, I think it is very relevant to briefly go into detail surrounding the TVA travel voucher process.
It was during discussions of Beth's travel vouchers that she continued to make inappropriate statements.
Relevant here, managers can delegate their review and approval authority for any travel vouchers that do not exceed 100 percent of per diem.
Ms. Henderson and I had both delegated this authority to the same person, Carla Edmondson, who was my administrative assistant.
I say this because there was no functional difference in whether it was myself or Ms. Henderson who approved Ms. Wetzel's vouchers.
Ms. Edmondson reviews and approves the travel vouchers initially, whether or not it is myself or Ms. Henderson who were technically listed as approvers for Ms. Wetzel.
Ms.
Wetzel had a long, comfortable working relationship with Ms. Edmondson.
Ms. Wetzel was very familiar with the travel voucher process.
(202) 234*4433 Now that you have a base of understanding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 for events occurring up to this point, I would like to go through t h e speci f i c stat ements Ms. Wet zel made during the NEI assignment contracting and travel voucher process, why they raised red flags to me, and how I addressed them.
Soon after Ms.
Wetzel contacted me in Oregon, she sent me a n email on March 29th, alleging that Ms. Henderson was trying to block her NEI loanee assignment.
I will read from the parts, relevant parts of the email, which is in Exhibit 7.
In this email, Ms. Wetzel alleged that we were not using the same contract for her assignment that were used in previous loanee assignments and alleged that Ms. Henderson was attempting to b l ock her l oanee opportunity.
She alleged, if my boss is going t o be unreasonable wi th NEI and effectively block my loanee opportunity, would you please tell me so I know what to do next?
I was struck by this allegation because it was so apparent that Ms. Henderson had been working di l igently for Ms. Wetzel ' s loanee assignment and Ms.
Wetzel had seen this same correspondence.
Indeed, a few hours after Ms. Wetzel' s email, Ms. Henderson forwarded me the latest markup of (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 the contract, as you can see in Exhibit 8.
It was also not true that Ms. Henderson had imposed the use of an inappropriate contract template.
The contract template we were using was negotiated between TVA and NEI and had changed under purview of TVA and NEI attorneys since the prior examples Ms. Wetzel cited in her email.
I did not take any actions at this time, other than asking Ms. Wetzel to speak to Mr. Codevilla in OGC about her concerns.
Again, it was Mr.
Codevilla drafting the contract, not Ms. Henderson.
As you can see in Exhibit 6, Ms. Wetzel was copied on several subsequent iterations of the contract and had a few back and forth exchanges with Mr. Codevilla.
I did not do anything further with Ms.
Wetzel's March 29 email.
Now, for just a few dates before I go onto the next email, Ms. Wetzel's contract with NEI was fully executed by all parties on April 13 and is provided in your Exhibit 9.
Ms. Henderson signed a loanee letter to Ms. Wetzel on April 27, 2018, notifying Ms. Wetzel that she would be in continuous travel status for the NEI assignment, with details as provided in your (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 Exhibit 10.
Ms.
Wet zel s t arted her NEI loanee assignment on or about April 29.
From the best of my recollections, the i nitiation of Ms.
Wetzel ' s NEI assignment had progressed smoothly from the time that she started on April 29.
However, on May 7, 2018, Ms. Wetzel sent an email to me expressing concern regarding the lack of detai l in her travel reimbursement memorandum.
She observed, in effect, that it was less detail than she desired.
Specifically, her email stated, I
am concerned with the lack of commitment to write the details that we worked on as a team for my TVA reimbursements, and said she was shocked to see what Erin sent out.
It was, to a large degree, true that we had discussed providing a discussion of the treatment of likely expenses in her memo.
However,
I later learned from the Office of General Counsel that provi d i ng s uch a detail ed expl anation may put TVA at risk of violating the federal travel regulations if TVA ' s own memo confl icted with those regulations for Ms. Wetzel' s reimbursements.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 Thus, her travel memorandum simply stated that she would be reimburs e d in accordance wi t h the applicable federal travel regulations, which are s ubject to change at any time.
Preparing the travel memorandum in this way was consi stent with prior practice.
Ms. Wetzel ' s email continued, and I was very distinctly disturbed by the second element of the email, which is provided in Exhibit 11 and which is d i spl ayed on your screen, and which I will quote here.
Quote, I will be processing large travel vouchers through Carla,
and will follow all TVA, federal,
and NEI requirements to the best of my ability.
I know I will get audited, based on the amount of doll ars that will be processed through vouchers, and I believe all the research the team did wil l result i n clean a ud i ts.
However, I know that Erin has used HR to investigate people, reported peopl e to ECP, threatened to have people for-cause drug tested, pulled badge and gate records, and probably a lot more actions that I'm not aware of.
She has demonstrated a
longstanding pattern of using TVA processes as punitive and retaliatory tool s.
Based on the l ack of detail in her (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 NEI loanee confirmation 2018 document, I anticipate her using my travel vouchers as an investigative tool.
Unquote.
These allegations concerned me.
I thought it was unusual that Ms.
Wetzel would raise Ms.
Henderson ' s reporting of issues through HR, given that as a leader, if Ms. Wetzel thought about that at all, she would recognize that Ms. Henderson was obligated to have a potential HR conflict addressed.
As I stated in my OI intervi ew, I
was aware of and involved in the decision to inform Human Resources of the ethics concern involving Michelle Conner and Mr. McBrearty.
We were required to raise that issue, based on the information we had.
Related to that issue, I also knew that Ms.
Henderson could not have had badge and gate records pulled from her instruction based on her position, and I suspect that Ms. Wetzel knew this too.
For another example, I was aware that on February 23, 2018, Ms. Henderson had relayed a concern to HR rai sed by one of her direct reports regarding an incident where another employee had raised concerns of a chilled work environment against Ed Schrull.
- Again, Ms.
Henderson was required to request such an investigation where those concerns (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 were raised.
And that HR investigation substantiated that allegation.
However, the most troubling statement from Ms.
Wetzel was the unfounded assertion that Ms.
Henderson had taken probably a lot more actions that I'm not aware of.
These words in particular demonstrated to me that Ms. Wetzel was comfortable spreading false, or at least unsubstantiated, information about Ms.
Henderson by stating this to me.
By the very words Ms. Wetzel used, actions that I am not aware of, she acknowledged the unfounded nature of the reference to, probably a lot more actions.
Finally, Ms. Wetzel also proposed in her email that I be her approver on travel vouchers.
This was odd as I previously explained Ms.
Edmondson approved the travel vouchers initially, whether or not it was myself or Ms. Henderson which were technically listed as approvers for Ms. Wetzel.
Upon my concern in reading the allegation in Ms. Wetzel's email, I forwarded the email to Amanda Poland in HR and Jennifer Grace at OGC, as shown in Exhibit 12 and as you can see on your screen.
The NRC Office of Investigation report suggests, at Page 43, that it was inappropriate for me (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 to send Ms. Wetzel's email to OGC when I knew that OGC was investigating Ms.
Henderson's harassment complaint.
I disagree, and more importantly, that mischaracterizes what I did.
As I
stated at the beginning of today's presentation, I sought advice from internal resources when I was unsure how to proceed.
Here, I sought advice on how to handle Ms.
Wetzel's allegations and whether they should be provided to John Slater within the scope of his current OGC investigation, or an alternate approach.
Either struck me as reasonable.
On one
- hand, the ongoing Slater investigation was intended, in my mind, to examine into the full set of facts behind Ms. Henderson's claims, including any involvement by Ms. Wetzel, even if that investigation ultimately found that Ms.
Henderson's claim was not valid or valid only in parts.
On the other hand, I also stated in my email, please advise if you agree or see a different way to act on this.
My meaning was that, if OGC felt a
different
- approach, such as a
separate investigation, should be used, then that would have (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 been reasonable as well.
At that time, I did not have any direct knowledge about what Ms. Wetzel had tol d the attorney investigator,
because t he investigation was still ongoing.
Ms. Grace of OGC responded that same day, writing, thank you, I will pr ovide this to Mr. Slater.
I was the person who interfaced with HR manager Wes Wingo on outlining her travel
- details, so I
am familiar with t his. This response is also provided in Exhibit 12.
The following week, I responded to Ms.
Wetzel' s May 7 email, having received input from Ms.
Grace on how to respond, as provided in Exhibits 13 and 14.
I explained to Ms. Wetzel why TVA decided to not write a separate memo for her on the federal travel regulations.
Ms.
Wetzel had requested a detailed memorandum on her obl igations under the federal travel regulations, wh ich I
initially supported, but it was later determined by OGC that we should not attempt to rewrite the federal travel regulations ourselves, and rather, direct Ms. Wetzel to t he original document.
(202) 234-4433 I then addressed the allegations she had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 made against Ms. Henderson, stating, as a separate
- matter, you raised some very serious assertions against your supervisor. I have turned these over for f urther evaluation to an appropriately independent review party. You may be apprised of any conclusions, if it is appropriate to share, when that review is completed.
As a result, I understood, at this time, that the items listed in Ms. Wetzel' s May 7,email would be addressed by the ongoing independent investigation into Ms. Henderson's complaint being conducted by OGC.
By May 31, 2018, I received a copy of the original investigation report put together by Mr.
Slater in TVA OGC, which was dated May 25, 2018.
This report is provided in your Exhibit 15.
The report discussed a number of the elements that had been raised in Ms. Henderson's March 9 complaint.
However, I noted after I received it that the report did not mention the travel claim process issues I had forwarded to Jennifer Grace,
including the May 7 email references.
Thus, on May 31, 2018, I emailed Emily Walker in HR and copied Jennifer Grace and others,
noting my concern that the Slater report did not have (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 a reference to Ms. Wetzel's email allegations.
Specifi call y,
a s you can s ee on your screen and in Exhibit 16, I wrote in part, I think this is a relatively simple matter of an additional i nterview with Beth a nd Erin that p ul l s the string on each of Beth's itemized assertions.
And I
specifically think what ' s missed in the OGC treatment of Beth's emails is the assertion that Erin initiated HR investigations in a retaliatory or vindictive manner.
I strongly suspect that was actually a reference to the 2018 investigation Arcie Reeves did of Ed Schrull regarding the claim by one of Ed's employees that Ed had chilled the employee over a safety culture matter.
Which sounds similar to the protected whistleblower aspect thor oughly documented for Mike McB.
that Johnny so Regardless,
- again, regardless, I
need s upport in getting specific facts,
anal yses,
and conclusions that are independent.
Independent, as I used it in this context,
mean t s i mpl y a nalyses and conclusions draw by a party not linked organizationally close to me, Ms.
Henderson, or any of the individuals named by Ms.
Henderson.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Finally, I advised that I looked forward to OGC drawing equall y we l l-document ed analyses on Ms.
Wetzel's allegations, quote, whatever they might be.
I want to pause here so we can reflect a moment on this email. When I wrote it over two years ago,
I certainly never considered that I would be sitting here in front of the NRC today reading it to you in an effort to demonstrate that I did not engage in deliberate misconduct, but this is the email that I wr ote.
And to me, no matter the outcome of this proceeding, this email shows that I absolutely was not intending to take an action that would cause a violation of NRC's employee protection requirements.
This email shows that I was looking for i ndependent facts, analyses, and conclusions, as I do in any i nvest i gation.
In response to my May 31 email, Jennifer Grace from OGC stated t hat she,
- quote, strongly disagreed that any investigation of Beth ' s allegation in her email is warranted.
In fact,
I think any f urther investi gation would do more harm than good, as it allows the harassing behavior that was identified in John ' s report to be perpetuated.
(202) 234-4433 Ms.
Grace goes on to say that John NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 confirmed that he considered Beth ' s email during the investi gation and t hat he concluded t hat t he email was simply further evidence of the pattern of harassing behavior that had been occurring over the last several years, unquote.
You can see this in Exhibit 17 and also on your screen.
I recall that there were also concerns about management being viewed as allowing further harassment to occu r.
Based on Ms. Grace ' s reasoning and strong disagreement,
I personally did not pursue further investigation of Ms. Wetzel' s allegation.
Had I disagreed with the recommendation, I would have said so.
As I described in my opening, I am not hesitant to push back on issues where I disagree.
Ms.
Grace also forwarded a
footnote drafted by Mr. Slater, which addressed Ms. Wetzel's May 7 email.
The footnote,
which is availabl-e in Exhibit 1 7, noted that two of the allegations Ms.
Wetzel made in her May 7 email against Ms. Henderson,
reportedly inappropriately having people investigated by HR and pulling of gate records, were the same unfounded allegations made in her interview during the OGC investi gati on and did not warrant further fol l ow-(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 up.
At this time, I further understood that the OGC investigation report was going to be subject to f urther review and revision.
About a week later, on June 9, 2018, I received another email from Ms. Wetzel, as shown in Exhibit 18 and also on your screen.
Her email stated in part, I know I' ve got to get my travel in.
This is getting ridiculous.
We are now floating my rent.
But I 've been afraid of what will happen as soon as I
start submitting vouchers.
I don't even try to understand my boss and why she does what she does, but I do know that she never gives up.
At this point in time, Ms.
Wetzel had submitted no travel vouchers for approval and, indeed, did not submit her final vouchers for her May travel until June 29, nearly three weeks after this email.
Thus, it was strange to me that she was complaining about floating her rent when she had not completed any vouchers and Carla had informed her to pay her rent on the corporate card so this issue did not occur.
Ms.
Wetzel responded with more of the
- same, j ust stating, it's ridiculous, because I'm afraid and haven ' t submitted.
So now, we're floating, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no action has been taken to my knowledge yet.
66 The latter part indicating that she did not believe Ms.
Henderson had yet done anything at all.
As I had done with my May 7 email, and in light of the concerns that Ms. Grace shared with me on May 31, that Ms. Wetzel not be allowed to continue her behaviors, I forwarded this email exchange to Jennifer Grace, asking that it be included for discussion. And you'll see in Exhibit 19.
Throughout all these circumstances, I
thought I was doing the right thing.
On June 11, Jennifer responded to my email, noting, it sounds like Beth is continuing with some of the behaviors that John substantiated in his report are part of the creation of the hostile environment.
A discussion needs to be had with Beth ASAP.
- However, I
think we need to have final discussion with respect to Mike McBrearty before we can talk to her or any of the others.
This email is in Exhibit 20.
While I awaited further instructions from Ms. Grace, Ms. Wetzel continued these behaviors and sent me texts in late June or early July.
These are provided in Exhibit 21 and also on your screen.
(202) 234-4433 Ms. Wetzel texted me that she was getting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 different directions from management that could be hanging things up.
I attempted to find out the basis for her statement.
I responded, what are you referring to as different directions from management?
Since Carla and I are actively engaged in your May package, what is leading you to believe that there is such a different direction?
Ms. Wetzel responded only, past experience.
- Again, I
found these statements not
- credible, because, as noted earlier in my presentation, no matter whether myself or Ms.
Henderson was assigned to review Ms. Wetzel's travel vouchers, it would normally be Carla Edmondson who reviewed and approved them.
I n addition, as I noted to Ms. Wetzel, I and Carla were actively engaged in your package. Erin was not involved with the May package at all.
Furthermore, I had no indications that Ms. Henderson had ever made beyond a routine inquiry into Ms.
Wetzel's travel vouchers.
In fact, for the purposes of this PEC, we reviewed expense voucher records and confirmed that when Ms. Henderson was responsible for approving Ms.
Wetzel's travel vouchers, the average number of days from submission to approval was a little less than (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 three days.
We also identified an email from January of 2018, that ' s January of 2018, which you can see on your screen,
where Ms.
Wetzel admitted to an inadvertent mistake on her travel vouchers to me and Ms. Henderson provided support for Ms. Wetzel.
That email is provided as Exhibit 22.
This interaction contradicts the statement on Page 8 of the OI report that Ms. Wetzel, quote,
knew that if she got in trouble for violating any travel policies, she would be terminated.
Again, in an effort to determine the basis for her statement, I asked Ms. Wetzel, if you have a factual basis for your assertion, please provide that.
And I also emphasized again she could pay her rent with the corporate card.
As far as I recall, Ms. Wetzel did not provide a basis for her assertion.
Similar to the reference in the May 7 email to probably a lot more actions that I ' m not aware of, I found the response past experience as highly pejorative, yet without specificity for me or anyone else to do anything with.
And when we looked into the issue for the purposes of this case, there didn't seem to be any past experience for her to rely on.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 Finally, on July 2, I called Ms. Wetzel from my office, in the presence of Carla Edmondson, to further explain her allegations against Ms. Henderson, but Ms. Wetzel provided nothing further.
Ms. Wetzel discussed this phone call in the NRC OI report,
and I
will address her characterization of it later in this presentation.
As you can see from these exhibits, emails,
and texts,
Ms.
Wetzel made a
number of unfounded accusations and unprofessional statements towards Ms. Henderson.
I will now turn to how I
and our organization addressed those statements.
On August 10,
- 2018, a
memorandum was i ssued to me enclosing a
final copy of the investigation report prepared by the Office of General Counsel into the allegations of harassment raised by Erin Henderson.
This report is provided in Exhibit 23.
This memorandum was signed to me directly by TVA ' s Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
The fact that not only had the Executive Vice President and General Counsel signed it, but moreover, the Exe cu ti ve Vice President and General Counsel functions as TVA's designated agency ethics official, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 which in my federal experience has great significance and made an impression on me.
At the time, I
perceived this as the senior-most agency official responsible for determining what constituted or didn't constitute a breach of the ethics standards that TVA implements as a federal agency.
At a
- minimum, I
could not ignore the authority of the General Counsel position from which that opinion was issued.
After the report was issued, on August 16, 2018,
a teleconference was held with TVA's senior executive leadership, including a number of members of the TVA-wide executive leadership team, to discuss the August 10 investigation report.
My handwritten notes from the me-eting indicated that we very briefly discussed Ms. Wetzel's behavior during the call.
My notes state that Ms.
Grace indicated that Ms. Wetzel's, quote, types of behaviors are harassing,
- comma, still reviewing, unquote, and are provided in Exhibit 24.
I would l ike to take a moment to correct the record here. During my OI interview for this case related to Mr. McBrearty, I mistakenly indicated that I did not have notes from this meeting.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 This is on (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 Page 116 of my interview transcript.
During my interview, I had several Xeroxed copies of my handwritten notes, but not the full notebooks, and several other documents with me.
And I referred to some of those records throughout my interview, as my transcript indicates.
In preparing for this PEC, I reviewed my complete notebooks again and identified that in fact I did have some handwritten notes from this meeting.
Had I identified those notes during the interview, I certainly would have shared them with the investigator, because they show that the discussion on Ms. Wetzel was that her behaviors are harassing and still being reviewed.
Following this meeting, and based on discussions I had with OGC, my understanding was that OGC was continuing to review Ms. Wetzel's behaviors and would make a recommendation.
Here, I'd like to pause and note an event that will help explain my thinking at the time.
I had originally been scheduled to perform a performance review for Ms. Wetzel at the end of August and still intended to have it with her and to discuss the results of the OGC investigation and the August 10,
2018 final report.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 I knew I would need assistance from the appropriate internal resources on how to handle such a review in light of the still forthcoming and yet unknown to me recommendation from OGC.
To that end, on August 20, I sent my draft talking points for Ms. Wetzel' s performance review meeting to Jennifer Grace, Emily Walker, Amanda Poland, and Chris Chandler.
These are provided in Exhibit 25 and also excerpted on your screen.
I believe you can see that the proposed talking points are a
good indicator of my contemporaneous thinking, before I had received any recommendation from OGC on potential discipline or lack thereof,
and specifically that I
had no preconceived not ion of the outcome for Ms. Wetzel and I had no intent to retaliate against her.
In fact, my talking points stated that the investigation identified you as a contributor to the hostile work environment. Specifically of concern is that you were identified as having repeatedly represented that your supervisor initiated investigation and had individuals' gate records examined.
Of concern is that you could have no specific knowledge that she ' s had people ' s gate (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 records pulled because, in fact, an individual manager cannot unilaterally order such an action.
The primary phase of the investigation has been completed, however, no specific decisions have been made regarding your behavior and the apparent violation of TVA policies and/or potential violation of federal law have been made.
It is expected that determinations in that regard will be made in coming weeks.
I specifically reiterated i n my proposed talking points that Ms. Wetzel should continue to raise concerns regarding nuclear safety or any aspect of the organization that she believed can make the organization and its people operate better.
Ultimately, I received feedback from OGC that a pre-meeting of this sort was not part of our normal process and we would not normally give an employee an early look at the results of an investigation before we were ready to pronounce discipline or disposition of the matter.
Again, at this point in time, I had no indication of what the recommendation of OGC was going to be. And again, I stated to Ms. Grace that I looked forward to the recommendation, whatever it may be.
(202) 234*4433 Thus, on that advice, I decided to cancel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 the August 31, 2018 performance evaluation meeting with Ms. Wetzel.
The next day, August 30, 2018, OGC issued its supplemental memorandum and recommendations with respect to Ms.
Wetzel.
The NRC is already in possession of this memorandum and I will refer to non-attorney-client privileged portions of the cover page here.
The legal memorandum found that Ms. W,etzel engaged in harassment, retaliation, and the creation of a hostile work environment with respect to Ms.
Henderson, in violation of multiple TVA policies and federal law.
The memorandum recommended that Ms.
Wetzel' s employmen t with TVA be terminated as a result of her involvement in a pattern of harassment and retaliation directed at Ms.
Henderson.
OGC recommended separating Wetzel from company, whether through a
no - fault separation agreement or termination, either of which I could pursue at my discretion.
It was my understanding that the recommendations in this supplemental memorandum were not only based on what was in the Sl ater report, but also on Wetzel ' s ongoing harassing behavior that had (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 continued through and after the May 25 Slater investigation and report.
I agreed with OGC ' s recommendation.
As I stated at the beginning of my presentation, I have no issues raising hard questions to management, but I agreed with the reasoning from OGC and believed I had a duty to ensure a harassment-free workplace.
I will now turn to the steps I took to separate Ms. Wetzel from the company, including the required processes that I followed to ensure the proposed separation complied with applicable requirements and not based on retaliation for protected activities.
On September 19, 2018, TVA conducted an Executive Review Board, or ERB, to review the adverse employment action for Ms. Wetzel. The ERB is composed of TVA personnel who are independent of the proposed adverse employment action.
The purpose of the ERB is to ensure that the proposed adverse employment action is consistent with company practices and not based on retaliation for protected activities.
From my handwritten notes, I recorded the participants as Steve Bono, Senior Vice President for Operations and ERB Chair, Ryan Dreke, OGC,
Arcie
- Reeves, Human Resources, Joe Calle, the adverse (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 employee action process owner,
Inza Hagins-Dyer,
Senior Manager of Employee Concerns Program, D-eanna Fultz, Employee Concerns Program Specialist for the corporate office, and John Mccann, who served as the individual providing independent auditing of TVA' s implementation of the adverse employee action and Executive Review Board process, per the Confirmatory Order.
The final ERB is included in Exhibit 26.
The ERB is governed by TVA Procedure STP-
- 01. 7. 4, adverse empl oyee action, and the Executive Review Board.
As you know, the TVA adverse employee action process has been the source of appropriate NRC concern regarding its effective implementation for a period of t ime s ince 2009 and the ERB process was developed in and around the 2017 Confirmatory Order, which I was involved in implementing.
We took action following the 2017 Confirmatory Order to improve rigor around several key leadership steps, including to ensure the discipline is not taken because an employee engaged in activities protected by the employee protection regulations in 10 CFR 50.7.
Given my involvement in implementing the 2017 Confirmatory Order, my intent was to follow the (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 process closely.
77 For this particular, ERB, my role was to serve as the presenting manager.
From my perspective,
the other participants, including our Senior Vice President for Operations and our external advisor, as well as the HR, ECP, and OGC participants, is that they understood the clear distinction between protected activities and non-prohibited considerations.
I had had interactions with all of them on numerous issues over an extensive period of time.
I believed that,
individual ly or collectively, they would ensure that the proposed action could proceed only if they were convinced that it was based on non-prohibited considerations.
My recollection is that I presented the fact-finding portions of the Board and the answers to the questions that I was procedurally required to, and then I was dismissed while the Board considered the questions reserved for the Board only, Questions 14 to
- 19.
My experience was that,
since the implementation of enhancements from the 2017 Confirmatory Order, the process was taken very seriously.
(202) 234*4433 My overall recollection of the ERB was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 that it was challenging.
However, everyone was in agreement that the proposed action was not in retaliation for raising protected concerns and the ERB did not object to proceeding with the adverse action.
I would l ike to specifically point to Question 15 of the ERB, which the OI agent looked to in his analysis.
The question states, does it appear the individual ' s involvement in a protected activity contributed in any way to the proposed action recommendation?
While I was not present for this portion of the ERB, per procedure, the ERB checked no for that question.
The ERB feedback added an explanation that Ms. Wetzel was involved in the OGC investigation, as described in the August 10, 2018 report.
I understood that this was an attempt to acknowledge that while Ms. Wetzel had participated in the investigation, her mere participation in that investigation had no bearing on the reason for the disciplinary action.
At the end of the day, the truth is that both myself and, I am confident, the ERB believed we had doggedly attempted to evaluate the collection of protected and non-protected activities, separate them, and focus solely on the non-protected activities, (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 including that it was appropriate to move forward, and any portrayal to the contrary, in my opinion, is not accurate.
As I noted, John Mccann attended the ERB in his auditing role.
A copy of his audit report that included this ERB is provided at Exhibit 27.
He wrote in his report, with respect to all of the ERBs he audited during that period, which included the September 19 Wetzel ERB, the discu ssion included both the consi derat i on of potential for harassment,
intimidation,
retaliation,
and discrimination, and the potential impact on the SCWE.
SCWE mitigation plans were reviewed by the ERB and approved as appropriate.
The documentation packages were prepared prior to the meeting and the meeting discussions were focused on the potential safety culture issues.
Personnel in attendance demonstrated a good understanding of the purpose of the meeting and the rel ationship between required d i scipline and potential safety culture and Safety Conscious Work Environment impacts.
The overall quality and consistency of ERB meetings continues to improve throughout the fleet.
This i s now a mature and well-understood process.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 Again, these observations related to all of the ERBs Mr. Mccann had observed in that period.
As relevant, Mr. Mccann did not make any negative findings about the September 19 ERB.
Finally, I would like to address the fact noted in the OI report that the ERB was signed on October 16 and 19 by the ERB members, while Ms. W,etzel was placed on paid administrative leave on October 15.
I can understand why this might not be clear.
However, we acted consistent with TVA procedure.
Ms.
Wetzel was placed on paid administrative leave on October 15.
As the OI r,eport notes on Page 20, excerpted on your screen, the initial voluntary separation agreement was dated October 25, 2018, which was the date that myself and Ms. Poland met with Ms. Wetzel and provided her no-fault separation agreement.
This occurred after Steve Bono, the ERB Chair, signed the ERB Record of Action on October 19,
2018.
The OI report states, on Pages 20 and 46, that Ms. Wetzel was provided a no-fault separation agreement for the first time on October 15, 2018.
That is incorrect.
My talking points in the October 15, 2018 meeting state, the terms of a no-fault (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 separation agreement had not yet been set.
Further, Ms. Wetzel's Department of Labor complaint and the December 18, 2018 ERB update both confirm that Ms. Wetzel was provided her first no-fault separation agreement on October 25, 2018.
An excerpted copy of the adverse action ERB procedure in place at that time is my Exhibit 28, which is excerpted on your screen.
As you can see, no-fault separation agreements do require an ERB,
while actions for paid administrative l eaves are not specifically listed.
After vetting the action through the ERB process, I decided it was best to raise these issues with Ms. Wetzel at her performance review scheduled for October 15, 2018.
That morning, I emailed my talking points to Amanda Poland, of which you can find a copy in Exhibit 29.
My talking points detailed the legal reasoning and conclusions from the August 30,
2018 supplemental OGC memorandum.
I further stated that TVA was prepared to offer Ms. Wetzel a no-fault separation agreement in lieu of termination, but the terms of the no-fault separation agreement had not yet been set, so that Ms.
Wetzel could have time to reflect on matters that may (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 be of interest to her in negotiating such an agr eement.
My talking notes also clearly stated that should you choose not to accept a no-fault separati on offer, TVA is prepared to move to terminat i on.
As of that meeting, Ms. Wetzel was placed on paid admin istrative leave.
Between October 15 and November 16, 2018, I have several documented discussions between myself and HR regarding the terms of Ms. Wetzel' s no-fault separation agreement. One of those drafts is provided in Exhibit 30.
I recall that I was very conscious that Ms. Wetzel was close to her eligible retirement age,
and I wanted to make her l andi ng as soft as possi b l e and wanted to ensure that whether it was paid or unpai d, she received creditabl e servi ce from TVA up to her eligible retirement date.
As provided in Exhibit 31,
Ms.
W,etzel initially signed a no-fault separation agreement,
which addressed her retirement concerns, on Dec,ember 5, 20 18, bu t I believe, consistent wi th standard TVA no-fault separation terms, was given seven days to rescind her signature.
(202) 234-4433 The next day, December 6, we rece i ved a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 letter from Ms. Wetzel's attorney indicating that Ms.
Wetzel may be considering withdrawing her signature and making further demands for negotiation.
Then, on December 10, Ms. Wetzel, through her attorney, notified TVA that she had begun the process of mediating her issues through the NRC and requested an additional seven days within which to rescind the no-fault separation agreement.
TVA reviewed the request, but as it had been engaging in negotiation with Ms. Wetzel since mid-October and previously granted a
two-week extension, TVA declined to offer a
further counterproposal or grant the seven-day extension.
Ms. Wetzel then rescinded the no-fault separation on December 11, within the allotted seven days.
The ERB alternative to a
no-fault separation agreement was to implement a contingency plan for termination, which was what was put into motion after Ms.
Wetzel rejected the no-fault separation.
On December 18, an ERB update meeting was held to review additional information, after Ms.
Wetzel rejected the no-fault separation agreement, as provided in Exhibit 32.
Once again, the ERB had no (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 objection.
Accordi ngly, Ms. Wetzel was terminated on January 14, 2019.
The termination letter is provided as Exhi bit 33.
I n s ummary, ultimately, I took action to terminate Beth Wetzel because I believed she was engaged i n disrespectful and harassing conduct towards Erin Henderson and I believed it was my responsibility to ensure a respectful and harassment-free workplace.
These circumstan ces were not easy.
And I want to emphasize that, as I detailed here today, I took appropriate caution by seeking out advice and input from the appropriate resources within TVA, and ultimately, I acted only after the ERB had vetted the proposed act i on.
In addition to the factual events, there are several issues and contextual perspectives that I want to briefly address.
These are issues that are touched on in t he OI report or are considerations in the NRC enforcement process.
First, to be clear that at no point in time did any technical or nuclear safety issue rai sed by Ms.
Wetzel play any part in the decision to separate her from the company.
As I read it, even the NRC OI report does not make that finding.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 The OI (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 report claims it was Ms. Wetzel ' s alleged chilled work environment s tat ements that contributed to her termination.
I will address that i ssue in a moment, but I want to be clear that any nuclear safety issue Ms.
Wetzel raised had no role.
If you have any questions for me on this topic I ' m happy to address them.
At this time I will turn to my specific concerns with the NRC ' s analysis in the OI report.
I have laid out five specific issues, which you can see listed on your screen for reference.
First,
I would like to address the OI report's analysis of whether Ms.
Wetzel alleged protected activities contributed to her termination.
The primary basis for OI ' s findings, and indeed DOL's August 29th conclusion, which were never litigated, appear to be that Ms. Wetzel participated in a chilled work environment assessment when interviewed by OGC Att orney John Slater and that she raised potential chilled work environment concerns to Mr. Slater in that interview and to me in her emails.
I must reiterate that at no time did I have any cause to believe that Mr.
Slater was conducting a chil led work environment assessment or that information provided to Mr. Slater could be (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 construed as a chilled work environment concern.
I knew him to be conducting an independent harassment investigation.
The OI report states as much on Page 43.
At that time, Shea knew that TVA OGC investigation was looking into whether Wetzel and others were creating a harassing environment for Henderson.
That is the only lens with which I viewed the results of Mr. Slater's investigation.
The NRC may have a different view of these circumstances, but here it has been alleged that I deliberately acted with an intent to discriminate based in part on statements that Ms. Wetzel made.
It is therefore my intent that must be considered and I had no such intent.
The purpose of having the harassment claim investigated by an independent investigator, Mr.
- Slater, who was new to all of the issues and individuals was, in part, to establish what had actually occurred within the organization.
Even if Ms. Wetzel herself believed that she was participating in a chilled work environment assessment, I had no indication that was her belief.
- Rather, I
advanced the action against Ms. Wetzel because, one, OGC concluded that she had participated (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 in a, quote, pattern of harassment and retaliation, unquote, agai nst Ms. Hender son.
Two, that Ms. Wetzel had made one or more signi ficant unfounded statements directly to me outside of the Slater investigation. Specifically the May 7th assertion of, quote, probably a lot more actions than I ' m not aware of,
unquote,
and her assertion of, quote, past experience, unquote, without more detail.
And three, my perspective that OGC in drawing their August 30th conclusions, had taken into account the totality of Ms. Wetzel ' s representations,
including both those made to Mr. Slater and those not made to Mr. Slater in his interview.
- Second, the OI report finds that the statements Ms. Wetzel made were accurate and truthful to the best of her knowledge because they were, quote,
rooted in truth in that the activities occurred but were arguably not based on the reasons that Ms. W,etzel believed, unquote.
This is a
troubling finding because certai n of her assertions were not reasonabl y rooted in any truth.
Rather, what is troubling is that OI and DOL analyses ignore the statement in her May 7th email that Erin was allegedly responsible for certain (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 harassing actions and, quot e, probably a lot more actions that Ms. Wetzel was not aware of, unquote.
Which in my mind crossed an unacceptable line.
There was then and is now, no intellectual or ethical construct I can conceive of on a broad sweeping indictment with no specificity, taken to be accurate or grounded in truthfulness when the words admit to no actual knowledge of the truth.
To extent that the NRC analysis ignores that particular statement in its analysis, it is difficult to understand what would ever be considered a non-prohibited grounds under 10 CFR 50. 7(d).
Third, Ms. Wetzel is characterized in the OI report as saying that she did not provide any further details on the July 2nd phone call due to the presence of Carla Edmondson because she thought I was, quote, trying to catch her saying something negative about a management to subordinate, which is against TVA policy, unquote.
I t is not true that I was trying to catch her.
People don't get caught in being asked to amplify a previous remark.
Even if there were some inadvertent confusion caused by my part, including Ms.
Edmondson on that phone call, it should be noted that twice before I had given Ms. Wetzel the opportunity to (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 elaborate on her allegations against Ms. Henderson to me alone.
The first time in my June 9, 2018 response to Ms. Wetzel's email the same day, and the second, through text messages where I asked her to elaborate on why she believed she was getting different directions from management.
Fourth, on Page 43 of the OI report it appears to read that I stated t hat Ms.
Wetzel' s c l aimed protected acti vities were a
central and required function of her job and were not protected activity.
That reference is not cited, and I have reviewed my notes and transcripts and am unable to find anywhere where I mace such a statement. It seems quite odd and out of character that I would have said that.
Rather, I do believe that Beth and almost every person employed by the nuclear regulatory team engages in protected activity every day as part of their job.
Because protected activities were a
central and required job function for Bet h, it would have been an assumption of any discussion and decision on an adverse action that she had participated in protected activities and that absent clear evidence (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 that there was a non-prohibited basis for the adverse action, the adverse action should not move forward.
The last observation I will make regarding the OI analyses regards the discussion on Page 45 regarding the request for specific evidence.
The analysis suggests that it was especially concerning that I asked Ms. Wetzel to provide support for her claims, because I had knowledge of the prior ECP concerns raised against Ms. Henderson.
I disagree that there ' s a nything concerning about this.
Two of the prior ECP concerns against Ms. Henderson were not substantiated at all and one concern, NEC 1700683, was substantiated in part, but explicitly found no retaliatory intent by Ms. Henderson.
Furthermore, that analysis again ignores that in the May 7 email, Ms. Wetzel broadly asserted, probably a lot more actions that I 'm not aware of,
instances of retaliation by Ms. Henderson.
To me, it ' s not unreasonable for me to ask essentially, what do you mean?
I'm not quite sure what else the NRC would have me do here.
Ultimately, in my mind, I
turned the May 7 list of issues,
including the broad, probably a lot more actions that I 'm not aware of, assertion over to the entity that I (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 believed was capable and positioned to examine all of the facts with the various assertions by Henderson and Wetzel in one effort.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I never acted with any intent to retaliate against Ms.
Wetzel for engaging in any alleged protected activity.
I acted based on my good faith belief that Ms. W,etzel was engaging in disrespectful and harassing actions.
Any supervisor, any supervisor will tell you these kinds of decisions are never easy, and that was true for me and also why I was asking for help all along the way in investigating and evaluating these behaviors.
Based on the nature of these allegations,
their lack of specificity, and that I had personal knowledge of some of the issues that Ms. Wetzel was falsely complaining about, I
did not believe her allegations against Henderson raised genuine and reasonable concerns.
I asked Ms. Wetzel to provide more detail for the allegations she raised against Henderson, but she declined.
I used company processes, OGC, and the Executive Review Board, that I believe are designed to provide neutral and independent advice and guidance.
OGC provided its recommendation and the ERB did not (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 object to the implementation of disciplinary action here.
This concludes my statements as to the factual portion of my apparent violation.
While reviewing the history of this situation, I looked for any indication that I had deliberately taken action that caused TVA to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, and as I have discussed at length today, I found no such indication and strongly deny that I violated 10 CFR 50.5.
But I also took the opportunity to assess what I could have done differently along the three or more year arc of this situation to have prevented this situation that was anything close to a harassing environment.
While I believe, ultimately, that Ms.
Wetzel was responsible for her choice to make statements about Ms. Henderson that could not possibly have been grounded in fact or reasonable belief, I did assess and observe the following things I would do differently to facilitate a non-harassing workplace.
I did reflect on the actions I took to give additional support to Ms. Wetzel, specifically, while I did facilitate getting her an executive level mentor, I might have had more structured discussions (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 with Ms. Wetzel around her mentoring discussions that would have given Ms. Wetzel additional opportunity to discuss her perspectives on her working relationships.
Having done that review, based on my existing skills and experience, I took my initiative one step further.
And it's a step that I find profoundly insightful.
Several weeks back, I enrolled in the Society for Human Resource Management.
The Society for Human Resource Management is one of the two premier professional training and certification processes for human resource professionals across the nation for companies of all types.
I became a member and immediately took the course entitled, Workplace Harassment Management Fundamentals.
As I took the course, several key aspects were repeatedly emphasized.
The first is that harassment is something where managers of all experience levels can recognize that something needs to be done, but that the specific steps to take are rarely clear unless you have extensive personal experience responding to such concerns.
The second clear point was that managers need to constantly seek the support of knowledgeable (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 parts of the organization to ensure that claims of harassment are properly addressed.
And third, I learned that I needed to increase my sensitivity to behaviors that others may be perceiving as harassing.
This is the training that is foundational to the HR professional community.
I took and f unded this training on my own initiative.
I will now turn it over to my attorney.
Tim?
MR.
WALSH:
Thank you, Joe.
At the beginning of the presentation, I emphasized that a finding of deliberate misconduct is a very high standard requiring a showing of intent to cause a violation of 50.7.
Joe showed you today, through emails and other records, that he never possessed any such intent.
Quite to the
- contrary, these records demonstrate that t he only intent Joe had was to do what was correct.
The circumstances present here are far different than in other cases where the NRC has found that an individual had engaged in deliberate misconduct, causing a licensee to violate 50.7.
(202) 234-4433 For example, September of 2019, the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 issued an order to Mr. Thomas Summers, in Enforcement Action IA-18-040, prohibiting him from involvement in NRC-licensed activity.
In that case,
the NRC Office of Investigations found that a
contract employee initiated a condition report on one day and Mr.
Summers emailed the contract employee's employer the next day, including in his email the condition report and asking a question about it.
That same day, Mr. Summers spoke with the contract employer and discussed reassigning the contract employee to another plant.
The NRC investigation also found that Mr.
Summers ' testimony differed significantly from that of other witnesses, thus undercutting h i s credibility and discrediting his assertion that the individual's removal from the plant was unrelated to protected activity.
Also in that case, the NRC found that Mr.
Summers had deliberately provided false and inaccurate information to the NRC to infl uence the NRC's discrimination investigation.
Joe ' s case is far different.
Unlike in Mr. Summers' case, there is no rash decision to take action against Ms. Wetzel.
The record shows that Ms.
(202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 Wetzel's offending conduct was carefully considered over sever a l months by multipl e TVA personnel.
I n addition, the record shows that Joe's view of Ms. Wetzel ' s pattern of conduct that violated TVA' s policies wer e aligned, if not identical, to others who also considered that pattern. He receives, at multiple times, input from the Office of General
- Counsel, which found that Ms.
Wetzel ' s conduct violated TVA policies and was not appropriate for someon e at her l evel.
Further, the adverse action was reviewed by the Executive Review Board, which did not object to the adverse action.
Indeed, the HR representative to the ERB testified to OI that the informat ion pres-ented to the ERB was very thorough and damaging, that there was no question at the ERB about proceeding with the adverse action.
None of the facts presented today suggest,
let alone show, any intent to violate the Commission's employee protection requirements.
In fact, they show that Joe made every effort to ensure that the adverse action had onl y legitimate and appropriate bases.
He even recommended that Ms.
Wetzel be further interviewed to learn more about the bases for her statement.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 The evidence presented today is far more conv incing than the evi dence rel ied on in t he Wetzel OI report.
- Indeed, that report states that the primary basis for finding that Joe has engaged in retaliation is based only on a, quote, reasonable assumption, close quote.
The OI report states on Page 49, and as displayed on your screen, that it is reasonable to assume that Shea provided Ms. Wetzel ' s statement to TVA OGC wi th the expectation that it would lead to an employment action against Wetzel to prevent W*etzel from continuing to raise these fear of retaliation concerns, which is a protected activity.
We have demonstrated today how the evidence shows t hat this assumption is not reasonabl e at all. Moreover, alleged reasonable assumptions are not evi dence, they are i nstead the complete absence of evidence and should not be permitted as any basis for finding t hat Joe engaged in retaliation, let alone an order banning him from the i ndustry.
As discussed earlier today, the Commission made expli c i t that a finding of del iberate misconduct requires finding the intent to act in a wrongful manner and the Commission equated that standard to one used in a criminal prosecution.
Alleged reasonabl e (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 assumptions fall nowhere close to that standard.
The NRC a nd other reasonable minds may disagree with the outcome that was reached here, but that outcome was not reached by any attempt to cause a violation of the Commission ' s employee protection regulations or any wrongdoing.
Joe's actions demonstrate that he wanted to do the right thing.
He should not get a violation, let alone be banned from the industry, for the evidence shows that he asked for help and input every step of the way.
I would like to now address another concern with the OI report ' s findings.
As Joe explained to you, he in no way cons i dered the interna l OGC i nvesti gation i nto Ms.
Henderson ' s harassment complaint any chilled work environment assessment.
Again, it ' s his i ntent that matters here.
In addition, the NRC should not feel bound by the Department of Labor investigation ' s findings in this regard, as you can see on your screen.
Fi rst, TVA had no opportunity to respond to the DOL findings that the TVA OGC investigation where they showed work environment assessment before DOL made its findi ngs here.
The claim was never (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 raised by Ms. Wetzel in her DOL findings, nor was this claim presented to TVA by the DOL investigator.
Second, those findings were not the result of an adjudication.
Rather, the findings were the resul t of an investigation.
Those findings were set aside the moment TVA requested an adjudicatory hearing in this matter.
29 CFR 24. 106(b) states in relevant part that if objections to Department of Labor findings are t ime l y fi l ed, quote, all provisions of the order will be stayed, unquote.
That's what happened here.
TVA filed its objection, the DOL findings were stayed, and the matter was eventually settled.
- Third, the Department of Labor invest i gator never interviewed the TVA investigator,
Mr.
Slater.
But the NRC did.
Mr.
Sl ater unequivocally testified to the NRC that he conducted a run of the mill harassment investigation and that he never performed a chilled work environment assessment and wouldn ' t even know how to go about conducting one.
Fourth, the NRC did not re - interview Joe fo l lowing the Department of Labor findings when it could have done so.
Again, it's Joe ' s intent that is at issu e here in this apparent violation, not anyone e l se ' s.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 And finally, Section 5.2(e) of the NRC Allegation Manual specifically provides that there is no requirement that the NRC and DOL conclusions agree.
In summary, Joe had only legitimate and non-prohibited considerations in mind from the start of the events we discussed here today, all the way to the finish.
He never had any intent to commit --
today.
That concludes Joe ' s presentation for Next week, you will hear from TVA and its perspective that the actions by Erin, David, and Joe were taken for only appropriate reasons.
Thank you.
MR.
WILSON :
Thank you for the presentation.
One of the things, Joe, that I'm going to apologize, I
know the court reporter did get disconnected for a little bit, so we're going to have to figure
- out, to go back a nd part of your presentation, to have him get his notes fixed. If the court reporter could come up so we can get those fixed?
Then, we'll be taking, when we break out, we'll come back at 10:50.
So, the NRC will be back at 10 : 50.
Did anyone have any questions?
Court reporter, do you know when you got disconnected and you need to fix your notes?
Okay.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 Thank you very much.
MR. SHEA : Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON: Yes.
MR. SHEA : Yes, before we get to the court reporter, I myself would l ike a break.
So, Mr. Court Reporter, I ' d like to come back at 10:10, ten after 10:00.
MR. WILSON: Oh, you can take a break, Joe, you can take a longer break if you 'd like, we j ust have to get thi s before we move on to the next phase.
I'm fine with that.
MR. SHEA : Okay.
I ' ll be back at 10 : 10.
We ' ll get this straightened out, then I'll go -- we'll cau cus as well.
Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
(Whereupon, the above-ent i tled matter went off the record at 10: 04 a. m. and resumed at 10: 33 a. m.)
MR. WILSON:
Thanks, everyone.
Thanks,
Mr. Shea, for working with t he court reporter to get everything put back on the record.
At this time we will listen to Ms. Wetzel.
Ms. Wetzel, your comments, please.
(202) 234*4433 MS. WETZEL:
Ian, can you hear me?
MR. WILSON :
Yes, we can.
MS. WETZEL :
Okay. All right, thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 Yes, I would like to make a few comments.
One thing I wanted to corr ect or, t hat I believe was i naccu rate,
was Mr. Shea said that he received a call from me during the recru iting process for Ms. Henderson and I tol d Mr. Shea that she was too inexperienced.
I didn't call Joe and tell him that Erin was too i nexperienced, it was during a 9-box me,eting where we went over different managers and their ability to do jobs.
And Joe asked at the end of the 9-box meeting what Ed and I thought about Erin.
And we were silent, we didn ' t say anything and Joe pressed us, come on, t ell me what think about Erin.
And I did tell him t hat because we had just demoted one of our employees,
Henry Lee, for not having e i ght years of experience, regulatory experience, he couldn't be a senior program manager, that we migh t be at risk because Erin doesn ' t have eight years of regulatory experience and we were bringing her in to be a manager over the whole group.
I wanted to clarify that.
And then I also wanted to say that I still don' t see how I could have created a hostile work environment for my boss, it's management that maintain the work environment. And during the OI interviews of employees and corporate licensi ng group, the employees (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 said I was nothing but professional and respectful during, when I worked.
But I apparently created a hostile work environment because I gave my opinion, my honest opinion, during an interview of OGC, and I raised concerns to my management about how I might be treated by Ms. Henderson.
And apparently those concerns were justified because I was terminated.
And the other thing I'd like to mention was, if I was, if my discussions and things I said and did were inappropriate, I never got feedback from Joe or Erin or OGC or HR that I
was acting inappropriately.
blue.
I was just terminated out of the I guess I also want to say, Joe said that I was not given a no-fault separation agreement on October 15th.
I was.
It was read to me.
And I was handed it to read.
And I pointed out that I'm six months from my retirement date after 30-plus years of federal service.
And I also poin ted ou t a sentence that insinuated I could not discuss anything with the NRC after I was terminated.
And Joe took that paper back and said, we'll change this paperwork.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 So I was handed something on October 15th and it was different than the paper I was handed later.
That ' s it.
MR. WILSON:
Okay, thank you, Ms. Wetzel.
Mr. Shea, any comments?
MR.
SHEA:
Yes.
Taking disciplinary action against any employee is not easy.
Terminating a talented individual is a difficult action for any leader.
And terminating Ms. Wetzel on January 14, 2019 was a,
both a
frustrating and personally emotional moment for me.
- However, I
have an obligation to all employees to ensure a
work environment that is respectful and free of harassment.
And throughout this period I took steps to obtain the advice of counsel of expert organizations in harassment and investigations and I took great care to ensure that the actions taken were not retaliatory for protected activities.
I t is my position that TVA did not violate 10 CFR 50.7 and I did not deliberately take actions that I knew would cause TVA to violate 10 CFR 50. 7.
That is all.
MR. WILSON:
Thank you.
We I re going to do separate breakout in the caucus rooms.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 We will be (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 back at 11 : 3 0.
So that gives us 50 minutes.
It's been taking about that time in the caucus, so I will see everyone back in the main room at 11:30.
Ian, please establish the breakout room.
Thank you.
MR. GIFFORD:
Thank you, George.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:39 a.m. and resumed at 11:31
- a. m. )
MR.
WILSON:
All right, we should have everyone back now.
With that, Sara Kirkwood is going to be leading the questioning for the NRC.
Sara?
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
- Sorry, George, I
was slightly late.
Are you ready for me to begin?
MR. WI LSON:
Yes, Sara.
Yes, we are.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Okay, sorry.
Did, Mr.
Shea,
did Erin Henderson, prior to fi l ing her complaint in March of 2018, did Erin Henderson come to you with concerns that any TVA employee was harassing her?
MR. SHEA:
Ms. Kirkwood, if you're asking, prior to her March 2018 complaint, d i d Ms. Henderson come to me complaining that anyone was harassing her, is that correct?
(202) 234*4433 MS. KI RKWOOD:
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 MR. SHEA:
As I discussed generally in my opening remarks that in the days prior to her filing of the complaint she had, there had been some issues of concern that had caused her to be upset to the point of preparing to quit.
And in that exchange she had expressed concerns that were activities and actions by individuals that she was frustrated with.
And challenged me as to when was leadership going to do something about that because in her view i t's something that had been going on for some period of time.
Does that answer your question?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
That was just in a day's filing?
So i t was just in March of 2018 that you started hearing her concerns that there were things happening that were causing her to think of quitting?
MR. SHEA:
So I understand that, that was one
- instance, I
have a
recollection with no specificity that over the previous year or so s h e had expressed on one or more occasions some concerns with the behaviors of one or more individuals.
And she used either the word harassing or hostile, in one of those conversations that I recall.
(202) 234-4433 MS. KI RKWOOD:
And do you recall who the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 individuals were who she said was harassing her?
MR. SHEA :
One of the, so I don't recall who she equated the term harassing or hostile specifically with.
One of the individuals that was causing her quite a bit of frustration was Mr.
McBrearty.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Did you take any action at that point with respect to Mr. McBrearty?
MR.
SHEA:
There were occasions when I spoke to Mr. McBrearty.
And specifi cally in October of 2017, and went to the site and sat down with him and gave him some perspective on a couple of the issues that he was challenging the corporate office on.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you talk to anyone else about Mr. McBrearty, about the relationship between Mr. McBrearty and Ms. Henderson?
MR. SHEA:
I did.
I know that I had a conversation in April of 2017.
An introductory meeting with vice president at Sequoyah, Mr.
Tony Williams.
He had recentl y arrived as the site vice president.
And my recollection is I relayed to Mr.
Williams that he had a very capable site licensing manager but that I discussed that the rel ationship (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 between Sequoyah licensing manager and the corporate offic e could be improved.
I don't know how much more specific I got than that bu t that would have been April of 2017.
I have some recollection, and I think a note, that on June 20, 2017 I had another conversation with Tony Williams and Mr. McBrearty ' s direct boss at the time, Dennis Dimopoulos, where I expressed some concern about the ongoing seeming antagonism by Mr.
McBr earty towards Ms. Henderson.
I don ' t recall whether that was a phone call or whether t hey were at the corporate office.
But that was the date I have some notes on.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
You have notes on that?
MR.
SHEA:
Some handwritten notes I
believe.
It ' s very brief.
And in addition,
then I spoke to,
in October 2017, I spoke to Mr. Williams again on that day, as wel l as talking to Mr. McBrearty again.
That was out at Sequoyah.
I did, with regard to Mr. McBrearty, I
a l so recall, at least on one occasion, in February of 2018 I had a call to encourage him to work with the corporate leadership because we were trying to get a parti cular product out called the Ki rk Key LAR.
And (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 I encouraged him to, we were trying to all get the be s t product out as possible.
I recall he was frustrated about that particular LAR in that time frame, so I spoke to him in February of 2018.
MS. KI RKWOOD :
Did Erin Henderson, prior to filing her complaint in March 2018, did Erin Henders on complain to you that Beth Wetzel was harassing her?
MR. SHEA :
I know that Ms. Henderson and I had a number of conver sations regarding Ms. Wetzel 's performance. Whether she specified that the behaviors were harassing, I can't place a discussion where she said that one way or the other.
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
Were the,
so,
I would typically thi nk of performance as MR. SHEA: Absolutely. Sorry.
I ' m sorry.
MS. KI RKWOOD :
-- performance MR.
SHEA :
Performance is performance,
that's correct.
MS. KI RKWOOD :
Yes.
Versus, were there concerns about her conduct?
Were there concerns, d i d Henderson express concerns to you about Wetzel ' s conduct?
MR.
SHEA :
She expressed on, at one occasi on, one or so occasions that she thought that (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 Ms. Wetzel was perhaps talking to others in the group,
to include Mr. McBrearty who is in, at the site, in some negative fashion about her.
So yes.
The details of what she said any conversation about Ms.
Wetzel beyond that I don 't specifically recall.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
And, to - - you said earlier that Ms. Henderson had expressed concerns to you about Ms. Wetzel's performance.
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Employees, her performance would not be harassing of her manager, correct?
MR. SHEA: Absolutely.
I was, I expressed that she was frustrated with performance but you're absolutely right, discussions on performance are not discussions related to harassment.
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
Did Erin Henderson ever express to you that Alesia Justice was harassing her prior to receiving the complaint?
MR. SHEA:
I don't recall any reference to Ms. Justice in any detail, other than a perspective that Ms. Justice and Ms. Wetzel were, had a close relationship.
I don't recall Ms.
Henderson specifically suggesting that Ms. Justice was harassing her.
I don't recall that prior to the March 2018.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS.
KIRKWOOD:
111 Do you think that a manager ' s subordinates having a close relationship can be harassing of that manager?
MR.
SHEA:
No, not in and of itself.
Certainly not.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Did Erin Henderson ever express to you prior raising her complaint in March of 2018 that Ed Schrull was harassing her?
MR. SHEA:
Not that I can recall with any specificity.
I f there was a discussion about Mr.
Schrull, it was not harassing as much as potentially insubordinate.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
What is the difference, in your mind, between insubordinate conduct and harassing conduct?
MR. SHEA:
Insubordination is related to the following or not following of directions.
Harassing is a much broader set of behaviors.
It encompasses a much broader set of possible behaviors.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Prior to the complaint in March of 2018, did Erin Henderson ever express to you that Michel le Conner was harassing her?
MR. SHEA:
My recollection is that similar to what I described as Ms. Wetzel, there was close converse relationships.
She expressed her concern (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 between them where they were potentially talking negatively about Ms. Henderson.
In that period of time after Ms. Conner settled in her new position, I don't recall a specific reference to Ms. Conner ' s harassing in a particular fashion in that period of time.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Prior to receiving the complaint, did Ms. Henderson discuss with you the possibility of filing it?
MR. SHEA:
I' m sorry, of what?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Of, did she discuss or plan to file it, that she was thinking of filing a complaint, the possibility of filing a complaint with you prior to when you received, you said you received the email on March 9th at 3:45?
MR. SHEA:
That's right.
As I described in the presentation, Ms. Henderson had gotten very upset in a day or two, I think it was two days prior to when she submitted the complaint, about some things that had gone on.
And she expressed that she was very frustrated. And she challenged me, when is l eadership going to do something about these behaviors.
And she used the word, harassing or hostile.
(202) 234-4433 And it struck me in that particular time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 as this was a, something I needed to respond to, that leadership needed to respond to. And I encouraged her to consider putting all of her concerns in writing so that they could be actually evaluated.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you see a draft of the complaint before it was filed?
MR. SHEA:
No.
Not that I have any memory of, no.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
You said she was very upset in the days l eading up to the complaint because of certain behaviors.
What specifically did you understand those behaviors to be?
MR. SHEA:
There was a particular product that was being developed. It was a license amendment related to Sequoyah.
And it had been in development for some period of time. It was a frustration to the site and a frustration to, as well Erin and I, that it was not moving along and achieving the right quality standards so there was tensions in that regard and all around.
It was an important product.
And my recollection is there was an exchange between Sequoyah, Mr. McBrearty and one of the employees underneath Erin, where he characterized his view on the corporate office as impeding the (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 progress of these important activities to the det ermina nt of the site, is my recollection.
And I
don ' t recall how she became speci fical ly aware of that exchange, text.
But I recall that as being particularly upsetting i n this characterization of her role in how she was discharging it in terms of getting t he LAR out.
License amendment request.
And other issues I think were included in that.
That particula r seemed to be an exchange that particularly bothered her.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
I assume you're referring to the texts between Mr. McBrearty and Mr. Polickoski?
MR. SHEA :
Yes.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
That text was also quite critical of you.
Did you view that text as harassing you ?
MR. SHEA:
I didn ' t.
I had heard the issues that Mr. McBrearty was speaking to, progress on the LAR was something that he and I had talked about.
As I mentioned earlier in February of 2018.
And I
had known his frustration,
he had expressed his frustration to me in the past on that issue as well as another technical issue.
(202) 234-4433 And my view of it was that it was a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 dynamic that had not yet resolved itself between the corporate office, including at my level, and the site regulatory leadership, in this case Mike.
And it was just something that I needed to go take to, it was my action to go help solve that as the senior person in that group.
I did not consider it harassing.
But that is my view.
And that's just my view of it against me.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
And when you said it was your job to go sell that, was it your job to go sell the underlying technical dispute or issues that were holding up the LAR or your job to solve something else?
MR.
SHEA:
It's my job to ensure that working performance of the entire regulatory organization across a fleet, if you will, was both performing high and working well together and the text challenged that it wasn't working too well together.
That is mine to solve, accountable to my boss.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Thanks.
I ' m going to tell you, Mr. Shea, if you need a break just say so, don't feel like you have to keep on answering if you need to get like a drink of water or something.
MR. SHEA:
I'll just ask, I'm sorry, am I looking like --
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 MS. KIRKWOOD:
You were looking like you mi ght ne-ed a moment.
I wanted to g i ve it to you if you needed it.
You're okay?
Okay.
When you rece i ved the complaint from Erin Henderson, what were your thoughts?
MR. SHEA :
My thoughts were that this was six, seven, eight pages of detail that was, I accepted that it represented the entirety of her concerns. It was mine to, and of course it was addressed to me and Amanda Pol and, I think the director of human resources supporting the nuclear fleet, it was ours to go respond to and we needed to go determine the appropriate way to respond to that.
And we needed to do it with some urgency.
I n about five mi nutes I will take that break, if you don't mind.
MS. KI RKWOOD :
Not at a l l.
Di d a nythi ng in the complaint trouble you?
MR. SHEA :
I guess I'd ask that it be more specific about trouble me.
I t ' s a
complaint of harassment and hostility; that's troubling.
MS. KIRKWOOD : Di d a nything, was there any incident in that complaint that you learned of for the first time from reading the complaint?
(202) 234-4433 MR.
SHEA :
I' d have to review the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 complaint to see if anything strikes me as being new or novel looking backwards.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
She made several references in that complaint to people having filed ECP complaints.
Did that concern you that she viewed that as harassing of her?
MR. SHEA :
The Employee Concerns Program is established as a avenue for individuals to raise concerns, and for any number of reasons that they may want to go to that program.
So that any individual took an issue to ECP is, I wouldn't view as harassing, but I don't have the expertise, and didn ' t have the expertise, to know whether it was possible for a series of ECP complaints against an individual to be viewed as harassing.
So that was a complexity of the complaint that I knew I needed help to get eval uated.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
You said this complaint went to you and Amanda Poland, and I believe you had testified that you made the decision to send it to OGC for an independent type of review.
right?
Do I have that MR. SHEA:
The decision to send it to the Office of General Counsel was one that evolved from a discussion between Ms. Poland and myself.
And there (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 118 were some discussions with Mike and us, and I believe then CNO Mike Baldu zzi at the time.
And ultimately out of those discussions it was determined to approach OGC to investigate it.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you discuss with anyone in OGC who should be interviewed as part of this complaint?
MR. SHEA:
I'm sorry, there was a little break, could you repeat the question?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you discuss with anyone in OGC who should be interviewed as part of this complaint?
MR. SHEA:
As in the initial discussions with OGC, which I would characterize as in-brief discussions where before Mr. Czufin took over the rol e as point of contact for the investigations, there was an initial discussion with the managing attorney and the investigator about what it is, who ' s the group, how big is it, and those sort of things.
Where he would discuss, for example, one of his techniques was to do interviews.
So it was a logistical in-brief type of d iscussions.
And in one of those, in that conversation, I
know that I raised the issue that one of the individuals mentioned, Ms. Conner, had recently been, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 we had gone to settlement. Achieved a settlement with her in, I think it was December or so of 2017.
And Ms.
Conner had just started approximately December 2017, maybe January of 2018.
I n a new position that was also in my group.
And I had a point of view, two things. One, that Ms. Conner was settling well i nto that new role.
That i t was exciting and challenging and she was looking forward to getting some satisfaction from it.
And the other was, I was quite mindful that we had just settled with her, at that point, three or four months earlier. And I just expressed my concern that an interview regarding harassment had the potential to have someone who had just been settled with have a perspective that that negotiation and settlement had not been in good faith, the managing attorney was Grace and Mr. Slater, to be aware of that.
And if I went so far as to encourage them if there were ways that he could get to the bottom of the entire complaint without upsetting that situation,
that would be good.
And it was a caution.
So that there was awareness of the temporal proximity to something that had been just recently achieved. And was important to the health of that individual, Ms. Conner.
As well as (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 the organization that she just settled in.
And I will, i f you don't mind, I don 't know how much was five minutes.
Would that be okay?
MR. WILSON:
Yes.
Yes, Joe, we'll take a ten minutes break.
I t ' s 12 o ' clock, we'll be back at 12:10.
Will be ten minutes be good?
MR. SHEA :
Yes, Mr. Wilson.
Thank you.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
George, do you want to do a ten minute break or do you want to break longer for like a lunch-type of break?
MR.
WILSON:
That's up, I' 11 ask the group, would you like to do that?
How much longer do you think, just an estimate?
MS. KIRKWOOD : I'm not sure. Probably, it sort of goes on some of the answer s, but --
MR. WILSON:
Okay.
Well, let ' s go ahead, all right, let 's go ahead and take a 30-minute break.
We ' ll be back at 12 : 30.
MR. SHEA :
Thank you.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 12:00 p. m. and resumed at 12 : 31 p.m. )
(202) 234-4433 MR. WILSON:
Sara?
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Okay.
MR. SHEA :
Ms. Kirkwood, I 'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sure.
MR. SHEA:
Okay, just while we were on break, I did have an opportunity to reflect on your first question, look at my notes on your first question, or one of your first questions, where I think you asked me if I had talked to anybody about Mr. McBrearty and his behaviors and I told you I talked to Tony Williams.
I mentioned a meeting with Tony and Mr. Dimopoulos.
I told you I talked to Mr.
McBrearty himself.
To the extent I thought you were asking, had I talked to anybody, those were examples.
But I thought just to be sure, I do have notes that I talked to Inza Hagins-Dyer in May of 2017.
And my notes from that discussion were that Inza indicated that the investigation, and I think she was referring to 17-0410, concluded that a chilled work environment, hostile work environment,
did not exist.
And my notes further s t ated that Inza indicated she had challenged Mike to evaluate whether he had a blind spot with regard to an employee at corporate, Michel le Conner.
And then, so, that was my conversation with Inza and her reflection that she had talked to Mr. McBrearty.
And then I did have, and I don ' t know (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 notes from this, I had periodic meetings with my boss Dave Czufin.
And I am aware that from time-to-t ime I would talk to him about the overall relat ionship between the cor porate office and Mr. McBrearty.
Ms.
Henderson, Mr. McBrearty.
So I j ust wanted to be more complete.
I wasn ' t a
hundred percent sure that you wanted a representative list or j us t a little bit more.
So I wanted to get that for you.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Thank you,
I appreciate that.
Was there anything e l se you wanted to supplement?
MR. SHEA :
No.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Okay.
So, r ight before we broke, you were explaining that Ms. Conner was not, why it was your recommendation that Ms. Conner not be interviewed. And I think I understood you to say that you were concerned that Ms. Conner might perceive an interview as being in bad faith because of the settlement she had just entered into.
Do I have that right?
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Who was involved in that settl ement wi th Ms. Conner?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 MR. SHEA:
I can remember the name of the attorney who negotiated it with me.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sorry, let me clarify my question.
From TVA, who was involved? Was it you who was negotiating, was it you printing it?
What managers at TVA MR. SHEA:
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
would have been --
MR. SHEA:
I was in that negotiation, yes.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Okay.
Was Erin Henderson part of that negotiation?
MR. SHEA :
No.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you view settling that complaint as a way of resolving harassment dir,ected toward Ms. Henderson?
MR. SHEA:
Sure.
MR. WALSH:
Ms. Kirkwood, just a point of clarification here.
The settlement occurred a t the end of 2017 and her harassment complaint was filed in March 9th of 2018.
So I don't understand the question and I just want to make note of the timel ine there.
MR. SHEA:
Yes, I'd ask you to clarify that as well, Ms. Kirkwood.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
I'm fully aware of the timeline.
But you were discussing earlier, we were (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 discussing about whether or not Ms. Henderson had raised concerns previous l y about empl oyees harassing her.
So what I am asking you i s if you viewed that settlement as a way of resolving concerns of Ms.
Henderson ' s?
MR. SHEA :
The settlement was to resolve Ms.
Conner ' s concerns.
And in settling it Ms.
Conner's was settled in another organization.
And I did view that that would reduce tension within the group.
Your question specifically, did I think it would resolve, I ' m sorry, can you finish that for me?
Resolve what?
I can ' t hear you.
PARTICI PANT :
You do look to be on mute.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sorry.
I still get mixed up on the buttons.
Did you think that the settlement agreement with Conner was resolving concerns of Ms.
Henderson ' s?
MR.
SHEA:
I thought that it would alleviate tensions within the group and that would potenti all y allevi ate some of Ms.
Henderson's concerns.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
You referred the Henderson compl a i nt for investigation because you were concerned (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 that Ms. Henderson was being harassed, correct?
MR.
SHEA:
I referred it because Ms.
Henderson filed the complaint with me and I needed to respond to it.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Do you have a copy of the complaint?
MR. SHEA :
Yes.
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Okay.
I would like you to look at Page 8 of her complaint. It sort of starts on Page 7.
I t's the paragraph that runs from Page 7 to Page 8.
Actually, I would start even on the bullet before that on Page 7.
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
I ' m sorry, on 221 is the MS. KIRKWOOD:
Yes.
MR. SHEA:
the second one.
During a discussion with one of my directs.
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
Yes.
And look at the bullet right before that too.
During a meeting with ERI.
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Okay.
So in both of those bullets, and tell me if you read it differently. What I am reading is, Erin Henderson i dentifying incidents (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 involving Michelle Conner that would have happened after her settlement agreement.
So, if Erin Henderson is accusing Michelle Conner of harassing her after the settlement agre,ement took place, I ' m trying to understand why you felt that it was not appropriate to have Conner interviewed as part of this investigation.
MR. SHEA :
I think I described earlier, in response to your question, that I described to Mr.
Sl ater and Ms. Grace a fact that a settl ement had occurred recently.
And that as he looked at how he was going to do the i nvestigation and do interviews, I asked him to be aware of, and mindful of the fact that an interview could cause Ms. Conner to think we had negotiated in bad fa i th.
I could not instruct Mr. Slater what to do with his investigation. His conduct of investigation was between him and his boss, Ms. Grace.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Did any employees at TVA raise concerns to you about Erin Henderson's conduct?
MR. SHEA:
When MR. WALSH :
Ms. Kirkwood, do you have a time frame that you would like to discuss or --
MR.
SHEA :
Yes,
that ' s my question.
That's my question, when.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS.
KIRKWOOD :
127 I
would actually be i nt erested in a ny t i mes t hat an empl oyee rai sed concerns.
When Ms. Henderson worked for you.
I'll narrow it if you want.
You could go from sort of 2016 forward.
When she was in her position as the corporate licensing manager,
did employees raise concerns to you about Ms. Henderson ' s conduct?
MR. SHEA :
About her conduct I would say no.
I would, described in my discussion this morni ng,
that Ms. Wetzel talked to me about in January of 2017, 2016, I ' m sorry, of her difficulty in getting aligned with her bosses expectations.
I did not take that or hear that as a complaint about her conduct.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Did you hear complai nts from Ms. Wetzel about Ms. Henderson, about things other than her conduct?
MR. SHEA:
I just described an example of that.
MS. KI RKWOOD :
Is that the only example?
MR.
SHEA:
That ' s the only one I can recall.
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
You included in the exhibit, it ' s dated February 23rd of 2018, when Ms.
Henderson went to HR about an all egation that Ed (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 Schrull had been inappropriate in a licensing call of some type.
And I see the HR investigation.
What actions were taken corning out of that?
MR. SHEA:
I don't recall.
I honestly don't recall, Ms. Kirkwood.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
But Mr. Schrull continued with the company after that time, correct?
MR. SHEA:
After that time he, yes, he left the company in, later in 2018.
MS.
KI RKWOOD:
Would you have been responsible for any actions that were taken coming out of that or would that have been somebody else?
MR. SHEA:
I would have to know what the actions were that came out of it to know who would have been responsible for those.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Okay.
And at this point you don't recall i f there were any actions corning out of it?
MR.
SHEA:
I don't specifically r,ecall what they were.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
You referenced today two emails.
Let's start with the May 7th, 2018 email.
I think you have that as Exhibit, let ' s pull it up.
One moment.
(202) 234-4433 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 off the record at 12:46 p.m. and resumed at 12:48 p.m.)
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Okay.
I ' m looking at your Exhibit 12, the email from Ms. Wetzel to you on May the 7th, 2018.
Are you with me?
MR. SHEA:
Just one minute, please.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sure.
MR. SHEA:
May 7, 2018 at 10:11 : 44 a.m.?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Yes.
MR. SHEA:
That's the one.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
So I understand that you viewed this email as extremely troubling from Ms.
Wetzel, correct?
MR. SHEA :
Just there were passages in it that I cons i dered extreme l y troubling.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
And did you view that,email as harassing of Ms. Henderson?
MR. SHEA:
I viewed it in two ways.
One is that as she was making references to types of things such as the HR investigation that Ms. Henderson had referenced in her complaint. And I also viewed it as Ms. Wetzel was raising a perspective of her own,
that her boss was being -- I'm trying to - - trying to find the words.
Using things as an investigative tool.
So that she was raising a concern of her own.
(202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you view that email as part of a sustained pattern of -- sustained campaign of disrespectful conduct from Ms. Wetzel directed toward Ms. Henderson?
MR. SHEA :
At that moment, I did not.
I recognized, as I mentioned, some of the things she referenced in her email were referencing the HR investigation, were being Ms. Henderson's complaint.
And - - but I, in that moment, didn't see that as a - -
that was a discrete email and by itself was not a pattern.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Did you think that she was that Ms. Wetzel was violating TVA policies or procedures by sending that email to you?
MR.
SHEA:
At the time, I viewed the passage in there, specifically the opened-ended reference to a lot more actions that I ' m not aware of as troubling.
I struggled to see how that would've been considered ethical.
That was one of the things that motivated me to provide it to -- to offer it to OGC.
They are the experts in the application of TVA's code of conduct.
So I was troubled by it, but I sought the assistance of OGC to determine what it represented.
(202) 234*4433 MS. KIRKWOOD:
So if you were troubled by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 it and you thought it was a potential violation of the TVA code of conduct --
code of ethics, why was she allowed to go on a rotation to NEI after that email?
MR.
SHEA:
She was already on the rotation.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
On May 7th?
MR. SHEA:
My recollection is she had gone up on April 29th is my recollection.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you give any thought to pulling it back at that time?
MR. SHEA:
No, my -- my response was to provide -- to seek assistance from, in this case, OGC and HR to figure out the proper way to assess it and what it represented and to -- that was the first thing that needed to be done.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
She had already been named in Ms. Henderson's complaint however at that time as somebody who was harassing Ms. Henderson.
Did you think it was appropriate for her to go on the NEI rotation with that investigation pending?
MR. SHEA:
The investigation was ongo ing.
The investigation had not been completed yet.
So I did not make a determination on any action without the investigation being completed.
(202) 234-4433 MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Looking again at that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 email, t h e statement, I know that Erin has used HR to investi gate people.
What d id you take that in reference to?
MR. SHEA :
I took it as reference to the April or the spring 2016 HR investigation into the concern about the relationship between Ms. Conner and Mr. McBrearty.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
And why - -
MR. SHEA:
But -- but I did not know that.
That ' s what I took i t as.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Wh y did you take it as that as compared to the investigation by Ms. Henderson into Ed Schrull?
MR.
SHEA :
I'm just giving you my reaction.
That's what I attri buted i t to.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
But you agree that the statement is, i n
- fact, true,
correct,
that Ms.
Henderson has used HR to investigate people?
MR. SHEA :
No,
I don't --
I don't --
I don ' t agree with that at all.
In the particular in the spring of 2016,
concerns were brought to Ms.
Henderson and to me, but to Ms. Henderson that raised questions about the ability of Ms.
Conner the perception of the ability of Ms. Conner to provide unbiased oversight in her role over Mr. McBrearty.
I t (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 was not that Ms. Henderson used HR to investigate people.
Ms. Henderson properly took concerns raised to her and took them to HR, that organization to position to look at issues like that.
She did not go there to have them investigated.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
So you don It agree with the way she framed the statement, but you agree that Ms.
Henderson did, in fact, initiate at least two investigations that we've talked about today of her employees with HR?
MR. SHEA:
Can you say the question again?
I'm sorry.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
You don't agree with the way Ms. Wetzel framed the statement.
But you agree that Ms. Henderson did, in fact, refer at least two different cases that we've talked about today of her employees to Human Resources for investigations?
MR.
SHEA:
In my view, Ms.
Henderson discharged her obligation which is when concerns were raised to her to -- to have them looked at.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
I guess I'm trying t o get at I think you indicated that you viewed this as a false accusation on the part of Ms. Wetzel.
And so I'm trying to narrow down which part is false.
And I think where we are is at the part that you find false (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 134 is the use of the word, use, because you thought the i nvest i gations were, in fact, appropri ate.
But we agree that they did happen?
MR. WALSH :
Ms. Kirkwood, pardon me one second.
I understand your questioning, but l et ' s look at the whole email in context and not just one word in the email.
MR. SHEA:
Yeah, that ' s --
(Simultaneous speaking. )
MR. WALSH :
-- the whole sentence --
(Simultaneous speaking. )
MR. SHEA :
Yeah, that's what I wan t -ed to get to.
So the sentence is is adjacent to she has demonstrated a long pattern of using TVA processes as pun itive and retaliatory tools. So i n looking at, you know, how the word, use, or what ' s some other word, it was juxtaposed against a view that those had been done in a punitive and retaliatory manner.
Are you there?
Sorry.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Yes.
Sorry, again, hit my button wrong.
You specifically talked about pulling badging gate records and that Ms. Wetzel should have known that Ms. Henderson didn ' t have the ability to do that.
I want to understand a little bit more about that.
Who can pull badge records at TVA?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 MR. SHEA:
Security.
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
And i s there a written procedure about obtaining badge records?
MR. SHEA:
I am sure there is.
I don't know it.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Are there circumstances where a manager can obtain badge records? Or is that such a well -known --
you said Ms. Wetzel would've known this.
I'm j ust trying to understand that.
They could only be obtai ned under certain circumstances?
MR. SHEA:
I don ' t have that procedure.
I'm confident that I cannot call up security and j ust have them pull badge records on my request or any other manager's request.
MS. KI RKWOOD :
Why do you think that Ms.
Wetzel would have known that that could not happen?
MR. SHEA :
From the time she'd worked at TVA and, in fact, the time she worked at the site.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
But are you familiar with the HR investigation of Ms. Conner and Mr. McBrearty?
MR. SHEA:
I'm familiar that one occurred, yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
And in fact, it discussed their badge records?
(202) 234*4433 MR.
SHEA :
I ' m sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 Was that a (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 question?
I don't -- I don ' t have that report.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
You don't have that report?
Again, on that email, Ms. Wetzel had asked for a detailed travel memo that she'd been told she would get.
And I understood your testimony to say your concern was when she basically said that Ms. Henderson hadn't provided it to her,
you testified that it wasn ' t Ms. Henderson who said she shouldn ' t get that detail memo.
It was OGC.
But how would Ms. Wetzel have known that it was OGC who had switched that direction?
MR. SHEA :
She wouldn't necessarily have until someone told her that which on May 12th -- or sorry, May 14th, I recall I went back to her and responded and expl ained that to her.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
But on May 7th when she raised a concern, how was that -- how was expressing a concern that she did not get what she had been told she was going to get about specific procedures for how to submit her travel vouchers part of a sustained pattern of conduct campaign against Ms. Henderson?
MR. SHEA:
At that point, that had not been determined to be a
sustained pattern of disrespectful and harassing conduct.
And it is this email and some of the assertions in there referenced (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 to punitive and retaliatory, those are words of concern.
That is what caused me to bri ng t he matter forward to OGC to get assistance to look at and determine what, if any, of those elements of t hat email were an ethical problem or not.
So I didn 't attempt in that moment to parse these and make a j udgment of my own.
I sought assistance from the organizations that had expertise in that area.
(Pause. )
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
Do you have Henderson ' s complaint in front of you still?
MR. SHEA :
Yes, yes.
Erin MS. KIRKWOOD:
Okay.
Could you turn to page page 6?
I'm looking at the section that's page 6 of the compl aint that says, there are some indications that other individuals, Michelle Conner, Beth Wetzel, Ed Schrull,
and Alesia J ustice, may potentially be contributing to this environment or colluding with each other facilitate creating a hostil e work environment as described below.
May potentially be, and then there's kind of a timeline attached.
And you are welcome to read through it if you want.
MR. SHEA :
Is there a particular element on the timeline, or --
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS.
KIRKWOOD:
138
- Well, I ' 11 ask you my que s t i on a nd then you can deci de.
I' m not t r ying t o mislead you.
I read the Henderson complaint as relatively vague as to what most of these individuals actual ly did to her.
What Wetzel said about Erin Henderson, she engaged i n a lot of -- she probably did other things that I don ' t even know about, seems similar.
So I 'm trying to understand why - - in resolving the Henderson compl aint, TVA fully investigated it and d i scipli ned employees but that Wetzel' s comment that Henderson was doing things to people was treated as disrespectful conduct.
Why wasn ' t Henderson ' s complaint that, say, people had gone to ECP and treated as disrespectful conduct toward her empl oyees?
MR. SHEA:
My action was to put both of those set s of issues in front of an organization that was capable of performing an investigation and det ermining facts, anal yses, and conclusions on them both.
So the OGC drew a conclusion with regard to Ms.
Wetzel on August 30th on that,
and that was the conclusion that they drew.
So I 'm not sure if your question is different than that.
have them investigated.
My action was to (202) 234*4433 (Simul taneous speaki ng. )
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you view OGC's job as to get at the truth of the matter such that a possible outcome could ' ve been that Erin Henderson was the one harassing her employees? Or did you view this as they needed to look to see if Henderson was being harassed?
MR.
SHEA :
They needed to look at the complaint and find the facts behind under what was presented to them and make their own conclusions.
So I didn't have a preconceived notion.
Ms. Henderson presented it as she was being harassed.
That's what was presented to OGC.
My expectation was that they investigate it and draw their own conclusions.
MS. KIRKWOOD: Didn't Ms. Wetzel make very similar allegations in that email to you on May 7th about Ms. Hender son?
MR. SHEA:
Let me look at the May 7 email.
So I do want to take time to look at the chronology to understand their point of view.
MR. SHEA :
Please do.
MR. WALSH:
Joe, which document are you looking at?
MR.
SHEA:
The Ms.
Henderson's complaint on page 6.
(Pause. )
(202) 234-4433 MR. SHEA:
Ms. Kirkwood?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 MR. WALSH:
Could you repeat the question now that Joe's had an opportunity to review the document, please, Ms. Kirkwood?
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
I was asking for him to explain why the --
the Henderson complaint lists a variety of somewhat vague allegations against her employees.
The Wetzel email, in my view, has a very similar vague allegations against her supervisor. And I'm trying to understand the different treatment on the part of TVA of those two documents.
MR. WALSH:
Ms. Kirkwood, are you asking Joe how he treated them differently, because he's previously stated that he treated them the same?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
I don't think he did say that.
And I ' m asking him what he thought was a possible outcome, why he views those as different.
MR. SHEA:
Well, my action was to have them both investigated by experts to determine what were the facts and the true in both of them.
I can look at them and see more specificity in the March 9th complaint than in a vague station of -- of probably a lot more that I'm not aware of.
I'd see more specificity. However, my action was that I was not in a position to be the one to investigate and draw that conclusion.
(202) 234-4433 I provided and reached out and sought NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 assistance from the part of the company that had that experti se.
(Pause.)
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Can you turn with me to your Exhibit 16?
MR. SHEA:
Just a minute, please.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Sure.
(Pause.)
MR. SHEA:
This is an email from myself to Emily Walker on May 31st at 12 : 39 p.m.
Is that correct?
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
Yes,
that 's what I'm talking about.
What I thought I understood your testimony to be was that you referred this to OGC and whatever they come up wi th was fine.
They were the independent investigators.
But here, i t l ooks l ike you ' re saying, I haven ' t gotten what I need out of this and I need you to do more with it.
And again, I 'm trying to reconcile those statements.
I f they were doing an independent investigation, then why couldn't they just take the Sl ater report as it stood in May?
Why did you go back and ask for more?
(202) 234-4433 MR. SHEA : Let me look at the 25th report.
(Pause. )
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHEA:
Just one minute, please.
(Pause. )
142 MR. SHEA :
Ms. Kirkwood, can you hear me?
MS. KIRKWOOD :
I can hear you.
MR.
SHEA :
We will get used to this hopefully.
Okay.
The report from the 25th was, to my read of it,
really silent on the set of issues presented by Ms. Wetzel in her May 7 email.
So whether the investigation was going to conclude that Ms. Wetzel' s characteri zations were disrespectful and harassing or alternatively look at whether Ms.
Wetzel ' s claim of vindictiveness,
the report was silent of that.
So for me to respond either way to Ms. Henderson ' s concern about Ms.
Wetzel and her compl a i nt or theoretically to Ms. Wetzel ' s concern about Ms. Henderson, the report was silent.
So I was seeking that to be addressed i n the report.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
The report is similarly silent about Ms. Henderson's concerns about Justice - -
Alesia Justice, Ed Schrull, and Michelle Conner.
Did you have similar concerns that they weren ' t addressed?
MR. SHEA :
I was -- speci fically because Ms. Wetzel had raised the issues to me, I was noted that that was on my plate and needed a resolution. So that ' s what drove me to follow up with OGC.
I didn't (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 143 have anything uniquely on my plate from those o ther individuals.
MS. KI RKWOOD :
I ' m going to flip t o the ERB package next.
I think you submitted it as an exhibit, but I 'm assumi ng you have it.
And I need to pull it up too.
(Pause. )
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Do you have it in front of you ?
MR. SHEA: I' m sorry. Did you describe it as a particular exhibit?
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
Sorry.
It 's the ERB package.
It ' s your Exhibit 26.
MR. WALSH :
Yes, it's 26.
MR. SHEA :
Thank you.
Yes, I do.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Okay.
So I ' m looking at the summary of situation in question, include a l l relevant information.
Do you see where I am?
MR. SHEA :
Yes, ma'am.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Okay.
It says there that Ms. Wetzel has been found to have acted in viol ation of t hree TVA policies governing employee behaviors and two federal statutes that provide protection to (audio interference).
Did you at any time refer Ms. Wetzel to the I G?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 MR. SHEA:
I did not.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Isn't the IG responsible for investigating concerns about violations of the law?
MR. SHEA:
That is one of their functions.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Why did you not refer this to the IG?
MR. SHEA:
I didn ' t reflect on that at the time.
I mean, it is a lower level personnel matter to the extent that there ' s, I believe, discretion, at the levels of things that are referred.
This was a finding that had been made, and there was a basis for us to assess it from a discipline policy standpoint.
Normally, IG is, you know, an organization that is primarily waste, fraud, and abuse.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Also in that paragraph, it says, specifically, the investigation concluded that Ms. Wetzel had engaged in a sustained campaign of disrespectful conduct over a l engthy period of time.
The disrespectful conduct included repeated insinuations by Ms. Wetzel that her supervisor had initiated inappropriate investigations of TVA employees for a vindictive purpose despite Ms. Wetzel having no reasonable basis or specific knowl edge to support those insinuations. You told us about the May (202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 7th email that Ms.
Wetzel sent you.
Was there anything else that you considered part of this sustained campaign of disrespectful conduct?
MR. SHEA :
There is.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Would you tell us what that is, please?
MR. SHEA:
Yes, just a minute.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sure.
MR. SHEA :
The email in J une 9th and the exchange at the end of June or July where Ms. Wetzel again raised challenges to Ms. Henderson ' s behavior and, you know, characterized them in ways that was --
was casting aspersions, disrespectful of Ms.
Henderson's obligations to discharge her job and how she did that.
Let me pull up a June 9 email.
In the June 9 email, Ms. Wetzel wrote, I have been afraid what will happen as soon as I started submitting my vouchers.
I don't even try t o understand my boss and why she does what she does.
But I know she never gives up.
So there's no specificity to that assertion. And without any, it is -- if it has no basis, then it is disrespectful and harassing.
And to the extent that there are a series of these, then that's what the investigation report refers to.
(202) 234*4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 7th?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
146 Is there anything before MR. SHEA:
There was an email on March 29th with regard to the contract.
I didn't, at that point, consider that.
I t was a -- it was a question she described potentially that Erin was blocking her contract.
But there was no motivations of vindictiveness or anything else associated with that.
So I didn ' t view at that time as anything other than what I described this morning.
And there was nothing prior to that that I would've considered part of evidence I had of a pattern of disrespectful and harassing conduct.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Do you have any evidence of a pattern of disrespect or harassing conduct of Ms.
Wetzel toward Ms. Henderson other than emails or texts directed to you?
MR. SHEA:
Those are the -- those are the evidence that I have and then what you see performed as an investigation and through its conclusions and its conclusion that a pattern was consistent with that specific evidence that experienced over those couple months.
(202) 234*4433 MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Also on that same ERB NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 package,
you did yes for the question, was the employee on clear notice of any r ules and/or expectations that were violated prior to this event?
MR. WALSH :
Ms. Kirkwood, I ' m sorry.
You cut out br iefly on my end.
Everyone else may have heard, but what question number are we referring to?
MS. KIRKWOOD :
It doesn 't have a number.
I t ' s on page -- it's a button.
It ' s MR. SHEA :
Page 2 of 2.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
-- 2 of 2, yeah.
And it is the first button, if you will.
Was the employee on clear notice of any rules and/or expectations that were violated prior to the event?
MR. SHEA :
Yes.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
And what clear notice do you think she had?
What was your basis for saying yes?
MR. SHEA:
I base that yes based on the training that I was aware that a l l managers needed to take on the types of things that I mentioned in my own presentation.
Those were applicable to all managers which talked about maintaining a respectful workpl ace and code of conduct.
That was my basis.
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
Do you think part of a respectful workpl ace can i nvolve cri ticizi ng your (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 supervisor?
MR. SHEA:
Criticism can be done if it --
it's how it ' s done. It can be done respectfully, and it can be done disrespectfully.
So yes,
one can criticize the organization including one's supervisor.
The issue is how it's done.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
You stated that that ERB was a
particularly challenging ERB.
challenging about it?
What was MR. SHEA: Challenging in that the members challenged each other to make sure we were answering these questions in a way that there was common understanding.
It was not meant to mean that it was more difficult than I anticipated. It was a challenge which is a term of the level of engagement and rigor.
(Pause.)
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Do you know the TVA policy on expressing concerns and differing views?
MR. SHEA:
I don't is it one of the exhibits?
I don't have it here on my table that I' m aware of.
Are you referring to something specific that I have?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
I don ' t think it was one of your exhibits.
Mr. Walsh, do you have that policy?
(202) 234-4433 MR. WALSH:
I don't know that I have it in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 149 front of me, no.
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
I 'm going to read you something from that policy. It starts in the purpose secti on.
I know you don't have it in front of you.
TVA encourages the voluntary expr ession of concerns and differing views.
The ability to freely express concerns and differing views will enhance employee productivity and promote a safety conscious work environment.
How do you MR.
WALSH:
Ms.
- Kirkwood, I
have the policy.
I ' m sorry.
I have the policy in front of me.
If you wanted to point me to the portion that you ' re looking at so I can read --
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sure.
MR. WALSH:
along.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Yeah.
MR. SHEA :
And I realize I' ve got another set of documents over here that I can also look at.
Give me j ust a second, please.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Sure.
It ' s Section 1. 0.
MR. WALSH :
Ms. Kirkwood, just so we're extra clear, which revision are you reading from, if you know?
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
That's a good question.
Let me check.
I am reading from -- it says Rev. 0009, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 150 page 4 of 15, although I think the table of contents and stuff are i n front of it.
And yeah, it 's MR. WALSH :
I 'm on that page, and -- I 'm on that page and have that revision.
But let's double check wi th J oe to make sure he has the correct one too.
Thank you.
MR.
SHEA :
Where am I
where am I looking, please?
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Go to 1. 0 --
MR.
WALSH:
Joe, it should be --
oh, sorry.
You have the document in front of you, Joe?
MR. SHEA :
Not yet.
MR.
WALSH:
It's in the big binder, Exhibit 19D it looks like.
MR. SHEA :
This is TVA SPP 11.804?
MR. WALSH:
Yes, and Ms. Kirkwood dir,ected us to page 4 or 5, Revision 9,
and the purpose,
Section 1. 0.
MR. SHEA :
All right.
And I'm there.
MS.
KI RKWOOD:
I t says,
the second sentence, TVA encourages the voluntary expression of concerns a nd differing v i ews.
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD :
Was --
how was what Ms.
Wetzel express to you expressing her concerns about (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 151 Ms. Henderson not in keeping with this policy?
MR. SHEA :
The distincti on to me is that this encourages expression of concerns and differing views.
That is not the same as giving license to express them in a disrespectful fashion without or expressing motivations without -- you know, without basis.
So a concern can be expressed.
You need to do it and you still need to do it in an ethical fashion.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
I n your view MR. SHEA:
I'm sorry.
In a respectful in a respectful fashion.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Is it possible for an employee to legitimately express a concern that they ultimately are incorrect about?
MR. SHEA:
Certainly.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Mr. Walsh, I
t hought I heard you make a reference to Exhibit 19.
Do you have the same package of TVA exhibits that I'm looking at?
MR. WALSH:
Yeah, it's not an exhibit that we -- this is not part of Joe ' s exhibit package. It's our separate binder materials for review.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Okay. Where I ' m going next is to the employee discipline policy.
(202) 234-4433 MR. SHEA:
Are you referring to TVA SPP NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 152 11.316?
And I have Revision 6.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
I don't scroll quite as fast as you do because I have it all electronically.
Hold on.
(Pause.)
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
So it is
- yes, SPP 11.316, Revision 6.
Yes, we are on the same page.
Excellent.
Mr. Walsh, are you there too?
MR. WALSH:
I am at that document, yes.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Okay.
Mr. Shea, did you use this policy in proposing disciplinary action against Ms. Wetzel?
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you view yourself for the purpose of Ms. Wetzel ' s discipline and ultimate termination being in the role of a 3.13 role of a chief officer or manager, executive vice president, chief officer or manager or a 3.14 of supervisor?
MR. SHEA :
Sorry.
Did you say 3. 1. 3. 1?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sorry. There ' s a different definition for a supervisor, the role of a supervisor and the role of a manager.
And I was trying to figure out which one you fit into in this particular removal.
role.
(202) 234-4433 MR. SHEA:
Yeah, I was in the manager NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 MS. KIRKWOOD:
Who would've been in the supervisor role?
MR. SHEA:
So I did use this procedure.
I can't tell you that I focused on that distinction because Ms.
Henderson was at the heart of the complaint.
So I certainly served in the role of the manager, and I certainly coordinated with -- actions with HR which is a supervisory role.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Okay. If you go to Section 3.2.1, guidelines for p rogressive discipline, Section A.
It states, TVA generally supports the concept of progressive discipline, believing that the major purpose of disciplinary action is to rehabilitate the employee, prevent reoccurrence, and encourage the employee involved to render future satisfactory service.
An effective system emphasizes correcting the problem rather than punishing the offender.
Therefore, TVA's focus is on communicating an expectation of changed improvement rather than an expectation of future problems and eventual termination.
Did you counsel or attempt to correct Ms. Wetzel regarding her treatment of Ms. Henderson?
MR. SHEA:
I would offer, Ms. Kirkwood, that the procedure goes on to say, however in some circumstances, more rigorous disciplinary action may (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 154 be warranted.
Such action is intended to deter more extreme unsafe or - - and inappropriate behaviors. And from my engagement with HR and of course supported by the August 30 memo from General Counsel, it was separation as termination.
That was recommended for this particular -- this particular circumstance.
And I reviewed the procedure and supported that.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you ever counsel Ms.
Wetzel regarding her treatment of Ms. Henderson?
MR. SHEA:
No.
(Pause.)
MS.
KIRKWOOD :
In Section 3. 2. 2 (b), it says -- it says -- it's 3.2.2(b).
Are you with me, Mr. Shea?
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Okay.
It
- says, managers/supervisors shall refer to the Douglas factors disciplinary action checklist prior to administering discipline.
Did you do that?
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
You did ask earlier if I had counseled Ms. Wetzel.
Just to clarify, I did redirect to her several times seeking more information which I understand is not the same as counseling which you were asking.
But I was seeking to understand and engage, but you asked about the Douglas factors.
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 155 MS. KIRKWOOD:
So if you go to Appendix A, there's a list of the Douglas factors.
list you would ' ve used?
Is that the MR. SHEA :
I see it.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Is this the list that you used?
MR. SHEA:
Yes.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Looking at Factor C, did she have a past disciplinary record?
MR. SHEA:
No.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Looking at Factor D, how did her past work record play into the Douglas factors?
MR. SHEA:
Her performance was solid in TVA' s performance management terminology. The Dougl as factors are, of course, looked at in their totality.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Sure.
Looking at Factor J,
how did you draw a conclusion about the potential for her rehabilitat ion?
MR. SHEA:
I don ' t have notes to what I specifically did with my review against those.
I consulted with HR and General Counsel, so I don ' t have any particular notes on how I addressed that.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Were any of those factors particularly influential to you either way?
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 MR. SHEA:
Of those three factors?
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
No, of all the Douglas factors?
MR. SHEA:
The employee's job level and seriousness of the offense were of awareness to me in consultation with OGC.
So an understanding of the consistency with the TVA disciplinary policy.
So those were ones that were important.
They ' re all important, though.
And again, as procedure guides, I sought counsel from HR and OGC who are the experts in the -- in the application of it.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Did you view the decision to terminate Ms. Wetzel or to propose her termination for ERB review as your decision or as OGC's decision or as someone else's decision?
MR. SHEA: It ' s my decision. OGC provided a recommendation.
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
When Ms.
Wetzel was terminated, what was the impact on the rest of the site staff?
MR. SHEA:
The -- I'm sorry.
The impact on the rest of the corporate staff?
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Yes, sorry.
Corporate site.
I didn't say that very well.
Her work group.
(202) 234*4433 MR. SHEA:
That ' s fine.
Can you clarify NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 157 impact?
MS.
KIRKWOOD:
Did you do a
safety conscious work environment mitigation plan?
MR. SHEA:
I did.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
How did that -- how did --
did people express concerns to you that Ms. Wetzel had been terminated?
MR.
SHEA:
Let me just review my mitigation plan notes, if you don't mind.
MS. KI RKWOOD:
Sure.
Go ahead.
(Pause.)
MR. SHEA:
So I implemented a key step of the mitigation plan of speaking to the the licensing organization to corporate regulatory affairs staff on January 14th.
And my notes from, you know, that discussion, I don ' t I was informing them.
I didn't have any notes of anyone expressing any particular concern.
And subsequent to that, we did have a survey performed by Oak Ridge Associated Universities in April of 2019 to and that was part of the mitigation plan to assess the work group's perspectives on what had occurred. And that concl udes that that the communication surrounding the management changes were sufficient for the event was (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the primary conclusion from that.
158 And Oak Ridge recommended that no additional follow-up action was needed for that group.
MS. KIRKWOOD:
I don't have any further questions.
I s there anything about your answers that you want to clarify?
MR. SHEA:
Do you mind if I confer with counsel briefly?
MS. KIRKWOOD:
Not at all.
MR. SHEA:
Thank you very much.
(Pause.)
MR. SHEA:
Ms. Kirkwood and Mr. Wilson, can you hear me?
MR. WILSON:
Yes, yes.
MR.
SHEA:
- Yeah, I have no further - -
further comments to make.
I appreciate -- appreciate very much your time.
MR. WILSON:
All right.
Thank you.
I'd like to take this opportunity to reemphasize some of the points made during my opening remarks.
No final decision has been made on the part of the NRC.
We will consider the information gathered by the Office of Investigation, information provided earlier by you,
Mr. Shea, and information presented here today.
(202) 234-4433 The NRC staff will meet after the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 159 completion of the PEC to reach a final agency decision as to where a violation occurred.
I'll also remind you that any statements or lack thereof made by an NRC employee at this conference are not intended to represent the agency's final position or determination.
Before we close the teleconference, does the court reporter have any questions or clarifications that are needed?
(No response.)
MR. WILSON:
Finally, I'd like to thank everyone who participated and all the presentations that you this --
MR. SHEA :
Are you there?
MR. WILSON:
Yes.
MR. SHEA:
You broke up.
MR.
WILSON:
Oh.
This concludes our teleconference.
Thanks, everyone.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2 :01 p.m.)
(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433