IA-20-008, Predecisional Enforcement Conference Transcript for Joe Shea (IA-20-008)

Predecisional Enforcement Conference Transcript for Joe Shea (IA-20-008)

ML21069A102
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/10/2021
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
Gifford I
Shared Package
ML20182A790	List: IA-20-008, Predecisional Enforcement Conference Transcript for Joe Shea (IA-20-008)
References
IA-20-008, NRC-0944
Download: ML21069A102 (160)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference RE Joe Shea Docket Number: IA-2020-008 Location: teleconference Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020 Work Order No.: NRC-0944 Pages 1-159 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +

4 PRE-DECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 5 RE 6 JOE SHEA 7 (DOCKET NO. IA-2020-008) 8 + + + + +

9 THURSDAY 10 JUNE 25, 2020 11 + + + + +

12 The conference was convened at 8:00 a.m.,

13 George Wilson, Director, Office of Enforcement, 14 presiding.

15 16 17 NRC STAFF PRESENT:

18 GEORGE WILSON, Director, Office of Enforcement 19 ALEX ECHAVARRIA, Office of Investigations 20 IAN GIFFORD, Office of Enforcement 21 SARA KIRKWOOD, Office of the General Counsel 22 SCOTT LUINA, Office of Investigations 23 CHRIS MILLER, Office of Nuclear Reactor 24 Regulation (NRR), Division of Reactor 25 Oversight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

2 1 MARK MILLER, Region II, Division of Reactor 2 Projects 3 DAVID SOLORIO, Office of Enforcement 4 CATHERINE THOMPSON, Office of Enforcement 5

6 7 ALSO PRESENT:

8 JOE SHEA, Respondent 9 SID FOWLER, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, 10 on behalf of Mr. Shea 11 MEGHAN HAMMOND, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 12 Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea 13 ANNE LEIDICH, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, 14 on behalf of Mr. Shea 15 MICHAEL LEPRE, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 16 Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea 17 BETH WETZEL, Complainant 18 TIMOTHY WALSH, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 19 Pittman, on behalf of Mr. Shea 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3 1 CONTENTS 2 Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Director, Office of Enforcement 4 Enforcement Policy Overview . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Office of Enforcement Staff 6 Apparent Violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Office of Enforcement Staff 8 External Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9 Complainant Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10 External Response to Complainant Comments . . . 100 11 Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 12 Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 13 Director, Office of Enforcement 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 8:01 a.m.

3 MR. WILSON: Good morning, everyone. My 4 name is George Wilson, I'm the Director of the Office 5 of Enforcement.

6 Before we get started, Ian Gifford will 7 review the details of today's video conference and 8 answer any questions. Ian?

9 MR. GIFFORD: Thank you, George. I'll 10 just walk you through a few features of Webex on your 11 screen. I see that everyone has joined using their 12 computer. You can switch to phone if you'd like by 13 selecting the gray audio button at the bottom of the 14 attendee list and swap audio, but we prefer computer 15 if possible.

16 If you'd like to see all of the 17 participants you can click the participant tab in the 18 top right corner. You'll then see a list of all of 19 the attendees for today's meeting.

20 You can hover your own name and you'll see 21 a microphone and video. To the right you can select 22 those to mute and unmute yourselves, and turn on and 23 off your video.

24 If you are unable to turn off your audio, 25 the host will mute you if there's background noise.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

5 1 Just be aware that if the host has muted you, you 2 won't be able to unmute yourself, and so if you are 3 having difficulties and believe that you've been muted 4 by the host, please see the chat feature at the bottom 5 and select a message to the host requesting control of 6 your own audio.

7 If the chat box does not automatically 8 open for you, you would just select chat at the top 9 and you'll see the chat box open up under the list of 10 attendees.

11 Rather than seeing the list of names, if 12 you would like see thumbnails of the videos that are 13 present, you can look at the little box that has three 14 horizontal lines. It's a drop-down menu; select the 15 drop-down menu, and switch from list to thumbnail and 16 that will show you the active videos, in addition to 17 the active speaker that's in the larger video box at 18 the top right.

19 This is what it should look like after you 20 click the participant button. You would see the 21 different thumbnail video feeds.

22 During the presentation, if you'd like to 23 switch to full-screen mode in the bottom left portion 24 of your screen, you see a tab that says full screen, 25 you would select that and this would be your new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

6 1 screen display.

2 You would have a drop-down menu that 3 appears at the top of your screen, if you hover your 4 mouse over the center top.

5 And you can see the features of mute, you 6 can also select participants and you'll see a video 7 box in the top right corner, you can expand that video 8 box by dragging the bottom left corner to make it 9 larger or smaller.

10 If it's covering a certain portion of the 11 PowerPoint slide you'd like to see, you can drag that 12 video all over the screen.

13 You can also select participants and get 14 a larger view where you see all the thumbnails of all 15 of the videos, in addition to the active speaker.

16 If you're running a dual monitor setup, 17 you can also drag that pop-up window over to a second 18 screen so that it doesn't cover any of the PowerPoint 19 slides.

20 If you do not want to see the PowerPoint 21 slides and would like to prioritize video, in the top 22 right corner of the video screen there's two arrows 23 that point to the top right and bottom left corner.

24 That would expand the video to the full 25 screen. That's what it would look like there, and you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

7 1 would see all of the active thumbnails of the videos 2 along the bottom. It'll display five at a time.

3 You can select the right and left arrows 4 under those thumbnails if you want to scan through 5 other videos. This is the screen that we recommend 6 using after the caucus, for the Q&A portion of the 7 meeting.

8 I think that covers it, George. If you'd 9 like to take it back?

10 MR. WILSON: Thank you.

11 The purpose of today's teleconference is 12 to obtain information that would be used to determine 13 if a violation of discrimination occurred, which was 14 contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 15 50.7 in employee protection.

16 It is important to note that this pre-17 decisional conference is an important step in our 18 four-step process. We want to offer you an 19 opportunity to make statements to us so that we can 20 fully and thoroughly process if you're non-compliant.

21 Our role is not to debate the facts with 22 you, but to receive and process information that is 23 pertinent. We will use today's information along with 24 information you submitted prior to the meeting today 25 to inform the final enforcement decision.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

8 1 In a few moments, I'll go over the agenda 2 and provide some public meeting guidance. I'd like to 3 begin with introductions. Would those NRC staff 4 please introduce yourselves?

5 MS. THOMPSON: Catherine Thompson, Office 6 of Enforcement.

7 MR. SOLORIO: Dave Solorio, Office of 8 Enforcement, Branch Chief.

9 MR. GIFFORD: Ian Gifford, Office of 10 Enforcement.

11 MR. M. MILLER: Mark Miller, Region II.

12 MR. C. MILLER: Chris Miller, Office of 13 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

14 MR. SOLORIO: Please repeat, Chris.

15 MR. C. MILLER: Chris Miller, Office of 16 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

17 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sarah Kirkwood, Office of 18 the General Counsel.

19 MR. ECHAVARRIA: Alex Echavarria, Office 20 of Investigations, Region II.

21 MR. LUNIA: Scott Luina, Office of 22 Investigations, Region II.

23 MR. WILSON: Would individuals from TVA 24 please introduce themselves?

25 MR. SHEA: My name is Joe Shea, TVA. I'll NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

9 1 let my counsel introduce himself. Mr. Walsh?

2 MR. WALSH: Thank you, this is Tim Walsh 3 from Pillsbury. On the phone, also from Pillsbury, we 4 have Mike Lepre, Anne Leidich, Sid Fowler, and Meghan 5 Hammond.

6 And here in the room with me is TVA Chief 7 Nuclear Officer, Timothy Rausch.

8 MR. WILSON: Thank you. The court 9 reporter, are you online? Thank you.

10 The agenda for today's teleconference 11 consists of opening remarks by me, followed by an 12 enforcement policy overview by Catherine Thompson, and 13 then an overview of the case specifics by Dave 14 Solorio, the supervisor having oversight in this 15 discrimination concern.

16 Following Mr. Solorio's overview of the 17 case specifics, you will be provided an opportunity to 18 present information for NRC's consideration.

19 The NRC staff looks forward to 20 understanding your perspectives on these issues and 21 we'd also like you to tell us if you believe there are 22 any errors of the understanding of the facts and 23 circumstances, and discuss any aggravating or 24 mitigating circumstances that we should consider.

25 Following your presentation, the NRC staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

10 1 will caucus in a separate breakout room on WebEx, and 2 upon our return we will ask additional questions as 3 necessary. You will also have access to a separate 4 breakout room if you wish to use.

5 At the end of this teleconference, I will 6 be making closing remarks on behalf of the NRC and 7 this meeting will be adjourned.

8 Now let's cover some of the meeting 9 guidelines of this conference. In accordance with our 10 normal practice, any written material you provide 11 today will be placed in the NRC's document management 12 system. It'll be withheld from public disclosure 13 until this matter is concluded. NRC representatives 14 may ask questions as they deem necessary after the 15 caucus.

16 This meeting is being transcribed, 17 therefore, it's important that all individuals speak 18 clearly and identify themselves to assist the 19 transcriber.

20 In case the transcriber has follow-up 21 questions, please remain in the teleconference for a 22 few minutes after the meeting adjourns.

23 The written transcript will provide the 24 NRC with a record of the information that is presented 25 today and will be used in reaching a final agency NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

11 1 decision in the matters that we will discuss.

2 The transcript is not normally released to 3 the public, however, if requested under the Freedom of 4 Information Act, release would be considered, subject 5 to redactions allowed by the Freedom of Information 6 Act.

7 In accordance with the NRC enforcement 8 policy and manual, this conference is closed to public 9 observation because it involves the findings of an NRC 10 Office of Investigations report that has not been 11 publicly disclosed, and involves personal issues 12 related to discrimination.

13 With the exception of the transcript 14 already mentioned, no portion of this PEC shall be 15 recorded. And in addition, information discussed in 16 this PEC cannot be discussed in the public domain by 17 NRC staff, TVA staff, or other concerned individuals.

18 Today, no final NRC decision will be 19 discussed, made, or announced at this meeting. The 20 parties will be informed in writing if the NRC decides 21 to take an enforcement action.

22 Based on the availability of the 23 transcript and supplemental information you may 24 provide, we plan to make a final determination by the 25 end of July.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

12 1 Does anyone have any questions regarding 2 the agenda or leading guidelines that I just 3 described?

4 MR. SHEA: I do not.

5 MR. WILSON: With that, at this time, Ms.

6 Thompson will provide an overview of the enforcement 7 policy, followed by Mr. Solorio's overview of the case 8 specifics.

9 MS. THOMPSON: We are conducting today's 10 teleconference to obtain information related to an 11 apparent violation of the NRC's employee protection 12 rule, 10 CFR 50.7, and 10 CFR 50.5 for deliberate 13 misconduct.

14 The NRC has determined that you apparently 15 engaged in deliberate misconduct because Tennessee 16 Valley Authority, an NRC licensee, discriminated 17 against the former manager of emerging regulatory 18 issues, Ms. Wetzel, for engaging in protected 19 activities. Your actions resulted in a termination of 20 Ms. Wetzel.

21 To ensure a safety conscious work 22 environment, a high value is placed on employees being 23 free to raise nuclear safety concerns, regardless of 24 the merits of the concern.

25 The NRC's authority is limited to taking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

13 1 an enforcement action against the licensee or 2 contractor, would we make a finding of discrimination.

3 As appropriate, enforcement actions 4 include issuing a notice of violation, assessing a 5 civil penalty, issuing an order, modifying an NRC 6 license, or, in criminal cases, referring to the case 7 to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

8 Over the years, the NRC has made referrals 9 to DOJ and they have prosecuted some cases.

10 Additionally, nuclear workers may seek personal remedy 11 regarding discrimination cases via the Department of 12 Labor.

13 Because this subject matter involves pre-14 decisional discrimination information and findings by 15 our Office of Investigations, this teleconference is 16 closed to the public.

17 Ms. Wetzel was invited to attend the 18 teleconference and she is also on this teleconference.

19 She will be given the opportunity to provide comments 20 for NRC's consideration.

21 It is important to note that this 22 teleconference is pre-decisional and is an important 23 step in our enforcement process. We want to offer you 24 an opportunity to make statements to us so that we can 25 fully and thoroughly process the apparent violation.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

14 1 Our role is not to debate the facts with 2 you, but to receive and process the information that's 3 presented today.

4 This teleconference will provide an 5 opportunity for the NRC to ask clarifying questions 6 and it will provide you the opportunity to comment on 7 the information that is provided in the conference 8 letter, to provide or to present additional relevant 9 information, such as aggravating or mitigating 10 circumstances, and to also discuss corrective actions 11 that have been taken, or are planned.

12 Presently, the concern is being processed 13 in accordance with our guidelines on escalated 14 enforcement. In accordance with Section 6.10 of the 15 enforcement policy, the issue might be dispositioned 16 at a Severity Level-I, -II, or -III violation.

17 The NRC is considering a notice of 18 violation or a ban. A notice of violation describes 19 the NRC requirement that was violated, the 20 circumstances of the violation, the severity level of 21 the violation, and may require a written response.

22 The NRC considers issuing a ban to a 23 licensee official when their actions are deliberate 24 and result in the NRC no longer having reasonable 25 assurance that license activities will be conducted in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

15 1 an adequate manner.

2 Bans are typically fixed at one, three, or 3 five years. When the NRC determines the length of a 4 ban, we consider the position of the individual in the 5 organization and the significance of the underlying 6 violation.

7 We will conduct an internal agency panel 8 to make a final decision. In addition to what has 9 previously been developed by the NRC's Office of 10 Investigations, we will consider information presented 11 today.

12 If the agency determines that a violation 13 of 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 50.7 occurred, you will 14 receive a public notification of the agency's 15 enforcement action. Additionally, the NRC will issue 16 a press release.

17 The possible outcomes for escalated 18 enforcement actions include the issuance of a notice 19 of violation, or the issuance of an order for a one to 20 five-year ban.

21 Additionally, a potential outcome is that 22 no enforcement action is taken by the NRC. Dave?

23 MR. SOLORIO: Good morning, can you hear 24 me okay, Joe and Nathan?

25 MR. SHEA: Yes, I can.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

16 1 MR. SOLORIO: Thank you. At this time, 2 I'll provide a summary of the apparent violation and 3 then I'll turn things over to you, Joe.

4 The purpose of the NRC Investigation 2-5 2019-015 was to determine whether Ms. Wetzel was the 6 subject of employment discrimination for participating 7 in a protected activity, in violation of the NRC's 8 employee protections, specifically 50.7.

9 The NRC determined that Ms. Wetzel was 10 apparently placed on paid administrative leave on 11 October 15, 2018 and terminated on January 14, 2019, 12 in part for engaging in protected activities.

13 Between 2016 and '17, Ms. Wetzel raised 14 numerous safety concerns, including violations of Part 15 26 fatigue rule at Watts Bar, failure to adhere to the 16 Fukushima requirements at Sequoyah, concerns regarding 17 a Watts Bar 2 surveillance extension request, and 18 failure to meet NRC commitments in Information Notice 19 2017-03 to identify Anchor/Darling double-disc gate 20 valve susceptibility to failure at Browns Ferry.

21 Ms. Wetzel also raised concerns about a 22 chilled work environment. Ms. Wetzel also wrote 23 condition reports and discussed safety issues during 24 meetings. All of these above are protected 25 activities.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

17 1 NRC staff reviewed the evidence gathered 2 during the NRC OI investigations, and determined the 3 actions taken against Ms. Wetzel were an apparent 4 violation of the NRC's rule prohibiting deliberate 5 misconduct, 10 CFR 5.55(a).

6 Based on the evidence developed during the 7 investigations and subsequent staff analysis, it 8 appears that you, as the vice president of regulatory 9 affairs, engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused 10 an NRC licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, 11 employee protection.

12 Next slide.

13 10 CFR 50.55(a) states in the relevant 14 part that any employee of a licensee may not, one, 15 engage in deliberate misconduct if it causes, or would 16 have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant 17 to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, 18 or any term, condition, or limitation of any license 19 issued by the Commission.

20 10 CFR 50.7(a) states in the relevant part 21 that discrimination by a Commission licensee against 22 an employee for engaging in certain protected 23 activities is prohibited.

24 Discrimination includes discharge and 25 other actions that relate to compensation terms, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

18 1 conditions, or privileges of employment.

2 Next slide. Between October 15, 2018 and 3 January 14, 2019, you apparently engaged in deliberate 4 misconduct that caused TVA, an NRC licensee, to 5 discriminate against a former corporate employee for 6 engaging in protected activity.

7 Specifically, Ms. Wetzel engaged in 8 protected activity by raising concerns of a chilled 9 work environment to you and a TVA attorney during a 10 TVA Office of General Counsel investigation.

11 After becoming aware of this protected 12 activity, you, as the Vice President of Regulatory 13 Affairs, placed Ms. Wetzel on paid administrative 14 leave and played a significant role in terminating 15 her.

16 Your apparent actions were based at least 17 in part on Ms. Wetzel engaging in protected activity.

18 George?

19 MR. WILSON: Thank you, Dave. Mr. Shea, 20 we're ready for your presentation.

21 MR. SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Solorio, thank 22 you, Mr. Wilson.

23 Before we start, just for the recorder, 24 I've been advised that my microphone is very sensitive 25 and page-turning can be distracting, so if there's any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

19 1 problem with that please let me know.

2 Other than that, I will get started.

3 Good morning. As you've just heard, my 4 name is Joe Shea and I am the Vice President of 5 Nuclear Technology Innovation at the Tennessee Valley 6 Authority, TVA.

7 During the period of time we'll be 8 discussing today, I served as the Vice President of 9 Regulatory Affairs and Support Services at TVA.

10 I want to thank you all for the 11 opportunity to discuss the allegations raised in the 12 NRC's March 2, 2020 notice of apparent violation 13 during this pre-decisional enforcement conference.

14 I have great respect for the NRC's 15 enforcement process and for the integrity that I have 16 seen the NRC staff and executives bring to that 17 process, dating back to my first exposure to the NRC's 18 enforcement process when I was a junior NRC employee 19 back in the early 1990s.

20 I take the allegations that the NRC has 21 lodged against me very seriously. As I will discuss 22 in detail today, it is absolutely wrong to conclude 23 that at any time I deliberately took actions that I 24 knew would cause the Tennessee Valley Authority to 25 discriminate against Ms. Wetzel for engaging in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

20 1 protected activities.

2 The charge against me is simply not true 3 and you will see that demonstrated in my 4 contemporaneous emails, notes, and documents you have 5 before you.

6 I will show you that my actions, with 7 respect to Ms. Wetzel, were aimed at remedying a 8 situation where one of the managers in my organization 9 was engaged in inappropriate conduct directed at her 10 supervisor, Erin Henderson.

11 As a leader, I have a responsibility to 12 all of my employees to ensure they do not come to work 13 in a hostile work environment or a harassing 14 workplace, and I had that responsibility to Erin 15 Henderson.

16 The TVA Code of Conduct that is in place 17 today, and was also in place in 2018, makes clear that 18 if harassment is found to have occurred, appropriate 19 disciplinary action, up to and including termination 20 of employment, will be taken.

21 The TVA 2018 Code of Conduct is provided 22 in Exhibit 1. The NRC itself says in its safety 23 culture of traits for a respectful work environment, 24 that leaders should not demonstrate or tolerate 25 bullying or humiliating behaviors.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

21 1 Moreover, the statements Ms. Wetzel made 2 to me were simply unprofessional and unacceptable for 3 a manager to make in any workplace, much less a 4 federal agency, which TVA is.

5 Today, we'll walk through my actions, and 6 the organization's actions, with respect to Ms.

7 Wetzel. By way of outline for my presentation, first 8 I will give you a brief background of myself and my 9 own experience raising nuclear safety concerns.

10 Then my attorney will give an overview of 11 the legal matters related to this case. Next, I will 12 discuss how Ms. Wetzel made statements to me on 13 multiple occasions, about Ms. Henderson, that I 14 believe were neither true, nor raised in good faith.

15 Then I will show you how, when faced with 16 those statements, I repeatedly and consistently asked 17 for assistance from the appropriate TVA resources, 18 namely the Office of General Counsel and Human 19 Resources on how to address Ms. Wetzel conduct.

20 Throughout this presentation, you will see 21 I was focused on Ms. Wetzel inappropriate conduct, not 22 any protected activities she may have engaged in.

23 Indeed, none of these issues are nuclear 24 safety issues, these are internal personnel issues I 25 was addressing, and seeking help to address, within my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

22 1 own organization.

2 I will show you that I had no preconceived 3 notions when I first referred Ms. Wetzel's conduct to 4 OGC and HR as to what the outcome may be.

5 And I will show you that I followed 6 applicable TVA processes, namely the TVA Executive 7 Review Board, to ensure adverse employment action 8 against Ms. Wetzel was taken for appropriate reasons, 9 and not because of her protected activity.

10 Finally, I will show you why I simply 11 would not have engaged in the conduct alleged here.

12 In a moment, my attorney will provide a short 13 discussion of the legal standards that apply here, and 14 preview why no violation of 10 CFR 50.5 occurred.

15 But before he does that, I want to 16 emphasize to you, the board members, that I have been 17 honored and privileged to have been able to have a 18 career of nearly 40 years in public service and I 19 strongly want to continue in that.

20 Indeed, to the best I can recount, every 21 job I have held since I was 18 has been in public 22 service, or in support of public service, at the 23 local, state, or federal level.

24 In brief, I have served a little over 5 25 years in the United States Navy, approximately 19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

23 1 years at the United States Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission.

3 My time at the NRC included service to the 4 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and Nuclear 5 Material Safety and Safeguards, as a licensing project 6 manager; in the Office of the Executive Director for 7 Operations, as Chief of the Regional Operations 8 Section; and the Office of Nuclear Security and 9 Incident Response as the Director of Nuclear Security 10 Policy; and finally, in Region II, in roles that 11 included Director of Reactor Projects, Reactor Safety, 12 and Fuel Facility Inspection.

13 For nearly the last ten years, I've 14 continued in public service at the Tennessee Valley 15 Authority, and I'll briefly describe some of my tenure 16 at TVA later in the presentation.

17 Across these years of service, I have 18 first been instructed, then learned to experience, and 19 then taught and nurtured the critical importance of 20 being able to ask questions if I feel I lack 21 knowledge, and to reasonably expect an answer; of 22 being able to raise a concern if I am unsure of 23 something or I think something is not right, and to 24 have my concern addressed; and ultimately, being able 25 to express, with all my skill and passion, an issue NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

24 1 where I believe my team or organization are standing 2 at a danger, and expecting no harm will come if I have 3 raised the issue within the highest ethical standards, 4 including with integrity and sincerity.

5 I truly believe that I have adhered to 6 these principles throughout all of my career.

7 I will certainly never claim that I am 8 perfect, and this experience has prompted me to 9 reflect closely on the facts and circumstances we are 10 here today to discuss.

11 I would like to firmly reiterate that 12 retaliating against someone for raising a nuclear 13 safety issue would be against everything I have ever 14 learned, experienced, and espoused in my lengthy 15 public service career. And it didn't happen here.

16 While I provide some discrete examples of 17 where I have had the opportunity to raise concerns 18 that are reflective of a range of my personal 19 experiences, I offer these examples to you in an 20 effort to show that I personally know what it's like 21 to raise concerns that others may not want to hear.

22 These examples have instilled in me the 23 sensitivity towards and appreciation for others who 24 themselves raise such concerns.

25 In 2012, while serving in my capacity at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

25 1 TVA as Vice President of Licensing, TVA was under 2 extremely regulatory pressure to submit a high-quality 3 license application for a transition to National Fire 4 Protection Association Standard 805 on a non-5 negotiable NRC deadline.

6 At that time, I was struggling mightily 7 with my TVA peers, who I believe were not supporting 8 a sufficient quality standard in terms of completeness 9 and accuracy.

10 Those senior management and executive 11 peers kept reporting to the Chief Nuclear Officer that 12 our submittal was on schedule, when myself and my 13 subordinates knew that it was not.

14 The CNO at that time was nearly 15 exclusively focused on ensuring the application was 16 submitted on time.

17 That put me, the most junior member of the 18 nuclear executive leadership team, in the position of 19 informing my senior vice president that we were off 20 schedule, contradicting the reports of my peers.

21 However, I went into his office, armed 22 with facts developed by my subordinates, presented the 23 issue and recovery plans, and I was supported. And I 24 think this example shows how I was not afraid to speak 25 up on behalf of my team when I see and issue.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

26 1 In 2007, as Division Director in NRC's 2 Region II Office, I had a significant disagreement on 3 the NRC's position on an apparent violation against an 4 individual in the nuclear industry.

5 To my recollection, I provided my view of 6 the facts supporting my concerns to the relevant NRC 7 leadership, including the Acting Regional 8 Administrator and the Director of the Office of 9 Enforcement.

10 The discussion was professional but 11 passionate, and very strong words were used 12 professionally, but very strongly.

13 I mentioned this instance because in this 14 case, while my view did not prevail, as I hoped it 15 would, I was given the opportunity to raise those 16 concerns and did not suffer consequences.

17 That resonates with me all these years 18 later because that's how I want others to view their 19 interactions with me, that they can have professional 20 but passionate discussions and know that the same 21 outcome of no consequence will result.

22 And finally, one of the most lasting 23 memories I have in my professional life occurred when 24 I was serving as staff to the NRC's then-executive 25 director for operations.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

27 1 At an annual NRC leadership forum, the EDO 2 reacted to a presentation regarding diversity concerns 3 among the staff, which reaction disturbed some of the 4 agency's senior leaders.

5 My view, as a leader, even the EDO 6 couldn't address an issue if he wasn't made aware of 7 it, including one that had potentially significant 8 impact to the health and culture of that agency.

9 So, I found the EDO in a quiet setting and 10 presented the facts as they had been presented to me 11 by other senior leaders, and as I had observed them.

12 And while visibly stunned, the EDO reacted 13 with a degree of gratitude that I had had the courage 14 to be the one to bring this issue to his attention, 15 and I suffered no adverse consequences.

16 Collectively, these experiences, and many 17 others that I have experienced across my career, have 18 instilled in me the value of being able to raise 19 concerns without fear of retaliation.

20 My team at TVA also felt they could raise 21 issues to me without fear of retaliation, and at least 22 one example from this time period is provided to you 23 in Exhibit 2.

24 These experiences also support my 25 confidence that I have never intentionally retaliated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

28 1 against anyone who participated in protected 2 activities. And I am also confident that today's 3 discussion will bear out that my actions, vis-a-vis 4 Ms. Wetzel, were ethical, in concert with processes 5 such as they existed, and supported by counsel from 6 leaders and support organizations.

7 I will now turn it over to my attorney to 8 speak on my behalf.

9 MR. WALSH: Thank you, Joe. I'm Tim Walsh 10 of the Pillsbury Law Firm.

11 As Joe's representative here today, I want 12 to emphasize for the NRC the high legal standard that 13 must be met to make a finding of deliberate misconduct 14 here.

15 In order to make such a finding, the staff 16 must determine that an individual intentionally sought 17 to cause a violation of a Commission requirement.

18 Here, in 10 CFR 50.7, it is a very high standard.

19 As Joe will show you today, his actions 20 come nowhere close to that standard. The NRC has 21 alleged that Joe has engaged in deliberate misconduct 22 under 50.5 that caused TVA to violate the employee 23 protection requirements of 50.7.

24 The Commission's regulations, orders, and 25 other statements interpreting these regulations make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

29 1 explicit that a finding of deliberate misconduct 2 requires an intent to commit wrongdoing.

3 Specifically, the rule states that 4 deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional 5 act or omission that the person knows would cause the 6 licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, 7 or order.

8 The facts we will lay out for you show 9 that is not true, but before we get to the facts, it 10 is important to consider the Commission's own words 11 when promulgating 50.5.

12 This is because the Commission crafted a 13 deliberate misconduct rule to apply only in extreme 14 circumstances, where intent to commit wrongdoing was 15 clear.

16 I will now refer statements the Commission 17 made when promulgating the rule in 1991. This is 18 available at 56 Federal Register 40654. In that 19 rulemaking, the Commission explicitly stated that the 20 deliberate misconduct rule applies only to individuals 21 who deliberately set in motion events that would cause 22 a violation.

23 Stated differently, the Commission 24 explained that an individual acting in this manner has 25 the requisite intent to act in a wrongful manner.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

30 1 The Commission also made clear that the 2 deliberate misconduct rule does not apply in cases of 3 negligence, honest mistakes, or ignorance, or in cases 4 where people may have made mistakes while acting in 5 good faith.

6 The Commission has also explained that 7 50.5 does not include accidental careless disregard 8 for the requirements. 50.5 is a narrower rule that 9 applies only to deliberate misconduct.

10 The Commission made clear that, quote, 11 under this narrower rule, the range of actions that 12 would subject an individual to action by the 13 Commission does not differ significantly from the 14 range of actions that might subject the individual to 15 criminal prosecution, close quote.

16 The NRC claims that Joe intentionally took 17 some action knowing that it would cause a violation of 18 50.7, as to overcome an additional hurdle, and that 19 hurdle is 50.7(d), which explicitly provides in part 20 that actions taken by an employer or others, which 21 adversely affect an employee, may be predicated upon 22 non-discriminatory grounds.

23 And an employee's engagement in protected 24 activity does not automatically render him or her 25 immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

31 1 reasons, or from adverse action dictated by non-2 prohibited considerations.

3 So, when evaluating whether Joe took 4 action knowing it would cause a violation of 50.7, the 5 staff must look at all of 50.7 including 50.7(d). We 6 note for the record that the Office of Investigations 7 report contains no discussion of 50.7(d).

8 While this may be an oversight, the staff 9 must consider that regulation when evaluating Joe's 10 intent.

11 Joe will show you that he did not act with 12 any deliberate intent to cause a violation of 50.7, 13 nor did he act with any careless disregard for 50.7, 14 either.

15 The enforcement manual defines careless 16 disregard as where an individual is usual of the 17 existence, meaning, or applicability of a requirement, 18 but nevertheless proceeds to engage in conduct that 19 the individual knows may cause a violation.

20 That definition does not fit the 21 circumstances here. Here, Joe took action for 22 entirely non-discriminatory and non-prohibited 23 reasons.

24 Joe will show you that he believed that 25 Ms. Wetzel was engaging in a pattern of conduct that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

32 1 violated TVA's rules and policies when making 2 unfounded statements about her supervisor, Erin 3 Henderson.

4 Joe will explain to you that he knew, or 5 reasonably believed, that the statements Ms. Wetzel 6 was making could not be true, or not made in good 7 faith. Joe will show you that when confronted with 8 these statements, he asked for help.

9 He again acted in good faith by seeking 10 assistance from human resources and the Office of 11 General Counsel in determining what he should do. At 12 one point during the series of events -- and Joe will 13 show you the emails -- Joe recommended to the Office 14 of General Counsel that Ms. Wetzel be interviewed to 15 find out more about the basis of her statement.

16 Asking the appropriate internal resources 17 for assistance in how to handle a personnel issue is 18 not the mark of a person who is intending to engage in 19 wrongdoing. Again, it is worth repeating.

20 Asking for help in how to handle a 21 personnel matter does not show an intent to violate 22 any requirement; it shows intent to do what is right.

23 As Joe showed you, the Office of General 24 Counsel disagreed with Joe's recommendation for good 25 reason. Joe considered that recommendation and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

33 1 accepted it.

2 Ultimately, Joe came to the conclusion 3 that Ms. Wetzel's actions warranted discipline.

4 The Office of General Counsel reviewed the 5 facts at hand and determined that separating Ms.

6 Wetzel from the company was legally supportable, and 7 made that recommendation to Joe, either by a no-fault 8 separation agreement or by termination at management's 9 discretion.

10 With this recommendation in hand, Joe 11 evaluated the facts and circumstances and determined 12 to move forward with separation of Ms. Wetzel from the 13 company, first by offering her a no-fault separation 14 agreement.

15 Joe then followed TVA's process, 16 specifically designed to ensure that employment 17 actions are not taken for prohibited consideration, 18 the Executive Review Board. Joe presented the 19 proposed action to the Executive Review Board, or ERB, 20 and the ERB concluded that legitimate reasons were the 21 basis for separating Ms. Wetzel from the company.

22 The bottom line is that all of the 23 evidence here shows that Joe acted in good faith every 24 step of the way. This is not easy: holding people 25 accountable for their actions, ensuring a harassment-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

34 1 free workplace, fostering a safety conscious work 2 Environment.

3 No one does it perfectly but the evidence 4 shows that Joe's passions were motivated only to 5 ensure that harassing behavior stopped, not any 6 technical concerns or alleged chilled work environment 7 concerns anyone may have raised.

8 Before I turn it back over to Joe, I just 9 want to note that we submitted to the NRC a set of 10 exhibits in support of Joe's presentation today.

11 Those exhibits are identified as Exhibits 1 through 12 33.

13 Accompanying the records, is a book review 14 summary of the information contained in the exhibits, 15 and a detailed table of contents explaining the 16 relevance of each document within it.

17 Joe and I will refer to those exhibits 18 today, and our presentation will also be provided to 19 you as Exhibit 34.

20 I'll turn it over to Joe now and speak 21 with you again at the end of his presentation. Joe?

22 MR. SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. As I 23 mentioned in my opening, I want to first address the 24 apparent violation lodged against me in this 25 proceeding.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

35 1 I unequivocally deny that at any time I 2 deliberately took actions that I knew would cause the 3 Tennessee Valley Authority to discriminate against Ms.

4 Wetzel for engaging in protected activity.

5 I'd like to expand on that statement in 6 terms of some of the guidance available, that I 7 anticipate you may use in your decision-making, and 8 I'd like you to hear my perspective on those criteria.

9 With regards to specific criteria in 10 Section 1.1.2 of Part 2 of the enforcement manual, 11 Criterion 1, I do agree and I was in fact aware and 12 knowledgeable that a requirement exists in 10 CFR 50.7 13 prohibiting discrimination against an employee for 14 participating in a protected activity.

15 Criteria 2. I do not agree that a 16 violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred. Rather, in 17 proceeding through, and ultimately signing the action 18 related to Ms. Wetzel's termination, I was then and 19 remain convinced that it was taken on non-prohibited 20 grounds.

21 To amplify, I did understand that Ms.

22 Wetzel had taken part in, or potentially taken part 23 in, more than one protected activity. However, I 24 acted to separate Ms. Wetzel from the company under a 25 full belief that the action was being taken responsive NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

36 1 to finding that Ms. Wetzel had participated in an 2 ongoing campaign of disrespectful and harassing 3 conduct, that included repeated statements that her 4 supervisor had initiated inappropriate investigations 5 of TVA employees for a vindictive motive, despite 6 having no reasonable basis or specific knowledge to 7 support those statements.

8 This is a finding that I was provided 9 after I sought input from the Office of General 10 Counsel, whose staff had investigated the issues and 11 who were knowledgeable of applicable protections 12 provided to TVA employees.

13 The finding presented to me from the OGC 14 investigation was consistent with my own experience 15 from Ms. Wetzel's statements and behaviors that 16 developed over the late spring and summer of 2018.

17 Additionally, it is also important to note 18 that Ms. Wetzel was a leader and supervisor of others, 19 and TVA holds managers to higher standard of conduct 20 that does not allow for her conduct here.

21 The TVA Code of Conduct requires managers 22 to, quote, exhibit the highest standards of ethical 23 conduct at all times and avoid behavior that could be 24 reasonably perceived as improper.

25 Because of this sustained disrespectful NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

37 1 and harassing conduct, I acted to separate Ms. Wetzel 2 from the company with the knowledge that Ms. Wetzel 3 was discharged for legitimate reasons apart from any 4 of her protected activity, consistent with the 5 provisions of 10 CFR 50.7(d).

6 Returning again to the criteria from 7 Section 1.1.2 of Part 2, I do agree that the actions 8 I took from the point in time that I received the 9 complaint of harassment filed by Ms. Henderson on 10 March 9, 2018, through signing of Ms. Wetzel's 11 termination letter in January 2019, were voluntary.

12 I agree that I did know the requirements in 10 CFR 13 50.7, in their entirety, were applicable. And lastly, 14 I did not know and do not agree that my actions were 15 contrary to those requirements.

16 In fact, I had and have multiple reasons 17 to believe they were fully compliant with the 18 provisions of 10 CFR 50.7(d).

19 As I will take you through today, my basis 20 for Ms. Wetzel's termination included several factors.

21 The recommendation from the Office of General Counsel 22 that termination was appropriate, my own knowledge 23 that Ms. Wetzel's statements against Ms. Henderson 24 were entirely non-safety-related matters, but rather 25 personnel matters, and the fact that this action went NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

38 1 through TVA's Executive Review Board process to ensure 2 the distinction between a prohibited and non-3 prohibited basis existed.

4 The bottom line is that the personnel 5 action involving Ms. Wetzel is a personnel matter that 6 has an independent basis entirely separate from any 7 protected disclosures. Specifically, it was solely 8 aimed at the critical imperative of ensuring a 9 harassment-free workplace.

10 I acted conscientiously to meet the 11 requirements of other governing rules and policies, 12 including maintaining both a safety conscious work 13 environment and a harassment-free workplace, and I did 14 not act out of retaliatory motive.

15 I would like to transition to today's 16 discussion of a sequence of events, by briefly 17 describing the evolution of the corporate licensing 18 organization during my tenure as vice president. I 19 will then review the harassment-free policies that TVA 20 implements in its workplace. On this basis, I will 21 get to a discussion of the facts and circumstances 22 that are the reasons we are here today, and show you 23 that I took care and acted in good faith when 24 addressing Ms. Wetzel's conduct.

25 I joined TVA as a manager for Watts Bar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

39 1 Unit 1 Licensing and Regulatory Matters in 2010.

2 By 2011, we were facing several 3 significant regulatory issues, including, for example, 4 the placement of Browns Ferry site into Column 4 of 5 the NRC ROP action matrix, and other significant 6 issues at Sequoyah and Watts Bar, that had the risk of 7 placing them in Column 3 or 4 of the action matrix as 8 well.

9 My leadership approach in this extreme 10 situation was focused on recovering and restoring 11 regulatory expertise to the corporate office.

12 Under this approach, by 2014, several of 13 those key regulatory challenges facing TVA in 2011 had 14 moved to a better place. At that time, that is in 15 2014, TVA senior leadership asked me to focus on 16 long-term organizational optimization and developing 17 future leadership capability within my team.

18 This eventually led to the hiring of Ms.

19 Henderson into the position of Senior Manager of 20 Operating Fleet Licensing in the summer of 2015.

21 During the recruiting process for this 22 position, I received a call from Ms. Wetzel where she 23 specifically expressed to me that she felt Ms.

24 Henderson was too inexperienced to be a senior manager 25 of regulatory affairs.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

40 1 However, what I was looking for in a 2 candidate was different than what Ms. Wetzel perceived 3 as needed. I needed leadership in my group.

4 I had regulatory expertise within the 5 team, but I was looking for someone who had the 6 leadership capability to bring the organization 7 forward, and Ms. Henderson clearly exceeded the other 8 candidates in that regard.

9 Upon hiring Ms. Henderson, I impressed on 10 her the challenges and themes in the corporate team's 11 morale in improving safety culture.

12 Ms. Henderson told me her approach 13 included, among other things, having one-on-one 14 discussions with every individual on the team and to 15 let them express whatever concerns they had about the 16 existing state of the organization.

17 I was very satisfied with her overall 18 approach and thought that it showed the mark of a good 19 leader.

20 Indeed, from 2015 to early 2018, during 21 Ms. Henderson's tenure, the Corporate Nuclear 22 Licensing team had undergone a series of reviews of 23 safety conscious work environment within the group.

24 These reviews included the NRC's own 25 inspections, ECP investigations, and safety conscious NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

41 1 work environment pulsing surveys.

2 And much to Ms. Henderson's credit, none 3 of those reviews or investigations found that 4 Corporate Nuclear Licensing team members were chilled.

5 In fact, the data from these reviews indicated an 6 improving safety conscious work environment trend.

7 That's not to say we were perfect, but 8 consistent with my personal history and strong beliefs 9 in a safety conscious work environment, when we 10 learned of potential issues in the group, we took 11 action.

12 For example, in my Exhibit 3 is a reply to 13 an Employee Concerns Program corrective action letter 14 by David Czufin detailing the actions in 2016, after 15 a concern was raised in our group.

16 This 2016 ECP investigation noted there 17 were some indications that the concerned individual 18 was reluctant to raise non-nuclear concerns to 19 Corporate Nuclear Licensing management.

20 Corrective actions were taken to address 21 those concerns, including a meeting with all 22 supervisors and above in the Corporate Nuclear 23 Licensing group on October 11, 2016 to review and 24 discuss TVA procedure STP 11.8.4, expressing concerns 25 and differing view, as well as instruction to all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

42 1 licensing supervisors and above to hold meetings with 2 their direct-reports to open a dialog and obtain 3 feedback.

4 Also relevant to today's discussion is 5 TVA's policies on maintaining a workplace that is free 6 from harassment and other inappropriate behaviors.

7 For example, TVA's Code of Conduct, in 8 effect in 2018, states that managers are to exhibit 9 the highest standards of ethical conduct at all times 10 and avoid behavior that could be reasonably perceived 11 as improper. The Code of Conduct also states that TVA 12 strives to provide a workplace for employees that is 13 free from menacing or harassing behaviors.

14 The 2018 Code of Conduct even provided an 15 example where a team member is constantly insulting 16 another team member and states, a co-workers constant 17 insults are not consistent with TVA values.

18 In additional to TVA's policies, I 19 received several sets of training on employee rights 20 and responsibilities for managers and supervisors, and 21 management actions to promote a safety conscious work 22 environment.

23 In those trainings, it is reiterated time 24 and time again that harassment, intimidation, 25 retaliation, and discrimination against individuals NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

43 1 who raised concerns will not be tolerated, and that I 2 had principal responsibility as a supervisor for 3 ensuring my employees are not subject to harassment, 4 intimidation, retaliation, or discrimination for 5 raising concerns.

6 My personal view is to provide a work 7 environment where employees feel valued, respected, 8 and encouraged to raise concerns.

9 These considerations, Corporate Nuclear 10 Licensing group performance, safety culture, and 11 safety conscious work environment, and our policies 12 prohibiting harassment and inappropriate behaviors, 13 all came to the fore for me beginning in March 2018.

14 I will now turn to the matters at hand.

15 The issues had roots prior to March 2018. As I will 16 describe for you, there were points where I was aware 17 of performance management issues relating to Ms.

18 Wetzel.

19 As I told you, Erin was brought in to 20 improve the group's performance, and there was some 21 tension in that. None of this was unexpected, so I 22 worked to help the matters as best I could.

23 As I stated earlier, Ms. Wetzel called me 24 during the recruiting process for Ms. Henderson's 25 position in 2015 to state she believed Ms. Henderson NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

44 1 was too inexperienced.

2 I made no comment to Ms. Wetzel at that 3 time, because I was engaged in active hiring process.

4 Again, as I noted earlier, I was focused on the 5 candidates' leadership ability, an area in which Ms.

6 Henderson had clearly exceeded the other candidates.

7 In fact, Ms. Henderson came to the final 8 interview with a full 90-day plan prepared on how to 9 address performance issues in the Corporate Nuclear 10 Licensing group.

11 I next recall that in January of 2016 I 12 had a meeting with Ms. Henderson where Ms. Wetzel's 13 performance was discussed.

14 I subsequently had a meeting with Ms.

15 Wetzel, and my notes from my meeting with Ms. Wetzel 16 indicate that she was unsure of how to approach the 17 performance management situation she faced.

18 There, I suggested that Ms. Wetzel may 19 benefit from a mentor and subsequently facilitated a 20 mentorship for her with Mr. Greg Boerschig, who was 21 the Vice President of Nuclear Oversight at the time.

22 As I recall, this mentorship lasted until 23 about 2017, when Mr. Boerschig had to take over as a 24 temporary Site Vice President of Sequoyah. My 25 handwritten notes of this meeting with Ms. Wetzel are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

45 1 provided in Exhibit 4.

2 In my view, pairing Ms. Wetzel with an 3 experienced nuclear executive would provide a unique 4 opportunity for growth and development and exposure on 5 how to develop, as the company's expectations of its 6 leaders were elevated.

7 Ms. Henderson continued experiencing 8 performance issues with Ms. Wetzel and in April of 9 2016 Ms. Henderson rated Ms. Wetzel as off-track in 10 her midyear performance, as I provided in Exhibit 5.

11 Ms. Wetzel came to be very concerned about 12 this off-track rating. I engaged with Ms. Henderson 13 on ways to performance-manage Ms. Wetzel. At the end 14 of 2016, Ms. Wetzel was not placed on a performance 15 improvement plan and, in fact, was rated solid.

16 On July 3, 2017 I have notes of a 17 discussion I had with Ms. Wetzel about her performance 18 on a written work product, where I provided direct 19 feedback, and frankly, disappointment that some 20 significant talent is in that work product, and we 21 discussed how she could improve.

22 However, on the Anchor/Darling disc gate 23 valve response to the NRC that Ms. Wetzel was 24 responsible for, there were again similar issues with 25 that work product. Namely, Ms. Wetzel provided a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

46 1 written work product with significant quality gaps to 2 Ms. Henderson very close to when signature on the 3 product was due.

4 Both Ms. Henderson and I had to challenge 5 Ms. Wetzel and her staff to increase the quality in 6 the product before it was submitted, which she 7 ultimately did do.

8 I raise these performance issues only 9 because they informed my understanding at the time 10 that there was some tension between Ms. Henderson and 11 Ms. Wetzel, based on Ms. Wetzel's performance issues.

12 Although they represented a source of 13 tension, I did not in any way perceive that my 14 organization, myself, or Ms. Henderson were being 15 unresponsive to nuclear safety and quality concerns.

16 Rather, as the Anchor/Darling situation reflects, the 17 tension arose from efforts to ensure we were elevating 18 the quality of our regulatory products.

19 Thus, I was not unaware of that tension 20 when Ms. Wetzel approached me in mid-February 2018 21 about the idea of a multi-month and potentially multi-22 year loaned employee arrangement up at the Nuclear 23 Energy Institute in Washington D.C.

24 Based on my recollection, I had a 25 favorable impression and reaction to Ms. Wetzel's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

47 1 proposal.

2 I personally believe that the industry was 3 best positioned to help itself through NEI by 4 committing talented utility people to work on these 5 issues and initiatives.

6 And I also recall that Ms. Wetzel 7 indicated that an assignment could have had an 8 additional positive attributes, namely, removing her 9 from her stressful situations from her boss. But I 10 recall that Ms. Wetzel only made this comment in 11 passing at the end of our conversation. Nevertheless, 12 the comment was not a surprise to me.

13 I will now turn to describing our process 14 to loan Ms. Wetzel to NEI, but in adhering to the 15 timeline, I first want to discuss Ms. Henderson's 16 harassment complaint.

17 On March 9th at about 3:45, I received an 18 email from Ms. Henderson in which she attached a 19 written statement alleging a hostile environment.

20 This report followed a set of events and 21 circumstances in the days preceding, in which Ms.

22 Henderson had become extremely upset with what she 23 expressed was a sustained pattern of individuals 24 across the regulatory organization conducting 25 themselves in a highly disrespectful and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

48 1 unprofessional manner, the result of which, in her 2 opinion, was a hostile environment in which she was 3 precluded from fully discharging the requirements and 4 responsibilities of her position.

5 She was so upset that she nearly quit, and 6 as Ms. Henderson explained to you earlier this week, 7 her March 2018 complaint was not the first time I 8 learned of these issues. She reported some previous 9 occurrences to me and I tried to address them without 10 success.

11 Looking back at this time, I readily 12 acknowledge that Ms. Henderson should not have faced 13 a situation where she believed her only recourse was 14 to quit. To the extent that I did not do enough to 15 address her earlier concerns, I accept full 16 responsibility for that.

17 Based on discussions with human resources, 18 the Office of General Counsel, and my management, it 19 was determined that the Office of General Counsel, or 20 OGC, would conduct the investigation into Erin's 21 complaint.

22 To the best of my recollections, this 23 decision was made for a couple of reasons. Human 24 resources was short-staffed at the time, and ECP had 25 already reviewed similar or related issues within the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

49 1 regulatory affairs extended organization over the 2 previous two years, and might no longer be perceived 3 as sufficiently independent.

4 I recall that after a consultant with 5 senior management, including the Chief Nuclear 6 Officer, Ms. Henderson's complaint was provided to 7 OGC.

8 I was initially the management point of 9 contact for Ms. Henderson's complaint for 10 approximately one month, as I recall, but that role 11 transitioned to David Czufin. Thereafter, I expected 12 the investigation would proceed on its course and 13 reach the result it would reach.

14 In turning the matter over to OGC in 15 March, I had no expectation that it would find for or 16 against any one of the specific individuals listed in 17 Ms. Henderson's complaint.

18 However, over the course of the next 19 several months, I was confronted with information from 20 Beth Wetzel that I believed could have been related to 21 Ms. Henderson's harassment complaint, and some of 22 which information I believe or knew to be unfounded.

23 As I will detail now, I acted in good 24 faith to see that this information was addressed in 25 accordance with TVA's policies and procedure.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

50 1 I will now turn to summarize the process 2 to implement Ms. Wetzel's NEI loan assignment. This 3 process began almost immediately after she raised the 4 opportunity in mid or late February. By mid-March the 5 process was well underway.

6 Between March 19 and April 27, 2018, I was 7 copied on numerous emails regarding the contract 8 between NEI and TVA for Ms. Wetzel's loan 9 reassignment, as well as discussions regarding Ms.

10 Wetzel's NEI loanee confirmation agreement, and her 11 travel reimbursement memorandum.

12 These emails and documents are included in 13 Exhibit 6. While these emails might seem like 14 minutiae, I think it is important here to reiterate 15 how quickly the organization was able to take Ms.

16 Wetzel's request from idea to fruition.

17 Numerous people, including myself, Ms.

18 Henderson, Wes Wingo from human resources, and 19 Jennifer Grace and David Codevilla from the Office of 20 General Counsel were able to effectuate her request.

21 While the information available in Exhibit 22 6 details those interactions, I will highlight a few 23 examples for you here and also on your screen.

24 On March 21, 2018 I had a meeting 25 scheduled for an NEI contract discussion, which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

51 1 included Ms. Henderson, myself, Wes Wingo from HR, and 2 David Codevilla from the Office of General Counsel.

3 The next day, March 22, 2018, Mr.

4 Codevilla sent the contract drafts to NEI's attorney.

5 On March 27th, Ms. Henderson sent a 6 follow-up email to her contact at NEI requesting the 7 status of Ms. Wetzel's contract. She then forwarded 8 NEI's response to myself and Ms. Wetzel. Using her 9 own contacts to move Ms. Wetzel NEI's contract forward 10 showed that Ms. Henderson was working to facilitate 11 Beth's assignment.

12 This quick progress in evidence that Ms.

13 Henderson was diligently pursuing the matter, was why 14 I was surprised when I was contacted by Ms. Wetzel 15 while I was on official travel in Oregon on either 16 March 28th or March 29th indicating, in essence, that 17 Ms. Henderson, was foot-dragging on Ms. Wetzel's NEI 18 loanee assignment.

19 Her claim was puzzling and unfounded 20 because, at this time, I was aware of the progress 21 that had been made, particularly that Ms. Henderson 22 had just reached out to NEI to follow up on the 23 progress.

24 In addition, Ms. Henderson forwarded that 25 email exchange with NEI to Ms. Wetzel. That email NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

52 1 exchange is included in my Exhibit 6.

2 I did not do anything in response to Ms.

3 Wetzel's comment at that time, other than to make a 4 mental note of it.

5 Next in my presentation, I think it is 6 very relevant to briefly go into detail surrounding 7 the TVA travel voucher process. It was during 8 discussions of Beth's travel vouchers that she 9 continued to make inappropriate statements.

10 Relevant here, managers can delegate their 11 review and approval authority for any travel vouchers 12 that do not exceed 100 percent of per diem.

13 Ms. Henderson and I had both delegated 14 this authority to the same person, Carla Edmondson, 15 who was my administrative assistant.

16 I say this because there was no functional 17 difference in whether it was myself or Ms. Henderson 18 who approved Ms. Wetzel's vouchers. Ms. Edmondson 19 reviews and approves the travel vouchers initially, 20 whether or not it is myself or Ms. Henderson who were 21 technically listed as approvers for Ms. Wetzel. Ms.

22 Wetzel had a long, comfortable working relationship 23 with Ms. Edmondson. Ms. Wetzel was very familiar with 24 the travel voucher process.

25 Now that you have a base of understanding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

53 1 for events occurring up to this point, I would like to 2 go through the specific statements Ms. Wetzel made 3 during the NEI assignment contracting and travel 4 voucher process, why they raised red flags to me, and 5 how I addressed them.

6 Soon after Ms. Wetzel contacted me in 7 Oregon, she sent me an email on March 29th, alleging 8 that Ms. Henderson was trying to block her NEI loanee 9 assignment.

10 I will read from the parts, relevant parts 11 of the email, which is in Exhibit 7. In this email, 12 Ms. Wetzel alleged that we were not using the same 13 contract for her assignment that were used in previous 14 loanee assignments and alleged that Ms. Henderson was 15 attempting to block her loanee opportunity.

16 She alleged, if my boss is going to be 17 unreasonable with NEI and effectively block my loanee 18 opportunity, would you please tell me so I know what 19 to do next?

20 I was struck by this allegation because it 21 was so apparent that Ms. Henderson had been working 22 diligently for Ms. Wetzel's loanee assignment and Ms.

23 Wetzel had seen this same correspondence.

24 Indeed, a few hours after Ms. Wetzel's 25 email, Ms. Henderson forwarded me the latest markup of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

54 1 the contract, as you can see in Exhibit 8.

2 It was also not true that Ms. Henderson 3 had imposed the use of an inappropriate contract 4 template. The contract template we were using was 5 negotiated between TVA and NEI and had changed under 6 purview of TVA and NEI attorneys since the prior 7 examples Ms. Wetzel cited in her email.

8 I did not take any actions at this time, 9 other than asking Ms. Wetzel to speak to Mr. Codevilla 10 in OGC about her concerns. Again, it was Mr.

11 Codevilla drafting the contract, not Ms. Henderson.

12 As you can see in Exhibit 6, Ms. Wetzel 13 was copied on several subsequent iterations of the 14 contract and had a few back and forth exchanges with 15 Mr. Codevilla.

16 I did not do anything further with Ms.

17 Wetzel's March 29 email.

18 Now, for just a few dates before I go onto 19 the next email, Ms. Wetzel's contract with NEI was 20 fully executed by all parties on April 13 and is 21 provided in your Exhibit 9.

22 Ms. Henderson signed a loanee letter to 23 Ms. Wetzel on April 27, 2018, notifying Ms. Wetzel 24 that she would be in continuous travel status for the 25 NEI assignment, with details as provided in your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

55 1 Exhibit 10.

2 Ms. Wetzel started her NEI loanee 3 assignment on or about April 29.

4 From the best of my recollections, the 5 initiation of Ms. Wetzel's NEI assignment had 6 progressed smoothly from the time that she started on 7 April 29.

8 However, on May 7, 2018, Ms. Wetzel sent 9 an email to me expressing concern regarding the lack 10 of detail in her travel reimbursement memorandum. She 11 observed, in effect, that it was less detail than she 12 desired.

13 Specifically, her email stated, I am 14 concerned with the lack of commitment to write the 15 details that we worked on as a team for my TVA 16 reimbursements, and said she was shocked to see what 17 Erin sent out.

18 It was, to a large degree, true that we 19 had discussed providing a discussion of the treatment 20 of likely expenses in her memo. However, I later 21 learned from the Office of General Counsel that 22 providing such a detailed explanation may put TVA at 23 risk of violating the federal travel regulations if 24 TVA's own memo conflicted with those regulations for 25 Ms. Wetzel's reimbursements.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

56 1 Thus, her travel memorandum simply stated 2 that she would be reimbursed in accordance with the 3 applicable federal travel regulations, which are 4 subject to change at any time. Preparing the travel 5 memorandum in this way was consistent with prior 6 practice.

7 Ms. Wetzel's email continued, and I was 8 very distinctly disturbed by the second element of the 9 email, which is provided in Exhibit 11 and which is 10 displayed on your screen, and which I will quote here.

11 Quote, I will be processing large travel 12 vouchers through Carla, and will follow all TVA, 13 federal, and NEI requirements to the best of my 14 ability. I know I will get audited, based on the 15 amount of dollars that will be processed through 16 vouchers, and I believe all the research the team did 17 will result in clean audits.

18 However, I know that Erin has used HR to 19 investigate people, reported people to ECP, threatened 20 to have people for-cause drug tested, pulled badge and 21 gate records, and probably a lot more actions that I'm 22 not aware of.

23 She has demonstrated a longstanding 24 pattern of using TVA processes as punitive and 25 retaliatory tools. Based on the lack of detail in her NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

57 1 NEI loanee confirmation 2018 document, I anticipate 2 her using my travel vouchers as an investigative tool.

3 Unquote.

4 These allegations concerned me. I thought 5 it was unusual that Ms. Wetzel would raise Ms.

6 Henderson's reporting of issues through HR, given that 7 as a leader, if Ms. Wetzel thought about that at all, 8 she would recognize that Ms. Henderson was obligated 9 to have a potential HR conflict addressed.

10 As I stated in my OI interview, I was 11 aware of and involved in the decision to inform Human 12 Resources of the ethics concern involving Michelle 13 Conner and Mr. McBrearty. We were required to raise 14 that issue, based on the information we had.

15 Related to that issue, I also knew that 16 Ms. Henderson could not have had badge and gate 17 records pulled from her instruction based on her 18 position, and I suspect that Ms. Wetzel knew this too.

19 For another example, I was aware that on 20 February 23, 2018, Ms. Henderson had relayed a concern 21 to HR raised by one of her direct reports regarding an 22 incident where another employee had raised concerns of 23 a chilled work environment against .

24 Again, Ms. Henderson was required to 25 request such an investigation where those concerns NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

58 1 were raised. And that HR investigation substantiated 2 that allegation.

3 However, the most troubling statement from 4 Ms. Wetzel was the unfounded assertion that Ms.

5 Henderson had taken probably a lot more actions that 6 I'm not aware of.

7 These words in particular demonstrated to 8 me that Ms. Wetzel was comfortable spreading false, or 9 at least unsubstantiated, information about Ms.

10 Henderson by stating this to me. By the very words 11 Ms. Wetzel used, actions that I am not aware of, she 12 acknowledged the unfounded nature of the reference to, 13 probably a lot more actions.

14 Finally, Ms. Wetzel also proposed in her 15 email that I be her approver on travel vouchers. This 16 was odd as I previously explained Ms. Edmondson 17 approved the travel vouchers initially, whether or not 18 it was myself or Ms. Henderson which were technically 19 listed as approvers for Ms. Wetzel.

20 Upon my concern in reading the allegation 21 in Ms. Wetzel's email, I forwarded the email to Amanda 22 Poland in HR and Jennifer Grace at OGC, as shown in 23 Exhibit 12 and as you can see on your screen.

24 The NRC Office of Investigation report 25 suggests, at Page 43, that it was inappropriate for me NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

59 1 to send Ms. Wetzel's email to OGC when I knew that OGC 2 was investigating Ms. Henderson's harassment 3 complaint.

4 I disagree, and more importantly, that 5 mischaracterizes what I did. As I stated at the 6 beginning of today's presentation, I sought advice 7 from internal resources when I was unsure how to 8 proceed.

9 Here, I sought advice on how to handle Ms.

10 Wetzel's allegations and whether they should be 11 provided to John Slater within the scope of his 12 current OGC investigation, or an alternate approach.

13 Either struck me as reasonable.

14 On one hand, the ongoing Slater 15 investigation was intended, in my mind, to examine 16 into the full set of facts behind Ms. Henderson's 17 claims, including any involvement by Ms. Wetzel, even 18 if that investigation ultimately found that Ms.

19 Henderson's claim was not valid or valid only in 20 parts.

21 On the other hand, I also stated in my 22 email, please advise if you agree or see a different 23 way to act on this. My meaning was that, if OGC felt 24 a different approach, such as a separate 25 investigation, should be used, then that would have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

60 1 been reasonable as well.

2 At that time, I did not have any direct 3 knowledge about what Ms. Wetzel had told the attorney 4 investigator, because the investigation was still 5 ongoing.

6 Ms. Grace of OGC responded that same day, 7 writing, thank you, I will provide this to Mr. Slater.

8 I was the person who interfaced with HR manager Wes 9 Wingo on outlining her travel details, so I am 10 familiar with this. This response is also provided in 11 Exhibit 12.

12 The following week, I responded to Ms.

13 Wetzel's May 7 email, having received input from Ms.

14 Grace on how to respond, as provided in Exhibits 13 15 and 14.

16 I explained to Ms. Wetzel why TVA decided 17 to not write a separate memo for her on the federal 18 travel regulations. Ms. Wetzel had requested a 19 detailed memorandum on her obligations under the 20 federal travel regulations, which I initially 21 supported, but it was later determined by OGC that we 22 should not attempt to rewrite the federal travel 23 regulations ourselves, and rather, direct Ms. Wetzel 24 to the original document.

25 I then addressed the allegations she had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

61 1 made against Ms. Henderson, stating, as a separate 2 matter, you raised some very serious assertions 3 against your supervisor. I have turned these over for 4 further evaluation to an appropriately independent 5 review party. You may be apprised of any conclusions, 6 if it is appropriate to share, when that review is 7 completed.

8 As a result, I understood, at this time, 9 that the items listed in Ms. Wetzel's May 7 email 10 would be addressed by the ongoing independent 11 investigation into Ms. Henderson's complaint being 12 conducted by OGC.

13 By May 31, 2018, I received a copy of the 14 original investigation report put together by Mr.

15 Slater in TVA OGC, which was dated May 25, 2018. This 16 report is provided in your Exhibit 15.

17 The report discussed a number of the 18 elements that had been raised in Ms. Henderson's March 19 9 complaint. However, I noted after I received it 20 that the report did not mention the travel claim 21 process issues I had forwarded to Jennifer Grace, 22 including the May 7 email references.

23 Thus, on May 31, 2018, I emailed Emily 24 Walker in HR and copied Jennifer Grace and others, 25 noting my concern that the Slater report did not have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

62 1 a reference to Ms. Wetzel's email allegations.

2 Specifically, as you can see on your 3 screen and in Exhibit 16, I wrote in part, I think 4 this is a relatively simple matter of an additional 5 interview with Beth and Erin that pulls the string on 6 each of Beth's itemized assertions. And I 7 specifically think what's missed in the OGC treatment 8 of Beth's emails is the assertion that Erin initiated 9 HR investigations in a retaliatory or vindictive 10 manner.

11 I strongly suspect that was actually a 12 reference to the 2018 investigation Arcie Reeves did 13 of regarding the claim by one of 14 employees that had chilled the employee over a 15 safety culture matter. Which sounds similar to the 16 protected whistleblower aspect that Johnny so 17 thoroughly documented for Mike McB.

18 Regardless, again, regardless, I need 19 support in getting specific facts, analyses, and 20 conclusions that are independent.

21 Independent, as I used it in this context, 22 meant simply analyses and conclusions draw by a party 23 not linked organizationally close to me, Ms.

24 Henderson, or any of the individuals named by Ms.

25 Henderson.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

63 1 Finally, I advised that I looked forward 2 to OGC drawing equally well-documented analyses on Ms.

3 Wetzel's allegations, quote, whatever they might be.

4 I want to pause here so we can reflect a 5 moment on this email. When I wrote it over two years 6 ago, I certainly never considered that I would be 7 sitting here in front of the NRC today reading it to 8 you in an effort to demonstrate that I did not engage 9 in deliberate misconduct, but this is the email that 10 I wrote.

11 And to me, no matter the outcome of this 12 proceeding, this email shows that I absolutely was not 13 intending to take an action that would cause a 14 violation of NRC's employee protection requirements.

15 This email shows that I was looking for independent 16 facts, analyses, and conclusions, as I do in any 17 investigation.

18 In response to my May 31 email, Jennifer 19 Grace from OGC stated that she, quote, strongly 20 disagreed that any investigation of Beth's allegation 21 in her email is warranted. In fact, I think any 22 further investigation would do more harm than good, as 23 it allows the harassing behavior that was identified 24 in John's report to be perpetuated.

25 Ms. Grace goes on to say that John NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

64 1 confirmed that he considered Beth's email during the 2 investigation and that he concluded that the email was 3 simply further evidence of the pattern of harassing 4 behavior that had been occurring over the last several 5 years, unquote. You can see this in Exhibit 17 and 6 also on your screen.

7 I recall that there were also concerns 8 about management being viewed as allowing further 9 harassment to occur.

10 Based on Ms. Grace's reasoning and strong 11 disagreement, I personally did not pursue further 12 investigation of Ms. Wetzel's allegation. Had I 13 disagreed with the recommendation, I would have said 14 so. As I described in my opening, I am not hesitant 15 to push back on issues where I disagree.

16 Ms. Grace also forwarded a footnote 17 drafted by Mr. Slater, which addressed Ms. Wetzel's 18 May 7 email.

19 The footnote, which is available in 20 Exhibit 17, noted that two of the allegations Ms.

21 Wetzel made in her May 7 email against Ms. Henderson, 22 reportedly inappropriately having people investigated 23 by HR and pulling of gate records, were the same 24 unfounded allegations made in her interview during the 25 OGC investigation and did not warrant further follow-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

65 1 up.

2 At this time, I further understood that 3 the OGC investigation report was going to be subject 4 to further review and revision.

5 About a week later, on June 9, 2018, I 6 received another email from Ms. Wetzel, as shown in 7 Exhibit 18 and also on your screen.

8 Her email stated in part, I know I've got 9 to get my travel in. This is getting ridiculous. We 10 are now floating my rent. But I've been afraid of 11 what will happen as soon as I start submitting 12 vouchers. I don't even try to understand my boss and 13 why she does what she does, but I do know that she 14 never gives up.

15 At this point in time, Ms. Wetzel had 16 submitted no travel vouchers for approval and, indeed, 17 did not submit her final vouchers for her May travel 18 until June 29, nearly three weeks after this email.

19 Thus, it was strange to me that she was complaining 20 about floating her rent when she had not completed any 21 vouchers and Carla had informed her to pay her rent on 22 the corporate card so this issue did not occur.

23 Ms. Wetzel responded with more of the 24 same, just stating, it's ridiculous, because I'm 25 afraid and haven't submitted. So now, we're floating, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

66 1 no action has been taken to my knowledge yet. The 2 latter part indicating that she did not believe Ms.

3 Henderson had yet done anything at all.

4 As I had done with my May 7 email, and in 5 light of the concerns that Ms. Grace shared with me on 6 May 31, that Ms. Wetzel not be allowed to continue her 7 behaviors, I forwarded this email exchange to Jennifer 8 Grace, asking that it be included for discussion. And 9 you'll see in Exhibit 19.

10 Throughout all these circumstances, I 11 thought I was doing the right thing.

12 On June 11, Jennifer responded to my 13 email, noting, it sounds like Beth is continuing with 14 some of the behaviors that John substantiated in his 15 report are part of the creation of the hostile 16 environment. A discussion needs to be had with Beth 17 ASAP. However, I think we need to have final 18 discussion with respect to Mike McBrearty before we 19 can talk to her or any of the others. This email is 20 in Exhibit 20.

21 While I awaited further instructions from 22 Ms. Grace, Ms. Wetzel continued these behaviors and 23 sent me texts in late June or early July. These are 24 provided in Exhibit 21 and also on your screen.

25 Ms. Wetzel texted me that she was getting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

67 1 different directions from management that could be 2 hanging things up. I attempted to find out the basis 3 for her statement. I responded, what are you 4 referring to as different directions from management?

5 Since Carla and I are actively engaged in your May 6 package, what is leading you to believe that there is 7 such a different direction? Ms. Wetzel responded 8 only, past experience.

9 Again, I found these statements not 10 credible, because, as noted earlier in my 11 presentation, no matter whether myself or Ms.

12 Henderson was assigned to review Ms. Wetzel's travel 13 vouchers, it would normally be Carla Edmondson who 14 reviewed and approved them.

15 In addition, as I noted to Ms. Wetzel, I 16 and Carla were actively engaged in your package. Erin 17 was not involved with the May package at all.

18 Furthermore, I had no indications that Ms. Henderson 19 had ever made beyond a routine inquiry into Ms.

20 Wetzel's travel vouchers.

21 In fact, for the purposes of this PEC, we 22 reviewed expense voucher records and confirmed that 23 when Ms. Henderson was responsible for approving Ms.

24 Wetzel's travel vouchers, the average number of days 25 from submission to approval was a little less than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

68 1 three days.

2 We also identified an email from January 3 of 2018, that's January of 2018, which you can see on 4 your screen, where Ms. Wetzel admitted to an 5 inadvertent mistake on her travel vouchers to me and 6 Ms. Henderson provided support for Ms. Wetzel. That 7 email is provided as Exhibit 22.

8 This interaction contradicts the statement 9 on Page 8 of the OI report that Ms. Wetzel, quote, 10 knew that if she got in trouble for violating any 11 travel policies, she would be terminated.

12 Again, in an effort to determine the basis 13 for her statement, I asked Ms. Wetzel, if you have a 14 factual basis for your assertion, please provide that.

15 And I also emphasized again she could pay her rent 16 with the corporate card.

17 As far as I recall, Ms. Wetzel did not 18 provide a basis for her assertion. Similar to the 19 reference in the May 7 email to probably a lot more 20 actions that I'm not aware of, I found the response 21 past experience as highly pejorative, yet without 22 specificity for me or anyone else to do anything with.

23 And when we looked into the issue for the 24 purposes of this case, there didn't seem to be any 25 past experience for her to rely on.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

69 1 Finally, on July 2, I called Ms. Wetzel 2 from my office, in the presence of Carla Edmondson, to 3 further explain her allegations against Ms. Henderson, 4 but Ms. Wetzel provided nothing further.

5 Ms. Wetzel discussed this phone call in 6 the NRC OI report, and I will address her 7 characterization of it later in this presentation.

8 As you can see from these exhibits, 9 emails, and texts, Ms. Wetzel made a number of 10 unfounded accusations and unprofessional statements 11 towards Ms. Henderson.

12 I will now turn to how I and our 13 organization addressed those statements.

14 On August 10, 2018, a memorandum was 15 issued to me enclosing a final copy of the 16 investigation report prepared by the Office of General 17 Counsel into the allegations of harassment raised by 18 Erin Henderson. This report is provided in Exhibit 19 23.

20 This memorandum was signed to me directly 21 by TVA's Executive Vice President and General Counsel.

22 The fact that not only had the Executive Vice 23 President and General Counsel signed it, but moreover, 24 the Executive Vice President and General Counsel 25 functions as TVA's designated agency ethics official, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

70 1 which in my federal experience has great significance 2 and made an impression on me.

3 At the time, I perceived this as the 4 senior-most agency official responsible for 5 determining what constituted or didn't constitute a 6 breach of the ethics standards that TVA implements as 7 a federal agency.

8 At a minimum, I could not ignore the 9 authority of the General Counsel position from which 10 that opinion was issued.

11 After the report was issued, on August 16, 12 2018, a teleconference was held with TVA's senior 13 executive leadership, including a number of members of 14 the TVA-wide executive leadership team, to discuss the 15 August 10 investigation report.

16 My handwritten notes from the meeting 17 indicated that we very briefly discussed Ms. Wetzel's 18 behavior during the call. My notes state that Ms.

19 Grace indicated that Ms. Wetzel's, quote, types of 20 behaviors are harassing, comma, still reviewing, 21 unquote, and are provided in Exhibit 24.

22 I would like to take a moment to correct 23 the record here. During my OI interview for this case 24 related to Mr. McBrearty, I mistakenly indicated that 25 I did not have notes from this meeting. This is on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

71 1 Page 116 of my interview transcript.

2 During my interview, I had several Xeroxed 3 copies of my handwritten notes, but not the full 4 notebooks, and several other documents with me. And 5 I referred to some of those records throughout my 6 interview, as my transcript indicates.

7 In preparing for this PEC, I reviewed my 8 complete notebooks again and identified that in fact 9 I did have some handwritten notes from this meeting.

10 Had I identified those notes during the interview, I 11 certainly would have shared them with the 12 investigator, because they show that the discussion on 13 Ms. Wetzel was that her behaviors are harassing and 14 still being reviewed.

15 Following this meeting, and based on 16 discussions I had with OGC, my understanding was that 17 OGC was continuing to review Ms. Wetzel's behaviors 18 and would make a recommendation.

19 Here, I'd like to pause and note an event 20 that will help explain my thinking at the time. I had 21 originally been scheduled to perform a performance 22 review for Ms. Wetzel at the end of August and still 23 intended to have it with her and to discuss the 24 results of the OGC investigation and the August 10, 25 2018 final report.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

72 1 I knew I would need assistance from the 2 appropriate internal resources on how to handle such 3 a review in light of the still forthcoming and yet 4 unknown to me recommendation from OGC.

5 To that end, on August 20, I sent my draft 6 talking points for Ms. Wetzel's performance review 7 meeting to Jennifer Grace, Emily Walker, Amanda 8 Poland, and Chris Chandler. These are provided in 9 Exhibit 25 and also excerpted on your screen.

10 I believe you can see that the proposed 11 talking points are a good indicator of my 12 contemporaneous thinking, before I had received any 13 recommendation from OGC on potential discipline or 14 lack thereof, and specifically that I had no 15 preconceived notion of the outcome for Ms. Wetzel and 16 I had no intent to retaliate against her.

17 In fact, my talking points stated that the 18 investigation identified you as a contributor to the 19 hostile work environment. Specifically of concern is 20 that you were identified as having repeatedly 21 represented that your supervisor initiated 22 investigation and had individuals' gate records 23 examined.

24 Of concern is that you could have no 25 specific knowledge that she's had people's gate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

73 1 records pulled because, in fact, an individual manager 2 cannot unilaterally order such an action.

3 The primary phase of the investigation has 4 been completed, however, no specific decisions have 5 been made regarding your behavior and the apparent 6 violation of TVA policies and/or potential violation 7 of federal law have been made. It is expected that 8 determinations in that regard will be made in coming 9 weeks.

10 I specifically reiterated in my proposed 11 talking points that Ms. Wetzel should continue to 12 raise concerns regarding nuclear safety or any aspect 13 of the organization that she believed can make the 14 organization and its people operate better.

15 Ultimately, I received feedback from OGC 16 that a pre-meeting of this sort was not part of our 17 normal process and we would not normally give an 18 employee an early look at the results of an 19 investigation before we were ready to pronounce 20 discipline or disposition of the matter.

21 Again, at this point in time, I had no 22 indication of what the recommendation of OGC was going 23 to be. And again, I stated to Ms. Grace that I looked 24 forward to the recommendation, whatever it may be.

25 Thus, on that advice, I decided to cancel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

74 1 the August 31, 2018 performance evaluation meeting 2 with Ms. Wetzel.

3 The next day, August 30, 2018, OGC issued 4 its supplemental memorandum and recommendations with 5 respect to Ms. Wetzel. The NRC is already in 6 possession of this memorandum and I will refer to non-7 attorney-client privileged portions of the cover page 8 here.

9 The legal memorandum found that Ms. Wetzel 10 engaged in harassment, retaliation, and the creation 11 of a hostile work environment with respect to Ms.

12 Henderson, in violation of multiple TVA policies and 13 federal law.

14 The memorandum recommended that Ms.

15 Wetzel's employment with TVA be terminated as a result 16 of her involvement in a pattern of harassment and 17 retaliation directed at Ms. Henderson. OGC 18 recommended separating Wetzel from company, whether 19 through a no-fault separation agreement or 20 termination, either of which I could pursue at my 21 discretion.

22 It was my understanding that the 23 recommendations in this supplemental memorandum were 24 not only based on what was in the Slater report, but 25 also on Wetzel's ongoing harassing behavior that had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

75 1 continued through and after the May 25 Slater 2 investigation and report.

3 I agreed with OGC's recommendation. As I 4 stated at the beginning of my presentation, I have no 5 issues raising hard questions to management, but I 6 agreed with the reasoning from OGC and believed I had 7 a duty to ensure a harassment-free workplace.

8 I will now turn to the steps I took to 9 separate Ms. Wetzel from the company, including the 10 required processes that I followed to ensure the 11 proposed separation complied with applicable 12 requirements and not based on retaliation for 13 protected activities.

14 On September 19, 2018, TVA conducted an 15 Executive Review Board, or ERB, to review the adverse 16 employment action for Ms. Wetzel. The ERB is composed 17 of TVA personnel who are independent of the proposed 18 adverse employment action. The purpose of the ERB is 19 to ensure that the proposed adverse employment action 20 is consistent with company practices and not based on 21 retaliation for protected activities.

22 From my handwritten notes, I recorded the 23 participants as Steve Bono, Senior Vice President for 24 Operations and ERB Chair, Ryan Dreke, OGC, Arcie 25 Reeves, Human Resources, Joe Calle, the adverse NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

76 1 employee action process owner, Inza Hagins-Dyer, 2 Senior Manager of Employee Concerns Program, Deanna 3 Fultz, Employee Concerns Program Specialist for the 4 corporate office, and John McCann, who served as the 5 individual providing independent auditing of TVA's 6 implementation of the adverse employee action and 7 Executive Review Board process, per the Confirmatory 8 Order. The final ERB is included in Exhibit 26.

9 The ERB is governed by TVA Procedure STP-10 01.7.4, adverse employee action, and the Executive 11 Review Board.

12 As you know, the TVA adverse employee 13 action process has been the source of appropriate NRC 14 concern regarding its effective implementation for a 15 period of time since 2009 and the ERB process was 16 developed in and around the 2017 Confirmatory Order, 17 which I was involved in implementing.

18 We took action following the 2017 19 Confirmatory Order to improve rigor around several key 20 leadership steps, including to ensure the discipline 21 is not taken because an employee engaged in activities 22 protected by the employee protection regulations in 10 23 CFR 50.7.

24 Given my involvement in implementing the 25 2017 Confirmatory Order, my intent was to follow the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

77 1 process closely. For this particular, ERB, my role 2 was to serve as the presenting manager.

3 From my perspective, the other 4 participants, including our Senior Vice President for 5 Operations and our external advisor, as well as the 6 HR, ECP, and OGC participants, is that they understood 7 the clear distinction between protected activities and 8 non-prohibited considerations.

9 I had had interactions with all of them on 10 numerous issues over an extensive period of time. I 11 believed that, individually or collectively, they 12 would ensure that the proposed action could proceed 13 only if they were convinced that it was based on non-14 prohibited considerations.

15 My recollection is that I presented the 16 fact-finding portions of the Board and the answers to 17 the questions that I was procedurally required to, and 18 then I was dismissed while the Board considered the 19 questions reserved for the Board only, Questions 14 to 20 19.

21 My experience was that, since the 22 implementation of enhancements from the 2017 23 Confirmatory Order, the process was taken very 24 seriously.

25 My overall recollection of the ERB was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

78 1 that it was challenging. However, everyone was in 2 agreement that the proposed action was not in 3 retaliation for raising protected concerns and the ERB 4 did not object to proceeding with the adverse action.

5 I would like to specifically point to 6 Question 15 of the ERB, which the OI agent looked to 7 in his analysis. The question states, does it appear 8 the individual's involvement in a protected activity 9 contributed in any way to the proposed action 10 recommendation?

11 While I was not present for this portion 12 of the ERB, per procedure, the ERB checked no for that 13 question. The ERB feedback added an explanation that 14 Ms. Wetzel was involved in the OGC investigation, as 15 described in the August 10, 2018 report.

16 I understood that this was an attempt to 17 acknowledge that while Ms. Wetzel had participated in 18 the investigation, her mere participation in that 19 investigation had no bearing on the reason for the 20 disciplinary action.

21 At the end of the day, the truth is that 22 both myself and, I am confident, the ERB believed we 23 had doggedly attempted to evaluate the collection of 24 protected and non-protected activities, separate them, 25 and focus solely on the non-protected activities, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

79 1 including that it was appropriate to move forward, and 2 any portrayal to the contrary, in my opinion, is not 3 accurate.

4 As I noted, John McCann attended the ERB 5 in his auditing role. A copy of his audit report that 6 included this ERB is provided at Exhibit 27.

7 He wrote in his report, with respect to 8 all of the ERBs he audited during that period, which 9 included the September 19 Wetzel ERB, the discussion 10 included both the consideration of potential for 11 harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and 12 discrimination, and the potential impact on the SCWE.

13 SCWE mitigation plans were reviewed by the 14 ERB and approved as appropriate. The documentation 15 packages were prepared prior to the meeting and the 16 meeting discussions were focused on the potential 17 safety culture issues.

18 Personnel in attendance demonstrated a 19 good understanding of the purpose of the meeting and 20 the relationship between required discipline and 21 potential safety culture and Safety Conscious Work 22 Environment impacts.

23 The overall quality and consistency of ERB 24 meetings continues to improve throughout the fleet.

25 This is now a mature and well-understood process.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

80 1 Again, these observations related to all 2 of the ERBs Mr. McCann had observed in that period.

3 As relevant, Mr. McCann did not make any negative 4 findings about the September 19 ERB.

5 Finally, I would like to address the fact 6 noted in the OI report that the ERB was signed on 7 October 16 and 19 by the ERB members, while Ms. Wetzel 8 was placed on paid administrative leave on October 15.

9 I can understand why this might not be clear.

10 However, we acted consistent with TVA procedure.

11 Ms. Wetzel was placed on paid 12 administrative leave on October 15. As the OI report 13 notes on Page 20, excerpted on your screen, the 14 initial voluntary separation agreement was dated 15 October 25, 2018, which was the date that myself and 16 Ms. Poland met with Ms. Wetzel and provided her no-17 fault separation agreement.

18 This occurred after Steve Bono, the ERB 19 Chair, signed the ERB Record of Action on October 19, 20 2018.

21 The OI report states, on Pages 20 and 46, 22 that Ms. Wetzel was provided a no-fault separation 23 agreement for the first time on October 15, 2018.

24 That is incorrect. My talking points in the October 25 15, 2018 meeting state, the terms of a no-fault NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

81 1 separation agreement had not yet been set.

2 Further, Ms. Wetzel's Department of Labor 3 complaint and the December 18, 2018 ERB update both 4 confirm that Ms. Wetzel was provided her first no-5 fault separation agreement on October 25, 2018.

6 An excerpted copy of the adverse action 7 ERB procedure in place at that time is my Exhibit 28, 8 which is excerpted on your screen. As you can see, 9 no-fault separation agreements do require an ERB, 10 while actions for paid administrative leaves are not 11 specifically listed.

12 After vetting the action through the ERB 13 process, I decided it was best to raise these issues 14 with Ms. Wetzel at her performance review scheduled 15 for October 15, 2018.

16 That morning, I emailed my talking points 17 to Amanda Poland, of which you can find a copy in 18 Exhibit 29. My talking points detailed the legal 19 reasoning and conclusions from the August 30, 2018 20 supplemental OGC memorandum.

21 I further stated that TVA was prepared to 22 offer Ms. Wetzel a no-fault separation agreement in 23 lieu of termination, but the terms of the no-fault 24 separation agreement had not yet been set, so that Ms.

25 Wetzel could have time to reflect on matters that may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

82 1 be of interest to her in negotiating such an 2 agreement.

3 My talking notes also clearly stated that 4 should you choose not to accept a no-fault separation 5 offer, TVA is prepared to move to termination.

6 As of that meeting, Ms. Wetzel was placed 7 on paid administrative leave.

8 Between October 15 and November 16, 2018, 9 I have several documented discussions between myself 10 and HR regarding the terms of Ms. Wetzel's no-fault 11 separation agreement. One of those drafts is provided 12 in Exhibit 30.

13 I recall that I was very conscious that 14 Ms. Wetzel was close to her eligible retirement age, 15 and I wanted to make her landing as soft as possible 16 and wanted to ensure that whether it was paid or 17 unpaid, she received creditable service from TVA up to 18 her eligible retirement date.

19 As provided in Exhibit 31, Ms. Wetzel 20 initially signed a no-fault separation agreement, 21 which addressed her retirement concerns, on December 22 5, 2018, but I believe, consistent with standard TVA 23 no-fault separation terms, was given seven days to 24 rescind her signature.

25 The next day, December 6, we received a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

83 1 letter from Ms. Wetzel's attorney indicating that Ms.

2 Wetzel may be considering withdrawing her signature 3 and making further demands for negotiation.

4 Then, on December 10, Ms. Wetzel, through 5 her attorney, notified TVA that she had begun the 6 process of mediating her issues through the NRC and 7 requested an additional seven days within which to 8 rescind the no-fault separation agreement.

9 TVA reviewed the request, but as it had 10 been engaging in negotiation with Ms. Wetzel since 11 mid-October and previously granted a two-week 12 extension, TVA declined to offer a further 13 counterproposal or grant the seven-day extension.

14 Ms. Wetzel then rescinded the no-fault 15 separation on December 11, within the allotted seven 16 days.

17 The ERB alternative to a no-fault 18 separation agreement was to implement a contingency 19 plan for termination, which was what was put into 20 motion after Ms. Wetzel rejected the no-fault 21 separation.

22 On December 18, an ERB update meeting was 23 held to review additional information, after Ms.

24 Wetzel rejected the no-fault separation agreement, as 25 provided in Exhibit 32. Once again, the ERB had no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

84 1 objection.

2 Accordingly, Ms. Wetzel was terminated on 3 January 14, 2019. The termination letter is provided 4 as Exhibit 33.

5 In summary, ultimately, I took action to 6 terminate Beth Wetzel because I believed she was 7 engaged in disrespectful and harassing conduct towards 8 Erin Henderson and I believed it was my responsibility 9 to ensure a respectful and harassment-free workplace.

10 These circumstances were not easy. And I 11 want to emphasize that, as I detailed here today, I 12 took appropriate caution by seeking out advice and 13 input from the appropriate resources within TVA, and 14 ultimately, I acted only after the ERB had vetted the 15 proposed action.

16 In addition to the factual events, there 17 are several issues and contextual perspectives that I 18 want to briefly address. These are issues that are 19 touched on in the OI report or are considerations in 20 the NRC enforcement process.

21 First, to be clear that at no point in 22 time did any technical or nuclear safety issue raised 23 by Ms. Wetzel play any part in the decision to 24 separate her from the company. As I read it, even the 25 NRC OI report does not make that finding. The OI NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

85 1 report claims it was Ms. Wetzel's alleged chilled work 2 environment statements that contributed to her 3 termination.

4 I will address that issue in a moment, but 5 I want to be clear that any nuclear safety issue Ms.

6 Wetzel raised had no role. If you have any questions 7 for me on this topic I'm happy to address them.

8 At this time I will turn to my specific 9 concerns with the NRC's analysis in the OI report. I 10 have laid out five specific issues, which you can see 11 listed on your screen for reference.

12 First, I would like to address the OI 13 report's analysis of whether Ms. Wetzel alleged 14 protected activities contributed to her termination.

15 The primary basis for OI's findings, and indeed DOL's 16 August 29th conclusion, which were never litigated, 17 appear to be that Ms. Wetzel participated in a chilled 18 work environment assessment when interviewed by OGC 19 Attorney John Slater and that she raised potential 20 chilled work environment concerns to Mr. Slater in 21 that interview and to me in her emails.

22 I must reiterate that at no time did I 23 have any cause to believe that Mr. Slater was 24 conducting a chilled work environment assessment or 25 that information provided to Mr. Slater could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

86 1 construed as a chilled work environment concern.

2 I knew him to be conducting an independent 3 harassment investigation. The OI report states as 4 much on Page 43.

5 At that time, Shea knew that TVA OGC 6 investigation was looking into whether Wetzel and 7 others were creating a harassing environment for 8 Henderson. That is the only lens with which I viewed 9 the results of Mr. Slater's investigation.

10 The NRC may have a different view of these 11 circumstances, but here it has been alleged that I 12 deliberately acted with an intent to discriminate 13 based in part on statements that Ms. Wetzel made. It 14 is therefore my intent that must be considered and I 15 had no such intent.

16 The purpose of having the harassment claim 17 investigated by an independent investigator, Mr.

18 Slater, who was new to all of the issues and 19 individuals was, in part, to establish what had 20 actually occurred within the organization.

21 Even if Ms. Wetzel herself believed that 22 she was participating in a chilled work environment 23 assessment, I had no indication that was her belief.

24 Rather, I advanced the action against Ms. Wetzel 25 because, one, OGC concluded that she had participated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

87 1 in a, quote, pattern of harassment and retaliation, 2 unquote, against Ms. Henderson.

3 Two, that Ms. Wetzel had made one or more 4 significant unfounded statements directly to me 5 outside of the Slater investigation. Specifically the 6 May 7th assertion of, quote, probably a lot more 7 actions than I'm not aware of, unquote, and her 8 assertion of, quote, past experience, unquote, without 9 more detail.

10 And three, my perspective that OGC in 11 drawing their August 30th conclusions, had taken into 12 account the totality of Ms. Wetzel's representations, 13 including both those made to Mr. Slater and those not 14 made to Mr. Slater in his interview.

15 Second, the OI report finds that the 16 statements Ms. Wetzel made were accurate and truthful 17 to the best of her knowledge because they were, quote, 18 rooted in truth in that the activities occurred but 19 were arguably not based on the reasons that Ms. Wetzel 20 believed, unquote.

21 This is a troubling finding because 22 certain of her assertions were not reasonably rooted 23 in any truth. Rather, what is troubling is that OI 24 and DOL analyses ignore the statement in her May 7th 25 email that Erin was allegedly responsible for certain NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

88 1 harassing actions and, quote, probably a lot more 2 actions that Ms. Wetzel was not aware of, unquote.

3 Which in my mind crossed an unacceptable line.

4 There was then and is now, no intellectual 5 or ethical construct I can conceive of on a broad 6 sweeping indictment with no specificity, taken to be 7 accurate or grounded in truthfulness when the words 8 admit to no actual knowledge of the truth.

9 To extent that the NRC analysis ignores 10 that particular statement in its analysis, it is 11 difficult to understand what would ever be considered 12 a non-prohibited grounds under 10 CFR 50.7(d).

13 Third, Ms. Wetzel is characterized in the 14 OI report as saying that she did not provide any 15 further details on the July 2nd phone call due to the 16 presence of Carla Edmondson because she thought I was, 17 quote, trying to catch her saying something negative 18 about a management to subordinate, which is against 19 TVA policy, unquote.

20 It is not true that I was trying to catch 21 her. People don't get caught in being asked to 22 amplify a previous remark. Even if there were some 23 inadvertent confusion caused by my part, including Ms.

24 Edmondson on that phone call, it should be noted that 25 twice before I had given Ms. Wetzel the opportunity to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

89 1 elaborate on her allegations against Ms. Henderson to 2 me alone.

3 The first time in my June 9, 2018 response 4 to Ms. Wetzel's email the same day, and the second, 5 through text messages where I asked her to elaborate 6 on why she believed she was getting different 7 directions from management.

8 Fourth, on Page 43 of the OI report it 9 appears to read that I stated that Ms. Wetzel's 10 claimed protected activities were a central and 11 required function of her job and were not protected 12 activity. That reference is not cited, and I have 13 reviewed my notes and transcripts and am unable to 14 find anywhere where I mace such a statement. It seems 15 quite odd and out of character that I would have said 16 that.

17 Rather, I do believe that Beth and almost 18 every person employed by the nuclear regulatory team 19 engages in protected activity every day as part of 20 their job.

21 Because protected activities were a 22 central and required job function for Beth, it would 23 have been an assumption of any discussion and decision 24 on an adverse action that she had participated in 25 protected activities and that absent clear evidence NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

90 1 that there was a non-prohibited basis for the adverse 2 action, the adverse action should not move forward.

3 The last observation I will make regarding 4 the OI analyses regards the discussion on Page 45 5 regarding the request for specific evidence. The 6 analysis suggests that it was especially concerning 7 that I asked Ms. Wetzel to provide support for her 8 claims, because I had knowledge of the prior ECP 9 concerns raised against Ms. Henderson.

10 I disagree that there's anything 11 concerning about this. Two of the prior ECP concerns 12 against Ms. Henderson were not substantiated at all 13 and one concern, NEC 1700683, was substantiated in 14 part, but explicitly found no retaliatory intent by 15 Ms. Henderson.

16 Furthermore, that analysis again ignores 17 that in the May 7 email, Ms. Wetzel broadly asserted, 18 probably a lot more actions that I'm not aware of, 19 instances of retaliation by Ms. Henderson.

20 To me, it's not unreasonable for me to ask 21 essentially, what do you mean? I'm not quite sure 22 what else the NRC would have me do here. Ultimately, 23 in my mind, I turned the May 7 list of issues, 24 including the broad, probably a lot more actions that 25 I'm not aware of, assertion over to the entity that I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

91 1 believed was capable and positioned to examine all of 2 the facts with the various assertions by Henderson and 3 Wetzel in one effort.

4 In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I 5 never acted with any intent to retaliate against Ms.

6 Wetzel for engaging in any alleged protected activity.

7 I acted based on my good faith belief that Ms. Wetzel 8 was engaging in disrespectful and harassing actions.

9 Any supervisor, any supervisor will tell 10 you these kinds of decisions are never easy, and that 11 was true for me and also why I was asking for help all 12 along the way in investigating and evaluating these 13 behaviors.

14 Based on the nature of these allegations, 15 their lack of specificity, and that I had personal 16 knowledge of some of the issues that Ms. Wetzel was 17 falsely complaining about, I did not believe her 18 allegations against Henderson raised genuine and 19 reasonable concerns.

20 I asked Ms. Wetzel to provide more detail 21 for the allegations she raised against Henderson, but 22 she declined. I used company processes, OGC, and the 23 Executive Review Board, that I believe are designed to 24 provide neutral and independent advice and guidance.

25 OGC provided its recommendation and the ERB did not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

92 1 object to the implementation of disciplinary action 2 here.

3 This concludes my statements as to the 4 factual portion of my apparent violation.

5 While reviewing the history of this 6 situation, I looked for any indication that I had 7 deliberately taken action that caused TVA to be in 8 violation of 10 CFR 50.7, and as I have discussed at 9 length today, I found no such indication and strongly 10 deny that I violated 10 CFR 50.5.

11 But I also took the opportunity to assess 12 what I could have done differently along the three or 13 more year arc of this situation to have prevented this 14 situation that was anything close to a harassing 15 environment.

16 While I believe, ultimately, that Ms.

17 Wetzel was responsible for her choice to make 18 statements about Ms. Henderson that could not possibly 19 have been grounded in fact or reasonable belief, I did 20 assess and observe the following things I would do 21 differently to facilitate a non-harassing workplace.

22 I did reflect on the actions I took to 23 give additional support to Ms. Wetzel, specifically, 24 while I did facilitate getting her an executive level 25 mentor, I might have had more structured discussions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

93 1 with Ms. Wetzel around her mentoring discussions that 2 would have given Ms. Wetzel additional opportunity to 3 discuss her perspectives on her working relationships.

4 Having done that review, based on my 5 existing skills and experience, I took my initiative 6 one step further. And it's a step that I find 7 profoundly insightful.

8 Several weeks back, I enrolled in the 9 Society for Human Resource Management. The Society 10 for Human Resource Management is one of the two 11 premier professional training and certification 12 processes for human resource professionals across the 13 nation for companies of all types.

14 I became a member and immediately took the 15 course entitled, Workplace Harassment Management 16 Fundamentals. As I took the course, several key 17 aspects were repeatedly emphasized.

18 The first is that harassment is something 19 where managers of all experience levels can recognize 20 that something needs to be done, but that the specific 21 steps to take are rarely clear unless you have 22 extensive personal experience responding to such 23 concerns.

24 The second clear point was that managers 25 need to constantly seek the support of knowledgeable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

94 1 parts of the organization to ensure that claims of 2 harassment are properly addressed.

3 And third, I learned that I needed to 4 increase my sensitivity to behaviors that others may 5 be perceiving as harassing.

6 This is the training that is foundational 7 to the HR professional community. I took and funded 8 this training on my own initiative.

9 I will now turn it over to my attorney.

10 Tim?

11 MR. WALSH: Thank you, Joe. At the 12 beginning of the presentation, I emphasized that a 13 finding of deliberate misconduct is a very high 14 standard requiring a showing of intent to cause a 15 violation of 50.7.

16 Joe showed you today, through emails and 17 other records, that he never possessed any such 18 intent. Quite to the contrary, these records 19 demonstrate that the only intent Joe had was to do 20 what was correct.

21 The circumstances present here are far 22 different than in other cases where the NRC has found 23 that an individual had engaged in deliberate 24 misconduct, causing a licensee to violate 50.7.

25 For example, September of 2019, the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

95 1 issued an order to Mr. Thomas Summers, in Enforcement 2 Action IA-18-040, prohibiting him from involvement in 3 NRC-licensed activity.

4 In that case, the NRC Office of 5 Investigations found that a contract employee 6 initiated a condition report on one day and Mr.

7 Summers emailed the contract employee's employer the 8 next day, including in his email the condition report 9 and asking a question about it.

10 That same day, Mr. Summers spoke with the 11 contract employer and discussed reassigning the 12 contract employee to another plant.

13 The NRC investigation also found that Mr.

14 Summers' testimony differed significantly from that of 15 other witnesses, thus undercutting his credibility and 16 discrediting his assertion that the individual's 17 removal from the plant was unrelated to protected 18 activity.

19 Also in that case, the NRC found that Mr.

20 Summers had deliberately provided false and inaccurate 21 information to the NRC to influence the NRC's 22 discrimination investigation.

23 Joe's case is far different. Unlike in 24 Mr. Summers' case, there is no rash decision to take 25 action against Ms. Wetzel. The record shows that Ms.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

96 1 Wetzel's offending conduct was carefully considered 2 over several months by multiple TVA personnel.

3 In addition, the record shows that Joe's 4 view of Ms. Wetzel's pattern of conduct that violated 5 TVA's policies were aligned, if not identical, to 6 others who also considered that pattern. He receives, 7 at multiple times, input from the Office of General 8 Counsel, which found that Ms. Wetzel's conduct 9 violated TVA policies and was not appropriate for 10 someone at her level.

11 Further, the adverse action was reviewed 12 by the Executive Review Board, which did not object to 13 the adverse action. Indeed, the HR representative to 14 the ERB testified to OI that the information presented 15 to the ERB was very thorough and damaging, that there 16 was no question at the ERB about proceeding with the 17 adverse action.

18 None of the facts presented today suggest, 19 let alone show, any intent to violate the Commission's 20 employee protection requirements. In fact, they show 21 that Joe made every effort to ensure that the adverse 22 action had only legitimate and appropriate bases. He 23 even recommended that Ms. Wetzel be further 24 interviewed to learn more about the bases for her 25 statement.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

97 1 The evidence presented today is far more 2 convincing than the evidence relied on in the Wetzel 3 OI report. Indeed, that report states that the 4 primary basis for finding that Joe has engaged in 5 retaliation is based only on a, quote, reasonable 6 assumption, close quote.

7 The OI report states on Page 49, and as 8 displayed on your screen, that it is reasonable to 9 assume that Shea provided Ms. Wetzel's statement to 10 TVA OGC with the expectation that it would lead to an 11 employment action against Wetzel to prevent Wetzel 12 from continuing to raise these fear of retaliation 13 concerns, which is a protected activity.

14 We have demonstrated today how the 15 evidence shows that this assumption is not reasonable 16 at all. Moreover, alleged reasonable assumptions are 17 not evidence, they are instead the complete absence of 18 evidence and should not be permitted as any basis for 19 finding that Joe engaged in retaliation, let alone an 20 order banning him from the industry.

21 As discussed earlier today, the Commission 22 made explicit that a finding of deliberate misconduct 23 requires finding the intent to act in a wrongful 24 manner and the Commission equated that standard to one 25 used in a criminal prosecution. Alleged reasonable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

98 1 assumptions fall nowhere close to that standard.

2 The NRC and other reasonable minds may 3 disagree with the outcome that was reached here, but 4 that outcome was not reached by any attempt to cause 5 a violation of the Commission's employee protection 6 regulations or any wrongdoing.

7 Joe's actions demonstrate that he wanted 8 to do the right thing. He should not get a violation, 9 let alone be banned from the industry, for the 10 evidence shows that he asked for help and input every 11 step of the way.

12 I would like to now address another 13 concern with the OI report's findings.

14 As Joe explained to you, he in no way 15 considered the internal OGC investigation into Ms.

16 Henderson's harassment complaint any chilled work 17 environment assessment. Again, it's his intent that 18 matters here.

19 In addition, the NRC should not feel bound 20 by the Department of Labor investigation's findings in 21 this regard, as you can see on your screen.

22 First, TVA had no opportunity to respond 23 to the DOL findings that the TVA OGC investigation 24 where they showed work environment assessment before 25 DOL made its findings here. The claim was never NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

99 1 raised by Ms. Wetzel in her DOL findings, nor was this 2 claim presented to TVA by the DOL investigator.

3 Second, those findings were not the result 4 of an adjudication. Rather, the findings were the 5 result of an investigation. Those findings were set 6 aside the moment TVA requested an adjudicatory hearing 7 in this matter.

8 29 CFR 24.106(b) states in relevant part 9 that if objections to Department of Labor findings are 10 timely filed, quote, all provisions of the order will 11 be stayed, unquote. That's what happened here. TVA 12 filed its objection, the DOL findings were stayed, and 13 the matter was eventually settled.

14 Third, the Department of Labor 15 investigator never interviewed the TVA investigator, 16 Mr. Slater. But the NRC did. Mr. Slater 17 unequivocally testified to the NRC that he conducted 18 a run of the mill harassment investigation and that he 19 never performed a chilled work environment assessment 20 and wouldn't even know how to go about conducting one.

21 Fourth, the NRC did not re-interview Joe 22 following the Department of Labor findings when it 23 could have done so. Again, it's Joe's intent that is 24 at issue here in this apparent violation, not anyone 25 else's.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

100 1 And finally, Section 5.2(e) of the NRC 2 Allegation Manual specifically provides that there is 3 no requirement that the NRC and DOL conclusions agree.

4 In summary, Joe had only legitimate and 5 non-prohibited considerations in mind from the start 6 of the events we discussed here today, all the way to 7 the finish. He never had any intent to commit --

8 That concludes Joe's presentation for 9 today. Next week, you will hear from TVA and its 10 perspective that the actions by Erin, and Joe 11 were taken for only appropriate reasons. Thank you.

12 MR. WILSON: Thank you for the 13 presentation.

14 One of the things, Joe, that I'm going to 15 apologize, I know the court reporter did get 16 disconnected for a little bit, so we're going to have 17 to figure out, to go back and part of your 18 presentation, to have him get his notes fixed. If the 19 court reporter could come up so we can get those 20 fixed?

21 Then, we'll be taking, when we break out, 22 we'll come back at 10:50. So, the NRC will be back at 23 10:50. Did anyone have any questions?

24 Court reporter, do you know when you got 25 disconnected and you need to fix your notes? Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

101 1 Thank you very much.

2 MR. SHEA: Mr. Wilson?

3 MR. WILSON: Yes.

4 MR. SHEA: Yes, before we get to the court 5 reporter, I myself would like a break. So, Mr. Court 6 Reporter, I'd like to come back at 10:10, ten after 7 10:00.

8 MR. WILSON: Oh, you can take a break, Joe, 9 you can take a longer break if you'd like, we just 10 have to get this before we move on to the next phase.

11 I'm fine with that.

12 MR. SHEA: Okay. I'll be back at 10:10.

13 We'll get this straightened out, then I'll go -- we'll 14 caucus as well. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 10:04 a.m. and resumed at 10:33 17 a.m.)

18 MR. WILSON: Thanks, everyone. Thanks, 19 Mr. Shea, for working with the court reporter to get 20 everything put back on the record.

21 At this time we will listen to Ms. Wetzel.

22 Ms. Wetzel, your comments, please.

23 MS. WETZEL: Ian, can you hear me?

24 MR. WILSON: Yes, we can.

25 MS. WETZEL: Okay. All right, thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

102 1 Yes, I would like to make a few comments. One thing 2 I wanted to correct or, that I believe was inaccurate, 3 was Mr. Shea said that he received a call from me 4 during the recruiting process for Ms. Henderson and I 5 told Mr. Shea that she was too inexperienced.

6 I didn't call Joe and tell him that Erin 7 was too inexperienced, it was during a 9-box meeting 8 where we went over different managers and their 9 ability to do jobs. And Joe asked at the end of the 10 9-box meeting what Ed and I thought about Erin.

11 And we were silent, we didn't say anything 12 and Joe pressed us, come on, tell me what think about 13 Erin. And I did tell him that because we had just 14 demoted one of our employees, Henry Lee, for not 15 having eight years of experience, regulatory 16 experience, he couldn't be a senior program manager, 17 that we might be at risk because Erin doesn't have 18 eight years of regulatory experience and we were 19 bringing her in to be a manager over the whole group.

20 I wanted to clarify that.

21 And then I also wanted to say that I still 22 don't see how I could have created a hostile work 23 environment for my boss, it's management that maintain 24 the work environment. And during the OI interviews of 25 employees and corporate licensing group, the employees NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

103 1 said I was nothing but professional and respectful 2 during, when I worked.

3 But I apparently created a hostile work 4 environment because I gave my opinion, my honest 5 opinion, during an interview of OGC, and I raised 6 concerns to my management about how I might be treated 7 by Ms. Henderson. And apparently those concerns were 8 justified because I was terminated.

9 And the other thing I'd like to mention 10 was, if I was, if my discussions and things I said and 11 did were inappropriate, I never got feedback from Joe 12 or Erin or OGC or HR that I was acting 13 inappropriately. I was just terminated out of the 14 blue.

15 I guess I also want to say, Joe said that 16 I was not given a no-fault separation agreement on 17 October 15th. I was.

18 It was read to me. And I was handed it to 19 read. And I pointed out that I'm six months from my 20 retirement date after 30-plus years of federal 21 service.

22 And I also pointed out a sentence that 23 insinuated I could not discuss anything with the NRC 24 after I was terminated. And Joe took that paper back 25 and said, we'll change this paperwork.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

104 1 So I was handed something on October 15th 2 and it was different than the paper I was handed 3 later. That's it.

4 MR. WILSON: Okay, thank you, Ms. Wetzel.

5 Mr. Shea, any comments?

6 MR. SHEA: Yes. Taking disciplinary 7 action against any employee is not easy. Terminating 8 a talented individual is a difficult action for any 9 leader. And terminating Ms. Wetzel on January 14, 10 2019 was a, both a frustrating and personally 11 emotional moment for me.

12 However, I have an obligation to all 13 employees to ensure a work environment that is 14 respectful and free of harassment. And throughout 15 this period I took steps to obtain the advice of 16 counsel of expert organizations in harassment and 17 investigations and I took great care to ensure that 18 the actions taken were not retaliatory for protected 19 activities.

20 It is my position that TVA did not violate 21 10 CFR 50.7 and I did not deliberately take actions 22 that I knew would cause TVA to violate 10 CFR 50.7.

23 That is all.

24 MR. WILSON: Thank you. We're going to do 25 separate breakout in the caucus rooms. We will be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

105 1 back at 11:30. So that gives us 50 minutes. It's 2 been taking about that time in the caucus, so I will 3 see everyone back in the main room at 11:30.

4 Ian, please establish the breakout room.

5 Thank you.

6 MR. GIFFORD: Thank you, George.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 8 off the record at 10:39 a.m. and resumed at 11:31 9 a.m.)

10 MR. WILSON: All right, we should have 11 everyone back now. With that, Sara Kirkwood is going 12 to be leading the questioning for the NRC. Sara?

13 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sorry, George, I was 14 slightly late. Are you ready for me to begin?

15 MR. WILSON: Yes, Sara. Yes, we are.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay, sorry. Did, Mr.

17 Shea, did Erin Henderson, prior to filing her 18 complaint in March of 2018, did Erin Henderson come to 19 you with concerns that any TVA employee was harassing 20 her?

21 MR. SHEA: Ms. Kirkwood, if you're asking, 22 prior to her March 2018 complaint, did Ms. Henderson 23 come to me complaining that anyone was harassing her, 24 is that correct?

25 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

106 1 MR. SHEA: As I discussed generally in my 2 opening remarks that in the days prior to her filing 3 of the complaint she had, there had been some issues 4 of concern that had caused her to be upset to the 5 point of preparing to quit.

6 And in that exchange she had expressed 7 concerns that were activities and actions by 8 individuals that she was frustrated with. And 9 challenged me as to when was leadership going to do 10 something about that because in her view it's 11 something that had been going on for some period of 12 time.

13 Does that answer your question?

14 MS. KIRKWOOD: That was just in a day's 15 filing? So it was just in March of 2018 that you 16 started hearing her concerns that there were things 17 happening that were causing her to think of quitting?

18 MR. SHEA: So I understand that, that was 19 one instance, I have a recollection with no 20 specificity that over the previous year or so she had 21 expressed on one or more occasions some concerns with 22 the behaviors of one or more individuals. And she 23 used either the word harassing or hostile, in one of 24 those conversations that I recall.

25 MS. KIRKWOOD: And do you recall who the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

107 1 individuals were who she said was harassing her?

2 MR. SHEA: One of the, so I don't recall 3 who she equated the term harassing or hostile 4 specifically with. One of the individuals that was 5 causing her quite a bit of frustration was Mr.

6 McBrearty.

7 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you take any action at 8 that point with respect to Mr. McBrearty?

9 MR. SHEA: There were occasions when I 10 spoke to Mr. McBrearty. And specifically in October 11 of 2017, and went to the site and sat down with him 12 and gave him some perspective on a couple of the 13 issues that he was challenging the corporate office 14 on.

15 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you talk to anyone else 16 about Mr. McBrearty, about the relationship between 17 Mr. McBrearty and Ms. Henderson?

18 MR. SHEA: I did. I know that I had a 19 conversation in April of 2017. An introductory 20 meeting with vice president at Sequoyah, Mr. Tony 21 Williams.

22 He had recently arrived as the site vice 23 president. And my recollection is I relayed to Mr.

24 Williams that he had a very capable site licensing 25 manager but that I discussed that the relationship NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

108 1 between Sequoyah licensing manager and the corporate 2 office could be improved.

3 I don't know how much more specific I got 4 than that but that would have been April of 2017.

5 I have some recollection, and I think a 6 note, that on June 20, 2017 I had another conversation 7 with Tony Williams and Mr. McBrearty's direct boss at 8 the time, Dennis Dimopoulos, where I expressed some 9 concern about the ongoing seeming antagonism by Mr.

10 McBrearty towards Ms. Henderson.

11 I don't recall whether that was a phone 12 call or whether they were at the corporate office.

13 But that was the date I have some notes on.

14 MS. KIRKWOOD: You have notes on that?

15 MR. SHEA: Some handwritten notes I 16 believe. It's very brief.

17 And in addition, then I spoke to, in 18 October 2017, I spoke to Mr. Williams again on that 19 day, as well as talking to Mr. McBrearty again. That 20 was out at Sequoyah.

21 I did, with regard to Mr. McBrearty, I 22 also recall, at least on one occasion, in February of 23 2018 I had a call to encourage him to work with the 24 corporate leadership because we were trying to get a 25 particular product out called the Kirk Key LAR. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

109 1 I encouraged him to, we were trying to all get the 2 best product out as possible. I recall he was 3 frustrated about that particular LAR in that time 4 frame, so I spoke to him in February of 2018.

5 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did Erin Henderson, prior 6 to filing her complaint in March 2018, did Erin 7 Henderson complain to you that Beth Wetzel was 8 harassing her?

9 MR. SHEA: I know that Ms. Henderson and 10 I had a number of conversations regarding Ms. Wetzel's 11 performance. Whether she specified that the behaviors 12 were harassing, I can't place a discussion where she 13 said that one way or the other.

14 MS. KIRKWOOD: Were the, so, I would 15 typically think of performance as --

16 MR. SHEA: Absolutely. Sorry. I'm sorry.

17 MS. KIRKWOOD: -- performance --

18 MR. SHEA: Performance is performance, 19 that's correct.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes. Versus, were there 21 concerns about her conduct?

22 Were there concerns, did Henderson express 23 concerns to you about Wetzel's conduct?

24 MR. SHEA: She expressed on, at one 25 occasion, one or so occasions that she thought that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

110 1 Ms. Wetzel was perhaps talking to others in the group, 2 to include Mr. McBrearty who is in, at the site, in 3 some negative fashion about her. So yes.

4 The details of what she said any 5 conversation about Ms. Wetzel beyond that I don't 6 specifically recall.

7 MS. KIRKWOOD: And, to -- you said earlier 8 that Ms. Henderson had expressed concerns to you about 9 Ms. Wetzel's performance.

10 MR. SHEA: Yes.

11 MS. KIRKWOOD: Employees, her performance 12 would not be harassing of her manager, correct?

13 MR. SHEA: Absolutely. I was, I expressed 14 that she was frustrated with performance but you're 15 absolutely right, discussions on performance are not 16 discussions related to harassment.

17 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did Erin Henderson ever 18 express to you that Alesia Justice was harassing her 19 prior to receiving the complaint?

20 MR. SHEA: I don't recall any reference to 21 Ms. Justice in any detail, other than a perspective 22 that Ms. Justice and Ms. Wetzel were, had a close 23 relationship. I don't recall Ms. Henderson 24 specifically suggesting that Ms. Justice was harassing 25 her. I don't recall that prior to the March 2018.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

111 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: Do you think that a 2 manager's subordinates having a close relationship can 3 be harassing of that manager?

4 MR. SHEA: No, not in and of itself.

5 Certainly not.

6 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did Erin Henderson ever 7 express to you prior raising her complaint in March of 8 2018 that was harassing her?

9 MR. SHEA: Not that I can recall with any 10 specificity. If there was a discussion about 11 , it was not harassing as much as potentially 12 insubordinate.

13 MS. KIRKWOOD: What is the difference, in 14 your mind, between insubordinate conduct and harassing 15 conduct?

16 MR. SHEA: Insubordination is related to 17 the following or not following of directions.

18 Harassing is a much broader set of behaviors. It 19 encompasses a much broader set of possible behaviors.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Prior to the complaint in 21 March of 2018, did Erin Henderson ever express to you 22 that Michelle Conner was harassing her?

23 MR. SHEA: My recollection is that similar 24 to what I described as Ms. Wetzel, there was close 25 converse relationships. She expressed her concern NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

112 1 between them where they were potentially talking 2 negatively about Ms. Henderson.

3 In that period of time after Ms. Conner 4 settled in her new position, I don't recall a specific 5 reference to Ms. Conner's harassing in a particular 6 fashion in that period of time.

7 MS. KIRKWOOD: Prior to receiving the 8 complaint, did Ms. Henderson discuss with you the 9 possibility of filing it?

10 MR. SHEA: I'm sorry, of what?

11 MS. KIRKWOOD: Of, did she discuss or plan 12 to file it, that she was thinking of filing a 13 complaint, the possibility of filing a complaint with 14 you prior to when you received, you said you received 15 the email on March 9th at 3:45?

16 MR. SHEA: That's right. As I described 17 in the presentation, Ms. Henderson had gotten very 18 upset in a day or two, I think it was two days prior 19 to when she submitted the complaint, about some things 20 that had gone on.

21 And she expressed that she was very 22 frustrated. And she challenged me, when is leadership 23 going to do something about these behaviors. And she 24 used the word, harassing or hostile.

25 And it struck me in that particular time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

113 1 as this was a, something I needed to respond to, that 2 leadership needed to respond to. And I encouraged her 3 to consider putting all of her concerns in writing so 4 that they could be actually evaluated.

5 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you see a draft of the 6 complaint before it was filed?

7 MR. SHEA: No. Not that I have any memory 8 of, no.

9 MS. KIRKWOOD: You said she was very upset 10 in the days leading up to the complaint because of 11 certain behaviors. What specifically did you 12 understand those behaviors to be?

13 MR. SHEA: There was a particular product 14 that was being developed. It was a license amendment 15 related to Sequoyah.

16 And it had been in development for some 17 period of time. It was a frustration to the site and 18 a frustration to, as well Erin and I, that it was not 19 moving along and achieving the right quality standards 20 so there was tensions in that regard and all around.

21 It was an important product.

22 And my recollection is there was an 23 exchange between Sequoyah, Mr. McBrearty and one of 24 the employees underneath Erin, where he characterized 25 his view on the corporate office as impeding the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

114 1 progress of these important activities to the 2 determinant of the site, is my recollection.

3 And I don't recall how she became 4 specifically aware of that exchange, text. But I 5 recall that as being particularly upsetting in this 6 characterization of her role in how she was 7 discharging it in terms of getting the LAR out.

8 License amendment request.

9 And other issues I think were included in 10 that. That particular seemed to be an exchange that 11 particularly bothered her.

12 MS. KIRKWOOD: I assume you're referring 13 to the texts between Mr. McBrearty and Mr. Polickoski?

14 MR. SHEA: Yes.

15 MS. KIRKWOOD: That text was also quite 16 critical of you. Did you view that text as harassing 17 you?

18 MR. SHEA: I didn't. I had heard the 19 issues that Mr. McBrearty was speaking to, progress on 20 the LAR was something that he and I had talked about.

21 As I mentioned earlier in February of 22 2018. And I had known his frustration, he had 23 expressed his frustration to me in the past on that 24 issue as well as another technical issue.

25 And my view of it was that it was a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

115 1 dynamic that had not yet resolved itself between the 2 corporate office, including at my level, and the site 3 regulatory leadership, in this case Mike.

4 And it was just something that I needed to 5 go take to, it was my action to go help solve that as 6 the senior person in that group. I did not consider 7 it harassing. But that is my view. And that's just 8 my view of it against me.

9 MS. KIRKWOOD: And when you said it was 10 your job to go sell that, was it your job to go sell 11 the underlying technical dispute or issues that were 12 holding up the LAR or your job to solve something 13 else?

14 MR. SHEA: It's my job to ensure that 15 working performance of the entire regulatory 16 organization across a fleet, if you will, was both 17 performing high and working well together and the text 18 challenged that it wasn't working too well together.

19 That is mine to solve, accountable to my boss.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Thanks. I'm going to tell 21 you, Mr. Shea, if you need a break just say so, don't 22 feel like you have to keep on answering if you need to 23 get like a drink of water or something.

24 MR. SHEA: I'll just ask, I'm sorry, am I 25 looking like --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

116 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: You were looking like you 2 might need a moment. I wanted to give it to you if 3 you needed it. You're okay? Okay.

4 When you received the complaint from Erin 5 Henderson, what were your thoughts?

6 MR. SHEA: My thoughts were that this was 7 six, seven, eight pages of detail that was, I accepted 8 that it represented the entirety of her concerns. It 9 was mine to, and of course it was addressed to me and 10 Amanda Poland, I think the director of human resources 11 supporting the nuclear fleet, it was ours to go 12 respond to and we needed to go determine the 13 appropriate way to respond to that. And we needed to 14 do it with some urgency.

15 In about five minutes I will take that 16 break, if you don't mind.

17 MS. KIRKWOOD: Not at all. Did anything 18 in the complaint trouble you?

19 MR. SHEA: I guess I'd ask that it be more 20 specific about trouble me. It's a complaint of 21 harassment and hostility; that's troubling.

22 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did anything, was there any 23 incident in that complaint that you learned of for 24 the first time from reading the complaint?

25 MR. SHEA: I'd have to review the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

117 1 complaint to see if anything strikes me as being new 2 or novel looking backwards.

3 MS. KIRKWOOD: She made several references 4 in that complaint to people having filed ECP 5 complaints. Did that concern you that she viewed that 6 as harassing of her?

7 MR. SHEA: The Employee Concerns Program 8 is established as a avenue for individuals to raise 9 concerns, and for any number of reasons that they may 10 want to go to that program.

11 So that any individual took an issue to 12 ECP is, I wouldn't view as harassing, but I don't have 13 the expertise, and didn't have the expertise, to know 14 whether it was possible for a series of ECP complaints 15 against an individual to be viewed as harassing. So 16 that was a complexity of the complaint that I knew I 17 needed help to get evaluated.

18 MS. KIRKWOOD: You said this complaint 19 went to you and Amanda Poland, and I believe you had 20 testified that you made the decision to send it to OGC 21 for an independent type of review. Do I have that 22 right?

23 MR. SHEA: The decision to send it to the 24 Office of General Counsel was one that evolved from a 25 discussion between Ms. Poland and myself. And there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

118 1 were some discussions with Mike and us, and I believe 2 then CNO Mike Balduzzi at the time.

3 And ultimately out of those discussions it 4 was determined to approach OGC to investigate it.

5 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you discuss with anyone 6 in OGC who should be interviewed as part of this 7 complaint?

8 MR. SHEA: I'm sorry, there was a little 9 break, could you repeat the question?

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you discuss with anyone 11 in OGC who should be interviewed as part of this 12 complaint?

13 MR. SHEA: As in the initial discussions 14 with OGC, which I would characterize as in-brief 15 discussions where before Mr. Czufin took over the role 16 as point of contact for the investigations, there was 17 an initial discussion with the managing attorney and 18 the investigator about what it is, who's the group, 19 how big is it, and those sort of things.

20 Where he would discuss, for example, one 21 of his techniques was to do interviews. So it was a 22 logistical in-brief type of discussions.

23 And in one of those, in that conversation, 24 I know that I raised the issue that one of the 25 individuals mentioned, Ms. Conner, had recently been, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

119 1 we had gone to settlement. Achieved a settlement with 2 her in, I think it was December or so of 2017.

3 And Ms. Conner had just started 4 approximately December 2017, maybe January of 2018.

5 In a new position that was also in my group. And I 6 had a point of view, two things. One, that Ms. Conner 7 was settling well into that new role. That it was 8 exciting and challenging and she was looking forward 9 to getting some satisfaction from it.

10 And the other was, I was quite mindful 11 that we had just settled with her, at that point, 12 three or four months earlier. And I just expressed my 13 concern that an interview regarding harassment had the 14 potential to have someone who had just been settled 15 with have a perspective that that negotiation and 16 settlement had not been in good faith, the managing 17 attorney was Grace and Mr. Slater, to be aware of 18 that. And if I went so far as to encourage them if 19 there were ways that he could get to the bottom of the 20 entire complaint without upsetting that situation, 21 that would be good.

22 And it was a caution. So that there was 23 awareness of the temporal proximity to something that 24 had been just recently achieved. And was important to 25 the health of that individual, Ms. Conner. As well as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

120 1 the organization that she just settled in.

2 And I will, if you don't mind, I don't 3 know how much was five minutes. Would that be okay?

4 MR. WILSON: Yes. Yes, Joe, we'll take a 5 ten minutes break. It's 12 o'clock, we'll be back at 6 12:10. Will be ten minutes be good?

7 MR. SHEA: Yes, Mr. Wilson. Thank you.

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: George, do you want to do 9 a ten minute break or do you want to break longer for 10 like a lunch-type of break?

11 MR. WILSON: That's up, I'll ask the 12 group, would you like to do that? How much longer do 13 you think, just an estimate?

14 MS. KIRKWOOD: I'm not sure. Probably, it 15 sort of goes on some of the answers, but --

16 MR. WILSON: Okay. Well, let's go ahead, 17 all right, let's go ahead and take a 30-minute break.

18 We'll be back at 12:30.

19 MR. SHEA: Thank you.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 12:00 p.m. and resumed at 12:31 22 p.m.)

23 MR. WILSON: Sara?

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay.

25 MR. SHEA: Ms. Kirkwood, I'm sorry.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

121 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure.

2 MR. SHEA: Okay, just while we were on 3 break, I did have an opportunity to reflect on your 4 first question, look at my notes on your first 5 question, or one of your first questions, where I 6 think you asked me if I had talked to anybody about 7 Mr. McBrearty and his behaviors and I told you I 8 talked to Tony Williams. I mentioned a meeting with 9 Tony and Mr. Dimopoulos. I told you I talked to Mr.

10 McBrearty himself.

11 To the extent I thought you were asking, 12 had I talked to anybody, those were examples. But I 13 thought just to be sure, I do have notes that I talked 14 to Inza Hagins-Dyer in May of 2017.

15 And my notes from that discussion were 16 that Inza indicated that the investigation, and I 17 think she was referring to 17-0410, concluded that a 18 chilled work environment, hostile work environment, 19 did not exist. And my notes further stated that Inza 20 indicated she had challenged Mike to evaluate whether 21 he had a blind spot with regard to an employee at 22 corporate, Michelle Conner.

23 And then, so, that was my conversation 24 with Inza and her reflection that she had talked to 25 Mr. McBrearty. And then I did have, and I don't know NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

122 1 notes from this, I had periodic meetings with my boss 2 Dave Czufin.

3 And I am aware that from time-to-time I 4 would talk to him about the overall relationship 5 between the corporate office and Mr. McBrearty. Ms.

6 Henderson, Mr. McBrearty.

7 So I just wanted to be more complete. I 8 wasn't a hundred percent sure that you wanted a 9 representative list or just a little bit more. So I 10 wanted to get that for you.

11 MS. KIRKWOOD: Thank you, I appreciate 12 that. Was there anything else you wanted to 13 supplement?

14 MR. SHEA: No.

15 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. So, right before we 16 broke, you were explaining that Ms. Conner was not, 17 why it was your recommendation that Ms. Conner not be 18 interviewed. And I think I understood you to say that 19 you were concerned that Ms. Conner might perceive an 20 interview as being in bad faith because of the 21 settlement she had just entered into. Do I have that 22 right?

23 MR. SHEA: Yes.

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: Who was involved in that 25 settlement with Ms. Conner?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

123 1 MR. SHEA: I can remember the name of the 2 attorney who negotiated it with me.

3 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sorry, let me clarify my 4 question. From TVA, who was involved? Was it you who 5 was negotiating, was it you printing it? What 6 managers at TVA --

7 MR. SHEA: Yes.

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: -- would have been --

9 MR. SHEA: I was in that negotiation, yes.

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. Was Erin Henderson 11 part of that negotiation?

12 MR. SHEA: No.

13 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you view settling that 14 complaint as a way of resolving harassment directed 15 toward Ms. Henderson?

16 MR. SHEA: Sure.

17 MR. WALSH: Ms. Kirkwood, just a point of 18 clarification here. The settlement occurred at the 19 end of 2017 and her harassment complaint was filed in 20 March 9th of 2018. So I don't understand the question 21 and I just want to make note of the timeline there.

22 MR. SHEA: Yes, I'd ask you to clarify 23 that as well, Ms. Kirkwood.

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: I'm fully aware of the 25 timeline. But you were discussing earlier, we were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

124 1 discussing about whether or not Ms. Henderson had 2 raised concerns previously about employees harassing 3 her.

4 So what I am asking you is if you viewed 5 that settlement as a way of resolving concerns of Ms.

6 Henderson's?

7 MR. SHEA: The settlement was to resolve 8 Ms. Conner's concerns. And in settling it Ms.

9 Conner's was settled in another organization. And I 10 did view that that would reduce tension within the 11 group.

12 Your question specifically, did I think it 13 would resolve, I'm sorry, can you finish that for me?

14 Resolve what? I can't hear you.

15 PARTICIPANT: You do look to be on mute.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sorry. I still get mixed 17 up on the buttons. Did you think that the settlement 18 agreement with Conner was resolving concerns of Ms.

19 Henderson's?

20 MR. SHEA: I thought that it would 21 alleviate tensions within the group and that would 22 potentially alleviate some of Ms. Henderson's 23 concerns.

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: You referred the Henderson 25 complaint for investigation because you were concerned NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

125 1 that Ms. Henderson was being harassed, correct?

2 MR. SHEA: I referred it because Ms.

3 Henderson filed the complaint with me and I needed to 4 respond to it.

5 MS. KIRKWOOD: Do you have a copy of the 6 complaint?

7 MR. SHEA: Yes. Yes.

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. I would like you to 9 look at Page 8 of her complaint. It sort of starts on 10 Page 7. It's the paragraph that runs from Page 7 to 11 Page 8.

12 Actually, I would start even on the bullet 13 before that on Page 7.

14 MR. SHEA: Yes. I'm sorry, on 221 is the 15 --

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes.

17 MR. SHEA: -- the second one. During a 18 discussion with one of my directs.

19 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes. And look at the 20 bullet right before that too. During a meeting with 21 ERI.

22 MR. SHEA: Yes. Yes.

23 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. So in both of those 24 bullets, and tell me if you read it differently. What 25 I am reading is, Erin Henderson identifying incidents NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

126 1 involving Michelle Conner that would have happened 2 after her settlement agreement.

3 So, if Erin Henderson is accusing Michelle 4 Conner of harassing her after the settlement agreement 5 took place, I'm trying to understand why you felt that 6 it was not appropriate to have Conner interviewed as 7 part of this investigation.

8 MR. SHEA: I think I described earlier, in 9 response to your question, that I described to Mr.

10 Slater and Ms. Grace a fact that a settlement had 11 occurred recently. And that as he looked at how he 12 was going to do the investigation and do interviews, 13 I asked him to be aware of, and mindful of the fact 14 that an interview could cause Ms. Conner to think we 15 had negotiated in bad faith.

16 I could not instruct Mr. Slater what to do 17 with his investigation. His conduct of investigation 18 was between him and his boss, Ms. Grace.

19 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did any employees at TVA 20 raise concerns to you about Erin Henderson's conduct?

21 MR. SHEA: When --

22 MR. WALSH: Ms. Kirkwood, do you have a 23 time frame that you would like to discuss or --

24 MR. SHEA: Yes, that's my question.

25 That's my question, when.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

127 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: I would actually be 2 interested in any times that an employee raised 3 concerns. When Ms. Henderson worked for you.

4 I'll narrow it if you want. You could go 5 from sort of 2016 forward. When she was in her 6 position as the corporate licensing manager, did 7 employees raise concerns to you about Ms. Henderson's 8 conduct?

9 MR. SHEA: About her conduct I would say 10 no. I would, described in my discussion this morning, 11 that Ms. Wetzel talked to me about in January of 2017, 12 2016, I'm sorry, of her difficulty in getting aligned 13 with her bosses expectations. I did not take that or 14 hear that as a complaint about her conduct.

15 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you hear complaints 16 from Ms. Wetzel about Ms. Henderson, about things 17 other than her conduct?

18 MR. SHEA: I just described an example of 19 that.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Is that the only example?

21 MR. SHEA: That's the only one I can 22 recall.

23 MS. KIRKWOOD: You included in the 24 exhibit, it's dated February 23rd of 2018, when Ms.

25 Henderson went to HR about an allegation that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

128 1 had been inappropriate in a licensing call of 2 some type. And I see the HR investigation. What 3 actions were taken coming out of that?

4 MR. SHEA: I don't recall. I honestly 5 don't recall, Ms. Kirkwood.

6 MS. KIRKWOOD: But continued 7 with the company after that time, correct?

8 MR. SHEA: After that time he, yes, he 9 left the company in, later in 2018.

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: Would you have been 11 responsible for any actions that were taken coming out 12 of that or would that have been somebody else?

13 MR. SHEA: I would have to know what the 14 actions were that came out of it to know who would 15 have been responsible for those.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. And at this point 17 you don't recall if there were any actions coming out 18 of it?

19 MR. SHEA: I don't specifically recall 20 what they were.

21 MS. KIRKWOOD: You referenced today two 22 emails. Let's start with the May 7th, 2018 email. I 23 think you have that as Exhibit, let's pull it up. One 24 moment.

25 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

129 1 off the record at 12:46 p.m. and resumed at 12:48 2 p.m.)

3 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. I'm looking at your 4 Exhibit 12, the email from Ms. Wetzel to you on May 5 the 7th, 2018. Are you with me?

6 MR. SHEA: Just one minute, please.

7 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure.

8 MR. SHEA: May 7, 2018 at 10:11:44 a.m.?

9 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes.

10 MR. SHEA: That's the one.

11 MS. KIRKWOOD: So I understand that you 12 viewed this email as extremely troubling from Ms.

13 Wetzel, correct?

14 MR. SHEA: Just there were passages in it 15 that I considered extremely troubling.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: And did you view that email 17 as harassing of Ms. Henderson?

18 MR. SHEA: I viewed it in two ways. One 19 is that as she was making references to types of 20 things such as the HR investigation that Ms. Henderson 21 had referenced in her complaint. And I also viewed it 22 as Ms. Wetzel was raising a perspective of her own, 23 that her boss was being -- I'm trying to -- trying to 24 find the words. Using things as an investigative 25 tool. So that she was raising a concern of her own.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

130 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you view that email as 2 part of a sustained pattern of -- sustained campaign 3 of disrespectful conduct from Ms. Wetzel directed 4 toward Ms. Henderson?

5 MR. SHEA: At that moment, I did not. I 6 recognized, as I mentioned, some of the things she 7 referenced in her email were referencing the HR 8 investigation, were being Ms. Henderson's complaint.

9 And -- but I, in that moment, didn't see that as a --

10 that was a discrete email and by itself was not a 11 pattern.

12 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you think that she was 13 -- that Ms. Wetzel was violating TVA policies or 14 procedures by sending that email to you?

15 MR. SHEA: At the time, I viewed the 16 passage in there, specifically the opened-ended 17 reference to a lot more actions that I'm not aware of 18 as troubling. I struggled to see how that would've 19 been considered ethical. That was one of the things 20 that motivated me to provide it to -- to offer it to 21 OGC. They are the experts in the application of TVA's 22 code of conduct. So I was troubled by it, but I 23 sought the assistance of OGC to determine what it 24 represented.

25 MS. KIRKWOOD: So if you were troubled by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

131 1 it and you thought it was a potential violation of the 2 TVA code of conduct -- code of ethics, why was she 3 allowed to go on a rotation to NEI after that email?

4 MR. SHEA: She was already on the 5 rotation.

6 MS. KIRKWOOD: On May 7th?

7 MR. SHEA: My recollection is she had gone 8 up on April 29th is my recollection.

9 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you give any thought to 10 pulling it back at that time?

11 MR. SHEA: No, my -- my response was to 12 provide -- to seek assistance from, in this case, OGC 13 and HR to figure out the proper way to assess it and 14 what it represented and to -- that was the first thing 15 that needed to be done.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: She had already been named 17 in Ms. Henderson's complaint however at that time as 18 somebody who was harassing Ms. Henderson. Did you 19 think it was appropriate for her to go on the NEI 20 rotation with that investigation pending?

21 MR. SHEA: The investigation was ongoing.

22 The investigation had not been completed yet. So I 23 did not make a determination on any action without the 24 investigation being completed.

25 MS. KIRKWOOD: Looking again at that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

132 1 email, the statement, I know that Erin has used HR to 2 investigate people. What did you take that in 3 reference to?

4 MR. SHEA: I took it as reference to the 5 April or the spring 2016 HR investigation into the 6 concern about the relationship between Ms. Conner and 7 Mr. McBrearty.

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: And why --

9 MR. SHEA: But -- but I did not know that.

10 That's what I took it as.

11 MS. KIRKWOOD: Why did you take it as that 12 as compared to the investigation by Ms. Henderson into 13  ?

14 MR. SHEA: I'm just giving you my 15 reaction. That's what I attributed it to.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: But you agree that the 17 statement is, in fact, true, correct, that Ms.

18 Henderson has used HR to investigate people?

19 MR. SHEA: No, I don't -- I don't -- I 20 don't agree with that at all. In the particular in 21 the spring of 2016, concerns were brought to Ms.

22 Henderson and to me, but to Ms. Henderson that raised 23 questions about the ability of Ms. Conner -- the 24 perception of the ability of Ms. Conner to provide 25 unbiased oversight in her role over Mr. McBrearty. It NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

133 1 was not that Ms. Henderson used HR to investigate 2 people. Ms. Henderson properly took concerns raised 3 to her and took them to HR, that organization to 4 position to look at issues like that. She did not go 5 there to have them investigated.

6 MS. KIRKWOOD: So you don't agree with the 7 way she framed the statement, but you agree that Ms.

8 Henderson did, in fact, initiate at least two 9 investigations that we've talked about today of her 10 employees with HR?

11 MR. SHEA: Can you say the question again?

12 I'm sorry.

13 MS. KIRKWOOD: You don't agree with the 14 way Ms. Wetzel framed the statement. But you agree 15 that Ms. Henderson did, in fact, refer at least two 16 different cases that we've talked about today of her 17 employees to Human Resources for investigations?

18 MR. SHEA: In my view, Ms. Henderson 19 discharged her obligation which is when concerns were 20 raised to her to -- to have them looked at.

21 MS. KIRKWOOD: I guess I'm trying to get 22 at I think you indicated that you viewed this as a 23 false accusation on the part of Ms. Wetzel. And so 24 I'm trying to narrow down which part is false. And I 25 think where we are is at the part that you find false NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

134 1 is the use of the word, use, because you thought the 2 investigations were, in fact, appropriate. But we 3 agree that they did happen?

4 MR. WALSH: Ms. Kirkwood, pardon me one 5 second. I understand your questioning, but let's look 6 at the whole email in context and not just one word in 7 the email.

8 MR. SHEA: Yeah, that's --

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 MR. WALSH: -- the whole sentence --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MR. SHEA: Yeah, that's what I wanted to 13 get to. So the sentence is -- is adjacent to she has 14 demonstrated a long pattern of using TVA processes as 15 punitive and retaliatory tools. So in looking at, you 16 know, how the word, use, or what's some other word, it 17 was juxtaposed against a view that those had been done 18 in a punitive and retaliatory manner. Are you there?

19 Sorry.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes. Sorry, again, hit my 21 button wrong. You specifically talked about pulling 22 badging gate records and that Ms. Wetzel should have 23 known that Ms. Henderson didn't have the ability to do 24 that. I want to understand a little bit more about 25 that. Who can pull badge records at TVA?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

135 1 MR. SHEA: Security.

2 MS. KIRKWOOD: And is there a written 3 procedure about obtaining badge records?

4 MR. SHEA: I am sure there is. I don't 5 know it.

6 MS. KIRKWOOD: Are there circumstances 7 where a manager can obtain badge records? Or is that 8 such a well-known -- you said Ms. Wetzel would've 9 known this. I'm just trying to understand that. They 10 could only be obtained under certain circumstances?

11 MR. SHEA: I don't have that procedure.

12 I'm confident that I cannot call up security and just 13 have them pull badge records on my request or any 14 other manager's request.

15 MS. KIRKWOOD: Why do you think that Ms.

16 Wetzel would have known that that could not happen?

17 MR. SHEA: From the time she'd worked at 18 TVA and, in fact, the time she worked at the site.

19 MS. KIRKWOOD: But are you familiar with 20 the HR investigation of Ms. Conner and Mr. McBrearty?

21 MR. SHEA: I'm familiar that one occurred, 22 yes.

23 MS. KIRKWOOD: And in fact, it discussed 24 their badge records?

25 MR. SHEA: I'm sorry. Was that a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

136 1 question? I don't -- I don't have that report.

2 MS. KIRKWOOD: You don't have that report?

3 Again, on that email, Ms. Wetzel had asked for a 4 detailed travel memo that she'd been told she would 5 get. And I understood your testimony to say your 6 concern was when she basically said that Ms. Henderson 7 hadn't provided it to her, you testified that it 8 wasn't Ms. Henderson who said she shouldn't get that 9 detail memo. It was OGC. But how would Ms. Wetzel 10 have known that it was OGC who had switched that 11 direction?

12 MR. SHEA: She wouldn't necessarily have 13 until someone told her that which on May 12th -- or 14 sorry, May 14th, I recall I went back to her and 15 responded and explained that to her.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: But on May 7th when she 17 raised a concern, how was that -- how was expressing 18 a concern that she did not get what she had been told 19 she was going to get about specific procedures for how 20 to submit her travel vouchers part of a sustained 21 pattern of conduct campaign against Ms. Henderson?

22 MR. SHEA: At that point, that had not 23 been determined to be a sustained pattern of 24 disrespectful and harassing conduct. And it is this 25 email and some of the assertions in there referenced NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

137 1 to punitive and retaliatory, those are words of 2 concern. That is what caused me to bring the matter 3 forward to OGC to get assistance to look at and 4 determine what, if any, of those elements of that 5 email were an ethical problem or not. So I didn't 6 attempt in that moment to parse these and make a 7 judgment of my own. I sought assistance from the 8 organizations that had expertise in that area.

9 (Pause.)

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: Do you have Erin 11 Henderson's complaint in front of you still?

12 MR. SHEA: Yes, yes.

13 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. Could you turn to 14 page -- page 6? I'm looking at the section that's 15 page 6 of the complaint that says, there are some 16 indications that other individuals, Michelle Conner, 17 Beth Wetzel, Ed Schrull, and Alesia Justice, may 18 potentially be contributing to this environment or 19 colluding with each other facilitate creating a 20 hostile work environment as described below. May 21 potentially be, and then there's kind of a timeline 22 attached. And you are welcome to read through it if 23 you want.

24 MR. SHEA: Is there a particular element 25 on the timeline, or --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

138 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: Well, I'll ask you my 2 question and then you can decide. I'm not trying to 3 mislead you. I read the Henderson complaint as 4 relatively vague as to what most of these individuals 5 actually did to her.

6 What Wetzel said about Erin Henderson, she 7 engaged in a lot of -- she probably did other things 8 that I don't even know about, seems similar. So I'm 9 trying to understand why -- in resolving the Henderson 10 complaint, TVA fully investigated it and disciplined 11 employees but that Wetzel's comment that Henderson was 12 doing things to people was treated as disrespectful 13 conduct. Why wasn't Henderson's complaint that, say, 14 people had gone to ECP and treated as disrespectful 15 conduct toward her employees?

16 MR. SHEA: My action was to put both of 17 those sets of issues in front of an organization that 18 was capable of performing an investigation and 19 determining facts, analyses, and conclusions on them 20 both. So the OGC drew a conclusion with regard to Ms.

21 Wetzel on August 30th on that, and that was the 22 conclusion that they drew. So I'm not sure if your 23 question is different than that. My action was to 24 have them investigated.

25 (Simultaneous speaking.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

139 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you view OGC's job as 2 to get at the truth of the matter such that a possible 3 outcome could've been that Erin Henderson was the one 4 harassing her employees? Or did you view this as they 5 needed to look to see if Henderson was being harassed?

6 MR. SHEA: They needed to look at the 7 complaint and find the facts behind under what was 8 presented to them and make their own conclusions. So 9 I didn't have a preconceived notion. Ms. Henderson 10 presented it as she was being harassed. That's what 11 was presented to OGC. My expectation was that they 12 investigate it and draw their own conclusions.

13 MS. KIRKWOOD: Didn't Ms. Wetzel make very 14 similar allegations in that email to you on May 7th 15 about Ms. Henderson?

16 MR. SHEA: Let me look at the May 7 email.

17 So I do want to take time to look at the chronology to 18 understand their point of view.

19 MR. SHEA: Please do.

20 MR. WALSH: Joe, which document are you 21 looking at?

22 MR. SHEA: The -- Ms. Henderson's 23 complaint on page 6.

24 (Pause.)

25 MR. SHEA: Ms. Kirkwood?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

140 1 MR. WALSH: Could you repeat the question 2 now that Joe's had an opportunity to review the 3 document, please, Ms. Kirkwood?

4 MS. KIRKWOOD: I was asking for him to 5 explain why the -- the Henderson complaint lists a 6 variety of somewhat vague allegations against her 7 employees. The Wetzel email, in my view, has a very 8 similar vague allegations against her supervisor. And 9 I'm trying to understand the different treatment on 10 the part of TVA of those two documents.

11 MR. WALSH: Ms. Kirkwood, are you asking 12 Joe how he treated them differently, because he's 13 previously stated that he treated them the same?

14 MS. KIRKWOOD: I don't think he did say 15 that. And I'm asking him what he thought was a 16 possible outcome, why he views those as different.

17 MR. SHEA: Well, my action was to have 18 them both investigated by experts to determine what 19 were the facts and the true in both of them. I can 20 look at them and see more specificity in the March 9th 21 complaint than in a vague station of -- of probably a 22 lot more that I'm not aware of. I'd see more 23 specificity. However, my action was that I was not in 24 a position to be the one to investigate and draw that 25 conclusion. I provided and reached out and sought NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

141 1 assistance from the part of the company that had that 2 expertise.

3 (Pause.)

4 MS. KIRKWOOD: Can you turn with me to 5 your Exhibit 16?

6 MR. SHEA: Just a minute, please.

7 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure.

8 (Pause.)

9 MR. SHEA: This is an email from myself to 10 Emily Walker on May 31st at 12:39 p.m. Is that 11 correct?

12 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes, that's what I'm 13 talking about. What I thought I understood your 14 testimony to be was that you referred this to OGC and 15 whatever they come up with was fine. They were the 16 independent investigators.

17 But here, it looks like you're saying, I 18 haven't gotten what I need out of this and I need you 19 to do more with it. And again, I'm trying to 20 reconcile those statements. If they were doing an 21 independent investigation, then why couldn't they just 22 take the Slater report as it stood in May? Why did 23 you go back and ask for more?

24 MR. SHEA: Let me look at the 25th report.

25 (Pause.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

142 1 MR. SHEA: Just one minute, please.

2 (Pause.)

3 MR. SHEA: Ms. Kirkwood, can you hear me?

4 MS. KIRKWOOD: I can hear you.

5 MR. SHEA: We will get used to this 6 hopefully. Okay. The report from the 25th was, to my 7 read of it, really silent on the set of issues 8 presented by Ms. Wetzel in her May 7 email. So 9 whether the investigation was going to conclude that 10 Ms. Wetzel's characterizations were disrespectful and 11 harassing or alternatively look at whether Ms.

12 Wetzel's claim of vindictiveness, the report was 13 silent of that. So for me to respond either way to 14 Ms. Henderson's concern about Ms. Wetzel and her 15 complaint or theoretically to Ms. Wetzel's concern 16 about Ms. Henderson, the report was silent. So I was 17 seeking that to be addressed in the report.

18 MS. KIRKWOOD: The report is similarly 19 silent about Ms. Henderson's concerns about Justice --

20 Alesia Justice, Ed Schrull, and Michelle Conner. Did 21 you have similar concerns that they weren't addressed?

22 MR. SHEA: I was -- specifically because 23 Ms. Wetzel had raised the issues to me, I was noted 24 that that was on my plate and needed a resolution. So 25 that's what drove me to follow up with OGC. I didn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

143 1 have anything uniquely on my plate from those other 2 individuals.

3 MS. KIRKWOOD: I'm going to flip to the 4 ERB package next. I think you submitted it as an 5 exhibit, but I'm assuming you have it. And I need to 6 pull it up too.

7 (Pause.)

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: Do you have it in front of 9 you?

10 MR. SHEA: I'm sorry. Did you describe it 11 as a particular exhibit?

12 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sorry. It's the ERB 13 package. It's your Exhibit 26.

14 MR. WALSH: Yes, it's 26.

15 MR. SHEA: Thank you. Yes, I do.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. So I'm looking at 17 the summary of situation in question, include all 18 relevant information. Do you see where I am?

19 MR. SHEA: Yes, ma'am.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. It says there that 21 Ms. Wetzel has been found to have acted in violation 22 of three TVA policies governing employee behaviors and 23 two federal statutes that provide protection to (audio 24 interference). Did you at any time refer Ms. Wetzel 25 to the IG?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

144 1 MR. SHEA: I did not.

2 MS. KIRKWOOD: Isn't the IG responsible 3 for investigating concerns about violations of the 4 law?

5 MR. SHEA: That is one of their functions.

6 MS. KIRKWOOD: Why did you not refer this 7 to the IG?

8 MR. SHEA: I didn't reflect on that at the 9 time. I mean, it is a lower level personnel matter to 10 the extent that there's, I believe, discretion, at the 11 levels of things that are referred. This was a 12 finding that had been made, and there was a basis for 13 us to assess it from a discipline policy standpoint.

14 Normally, IG is, you know, an organization that is 15 primarily waste, fraud, and abuse.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Also in that paragraph, it 17 says, specifically, the investigation concluded that 18 Ms. Wetzel had engaged in a sustained campaign of 19 disrespectful conduct over a lengthy period of time.

20 The disrespectful conduct included repeated 21 insinuations by Ms. Wetzel that her supervisor had 22 initiated inappropriate investigations of TVA 23 employees for a vindictive purpose despite Ms. Wetzel 24 having no reasonable basis or specific knowledge to 25 support those insinuations. You told us about the May NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

145 1 7th email that Ms. Wetzel sent you. Was there 2 anything else that you considered part of this 3 sustained campaign of disrespectful conduct?

4 MR. SHEA: There is.

5 MS. KIRKWOOD: Would you tell us what that 6 is, please?

7 MR. SHEA: Yes, just a minute.

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure.

9 MR. SHEA: The email in June 9th and the 10 exchange at the end of June or July where Ms. Wetzel 11 again raised challenges to Ms. Henderson's behavior 12 and, you know, characterized them in ways that was --

13 was casting aspersions, disrespectful of Ms.

14 Henderson's obligations to discharge her job and how 15 she did that. Let me pull up a June 9 email. In the 16 June 9 email, Ms. Wetzel wrote, I have been afraid 17 what will happen as soon as I started submitting my 18 vouchers. I don't even try to understand my boss and 19 why she does what she does.

20 But I know she never gives up. So there's 21 no specificity to that assertion. And without any, it 22 is -- if it has no basis, then it is disrespectful and 23 harassing. And to the extent that there are a series 24 of these, then that's what the investigation report 25 refers to.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

146 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: Is there anything before 2 May 7th?

3 MR. SHEA: There was an email on March 4 29th with regard to the contract. I didn't, at that 5 point, consider that. It was a -- it was a question 6 she described potentially that Erin was blocking her 7 contract.

8 But there was no motivations of 9 vindictiveness or anything else associated with that.

10 So I didn't view at that time as anything other than 11 what I described this morning. And there was nothing 12 prior to that that I would've considered part of 13 evidence I had of a pattern of disrespectful and 14 harassing conduct.

15 MS. KIRKWOOD: Do you have any evidence of 16 a pattern of disrespect or harassing conduct of Ms.

17 Wetzel toward Ms. Henderson other than emails or texts 18 directed to you?

19 MR. SHEA: Those are the -- those are the 20 evidence that I have and then what you see performed 21 as an investigation and through its conclusions and 22 its conclusion that a pattern was consistent with that 23 specific evidence that experienced over those couple 24 months.

25 MS. KIRKWOOD: Also on that same ERB NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

147 1 package, you did yes for the question, was the 2 employee on clear notice of any rules and/or 3 expectations that were violated prior to this event?

4 MR. WALSH: Ms. Kirkwood, I'm sorry. You 5 cut out briefly on my end. Everyone else may have 6 heard, but what question number are we referring to?

7 MS. KIRKWOOD: It doesn't have a number.

8 It's on page -- it's a button. It's --

9 MR. SHEA: Page 2 of 2.

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: -- 2 of 2, yeah. And it is 11 the first button, if you will. Was the employee on 12 clear notice of any rules and/or expectations that 13 were violated prior to the event?

14 MR. SHEA: Yes.

15 MS. KIRKWOOD: And what clear notice do 16 you think she had? What was your basis for saying 17 yes?

18 MR. SHEA: I base that yes based on the 19 training that I was aware that all managers needed to 20 take on the types of things that I mentioned in my own 21 presentation. Those were applicable to all managers 22 which talked about maintaining a respectful workplace 23 and code of conduct. That was my basis.

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: Do you think part of a 25 respectful workplace can involve criticizing your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

148 1 supervisor?

2 MR. SHEA: Criticism can be done if it --

3 it's how it's done. It can be done respectfully, and 4 it can be done disrespectfully. So yes, one can 5 criticize the organization including one's supervisor.

6 The issue is how it's done.

7 MS. KIRKWOOD: You stated that that ERB 8 was a particularly challenging ERB. What was 9 challenging about it?

10 MR. SHEA: Challenging in that the members 11 challenged each other to make sure we were answering 12 these questions in a way that there was common 13 understanding. It was not meant to mean that it was 14 more difficult than I anticipated. It was a challenge 15 which is a term of the level of engagement and rigor.

16 (Pause.)

17 MS. KIRKWOOD: Do you know the TVA policy 18 on expressing concerns and differing views?

19 MR. SHEA: I don't -- is it one of the 20 exhibits? I don't have it here on my table that I'm 21 aware of. Are you referring to something specific 22 that I have?

23 MS. KIRKWOOD: I don't think it was one of 24 your exhibits. Mr. Walsh, do you have that policy?

25 MR. WALSH: I don't know that I have it in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

149 1 front of me, no.

2 MS. KIRKWOOD: I'm going to read you 3 something from that policy. It starts in the purpose 4 section. I know you don't have it in front of you.

5 TVA encourages the voluntary expression of concerns 6 and differing views. The ability to freely express 7 concerns and differing views will enhance employee 8 productivity and promote a safety conscious work 9 environment. How do you --

10 MR. WALSH: Ms. Kirkwood, I have the 11 policy. I'm sorry. I have the policy in front of me.

12 If you wanted to point me to the portion that you're 13 looking at so I can read --

14 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure.

15 MR. WALSH: -- along.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yeah.

17 MR. SHEA: And I realize I've got another 18 set of documents over here that I can also look at.

19 Give me just a second, please.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure. It's Section 1.0.

21 MR. WALSH: Ms. Kirkwood, just so we're 22 extra clear, which revision are you reading from, if 23 you know?

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: That's a good question.

25 Let me check. I am reading from -- it says Rev. 0009, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

150 1 page 4 of 15, although I think the table of contents 2 and stuff are in front of it. And yeah, it's --

3 MR. WALSH: I'm on that page, and -- I'm 4 on that page and have that revision. But let's double 5 check with Joe to make sure he has the correct one 6 too. Thank you.

7 MR. SHEA: Where am I -- where am I 8 looking, please?

9 MS. KIRKWOOD: Go to 1.0 --

10 MR. WALSH: Joe, it should be -- oh, 11 sorry. You have the document in front of you, Joe?

12 MR. SHEA: Not yet.

13 MR. WALSH: It's in the big binder, 14 Exhibit 19D it looks like.

15 MR. SHEA: This is TVA SPP 11.804?

16 MR. WALSH: Yes, and Ms. Kirkwood directed 17 us to page 4 or 5, Revision 9, and the purpose, 18 Section 1.0.

19 MR. SHEA: All right. And I'm there.

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: It says, the second 21 sentence, TVA encourages the voluntary expression of 22 concerns and differing views.

23 MR. SHEA: Yes.

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: Was -- how was what Ms.

25 Wetzel express to you expressing her concerns about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

151 1 Ms. Henderson not in keeping with this policy?

2 MR. SHEA: The distinction to me is that 3 this encourages expression of concerns and differing 4 views. That is not the same as giving license to 5 express them in a disrespectful fashion without -- or 6 expressing motivations without -- you know, without 7 basis. So a concern can be expressed. You need to do 8 it -- and you still need to do it in an ethical 9 fashion.

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: In your view --

11 MR. SHEA: I'm sorry. In a respectful --

12 in a respectful fashion.

13 MS. KIRKWOOD: Is it possible for an 14 employee to legitimately express a concern that they 15 ultimately are incorrect about?

16 MR. SHEA: Certainly.

17 MS. KIRKWOOD: Mr. Walsh, I thought I 18 heard you make a reference to Exhibit 19. Do you have 19 the same package of TVA exhibits that I'm looking at?

20 MR. WALSH: Yeah, it's not an exhibit that 21 we -- this is not part of Joe's exhibit package. It's 22 our separate binder materials for review.

23 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. Where I'm going next 24 is to the employee discipline policy.

25 MR. SHEA: Are you referring to TVA SPP NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

152 1 11.316? And I have Revision 6.

2 MS. KIRKWOOD: I don't scroll quite as 3 fast as you do because I have it all electronically.

4 Hold on.

5 (Pause.)

6 MS. KIRKWOOD: So it is -- yes, SPP 7 11.316, Revision 6. Yes, we are on the same page.

8 Excellent. Mr. Walsh, are you there too?

9 MR. WALSH: I am at that document, yes.

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. Mr. Shea, did you 11 use this policy in proposing disciplinary action 12 against Ms. Wetzel?

13 MR. SHEA: Yes.

14 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you view yourself for 15 the purpose of Ms. Wetzel's discipline and ultimate 16 termination being in the role of a 3.13 role of a 17 chief officer or manager, executive vice president, 18 chief officer or manager or a 3.14 of supervisor?

19 MR. SHEA: Sorry. Did you say 3.1.3.1?

20 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sorry. There's a different 21 definition for a supervisor, the role of a supervisor 22 and the role of a manager. And I was trying to figure 23 out which one you fit into in this particular removal.

24 MR. SHEA: Yeah, I was in the manager 25 role.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

153 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: Who would've been in the 2 supervisor role?

3 MR. SHEA: So I did use this procedure.

4 I can't tell you that I focused on that distinction 5 because Ms. Henderson was at the heart of the 6 complaint. So I certainly served in the role of the 7 manager, and I certainly coordinated with -- actions 8 with HR which is a supervisory role.

9 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. If you go to Section 10 3.2.1, guidelines for progressive discipline, Section 11 A. It states, TVA generally supports the concept of 12 progressive discipline, believing that the major 13 purpose of disciplinary action is to rehabilitate the 14 employee, prevent reoccurrence, and encourage the 15 employee involved to render future satisfactory 16 service. An effective system emphasizes correcting 17 the problem rather than punishing the offender.

18 Therefore, TVA's focus is on communicating an 19 expectation of changed improvement rather than an 20 expectation of future problems and eventual 21 termination. Did you counsel or attempt to correct 22 Ms. Wetzel regarding her treatment of Ms. Henderson?

23 MR. SHEA: I would offer, Ms. Kirkwood, 24 that the procedure goes on to say, however in some 25 circumstances, more rigorous disciplinary action may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

154 1 be warranted. Such action is intended to deter more 2 extreme unsafe or -- and inappropriate behaviors. And 3 from my engagement with HR and of course supported by 4 the August 30 memo from General Counsel, it was 5 separation as termination. That was recommended for 6 this particular -- this particular circumstance. And 7 I reviewed the procedure and supported that.

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you ever counsel Ms.

9 Wetzel regarding her treatment of Ms. Henderson?

10 MR. SHEA: No.

11 (Pause.)

12 MS. KIRKWOOD: In Section 3.2.2(b), it 13 says -- it says -- it's 3.2.2(b). Are you with me, 14 Mr. Shea?

15 MR. SHEA: Yes.

16 MS. KIRKWOOD: Okay. It says, 17 managers/supervisors shall refer to the Douglas 18 factors disciplinary action checklist prior to 19 administering discipline. Did you do that?

20 MR. SHEA: Yes. You did ask earlier if I 21 had counseled Ms. Wetzel. Just to clarify, I did 22 redirect to her several times seeking more information 23 which I understand is not the same as counseling which 24 you were asking. But I was seeking to understand and 25 engage, but you asked about the Douglas factors.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

155 1 MS. KIRKWOOD: So if you go to Appendix A, 2 there's a list of the Douglas factors. Is that the 3 list you would've used?

4 MR. SHEA: I see it.

5 MS. KIRKWOOD: Is this the list that you 6 used?

7 MR. SHEA: Yes.

8 MS. KIRKWOOD: Looking at Factor C, did 9 she have a past disciplinary record?

10 MR. SHEA: No.

11 MS. KIRKWOOD: Looking at Factor D, how 12 did her past work record play into the Douglas 13 factors?

14 MR. SHEA: Her performance was solid in 15 TVA's performance management terminology. The Douglas 16 factors are, of course, looked at in their totality.

17 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure. Looking at Factor J, 18 how did you draw a conclusion about the potential for 19 her rehabilitation?

20 MR. SHEA: I don't have notes to what I 21 specifically did with my review against those. I 22 consulted with HR and General Counsel, so I don't have 23 any particular notes on how I addressed that.

24 MS. KIRKWOOD: Were any of those factors 25 particularly influential to you either way?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

156 1 MR. SHEA: Of those three factors?

2 MS. KIRKWOOD: No, of all the Douglas 3 factors?

4 MR. SHEA: The employee's job level and 5 seriousness of the offense were of awareness to me in 6 consultation with OGC. So an understanding of the 7 consistency with the TVA disciplinary policy. So 8 those were ones that were important. They're all 9 important, though. And again, as procedure guides, I 10 sought counsel from HR and OGC who are the experts in 11 the -- in the application of it.

12 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you view the decision 13 to terminate Ms. Wetzel or to propose her termination 14 for ERB review as your decision or as OGC's decision 15 or as someone else's decision?

16 MR. SHEA: It's my decision. OGC provided 17 a recommendation.

18 MS. KIRKWOOD: When Ms. Wetzel was 19 terminated, what was the impact on the rest of the 20 site staff?

21 MR. SHEA: The -- I'm sorry. The impact 22 on the rest of the corporate staff?

23 MS. KIRKWOOD: Yes, sorry. Corporate 24 site. I didn't say that very well. Her work group.

25 MR. SHEA: That's fine. Can you clarify NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

157 1 impact?

2 MS. KIRKWOOD: Did you do a safety 3 conscious work environment mitigation plan?

4 MR. SHEA: I did.

5 MS. KIRKWOOD: How did that -- how did --

6 did people express concerns to you that Ms. Wetzel had 7 been terminated?

8 MR. SHEA: Let me just review my 9 mitigation plan notes, if you don't mind.

10 MS. KIRKWOOD: Sure. Go ahead.

11 (Pause.)

12 MR. SHEA: So I implemented a key step of 13 the mitigation plan of speaking to the -- the 14 licensing organization to corporate regulatory affairs 15 staff on January 14th. And my notes from, you know, 16 that discussion, I don't -- I was informing them. I 17 didn't have any notes of anyone expressing any 18 particular concern.

19 And subsequent to that, we did have a 20 survey performed by Oak Ridge Associated Universities 21 in April of 2019 to -- and that was part of the 22 mitigation plan to assess the work group's 23 perspectives on what had occurred. And that concludes 24 that -- that the communication surrounding the 25 management changes were sufficient for the event was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

158 1 the primary conclusion from that. And Oak Ridge 2 recommended that no additional follow-up action was 3 needed for that group.

4 MS. KIRKWOOD: I don't have any further 5 questions. Is there anything about your answers that 6 you want to clarify?

7 MR. SHEA: Do you mind if I confer with 8 counsel briefly?

9 MS. KIRKWOOD: Not at all.

10 MR. SHEA: Thank you very much.

11 (Pause.)

12 MR. SHEA: Ms. Kirkwood and Mr. Wilson, 13 can you hear me?

14 MR. WILSON: Yes, yes.

15 MR. SHEA: Yeah, I have no further --

16 further comments to make. I appreciate -- appreciate 17 very much your time.

18 MR. WILSON: All right. Thank you. I'd 19 like to take this opportunity to reemphasize some of 20 the points made during my opening remarks. No final 21 decision has been made on the part of the NRC. We 22 will consider the information gathered by the Office 23 of Investigation, information provided earlier by you, 24 Mr. Shea, and information presented here today.

25 The NRC staff will meet after the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

159 1 completion of the PEC to reach a final agency decision 2 as to where a violation occurred. I'll also remind 3 you that any statements or lack thereof made by an NRC 4 employee at this conference are not intended to 5 represent the agency's final position or 6 determination. Before we close the teleconference, 7 does the court reporter have any questions or 8 clarifications that are needed?

9 (No response.)

10 MR. WILSON: Finally, I'd like to thank 11 everyone who participated and all the presentations 12 that you -- this --

13 MR. SHEA: Are you there?

14 MR. WILSON: Yes.

15 MR. SHEA: You broke up.

16 MR. WILSON: Oh. This concludes our 17 teleconference. Thanks, everyone.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 19 off the record at 2:01 p.m.)

20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433