ML062790441

Report of Investigation Case No. 3-2002-020, Point Beach 1, Discrimination Against Contract Welder for Raising Fitness-for-Duty Concern

ML062790441
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee, Point Beach
Issue date:	02/28/2003
From:	Fahey M, Paul R NRC/OI/RGN-III/FO
To:	Nuclear Management Co
References
3-2002-020, FOIA/PA-2006-0113
Download: ML062790441 (21)

Text

CASE No. 3-2002-020 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report of Investigation POINT BEACH I Discrimination Against Contract Welder for Raising Fitness-for-Duty Concern Office of Investigations Reported by OI:RIII

• Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions J1. 2c FO La_ 2_-01-0e, ILI

Title:

POINT BEACH 1 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CONTRACT WELDER FOR RAISING FITNESS-FOR-DUTY CONCERN Licensee: Case No.: 3-2002-020 Nuclear Management Company, LLC Report Date: February 28, 2003 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Control Office: OI:RIII Docket No.: 50-266 Status: CLOSED Reported by:. Reviewed and Approved by:

Mary Kay Fahey, Sr. Special Agent Richard C. Paul, Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III Field Office, Region III WARNING DO NOT DISS NATE, PLACE IN THE PUBLIC DOC NT ROOM OR DISCUSS THE C TENTS OF THIS REPORT OF INVESTIGA -O*-0. UTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AU ORITY OF THE APPROVING OFFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNAUTHOR ED DISCLOSURE MAY RESULT IN ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTI ND/OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision, Office of Investigations, Region I1, on August 6, 2002, to determine whether a contract welder employed by Day and Zimmerman Nuclear Power. Systems, was discriminated against by the licensee, Nuclear Management C6mpany, LLC (NMC), for raising a fitness-for-duty (FFD) concern while ejnployed at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant .(Kewaunee) during an outage in 2001. The contract welder prevented alleged that as a result of raising the FFD concern at Kewaunee, he was from obtaining employment at NMC's 'Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant (Point Beach) by having&his access denied at'Point Beach and other NMC plants.

Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate thatthe'contract welder 'was deliberately discriminated against for raising an FFD concern.

NOT FOR PUBLI DISCLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO OFFICE OF INVESTI AN, REGION III Cas el*qo. 3-2002-020 1-eD

4 TIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBL IS CLOSURE WITHýOUT IPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO 0FFICE OF INESTIGATIONS--REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa*e SYN OPSIS ................................ ................................... 1 LIST OF INTERVIEW EES ...................................................... 5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION .................................................. 7 aI.

Applicable Regulations .................................................... 7 Purpose of Investigation ..... ......................................  ; ....... 7 Background ............

• ............................................ . . .7 Interview o W...

Coordination with Regional Staff ........................................... 9 Coordination with the Regional Counsel ................................. 10 Licensee Investigation .............................................. 10 Review of Documentation ........................................... 10 Review of the DOL Report .................................................. 11 A llegation ......... .................................................... 11 E vidence ................................ ............................. 11 Protected Activity ............................................ 11.

Knowledge of Protected Activity ............. ................. '.12 Unfavorable Action Taken Agains............. ............ ...... 14 Did the Unfavorable Action Resulted U- Engaging in Protected A ctivity .............................. .................... 14 A gent's Analysis ................................................... ...... 16 Conclusion ............ ............................. ......... 17.

LIST OF EXHBITS ..................................................... 19 NOT FOR FUEL DISCLOSURE WITHO PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT OFFICE F INVESTIGA NS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020 3

°I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY v

NOT FOR PUBLIC SCLOSURE WITH APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE OF INVESTI ONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020

ý' ýý- - -;,I - ý` I - -- -

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit WeldeeDiay and Zimmerman Nuclear Power Systems.

.. ZNPS............................................................

.. 10 CLEVELAND, Randall D., Access Manager, Nuclear Management Company ......... 6, 17

,5'- eler, DZNPS .......................................... 11 Mechanicayndivil Superintende DZNPS ................ 12,15 "Ider, ZNPS ......................................... 2, 8 roject Superintendent, DZNPS ....................................... 13

, Night Superintendent, DZNPS ................................ 14 17-ý NOT FOR LIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT A ROYAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE OR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATI ,REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020 5

0 .

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 9

NOT FOR PUI3L ISCLOSURE WITHO PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRRECTO I FFICE OF INVETSTIGA SREGION III r'acp V

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable RegulationS 10 CFR 50.5 Deliberate Misconduct*(2001) 10 CFR 50.7 Employee Protection (2001)

" .' Purpose of Investigation

• This investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Offce of Investigations (01), Region III (RIII), on August 6, 2002, to determine whethe* lI a contract welder employed by Day and Zimmerman Nuclear Power Systems (DZNPS),*was discriminated against by the licensee. Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), for raising a

• fitness-for-duty (FFD) concern while em loed 'at the'Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant

• ..(Kewaunee).,during an outage in 2001. lleged that as a result of raising the FfD

. concern ft Kewauneeq,"he was prevented=m 0taining employment at NMC's Point Beach.

Nuclear Power Plant (Point Beach) by having his access denied at Point Beach and other NMC plants.

Backeround On March 25, 2002, 01 initiated an investigation (3-2002-004) into allegations of deliberate

" failure by contract welders to follow FFD regulations. The allegations stemmed from information provided by NMC that contract welde'rs, working for DZNPS at Kewaunee during the fall 2001 outage, had concerns about the smell of alcohol In Service In'spection General Foreman, DZNPS, but failed to report their concerns.

On July 2, 2002' * . ne of the aforementioned&elders identified by the licensee, contacted RIII, and alleged at not only didh rt the FFDconcem tolis supervisor, ut as a result of reportiL ad his' access de nied at Point Beaclh'an all NMC nuclear power piatedd Tat he felt this was retailiation for raising the FFD concern regardinj_

At an Allegation Review Board (ARB) conducted on August 5, 2002, RJII requested 01

.determine-whetheiamnas discriminated against by the licensee for raising an FFD concern in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection, and 10 CFR 50.5, Deliberate Misconduct (Exhibit 1).

• NOT FOR PUBLII IISCLOSURE WITHOUT APP OVAL OF

ý4-L

'FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO ,FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III

• :. Case .4o; 3-2002-020 7

• ... ",, . *.. .

Interview uAust 5, 200 was interviewed concerning his'allegation of discrimination.

2001 edithat h* was e* ed as a cntract welder for DZNPS at Kewaunee during the .2 2i001 outage until November 2001 tated tlat followin the outa ehe worked at Point Beach for approximately three weeks as oelderr DZNPS, acknowledged that upon leaving Kewaunee, he had no problem obtaining employment at.Point Beach.

• tated thai he, "Walked right in."] cknoWledged that he quit his job at Point Beach,". . . mainly because of safety issues, had problems up in the cable spreading room."

(Exhibit 2,7p-. 2-6 and 42-43).

L'stated that in approximately February 2002he learned that his access had been' denied by NMC at both Point Beachi and Kewaunee. xplained that followin

ý

• his employment at Point Beachh wb6i1ked in New Hampshire at a non-nuclear facilit0 n

recalled that while still in New Hampshire, he contacted Philli s Getschow, a contraýtor at Poirit"

'V Beach, to inquire about work for an impending outag iearned from*.

Phillips Getschow that hemight have a roblem With site access at¶Point Beach and he,should.

contact his union's business agent ontacted Local 400 Business Agent Pat McPHAIL in an attempt to determine the problem (Exhibit 2, pp. 6-9 and 43-46). 4, Agent's Note: was represented during his 01 interview by Business -Agent McPHAIL, of Local 400, United Association of.Journeyman and Apprentices of the..

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry. McPHAIL stated that on February 11, 2002, Local 400 hadsubmitted several names, ificludin to Phillips Getschow fok employment at'Point Beach, and was informed there would be a problem with (Exhibit 2, pp. 43-46).

stated that he gontacted Darlene PETERS, Kewaunee Security Administrative

-Supervisor, whom he identified as the "head of security" at'Point Beach and asked aboutL his site access. Accordin tii PETERS told~himjthat because of anfinvestigation in which 7A 1ame had icome-upad been put on "red flag.". Whenw sked Wvhat that me PETERSItold *1hat information would be gathered in the next few weeks. "She said, 'Oh, it shouldn't take long. A coupleweeks you should be all right."

called that PETERS did not tell'himn the reason for the investigation (Exhibit 2, pp. 9-10 and 44-45).

jated that he was red flaged for eight months and finally got an official denial of employment on June 28, 2002. O MN old 01 that*!ie.was denied access because, "Background information has developed adversely reflecting trust*orthiness and reliability."

(Exhibit 2, pp. 9-10 and 45; Exhibit 3)

• X NOT FOR PUBL C DISCLOSURE WITH0 T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC R, OFFICE OF INVEST ATIONS, REGION III Case'No. 3-2002-0 20 8

Agent's Note: The June 28, 2002, letter from NMC t stated that, "You rovided the following contradictory information to MC investigators regarding a random drug and alcohol collection you were required to complete at Kew'auniee," and "Yo _. Voided the following contradictory information to' NMC investigators regarding the fitiess of a worker at Kewaunee" (Exhibit 3, p. 3).

.explained why he.felt he could not obtain employment at'any NIVIC plant. He stated that, "I definitely know things thatwent on out there that are not legal. I know that they've got supervisors that baye lied. I know they've done illegal practices in welding and they know I know it. lr, knowledged that it was a combination of raising an FFD concern and welding concernms6igiikikilktated that hf felt that DZNPS was partially responsible for the discrimination. "One of the main ones (sic) behind or I feel is res onsible is NPS [ZNPS]."

.According dluring the time period in which -

• access was denied, DZNPS was a contractor at both Kewaunee and Point Beach.' iso acknowledged that he had not pursued employment at any other nuclear plants oncee learned his access had beenddenied by NMC. (Exhibit 2, pp. 4ý-50 and 56).

Agent's Notes: The welding concerns tha referred to were addressed as Concerns 1 and 3 of Allegation Management System (AMS) RfII-2001-A-0176 and.were closed out by.the RID staff. They were not concerns that were referred to 01.

DZNPS could not prevent Phillips Getschow fo whlDZPool explained that while from hiring him*" I .

DZNPS cd .... make it definitely hard on my access right now by falsifyin records as far as telling somebody aboug , ýsic IFlat out we told] G Ailo .,ied to the NRC investigator, NMC investigators, and because of that our access was denied" (Exhibit 2,

p. 51).

tated that he was not awar of either NMC or the union discouraging anyone from reporting FFD concerns and enied that there was an unspoken rule to not report a co-worker ated, "The nu es ot dff rent guidelines. You don't mess around with those. We kriow that. ._oujust don't.". cknowledged that whei he reported an FFD concern involVin be honestly felt t at .as notfit for duty (Exhibit 2, pp. 52-"4).

Coordination with Reeional Staff On August 5, 2002, an ARB requested that 01 initiate an investigation to determine whether ad been deliberately discriminated against in violation of 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.7 (Exhibit 4).

NOT FOR ". PUBLIC DS OSURE.WITHOUT

.PROVAL OF FIELD OFIMCE DIRECTOR, OF CE.OF INVESTIGAT OSREGION III CaseNo .3-2002-020 9"

, .

; -; ..

• 6

Coordination with the Regional Counsel This investigation was initiated with the concurrence of NRC:RII Counsel Bruce A. BERSON,'

Li cen see In vesti gati on On or about November 8, 2001, RIB staff informed NMC that five allegations had been receivd'"

by the NRC concerning problems with DZNPS at Kewaunee and Point Beach. By letter dated November 19, 2001, the NRC requested that NMC evaluate 3 of the .5 concerns with a response, requested within 30 days."Concerns I and 3 involved welding issues and Concern 2 involved an FFD concern (Exhibit 5).

After receiving the letter from the NRC, NMC made arrangements for the issues to be addressed by an independent investigator. The results were provided to the NRC by letter dated February 8, 2002. Concern 1, stated that DZNPS hides welding issues such as welding without paperwork and is lying about weld tests, was not substantiated by NMC. Concern 2 stated that .DZNPS supervisors who turn5 their heads when certain individuals come in 'half-blitzed.'" NMC substantiated that th-e odor of alcohol was detected without appropriate actions taken. Concern 3 stated that unqualified welders were employed by DZNPS at'Kewaunee. NMC's investigation partially substantiated this concern (Exhibit,6, pp. 2-11).

Agent's Note: Concerns I and 3 were closed out in the AMS based upon the licensee's investigation. Concern 2 was referred to 01 and resulted in an investigation, 01 Case No. 3-2002-004, which did not substantiate that the contract welders failed to report FFD concerns, but did substantiate that the'Mechanical and Civil Superintendent deliberately failed to report an F1D concern. Theifivestigation also substdintiated that the Mechanical.

and Civil Superintendent deliberately provided false information to both 01 and the liceriiee's investigator relative to being informed about the FFD concern. The investigation did not substantiate that the Foreman failed to self-report and submit to FFD testing (Exhibit 7).

Review of Documentation Reports of Telephone Interview dated January 11-12, 2002, from Walker Investigative Consultants, Inc. (WIC), Repo o. W-009-01 NMC/ECP No. 01-18,

--,---"" Supplemental e ort dat January 30, 2002, pre ared b the lic nsee's investigator. According to the report *ld the investigator th- DZ S General Foreman,

."... routinely, an strongly," smelled of alcohol. tated that hehad been randomly selected on two occasions to be. FFD tested while a Kewaunee, and it was*

• h i NOT FOR PUBLI ISCLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, FFICE OF INVESTI TIONSRGION II "

Case No. 3-2002-020

was sent to retriev om work and esco the testing area. * *"O claimedhaoncsonecomments to thenurse conducting the examinon obodti.-

• st .thejand coworkea attempte to report* othnd another supervisor,*

• but about it (Exhibit ,p. 4).

were ignored and tol not to worry Personnel Access Data System.(PADS) Security Report for dated September 17, 2002, indicating a negative entry on January 14, 2002 (Exhi i9, p. ..

Review of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Report At the time ofs interview with 01 on August 5, 2002, he had not filed a complaint with DOL (Exhibit 2, pp. 54-55).

Alleeation: Discrimination Against Contract Welder for Raising FFD Concern

Evidence The testimony provided during interviews was reviewed regarding the allegation involved in this

" investigation. In addition, various documents relatedto the allegation, which are listed in the Review of Documents section of this repoit, were also -reviewed. Copies of the interviews and documents obtained by OI:RlII are attached as exhibits to this report.

1. Protected Activity

• cknowledged1 that during the 2001 outage at Kewaunee, he raised an FFD concern

.. ab. M11O W.."Because he smelled of alcoh ecalled that he reported the concern in July during the pre-outage perio statedt he and"M'another DZNPS welder, confronted their supervisor, nd I confronted d tn flat out told hii'n ot workin for that man. I'm not working around Saguy guy..C'2 ý ated'blew _XW"1 01. ble it of

- _'..... off... We told him and .. he just kind of said-- "us blew it o He didn't really say much about anthing." ecalled thathe an ere standing outside the shack and ofon first.

kind o*fo ed at me, kind of shrugged his shoulders and to be honest his reply I cannot remember word for word..Toar-hrase, it was basically like it didn't matter, who cares, something on that end.": cknowledged that he-did not raise the FFD concern to anyone else (Exhibit 2, pp. 13-19).

"Mj rrconfimed that h an ad a conversation wit FFD. ould not identify the exact date, but recalled that it was during NOT FOR PUB-C DISCLOSURE WITH UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTE INVES GATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020 11

.).. : . 7

their pre-outage work, and was near the end of July 2001L He recalled that the conv at'ojn with place in the pre-fabrication s 9.was s4 resent. ould

"-not recall. exact response, b " ndifcajtehat hould not worry about it, th ould take care of the situation kw**kledged that once the concern had been raised, "that was the end of it as far as I was concerned there was nothing else ever said about it" (Exhibit 10, pp. 7-14 and 21).

nother contract welder for DZNPS during the 2001 Kewaunee outage,%tated at he also reported an FFD concern aboe n June and November 2001. ecalled that he later learned th in jtd reportedloom=

the'same oncrn. e ad both done it on the same day. They done it prior to myself,*because I had - b" oas coming through the maintena -s o , and that's when I had stoppe * "..

and told him abou_ La menlling of alcohol." ated tha 3old him that he would look into the matter (Exhibit 11, pp. 7-11).

2.- Knowledee of Protected Activity wa the Mechanical and Civil Superintendent for DZNPS at Kewaunee from.

approximately the end of April 2001, until the end ofiDeEember 2001 enied that anyone. raised FFD concerns to him abou 4 xhibit 12, pp.. and Agent's Note: was the first-line supervisor for.DZNPS.

cknowledged that he was contacted by an investigator hired b'N C in De.r,ember 001, learned about an FFD concern when asked questions about. FNP.PON "It was when idn't woik for us anymore and after I had talked to Hal Walker ivstigator and I was tb d.that there was an issue. Otherwise, I kndw of no problem."'

ated that after he had been contacted by the investi or, he had-mentioned to ZNPS management that there was an FFD issue concernin xhibit 12, pp. 23- .

24).

ias the Project SuperintendeN for DZNPS at Kewaunee du the 2001 outage, and wsupervisor . ,cknowledged that neithm aroache him about any FFD concern while they were employed at ewaunee, nor d .

ver tel that FFD concerns had been raised abo" enied ht.old him that some of the welders refused o work fo' (Exhibit 13, pp. 4,20, and 49-51).

old 01 that he had a conversation withl n approximately March 2002, after ad been contacted by the investigator hired by NMC in 2002. 'During that conversation, NOT FOR PUABC DISCLOSURE WITH.OUT APPROVAL OF FlIELD OFFICE DIRECT , OFFICE OF INMTIGATIONS RE.GION III Case. No. 3-2002-020

a .(Exhibit1, p. 2506).

1 wai the night supervisor for DZNPS at Kewaunee du n 0 1 outage, and o nd m July 16 hough December 4,'2001. According t e and eported Exhibit 14, pp. 5-6).

tated that he beca aware of an F) concern involvin approxim tel Au ust 2001. ' . me into the office, and he said,

-they ain't going to work for a fucking drunk uk nd 'I r-e as plaiieas ay 'cause I'm not sayingtia 6ser .a little angel, but they brought it to the right person because if they felt the foremarin was under the influence, they're supposed to come to the next ne in ch ge, ahiithat was - - at that time wa and he was the GF [General Foreman] o1 that he had not heard the-conversation between butn emak4the comments in general wh nae their ito o ice.:: e ed tha

'was also present in the room when the comment was made

. kin hat he was goingj to oa e matter, and believed t ma have said, "You'd better go take care of this.. . tated that he was not awa*r of the concern being elevated to DZNPS managtment (Exhibit 14, pp. 10-17 and 24-25).

In light of the evidence developed.tha had, in fact, been informed.about an FED S.concern~involving interviewed a second time by 01 on a**s "September

- 12, 2002. s apprizeed that a number of witnesses had .ntradicted his a ertion t t no one vr concern FFD ed anden~~~~t o I to se eand"e "gain denied tha he ever requeste 'to be FFD tested, an ac nowlew ed that his previous statements.concerning-this-matter were true andcorrect.

iso confirmed that no one "officially" came tohim an deorted-aF D ncenm involvin . ecifically denied that eithedUold

• him they would not wor ecause they thought he was a drunk or sme"Md of

• alcohol (Exhibit 15, pp. 4-8).

tated that he spoke with DZNPS management, "after the fact," about the issues

. wd raised, including, '... service water, piping beam, control of air conditioning

• supports, fitness for duty" (Exhibit 15, pp. 8-11).

Randall CLEVELAND, Access Manager'for NMC, told 01 that he first learned of an FFD concern at Kewauhee on December 19, 2001, When he wasnotified by the Program.Manager" of the Employee Concerns Program that an internal investigation had uncovered FFD concerns.

CLEVELAND stated that the investigation c6ncluded that, "... four individuals that had NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOU APPROVAL OF OFFICE OF INVESTIG IONS, REGION III y

FIELD OFFICE DIRECT Case No: 3-2002-020 .13 2

I indicated they smelled alcohol on a coworker and .had failed to go forward to supervision with that observation" (Exhibit 16, pp. 5-7).

CLEVELAND stated that the FFD issue eventually was elevated to the site Vice President, however, he acknowledged that at the time of the outage in 2001, no one within NMC management was aware of any FFD concern (Exhibit 16, p. 21).

3. Unfavorable Action Taken Aeain..-,-- .5 On January 14, 2002, CLEVELAND placed a hold in the PADs o CLEVELAND stated, "The reason for that is that we were concerned he may have observed or had observations concerning the coworker's fitness for duty that had not been properly reported. So we placed that hold and ultimately denied his access based on inconsistent information provided to both, primarily to NMC investigators and comparing that information to the [NMC] Walker Report" (Exhibit 16, p. 12).

Agent's Note: PADS is an electronic data base utilized by the nuclear industry for the.

purpose of transferring access from site to site. An entry in the ADD.*(Additional) INFO (Information) column indicates a flag which alerts any utility that there is an issue or concern that was addressed with the employee. According to CLEVELAND, the expectation is that a utility would obtain details as to. what the issue or concern is and make its own decision with respect to' access based upon their review of that information.

4. Did the Unfavorable Action Resulted from Q Enaing in Protected Activity SCLEVEL4D acknowledged to 01 that during NMC's investigation of the FFD concern, ro vided conflicting'information. -CLEVELAND recalled that according to theNC stiatoad claimed to have been escorted to be FFD tested by 3 ": ."

aimed to ave told the technician that should be the one being eteed. Id the. NMC inves igator thaýt the' chnicia ad made a comment to agreement, indicating tha was a little ripe." CLEVELAND stated at he was able to identify the dat.,,,jad been randomly tested, the technicians involved were interviewed and they aile"dto corroboraat statements to the investigator'. CLEVELAND acknowledged that ccess was subsequently denied (Exhibit 16, pp. 16-18).

CLEVELAND stated that on March 27, 2002, PETERS interviewe t point Beach.

CLEVELAND stated that PETERS told him tha enied that at the time he was being escorted to the collect] ite, e had commented to .a coworker and not to the technician, wondering as notthe one being iested. CLEVELAND told 01 that on NOT FOR PUBLI ISCLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE OF INVESTIGA-IONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020 14

. 4.r, June 12, 2002, he and PETERS interview CLEVELAND stated that pf denied being escorted by a worker to the collectio and claimed he had asked the technician

[collector] why theywere not testing * "So again the recollection had changed and three different versions here" (Exhibit 16, pp. 1

• P AND s~tated ad originally indicated to NMC's investigator that aded every morning." C VLAND stated that in an interview with a ow ETERS enied any knowledge eing drunk. "Based on that information, conflicting information he was providing NMC investigators, his access was denied.

He was sent a letter detailing exactly what had occurred here, afforded the opportunity to request a review of that decision. Did not exercise that right. He had 30 days to do that and we did not receive a request for review." CLEVELAND indicated that normal suspension was for 1 year (Exhibit 16, pp. 19-20).

CLEVELAND stated that approximatel four weeks prior to the 01 interview, which was

• conducted on September 17, 2002.ad contacted him and requested a review of the status of his access. CLEVELAND stated that he inform that he would get back to

• him, "within the next cou 1 of weeks. CLEVELAND recalled that two weeks later he received a voicemail message fr' indicating his frustration with CLEVELAND's lack of response an d* ndedthe message with obscenities stating that if CLEVELAND did not respond within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, he would contact the NRC. CLEVELAND stated the he completed

-the review-ot 9,01 case an* as informed that he was not eligible for

• reconsideration. CLEVELAND stated that he received a follow-up request from.L 1 11.% "" .

asking for an explanation, which is currently under review. CLEVELAND explained that his decision to Continue to withhol -""- access-is based upon the original determination, that he provided inconsistent information to NMC investigators (Exhibit 16, pp. 31-33).

CLEVELAND denied that I access was .denied in retaliation for.raising an FFD concern. During the 0I.interview, CLEVELAND. was unable to confirm whether he knew on

.January 14, 2002, the dati access was denied, t had raised an FFD concern involvinBe' jetter dated September 27,. 2002, CLEVELAND sated, "Base don u* a review. of investigator-notes and access decisions, I was not aware thawmaQ Wad made an FFD allegation at the time decisions were made concerning his access

• .-atu?. I had no knowledge as to whether he had made an FFD allegation (e.g.,-to the NRC, NMC Employee Concern Program or Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc.)" (Exhibit 16, p. 33; Exhibit 17).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL 5RE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFIC F INVESTIG IONS, REGION III Case No. 3 -2002-020 15.

Aeent's Analysis Desite-es denial that he had been informed of an FFD concern involving dunng the 2001 Kewaunee outa e, the evidence dev*eloped during 01 *' .

o. 3 -04 substantiatedthad, in fact, raised an FFD concern '

s first line supervisor,-here wftsoweyer, testimony fro K 1I

• FFD tested.

that it was anDarent that h ook no action to hav nor was the issued discussed again during the outage. uiirami that he did not purs.. e the matter further, although it was apparent that no action was taken.

the DZNPS supervisors, provided testimony that they di not elevate the, FFD concern to DZNPS management.

9 ontends that the false statements made b a DZNPS employee, have

-used another contractor, Phillips Getschow to deny him employment.. However, based upon testimony, Phillips Getschow was prepared to hire him, until they discovered that C would dennyim.site ccess. There was no testimony indicating that DZNPS management

• was aware thl ad raised an FFD.concem at Kewaunee during the 2001 outage.

The FFD concern involving w *fame to NMC management's attention in November

• 2001,,afte" being notified of an allegation received by the NRC. *Afterconducting their own internal investigation, -decisions were made by the NMC Access Manager to put a hold in PADS on the site access of a number of DZNPS employees Who admitted knowledge of the FFD concern, but had failed to report the concern. The decision to~place a hold on (LW E site access was made based upon the information NMC obtained through their own investigation.

Based upon the NMC investigation, CLEVELAND determined that there.was a concern that

• "Wmay have observed or had observations concerning the coworker's FFD that had not

" een properly reported. 1!F qlad admitted kn'owledge of the FIfD concern to the licensee's investigator on January 11, 2002. According to the Report of Interviev' p paredbb the NMC i vestigator, indicated that he had "attempted" to inform bothIN n of an FED concern involvin butwas ignored.

C L D deied that he had knowledge thahad VCLE reported an FFD co A _(t the time he made the ation to plaealo site access, on January 14, 2002. Since the FFD concerin involvinpwas never.

• folloWed through, NMC managemefit.was never aware of the issue. Information ITdicating that*

ad not been truthful during the C investigation and the 0inn came to ight in approximately March 2002, after *had a conversation with CLEVELAND stated that two subsequent nterviews, were conducted it ln March and June 2002, to sort out the site access matter. CLEVELAND determined that during those NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOU PROVAL OF

• FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO OFFICE OF INVESTIGATI REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020

_i~erview movided a number of contradictory statements, and it was determined that ntgble for reinstatement of his site access at NMC.

CLEVELAND. stated tha. access was not denied because he had raised an FFD concemr.ccess was pThed on hold due to the contradictory statements he made to NMC investigators.

Conclusion Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate th'1i4was deliberately discriminated against for raising an FFD concern.

C I

NOT FOR PUBLIC bMlSCLOSURE WITHOUT PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 ICE OF INVESTIGA ONS, REGION III Case 'To. 3-2002-020 17-

-4ý

77

'V.

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLI SCLOSURE WITHOUT PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE OF INVESTIGATONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-020 18

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, 01 Case No.: 3-2002-020, dated August 6, 2002.:

2 Transcript of Interview August 5, 2002.

.3 Letter from NMC t0 ated June 28, 2002.

4 RJIR ARB Minutes, dated August 5, 2002.

5. Letter from NRC:RKII to M ark E. REDDEMANN, dated November 19, 2001.

6 Letter frorfi NMC to NRC:RJIII EICS, dated February 8, 2002.

7 01 Report of Investigation, OILCase No.: .3-2002-004, dated November 30, 2002....

8 WIC Reports of Telephone Interview oddated January 11-12, 2002.

9 PADS Security Report f.ated September 17, 2002.

10 Transcript of Interview dated August 12, 2002.

11 Transcript of Interview 0odated'August 5, 2002.

12 Transcript of Initerview o.dated June 6, 2002.

.13 Transcript of Interview , Adated September 4, 2002.

• 14: Transcript of Interview dated September 12, 2002.

• 15 Transcript of Interview o0 1dated September 12,'2002.

16 Transcript of Inteiview of CLEVELAND, dated September 17, 2002.

17 Letter from CLEVELAND to Mary Kay Fahey, dated September 27, 2002.

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI TOR, OFFICE 0 VESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case.i.i N3-2002-020

. -No:.*:

• ,?. .. 19