ML12261A389
| ML12261A389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/2009 |
| From: | NRC Region 4, NRC/OI |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA-2012-0247 4-2009-006 | |
| Download: ML12261A389 (20) | |
Text
CASE No. 4-2009-006 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report of Investigation PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1:
(b)(7)(C)
DISCRIMINATION (b)(7)(G)
AGAINST A__________
FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Office of Investigations Reported by OI:RIV MuiftlNa mdaew .I
Title:
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
ýOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Licensee: Case No.: 4-2009-006 Arizona Public Service Company Report Date: August 31, 2009 P. 0. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Control Office: OI:RIV Docket No.: 50-528 Status: CLOSED Allegation No.: RIV-2008-A-0104 Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) Special Agent Crystal D. Holland, Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Field Office, Region IV DO NOT/DI-SE-INATE, PLACE INTHE PUBLICq .UMENT ROOM OR DISC SS THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPO F INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRIC ITHOUT AUTHORITY OF THE AP 5OVING OFFICIAL OF THIS RE IORT. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLO RE MAY RESULT IN ADVERS AD I*INISTRATIVE ACTION ANDAOR(RIMINAL PROSECUTION.
FFIIASE Y 01 INVES GATIO FORMATI
">ICIAL US ONL -0Of IN STI TION INFO A N SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Investigations, 7
Region IV,on May 27, 2008, to determine if (b)(7)(C)
Im(b)( )(C) Pployed at Arizona Public Service Company's Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stati on-VNGS), Tonopah, Arizona, was subjected to discrimination for reporting safety concerns.
Bad unon the evidence develoDed during this investigation, the allegation that OU7c
[(b)(7)(C) ýmployed at PVNGS was subjected to discrimination for reporting safety concerns was not substantiated.
Case No. 4-2009-0.6-------
FFICIAL U - 01 INVE IGATION IN ION
0S T N A N THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY TFRUBLICýDI SURE WI 0 APPRO FýFIELýD FFICE Case No. 4-2009-006 2 OFFIC LU N VESTI M
ENLY - I IINVESThQ-A'IIO1INFORMAT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS .................................................................................................................................... 1 TESTIM O NIAL EVIDENCE ................................................................................................... 5 DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE ............................................................................................... 7 DETAILS O F INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................... 9 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................... 9 Purpose of Investigation ............................................................................................ 9 Background ....................................................................................................................... 9 Agent's Analysis ........................................................................................................... 9 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 16 LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................... 17 IrO'OR PUBLI ISCLOSU WITHOUT APP ROAI"F FIELD OFFICE"'
DIR OR, OFFICE 0 NVONS, REGION417 Case No. 4-2009-0 CFFICIAL US NLY - INVES ATO NFORMAT
cl u LY - ES N THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY OF PUIIC DIS OSU R TH AiPPR OF IE OFICE Case No. 4-2009-006 4 OFF 0 -OI I ATIO FON
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit (b)(7)(C)
Ib C alo Verde Nuclear 1, Generating Station (PVNGS), Tonopah, Arizona .......................................................... 10 I(b )(T)c) i V NGS ............................................................................. 9 V NGS .............................................
(b)(7)(C)
VN ............................................................... 7 (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(c) GS ...............................................................................
VVN 13 Ib)(*(C) [VVNGS .................................... 12 (b)(7)(C)
C V ..... VNGS ..........
........ 4
[(b)(7)(C)
I c V NG S ............................................................ 15 I(b)(7)(C)I 11
( (b(7(C V NGS .................................................................................
VNGS ............................................................................. 8 j(b)(7)(C)
Vb)(7)(C) . . VNGS ........................................ 3 (b)(7)(C) kPN G S ............................................................. 14 (b)(7)(C) *VNGS .................................. 6 OCT FOR PU IC SCLO EWITHOUT PPROVAL OF FIE 0 CE DIýRE RS,OLFFICE INVESUT ATIOINS, REGION ,-N Case No. 4-2009-0,6-5 FFICIAh SE ON -01 IN STIGATION RMATION
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY IOT FOR P DISCL WITHO PrPROVAL FIELD OFFICE Case No. 4-2009-006 6 OFFI L E ON NF I IINVE ION
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit (b)(7)(C) 1 II .. ............ ... .. ... I.......... I..................... .......... 16
)C)1 l......................... I.................................................................
... 17 (b)(7)(C)
...........................................................................................
17 (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C)
................... .......................................................................... 2 0 Separation of Employment Letter pertaining t datedd,(b)¢7) j................... 21 Corporate Policy No. 28,
Subject:
Positive Discipline, dated August 15, 2001 .................. 22 Oral Reminder pertaining tcj- atedl........ . ........................................... 23
.I(b)(7)(C) ad Packetresof" documenia V()7() rmne, notes pertaining to the incident handwritten resulting iLZCI__ral reminder, various dates ........................................................... 24 Email containing ()7(C) potes documenting her interviews with_ )(C various dates ......................................................................................................................... 25 p:--L,-t -- 4tinina interviews pertaining to the incident betwee r ]nd "
IP j . ous dates .......................................................................................
arn ...... 26 Packet containinn background and interviews pertaining to the incident betweer (b)(7)(c) arious dates ................................................................ 27 Packet containing behavior observatiPafnrrna 1 ACAD hold request forms and other documents pertaining to )' C) eferral to EAP, various dates ..................... 28 2005-2007 Performance Reviews pertaining tc Z arious dates ................................. 29 NO-r- PUBLIC SCLURE WITHOU PVALOF FIEL 0ICE OFFC F INV GAINREGIO V *..
Case No. 4-2009-006 7 0 CI US 0N -0 ESTIGAT N IN ORMATION
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Case No. 4-2009-006 8 US -1 N TIG INFOR A
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.5 Deliberate misconduct (2008 Edition) (Allegation No. 1) 10 CFR 50.7 Employee protection (2008 Edition) (Allegation No. 1)
Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com ission (NRC), Office of Inv-tiiaioinns (O01 Renion IV (RIV). on May 27, 2008, to determine i ()I7)(C)
(b)(7)(c) at Arizona Public Service Compa 's (APS) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Tonopah, Arizona, was subjected to discrimination for reporting safety concerns [Allegation No. RIV-2008-A-01 04] (Exhibit 1).
Background
On October 14, 2008 To)otified the NRC:RIV, that on (b)(7)(C) -]he filed a Differinc Professional Opinion (DPOat PVNGS against his section leaderTUA*'
1(b)(7)(C) ý PVNGS, re arding (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C)
I(b)(7)(C) / with(b)(7)(C) on(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(c) ported that he discussed his DPO nd with the
- GS E .nlnveeConcerns Proaram (ECP O (b)(7)(c) NFI]. [stated he forwarded hiPO t(b)(7)(C) VNGS, a'(b) C) b()C 7
[And notified his DPO t the NRC of his concerns on (b)(7)(C) Aon No. RIV-2008-A-0068]=riF' t)futrher advised that on (b)(7)(C) '~~ *"-* ... ,- ' presented (b)(7)(C) a separation of him with [b}(7)(C) employment letter (involuntary termination), effective )aid he believed his employment at PVNGS was terminated for raising safety concerns irnhis DPO.
I(b)7)(c)
On October" 1. 2008, the RIV Allegations Review Board met to discuss._llegation and determined4 hould be offered an opportunity to participate in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in an attempt to resolve his dispute with the licensee.
Subsequently,' Harry FREEMAN, Senior Allegation Cý r, Allegation Coordination and Enforcement Staff (ACES), RIV, informed Ol:RIV thatIC ad declined to participate ib ADR process. ACES requested that OI:RIV initiate an investigation to determine whetheb was subjected to discrimination for reporting safety concerns.
Agent's Analysis Protected Activity A review of the DPOs determined the issues raised byIZ were under the regulatory purview of the NRC; therefore, the submission of the DPO(s) would constitute protected activity.
NO OR P L SCCLOSUR T APPROVA FID OFFICE RETOFIC FIVS] IONS EINI Case No. 4-2009-006 9 I US ONLY - INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
!,IA1LX!SEON oOII ST1ION1I RM 5N ý
[jled 5 DPOs during the period between s)(7)(c) s "Follows:
(b)(7)(C)
Management Knowledge Interviews O (bX7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) OPira
- kT* (C _ (b)(7)(C) I D P'v*N, and (b7)(7) JPVNGS, confirmed that PVNGS management was awa tha ad submitted the DPOs. DPOs are part of the PVNGS formal corrective action program nd are thus assigned by the Performance Improvement Group, PVNGS, to an individual within the organization for follow up action.
Adverse Act On (b)(7)(C) b%(7)(C) Ireceived an or0 reminder for his actions and inappropriate behavior during a meeting on()(7)(C) (Exhibit 23).
By APS letter dated (b)(7)(C) mployment with APS was involuntarily terminated (Exhibit 21).
Nexus: Wa&ubiected to Discrimination for RasintQ Safety Concerns?
7-)(C-)
S(b Interviews of PVGNS personnel disclosed tha! as not subjected to discrimination by PVNGS management for raising safety mn nor submissiannDM12_ Os (Exhibits 4-15).
OnI lb)Iseparate occasions from= I() as engaged in protected actvlvvwhen he reported safety concerns via the PVNGS corrective action program by preparing and submitting DPO's (Exhibits 16-20).
During an interview oI (b)(C) Ihe explained the DPO process by stating that "DPO's are when an individual has a technical issue that doesn't feel ... it's been adequately resolved in the corrective action program; allows then another means to challenge an evaluation ifthey don't agree with the evaluation, or to challenge some terhnicagasaect at the facility that they disagree with, and it provides that avenue" (Exhibit 4, p. 7) ..... " urther explained that "there are Case No. 4-2009-006 10 FFICI1 ONLY -0Of I STIGATION RMATI
F CLU -R1IVO other instances where a DPO is initiated if an individual has a technical issue that may not necessarily be documented in the corrective action program. It's a means for individuals to challenge a decision that was made or an evaluation that was made, then allows them pretty much a one-on-one interface with the is assigned the DPO to work to a solution, to gain common ground" (Exhibit 4, p. 7). r,- 7 )(C) tated that DPO's at PVNGS are assigned "to somebody who has expertise In a partic ar area" and mayor may not be within the author of the DP.Q,, ,rabin nfnm and (Exhibit 4. p. ) (b7)(C) *as assigned responsibility fo rk)( 7 )(c)
DPOs L*bI,)(Cr1 i"(b)W(Ch( in ewed about his involvement witih(b)(7)(c)
JAPS, tated, ...the one DPO thartl am familiar with, and I had involvement from 7
the portion of the,() )l(J)(7) cations in that aspect...is that management would bend over backwards to satisfy in their response to the DPO' (Exhibit 15, pp. 15-16).
AGENT'S NOTES: DPOs initiated by'were reviewed by the NRC technical staff under Allegation Number RIV-2008-A-0142.
In his interview e e that he bo'b)(7)c) r raising safety concerns, specifically issues-sh-e addressed in DPO (b)(7'() xnxlained this particular IPO was different because it involved (b)(7)(C) n an area he should have known" (Exhibit 3,)p7)1). aimed he nevel'ceived a reason for his te i and when asked if he ever received any type of counseling, whether it be written or oral esponded, "no, no, no" (Exhibit 3, pp. 106 and 107).
Inl(b)( 7)(c) received an oral reminder, which is the first step ;I- 46'-nN% S outburst at other employees attending a]lb)()(c) disciplinary process, for his angry According to the PVNGS Formal Disciplinary Process, an or.Ar er remains active or 12 months (Exhibit 22, p.6). In additioi.t+/-b oral reminderl(C as required to attend anger management classes. Altough mb)iaina nger management classes, less than I ye ratrrcioIrm r (b)(7)(C) as in -- i rincident 7 0 in which aIb()cIb( 7 c)elieved he was Fteatened b ~ a informed 'ha avi not acceptable, and the i was sti ongoing in to that 7
matter when(b)( )(C) 7
" as involved in another inci a ).(.Ic .b)( )(C) IIn each of the incidents, n ro p ae--p-rther witnessed or overheard(C .sd they were in fear o0Although h t formally discipline (b)(7)(C) Ithere were reports of other incidents whe as unable to control his anger and had been an ong em.
Reportedly when askea-wht action he was going to take to change his behaviors,l ........ I responded, "I'm not going to change, this is the way God made me. That's just the way it is" (Exhibit 12, p. 28).
A review of APS Corporate Policy No. 28 revealed that the discipline process at PVNGS consists of coactiinn nral rpmindimmr writtena eminders, decision making leave and termination (Exhibit 22). OnI(b)( 7)(C) cceived an oral reminder, with confirmation by letter on f(c j?-3I)Exhibit 23). The oral reminder was prepared as a result o in a eeting dated the same day, for his actions and inappropriate behavior d (b)(7)(
1( c ) (b )(7 )(C )
ctions durng a mting which was also had PVNGS ¶personnel in attendance.
OýT ýFO PU DSLU DIC REWTHOU VAL 0P IELDO-0 ,F ICE/,'
DIRECTOR,6OFFCE OF=NVE-TIGATIONS, .RiONIV -
Case No. 4 -2C9AL / OIFFI.CiAL USE US O L'-O 01 01 _..06_. -
-- INVES.TIGATIOW.I.N.FORMýA'TIOIW
4FAL-USE ý 01 lNVESTI1GAU04iR'MATJON Dearly part of 2008.1k" 'k Iook over as thel(b)(7 )(c)
(b)(c)(C) PVNGS.ý ý ý ýestified it that he supervised six ngn '
(b"1(U _xplained that he was on leave from work fro (b)(7 )(C),
that
- wnrk ha was informed that there had been an incident betwe (b)(7n"C) (ba(7)(C) N F] at PVNGS. 1(b)( 7 )(C) *dvised t poke to nd asked hi w(bXritCwhat had Occu eeeen him anb 7 )(c) uring te incident (Exhibit 26). xplaimed that he also spoke with several employees about the incident (Exhibi27). ()(7)(c) dvised that he then.contacted HRto find out what his options were concerninq actions to take-r~egardin 7(b)(7)(C) testified that (b)(7)(C) (PVNGS, informed him tI(at..onepf his options wasio'send*b)( 7 )(c) lor Fitness for Duty (FFD) testing in addition to send'c come ) on administrative eIatiLa deter:ination was made. dv7sed that in addition to 7)(C) ad to complete' yioral Observation Checklist the FFD testing, h (b)(
paprwenor nr at action e taken to deny l(bX7'(c) laccess to the rotected area and efer the b)(7)(c) Exhibit 28 p. 3).
(b)(7)(C) fivise- that subsequently a discipline review board was held with HR, i(b)(7 )(c) himself, and APS attorneys. The board convened with the nntion* to nrovid .
clisin ranging from an oral reminder to termination, but the (b)(7)(C) 7 (b)7)C)mployment (Exhibit 21).
)( xplaingAt4a .ittnnk him 6 - hout wpak to interview employees and ascertain what happene be!tw b)(7)(C) 7
ýn(b)()(C) __dvised that during the foll week, he interviewe )) ho gt a little U'l'set in the meeting. And I basically told hi if this is the kind of be-fivior you're 0, it needs to stop, and it needs t now.
We can't have that any longer the (b)(7)(C) Exhibit 12 . 13ý(b)(7)(C) "Idvised that directly after the meeting (b)(7)(c) VNGS, approached him outside the meeting room and Iaid (b)(7)(C) ýom-nt ab- ut contractor's opinions really kind of offended me. Do you care if'talk to him? I said_) i that offended you, I encourage you t (b)(7)C "(Exhibit 12, D-18).(b)(7)(C) 1(b)(7)(C) estified that approximately 10 minutes later (e-entred hi (b)(7 ce visiJ._,bqken, cos.
tears, tremblingl(b)(7)(c )tated t (b)()(c) aid, "Italked tk . nd Itold J(C)7) I that his opinion w sn't any better-than anybody else's t my opinion was just as good as his. And each time I made a comme like thst. hi- (b)(7)(C) oice got louder, and more and more angry" (Exhibit 12, p. 1 9 ) b)(7)(C) d the first words out of (b)(7)(C) mouth when heiwas called in to discuss the Matter were "Iscrewed up didn't I"(Exhilbit27" C 1* ,J(b)( )(C) 7 Lxplained that the most memorable thing about his conversation with I!b)7)(c) a, when )(7)(c) 'tated as he walked out of the office, ()(7)(c)
(b)(7)(C) Exhibit 12, p. 20).
AGENT'S NOTE: (v)(i)(c)djiS e had knowng o--
or approximately (b7)(C)nd although[ as always hada h for sowing bouts of anger, he noticed a differencn ecent anger then than in yel p)(7c r.......xplained that in addition to the anger," I)o'has an arrogant, intimidating, threatening, and frightehing tone.
NPOT. PU BLIC"DIS*kOS UREnk-
- APPR5>A-brIELqF E DIlRECTOR, O * /NVEETG*,-NS, REGIORW-I Case No. 4-2009-006 12 X/>'OFFICAL*~SE ONILY-'Oi INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
0 ICIA SE LY iIINY TIG N`I MATION Wn uestioned about the F(b)(7)(C) -I withf(b)(7)(C) 7 7 stified that they [he and j7v ere talking and was asked by( [f he h'd a problem, would he take it to the
=FflcEl-e people, or would [ NRC. And I said I would pro the NRC since I do rna(wi(k for APS... and heJ""' lew his cool" (Exhibit 11, p. 9)J.'.... Ilexplained that I*b)( 7)(C) Rook exception... lost his cool..." when he said he would repot a problem to the NRC.
j m(7)(c) urther stated, "Icouldn't figure out why he had lost his cool. So then I went over to get wa*s - p of coffee, and I felt a hand on my shoulder. I thought, oh Lord, what's this. And it was nd he said, I was just kidding. And I felt threatened at that point." (Exhibit 11, p. 12).
Additional intervi;an PVNGS personnel were conducted regarding their interactions or observations otjs follows:
(b)(7)(C) es that when he was a PVNGS employe (b)(7)C) 1 (b7)(c) 1 i Lh he did not have .mn*rvisary title, he was thdb)7) ind had dailvy '
Ipý" nd 4 -)ut it in t (b)(7)(C ib)(7)I nnual performancerevie(ws.b)( I )C) I ineractions w, explainse observed( ose hig mper on many occasions ovir severa years an5, although as very eaed-. raised his voice, he never observed et physical with any otheraimloyees !Jestified he never documented any of the incidents he observe 7 )(C) ose his temper. In reference to the meei 7 that resulted ir (b)(7)(C) oral reminder and subsequent refer ger manageme nt"( n recl wat the
.dar 7 ent was about or even if (b)(7)( ;) Janger was diree (b)(7)(C)It 1I',)r rI)(7)(C) r 1i1 ttime stated that, "all I know is that ii d acted like h
- I did it. I couldn't understand how anybody could I by with that" (Exhibit 6, p. 11).
idToiudrave been fired (b)(7)(c) xplained that, although he had never witnessed btp aware thae7)(C) ad a hews on for beinq passionate about his co erst n. I i estified that dringrthe (b)(l)(C) f Iaised meeting in(b)(7)(C) his voice toward another individual during the meeting and stated, "...1 told mygelt if it ever happens to me, I'm walking out, I'm going to call HR, I'm going to call securit ..J. walk out of the room, because I wasn' to stand there Altaeit. Exhibit 7, p. 7).(c)ixPlained that he had confro tedn nd at and in that "stood point,@Z h between .
.nd n. d %then IadPVNGS, came nd Ian sked (b)7)d to go for a walk. He needed to settle down an ta e it easy" (Exhibit 7, p. 7). (b)(7)(C) testified that after the meeting, he went to his desk, documented his notes and went "straight to HR" (Exhibit 7, p. 8).
(b)(7)(C)()7)C (b)(7)(C) en (b)(7)(C) t for theI': T(b)-(7L)(C) ulti ( b btha me heated between
()7() I 7
( n7)Cj4n(b)(
roI a
)(c) ~~~(b)(7)(C) xnlaied that 1b )1(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)C) oices 7 w 7( elevated but ay more o (ide than (Eibit8 p. 8). r( 'ed he had never seeo tat before, "bu a a over the years when- (b) worked... there wa lot of problems, and several people [NFI] were like, you nee 7 for him. He can get mad or angry. I never had a got problem. I always got along with (( )(C)
We've never had a-we've disagreed, but it never to int where we would argue about something" (Exhi l When asked wh the (b)(7)(C)
(b)7)C)7)()(7(C stood out from ,nhir.....
disagreements hej(b fjjc *ad witl 7 es ponde, "Becausel(bj7C as getting upset to where he was screaming. And you could see him where he was getting red, and he was shaking" (Exhibit 8, p. 9).
IOT FOR P.LIC DI$C RE WITH PP VALOF QFFICE Case No. 4-2009-006 13 JP.!11CiAL YS! -11bmy YEIFO ý O11N
(b)(7) I L.(b)(7(C)
- stified that she h e (b)(7)(c)
Irst line supervisor for a couple of years and that time she believed (b)(7)(C) ad pr proximately three different DPO's.
(b)(7)( xplained that she was aw are o .(b)(7)(C) PO's and, as a leadeequired to U~*71(C -LMIP°b)() ,,, *aid,,she "was not involved in answering the DPO" (Exhibit 9, p, 8)* 'estiied tha(7C as a goodl(b)(7)(c) Ivery thorough. So as far as I'm concerned, from a technical e, he was very qualified to dat he was doing" (Exhibit 9, p. 9). In regards to (b)(7)(C) temperament issues, ""¶ Isaid, "tdon't recall a temperament issue tha I adesse
- niarU in a positive discip irme perspective" (Exhibit 9 (b)(7)(C) x lained that as I2L....[leader, she as 'nfo1q of the incident with°(b)(7)(C) e (b)(7)(C) but was not preselnt forLhe mee`ting. I(b)(-)(c) stifled tha (b)(1)(c) elephomiclly contacted her the day of thet 0 ndtheY ...wokd w HR, worked with my bossb)(7)(C) nd WOrked through that process to puI*b)( rn notice that that behavior was not acceptable" (Exhibit 9, p. 12).
4(E3?73(CF) ()(7)(C) VNGS, t ed that heaoserve n occasion during a meeting "...lose control of his bodily functions, slurring of speec shaking , j really loud, very much I would c tile environment" (Exhibit 5, pp. 8 and 9). (bh(7)"C) x lained that he had approache(jn)(C)n probably two or three occasions abou is) ability to control himself but never rInm it prior to the oral reminder, en asked why he documented the oral reminder, (b)( 7 )(C) Itated, "It was kind of a rude awakening at how somebody could totally lose their k eto point of not even speaking fluently, and just trembling, and I was really somewhat concerned for the employee across the table. I w'_"1 1-ed to think what if the table wasn't there separating the two" (Ehibit 5, p. 15) ()"C estified that he took notes and informed his supervisor,(b)(7)(C) If the incident with (b)(7)(C) rior to workin with Human Resources (HR), PVNG;_wTaacfiaV Dre~ared the oareminder ~ xplained that in addition to ft oral1r minder, h illed out a PVNGS emnn1 pyee observation form ld o1()()(C kccess beiiigiiispend d and resulted in a mandatory referral to the whih PVNGS Empl sistance Program (EAP)Jcb)(7)(c) ýstified he did not consider nor documenl(b)(7)(c) r any of his other employee's temperament in their annual performance reviews.
review of an email datedl A documented thatb)(7)(C)l (b)(7 (PVNGS, perfbrmed an ev Ind referred him to anagement c asses x it 25). When interviewed ttestified that she first saw
( rough a mandatory referral arising from "The first timehe had an incident in a meeting
-- re e had...a meltdown...And apparently he had been exhibiting those behaviors for some time; it had not been addressed u,un 1(b(7)C)),_C)- ular incident, and he was brought to ., -tt4nfion for an evaluation" (Exhibit 10, p. 6).I)(7)1c 1 rther testified that with "7C resulted in a mandate that he a )er management meetings ..... ýxplaiAid that she made the determination to refe( anger management classes nn I is pattern of that he continued to p eet to colleagues" (Exhibit 10, p. 7).LZ.......J dvised that I(b)( 7 )(C)vas required to provide a certificate of completion documenting his comp
"..o.pbably 12 session's worth" anger management classe bbib 10, p. 7). (b)(7)(C) testified that she did not feel comfortabe recommending that .(b)(.)(C) hcces to rptected area be restored and without it (b)(7)(C)oud be unable to pe his Job dvised SNOOR PUBL DICLFOS~U RE TOUTIT APPR L IE 0FIC E Case No. 4-2009-006 14 OFFICIAL I)ON -0Of INVESTIG ON FORMATIO
QF ALY- - OIJ VESTI9GAfON INFORMATION that MCad also asked her ifthey could discuss the possibility of his Eb¶7(ll 1(b)(7)(c) RExhibit 10, pp. 5-19).
ken from the time of her interview withI i AGENT'S NOTE: (b)(7C) srtowe ;at as required to complete 10 sessions rah er than 12 sessions Itxhibit 25).
(b)(c *VNGS, testified in her interview that she was part T'review panel regarding()(7)(c) ehavior at PVNGS and recalled that the panel "...looked at the circumstances and the'estory, we took into considera feedback, that in and of itself was going to result in termination" (Exhibit 14, p. 15).Fj"* 0 ji)heus!aI*, "during the discipline review panel we did discuss that we wanted to allow options if*2.C *ere interested...One of the options would be that he could voluntarily resign in return for a release and waiver from the company" (Exhibit 14, p. 16).
(b)(7)(C) stfqe).
e sfified (Exhibit 13) that she had an altercation at work wits ._d told him that the didffot appreciate his comment about the contractors and thatlQ¶ just got av started getting loud uder and she kept saying "calm down" (Exhibit 13, p. 9) (b)(7)(0) explained that afte ked away, he "turned, went off on me again, right in the s op
- 10) b(dvised sh couraged by others whnqniiorhpnrd nr observed13,thep. alterca (Exhibit on e een her an )C repor the incident t vb*
rhc.
Insummam a " era ls involving his inability to control his anger toward other FPVN-GS employees (7)()ýled LDPO's during the last 2 years that he was employed at PVNGS, and raised at he believed to be various safety concerns. The DPO's were all filed through the formal process and were handled accordingly. In many instances, it was determined the issues w and were addressed through various avenues such as,-
additional training. Althoug. as never formally disciplined until after he raised the safety concerns, Ol:RIV concl udedý km filinc of the DPO's didnot have an impact, nor were they considered, in PVNGS' s(bX7)(C)
Testimony from several former supervisors and employees determineda uafied engineer and, with the exception of his angry outbursts, was a good employee.f fj) ormer supervisors also explained they did not make any references to his temperament when drafting his performance reviews as they believed, it to be unrelated to his work performance. Inthe 3 years (b)(7)(C) Veceived a "Distinguished" rating for work performance in 2005 and 2006 and a "Valued" rating for work performance in his 2007 performance review (Exhibit 29).
Based on the testimonial and documentary evidence, Ol:RIV concluded that PVNGS management acted appropriately and in ac;grdastwith requirements and followed the formal PVNGS disciplinary process in documentinQ') 7)' Fiability to control his anger which eventually resulted in his(b)(7)(C) PVNGS. Th no evidence found, either testimonial or documentary, to support me allegation tha ( as subjected to retaliation and discrimination for raising safety concerns.
NQT. OR\PU DISCLpSURE WIT APPROVAL-OF FIlICE Case No. 4-2009-006 15 -
NQ+/-icXC tLU vtLý--OI-1 NVSTIGA'fibWNltM4T, IQN Conclusions Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation that Nwas subjected to discrimination for reporting safety concerns was not substantiated.
Case No. 4-2009- 06 6 FF I STI
O L USE O YLX- OI ETI OR TO LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, dated November 6, 2008 (1 page).
2 Allegation Review Board materials, dated October 21, 2008 (6 pages).
3 Transcript of Interview with 7 ated December 1, 2008 (116 pages).
4ib)(7)(C) 4 Transcript of Interview with Z dated March 4, 2009 (48 pages).
3
',b)(7)(C) 6 Transcript of Interview with ff aT edMac74 00 15pge) 7 Transcript of Interview with ated March 4, 2009 (25 pages).
8 Transcript of Interview with ated March 5, 2009 (16 pages).
9 Transcript of Interview wit4T Iated March 5, 2009 (19pages).
1 Transcript of Interview witht 7 ated March 5, 2009 (21 pages).
(b)(7)(C) 12 Transcript of Interview wit[ ated March 5, 2009 ( pages).51 13 Transcript of Interview with b)7(Cdated March 5, 2009 (15 pages).
b)(7)(C) 14 Transcript of Interview wit ated March 5, 2009 (21 pages).
(b)(7)(C) 12 Transcript of Interview withl Ji ated March 5, 2009 (50 pages).
13 Tanscipt f Inerviw wihJ._* iated March 5, 2009 (15 pages).
(b)(7)(C) 14 Transcript of Interview withI 16 (b)(7)(C) ated March 5, 2009 (21 pages).
15 Transcript of Interview Wi(b: C) "ated March 5, 2009 (17 pages).
16 (b)(7)(C) 17 18 19 20 O
N FR SCLOSU Case No. 4-2009-0015i. 17 OF US - GAT INFOR O
O F AL NLY - ESTIGA F LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Descrption 21 Separation of Employment Letter pertaining tb')ateate c (1 page).
22 CorporatePolicy No. 28,
Subject:
Positive Discipline, dated August 15, 2001, (6 pages).
23 Oral Reminder pertaining t 2I~atedl cb))1)c)
ý page).
24 Packet of docGumeDtte and handwritten notes pertaining to the incident resulting infJjc rml reminder, various dates (8 pages).
25 Email containind b)(7)(C) n*otes documenting her interviews wit4_¶Zarious dates (1 page).
- . * (b)(7)(C) 26 Packet containing interviews pertaining to the incident betwee-r-)CncIT()
various dates (2 pages).
27 Packet containin g background and interviews pertaining to the incident betweerID nnarious (b(7)C) dates (5 pages).
28 Packet containing behavior observaion fo s, ACAD hold request forms and other documents pertaining tcj j eferral to EAP, various dates (6 pages).
29 2005-2007 Performance Reviews pertaining to ]rious dates (3 pages).
UTIPýFFI FCE Case No. 4-2009-0"6 1