ML052000102
| ML052000102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/2002 |
| From: | Paul R NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | Dyer J NRC/RGN-III |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0321, OI 3-2001-055 | |
| Download: ML052000102 (55) | |
Text
fiVi-ZU-Ud Hrit UI:b4 fit] ixn/11 n, HX fill. 3Ul41bb4UU
.1A IIC ,4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSiON OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION III 501 WARRENVILLE ROAD USLE. ILUNOIS 6=-Ml October 30, 2002 ItF:MCORANDUM TO: James E. Dyer, Regional Administrator Region III FROXI: Richard C. Paul, DirectoQ, c.P-4t.<
Office of Investigations Field Office Region III SUlJECT: DRESIEN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT:
DISCRINUNATION AGAISr A PRINCIPAL AUDITOR FOR VENDQR AUDIT FINDINGS AN)
DISCRlMINATION BY BLACKLISTING A FORMER PRINCIPAL AUDITOR ( FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS (01 CASE NO. 3-2001-053)
Attached, for whatever action you deem appropriate, is the Officc of Investigations (01)
Repori of Investigtatioii concerniog the above matter.
This report Isfonvarded to the action office for Information purposes. Since the action office has the responsibllity for advising allegers of the status and disposition of allegations, they are authorized upon receipt of the Report of Ini estigation to advise the alleger that the Investigalion hag been completed. After the NRC an'do`r other concerned Federal agencies have taken whatever action they deem appropriate, the action office will notify the alleger that his/her allegations were either substantiated, partially substantiated, or not suhstantialcd and may, if required, furnish the alleger with a copy of the OI Report of InvLstigation after appropriate proprietary, privacy, and cotifidentili source Information has been deleted. Any additional Information provided the alleger will be dispositioncd through the Director, 0!, and will be furnished ori case-by-case basis.
I.....
Inforrnation in this record was deleted In accordance with the Fre~rn of Information .
Act, exemptions 51 E41A--3l
- -- d
J. Dyer Neither this memorandum nor the report may be released outside the NRC without the puritission of the Director, OL Plcasc cnsurc that any Internal office distribution of this report Iscnntrollcd and limited only to those with a necd-to-know and that they are aware of the sensitivity of Its contents. Trcat as "Official Use Only."
Attachment:
Report wl/exhibits cc whatt:
F. Congel, OE H. Clayton, OE:RI1I cc wlReport only:
S. Collins, NRR (ATTN: G. Cwualina, OAC, NRR)
L. Chandler, OCC
!lstb.Qjn:
elf sf 3-2001-055 L.Boyd, O1:HQ (1 report w/exhibits; I report only)
B. Barber, Ol:;Q w/Title Page & Synopsis To receive a copy of this document, indicate In the box "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "El" = Copy with attachmentlenclosure "N" I No CO O(WP[CE o:lRuli l ol:Ril I I I -
NANTF SLannan nh A RPaul . . I DATE 0900/2 7. 09Rc002 OFFICI2AL RECORD COPY
Title:
DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A PRINCIPAL AUDITOR FOR VENDOR AUDIT FINDINGS AND DISCRIMINATION BY BLACKLISTING A FORMER PRINCIPAL AUDITOR FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Licensee: Case No.: 3-2001-055 Exelon Nuclear Report Date: September 30, 2002 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Control Office: OI:RIII Docket No.: 50-237 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
S J.Offi, gcial Agent Richard C. Paul, Director Office of Ivttins Office of Investigations Field Ofc,] go m Field Office, Region III WARNING DqNOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE IN THE PUBLINC"CUMENT ROOM OR DISXaS THE C0NTENTs'0nPHIS REPORT OF lVTGATION OUTSIDE NRC WXIQ.UT AUTHORITY OE APPROVIN AL OF THIS REPORT. UNWXtIZED MAY RESULT INVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE At-hQ AND/OR CRIL PROSE CUTION
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations (O0), Region III, on November 19, 2001, to determine whether a Principal Auditor for Exelon Corporation (Exelon) was discriminated against for raising safety concerns in the form of vendor audit findings.
On May 20, 2002, a second allegation was added to the investigation. 01 initiated an investigation to determine whether a former Principal Auditor was blacklisted from gaining employment at Sargent & Lundy (S&L) because of safety concerns raised while employed at Exelon.
Based on the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate the allegation that a Principal Auditor was discrimirated against for raising safety concerns.
Based on the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate the allegation that a former Principal Auditor was blacklisted from gaining employment at S&L because of safety concerns raised while employed at Exelon.
NOT FO UBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHO I ROYALV OF FIELD OFFICE DIfte OR, OFCE OF IN ESTIGATTcREGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 -.
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT r0RQLMLIC DISCLOSURE WMTH OVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIhGIOER, OFFICE OF INVESTIGAT ION m Case No. 3-2001-055 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS .................................. 1 LIST OF INTERVIEEWEES ................................. 5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION ................................. 7 Applicable Regulations ................................. 7 Purpose of Investigation ................................. 7 Background ................................. 7 Interview of Alleger ................................. 9 Coordination with NRC Staff ................................. 18 Coordination with the Regional Counsel ................................. 18 Review of Documentation ................................. 18 Review of the DOL Report ................................. 23 OI Violation No. 1 ................................. 23 Evidence ................................. 23 Agent's Analysis ................................. 39 Conclusion ................................. 41 OI Violation No. 2 ................................. 41 Evidence ................................. 41 Agent's Analysis ................................. 46 Conclusion ................................. 46 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ................................. 47 LIST OF EXHIBITS ............. ; 49 NOT FOSPLZC DISCLOSURE WITH ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC ,OFFICE OF INVESTIG AT ION III Case No. 3-2001-055 3
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PNSQDISCLOSURE WITHOU ROYAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO 'OLICE OF INVESTIGATI 7SpRGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 4
LIST'OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit 36
.............. ................... 37 35
. . . . . . . . . .1.....'.-...... 38 70 SHRAI................ Oscar, 29,39E SH RA~N, Oscar,Former Principal Auditor,Exclon ....................... 2
................ ..... 40 NOT FOR LIC DISCLOSURE WITHO P OVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRUOFCE OF INVESTIGA NS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 5
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FO1 LIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APE OVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DlR FFICE OF INVESTIGATI REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 6
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.5 Deliberate Misconduct (2001 Edition) (OI Violations Nos. 1 and 2) 10 CFR 50.7 Employee Protection (2001 Edition) (OI Violations Nos. 1 and 2)
Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region m (RI((), on November 19, 2001, to determine whether Oscar SHIRANI, a Principal Auditor for Exelon Corporation (Exelon), was discriminated against for raising safety concerns in the form of vendor audit findings.
On May 20, 2002, a second allegation was added to the investigation. OI initiated an investigation to determine whether SHERANI was blacklisted from gaining employment at Sargent & Lundy (S&L) because of safety concerns raised while employed at Exelon.
Background (Exhibit 1)
On November 1, 2001, SHIRANI met with NRC:RflI officials Bruce JORGENSEN and James HELLER. SHIRANI stated he had just had his Exelon access pulled to all Exelon buildings and facilities and would be terminated in December of 2001. SHIRANI explained that his employment problems began in 1997 when he was the team leader for an audit of analytical services provided to Exelon by General Electric Nuclear (GENE). SHIRANI said that his audit resulted in about a dozen significant findings that resulted a "sto ork" bein issued to GENE. SHIRANI recalled that at th disagreed with the audit findings and argued with SHIRANI. According to SHIRANI, as a result of the audit, SHIRANI wrote a significant finding against the engineering departments for LaSalle, Dresden, and Quad Cities.
According to S 1RANIs started o ond sSo isc ,'s performance during the GENEaudt.
SHIRANI said th at he did not agree with SHIRNI's findings or how SHIRANI had presented himself during th3ENi'audit. According to SHIRANI, after this conversation his performance appraisal ratings started to decline. SHIRANI said that his declining performance ratings prompted him to leave the group in 2001.
NOT FPUUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUTYF.PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE J OR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGA-MQNS, REGION III T kTy.. -, is r7 nCC -i
-ase N 0. I -ZVUU1-UJJ l
Agent's Note: ComEd and Philadelphia Electric Corporation (PECO) merged in 2000, forming Exelon.
According to SHIRANI, in December 2000 he completed an audit of US Tool & Die (UST), a contractor to the vendor for the Die den dry cask storage project group (DSQG) to fabricate casks. SHI saih to the audit. SHIRANI recalled that the audit had been requested by Joe RICCO, DSQG Manager, because of continuing problems with UST.
SHIRANI said the audit identified several significant findings that were eventually discussed during a meeting in early 2001 between Exelon, utility representatives and the vendor. SHIRANI said that the NRC was at the meeting.
Agent's Note: References to a DSQG, Holtec, or UST audit are actually references to the same audit, not different audits.
According to SHIRANI, before the audit, he was looking for ajob within the Exelon organization because of his declining performance ratings that he felt wer SHIRANI said that a recent change to the Exelon Quality Assurance (QA) plan mo vt e eEon Supplier Evaluation Services (SES) rulSHRN
_ SiRaN said th Iaa 'vestedinterest to resolve the DSQG audit quickly.,i HIRANI said thathe subsequently was offered a ob as principal auditor in the Finance group
_8 SHIRAI said ?
tha 0 l W uSHHL4MN said tahedsused his GENE and DSQG auditsltS~RN remembered being called by Ross LANDSegdin DSQG ait findings and his transfer to finance.
SHIRANI said he er company policy.
SHIRANI said that shortly after this incident, his job description was changed to one that required him to be a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), which SHIRAN was not. SHIRANI claimed he was offered another lower paying job.
On November 19, 2001, an Allegation Review Board (ARB) requested OI initiate an investigation to determine if SHIRANI was discriminated against in violation of 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.7.
NOT FOR LIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI OR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATI ON III Case No. 3-2001-055 8
.- \I
On May 20, 2002, a second allegation was added to the investigation. OI initiated an investigation to determine whether SHIRANI was blacklisted from gaining employment at S&L because of safety concerns raised while employed at Exelon.
Interview of Alleger (Exhibit 2)
On December 18, 2001, 01 interviewed SHIRANI. SHIRANI provided substantially the following information:
SHIRANI stated that he earned a bachelor of science degree fr m the West Virginia Institute of Technology, now known as West Virginia University, i SHIRANI said he earned a l Master's degree in civil structure engineering from George Washington University in 1980.
SHIRANI stated that he worked as a structural engineer for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (Stone & Webster) at different nuclear power plants, for approximately 10 years after earning his Master's degree. Following his employment at Stone & Webster, SHIRANI worked a few months as a structural analyst in Westinghouse's nuclear business. SHIRANI said he then went to ComEd as a structural engineer/technical specialist in CornEd's nuclear program.
He said he worked for 4 years as a structural engineer before moving to the QA Department. He stated that he worked for 6 years in the QA Department, Nuclear Oversight, SES group as an Auditor, conducting audits and technical engineering assessments. SHIRANI stated that he has worked in the nuclear industry for over 20 years (Exhibit 2, pp. 5-10).
SHIRANI stated that he served as the lead auditor during the audit of GENE in 1997. According,;
to SHIRANI, the audit team came up with twelve findings against GENE, which resulted in a stowork ordle~rbeing issued against GENE. ,He said he sh ed the audit team's findings with SHIRRNI recalled tha ot very upset, and almost wanted to leave the exit meeting, ccusing SHIRANI of being "very iflexible and tough and did not want to negotiate those findhgs." SHIRANI claimed thaf he (SHIRANI) acted professionally during the exit meeting. SH1RANMs1aid he used his stop work authority, with concurrence from Ed NETZEL, QA Department Manager, and Lon WALDINGER, Nuclear Oversight Manager.
According to SH]RANI, he continued to follow-up on the stop work order for approximately 2 years following the GENE audit findings (Exhibit 2, pp. 9-15; Exhibit 9, pp. 1-5).
SHIRANI said the stop work order against GENE was lifted in November of 1997. According to acknowldg dtht heIw i S stated tha WALDINGER and NETZEL left the company. He stated he was unaware how ] but knew that NETZEL left on early retirement. SHIRANI sai d-- Mesaid 1c
^_JN E T Z E L for a few months prior to NETZEL's departure. SHIRANI NOT FO LIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI R, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIOTREGION III CaseFF,.
5 No Case No. 3-2001-055 9
said his duties under NETZEL did not change whe although the SES group was transferred to the Production Department. SHIRANI stated th 5hi bxhibit 2, pp. 17, 19-23, 128).
SHIRANI s ad only a high school degreeand did not understand the meaning of safety concerns in the design area. Accordingto RANI, on several occasions he felt intimidated, pressured, and harassed b SHIANI defined pressured or harassed as
...preaching, like an evange st...to be very careful to be a team player with the suppliers...be very cooperative with the sit., aernd making sure that we do everything based
'~nthecos" dedthamo cnt SIRAI em aero roduction, rather beinga than told NETZEL that S served a good ratig because he raised the GENE issues (Exhibit 2, pp. 24-26).
SHIRANI said he sent an e-mail in February of 1999, approximately eighteen months after the GENE audit, to the CornEd executives and Boiling Water Reactor Vice Presidents, reminding them that ComnEd had an obligation to the NRC to resolve the outstanding issues from the GENE audit. He said he was greeted one morning by the GENE liaison to ComEd, and told by the liaison that he would get a chance to go back to GENE, but that he needed to give GENE more time. SHIRANI recalled that he responded by stating "I am under pressure from my managers here. After the GE audit, inste d f me, I feel like they are pressuring me to leave...is that possible that you talked toN hat I need to talk to him, to discuss some of these issues, some of this pressure?" ccording to SHIRANI, the GENE liaison stated "Oscar, you know once these findings are closed, you are going to have a better opportunity to talk to 'l C SHIRANI said that is how the conversation was left (Exhibit 2, pp. 27-29).
SHIRANI said he confronte stating and thev have perception that you still don't like fromthat GE audit." SHIRANI recalled stating "Oscar, I don't have anything against you..." SHIRANI stated that on a separate occasion, he met with Oli~vrK>ING EY to discuss fellow employee's issues, as well as to discuss his conce involvin SHIRANI recalled KINGSLEY stating "Oscar, talkedix months agoto see f he has any grudges against you...He told me that he doesn't have anything against you" (Exhibit 2, pp. 76-78).
SHIRANI said he returned from an audit in Bostonp nor to going to GENE to conduct the follow-up audit in Apil or May of 1999, whe told'himjOscar, we--you know, I'm really nervous. Ws ver nervous. emember, we have obligations to our family. Try to work with the vendors. Try to make sure that...I'm not telling you don't raise issues, you know, but I'm telling you we otto know what's best for CornEd, and you know, you know, your obligations." SHIRANI said statements were an indirect hint to be i7 NOT FOR CLOSURE WITHOUT AMOVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE OF INVESTGATICN,,R~EGION III in- -- U. OAJ UI 'U
%-abeNOU. O-I.UUI-U.JJ .U
careful this time at GENE. SHIRANI stated that while he was conducting the follow-up audit, he called and gave updates t v er d SHIRANI acknowledged that GENE improved and had satisfied him. SHRANI recalle oasting about SHIRANI's findings in a report, calling the audit a "wake up call for GE.' According to SHIRANI, he returned from the GENE follow-up audit and continued performing audits of vendors, such as S&L, Bechtel Jacobs, and GENE (Exhibit 2, pp. 31-33).
SHIRANI recalled that in July of 2000, he was asked to serve as the lead auditor on the Nuclear Users Procurement Issues Committee (NUPIC) team that conducted an audit of Holtec International (Holtec) and UST's DSQG project. SHIRANI said Holtec and UST were his vendors. SHIRANI said he wrote in the Holtec/UST audit summary that the NRC inspection, which occurred six months prior to his audit, did not come up with any issues, nor did a NUPIC audit conducted in approximately 1999. However, SHIRANI said his audit did come up with nine findings against Holtec. He said he shared his findings with LANDSMAN during a symposium hosted by Holtec on November 30, 2000, which also included representatives from approximately 20 utilities and the NRC. S Nsaid SMAN requested a copy 6f his audit rep rt SMIRANI stated that he informed fLANDSMAN's request, which is w guestioned wh SHI1ANI y was at the symposium. S said he eminded 1 Fo be the dry cask quality person, to which esponded Okay. You need to talk to licensing." SHIRANI recalled talking with Ken AINGER, Manager of Licensing, when AINGER said 'What were you doing over there? How did you share the information with the NRC?" SHIRANI stated that he responded to AINGER by stating "...We had to share. I don't think that is to our best interest to hide these things from the NRC."
According to SHIRANI, AINGER responded by stating "You know, I don't trust NRC compliments because they come and compliment you, but they are going to go after Holtec and they are going to go after U.S. Tool & Die. And what's going to happen? Who is going to lose?" (Exhibit 2, pp. 34-38).
SHIRANI stated that LANDSMAN called him two or three days later, asking if SHIRANI had sent the audit report. SHIRANI said he told LANDSMAN that licensing would be sending him the audit report. He stated that on January 19, 2001, LANDSMAN called him and discussed SHIRANI's audit report of Holtec. SHIRANI said CornEd was afraid of any exposure to the NRC (Exhibit 2, pp. 38-40, 81).
SHIRANI said the company gave him the opportunity to apply for the manager position during the merger process. He said he had four positions that he could nominate himself for, and that the company said he could ask his su sor to, and his supervisor should, nominate him for two other positions. SHIRANI sai id not nominate hiiifor the two additional positions.
SHIRANI said he followed u wit asking him whyihe did not nominate him for the positions, to whic h did not respo According 16 SHIRANI, he then had a closed NOT FOR PULIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRETQFFICE OF INVESTIGAT E ~dREGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 11
door conversation witt in which he tol "I know. If you-think I'm blind that I don't know why this pressure on me, it's because you want to your bosses."
SHIRANI acknowledged that he was referring to his work on the GEfand Holfec/UST audits (Exhibit 2, pp. 42-45).
SHIRANI recalled discussing the situation wi He said dvised him to report the incident to nuclear Human Resources ) an see what they were going to do about it.
SHIRANI acknowledged that he followed dvice and met with Stephanie HICKMAN tle unknown, of HR, on four or five different occasions. He acknowledged that he tol that he was-meeting with HR. He said each meeting with HICKMAN lasted two to three hours.
SHIRANI said he provided documents regarding the harassment and pressure he had received.
According to SHERANI, HICKMAN documented everythin did g nothing in response to his concerns. S KI recalled having another argument wit after he had gone to HR, in whichrtold SHIRANI "If you think that I harassed you and put pressure on you, and you went to HR and complain about me, how come I never were sic) re rimanded or noticed by HR that my actions are inappropriate?" SHIRANIstated that:old hi m don't"Ithink my behavior is inappropriate. If it was inappropriate and you went an complained to HR. they should have at least reprimand (sic) me or give me some notice that I should stop harassing you.
I am not harassing you." SHIRANI said he and ad arguments at different times in the year (Exhibit 2, pp. 42-45).
SHIRANI stated that two weeks after the NRC became aware of his audit findings (November 30, 2000) against Holtec, he received ajob offer as a princi le.auditor, with a 6.2 to 7 percent pay raise, via telephone, less than two weeks late r~from SHIRANI said the 6.2 to 7 percent increase equated to approximately $7,000.00. He said Exelon grou(ad a good onship wi t lmostayear prior to receivin stated thatihe had asked He' said thev Iiad seves h si acknowledged thy _
if theissues he raised =egarai the GENE audit. SHIRANI said he told at he had already interviewed for the diversity manager position in nuclear. He stated jReminded S IRANI that he was already "on a hot seat" in nuclear, and that adaske couple of months ago. SHIRANI recalled that he responded May b e you are right. I got to leave at ressure behind me, 7c
)rne other things inte compan ." SHIRANI said he tol he needed to so he did not accep right away. He sa alled him a days later, whereupon he advise tha he was still deciding whether to take the rositi nue SHIRANI said they diicusse*
the dvised SHIRANI to call LANDY, Vice President of HR, and turn down ity nager position. According to SHIRANI, he interviewed with HICKMAN and NOT FOR PUB ,DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APP VAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT FFICE OF INVESTIGATI ' REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 12
Mark RELCON, title unknown, from the PECO side, and they were nominating him for the position. SHIRANI stated that all he had left to do was go and sign the paper with LANDY, accepting the job. SHIRANI said he called HICKMAN to turn down the diversity manager position. He said he accepted the principle auditor, Level E4, positio (Exhibit 2, pp. 40-42, 4547).
SHIRANI recalled a conversation he had with an individual from HR, named Mario (Last Name Unknown). According to SHIRANI, Mario told him that he was demoted when Exelon converted from the numeric pay levels to the roman numeral pay levels. SHIRANI said he went from a Level 9 to an E3 while in nuclear. SHIRANI said he confronted bout why he was not an E4, which meant more pay and benefits to him, an re d tha ave W a salary increase when he came to work fo S recalledt
- did not know why he was demoted while working in nuclear (Exhibit 2, pp. 105-107).
SHIRANI said he received an e-mail on December 20, 2000, from John ROWE, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Exelon, congratulating SHIRANI on his new.position. SHIRANI stated that he exchanged e-mails with ROWE, not realizing at the time, that his iiove to the financial audit group was part of a conspiracy against him (Exhibit 2, pp. 47-49).
SHIRANI recalled a discussion he had with i regards to his qualifications. SHIRANI sai informe safety concerns he raised in the GENE and HoltecIUST audits. According to S entioned a concern regardin bility.to afford SHIRANI' a] rhe 0 people with only
$3.4 million dbllars.! SHANI said tha old him haknew of his reputation in nuclear and with IYtPIC, but that he was still going to start zero wi a d prove himself SHIRANI also recalled a separate conversation he had with wr assured him that with his talent and credentials he would have an opportuni o a director or vice president of the company. SHIRANI said that he was the only person in the-new group because the gr till was not even formed yet, Arthur Andersen was actually perfo 'ng the work. He sai old him that he would be reporting to Arthur Andersen SHIRANI thought he woul e managing Arthur Andersen, which was the company actually performing the audits.
According to SHIRANI, he was reporting to George HERTZ, Director of Internal Audit, who retired in March of 2001. SHIRANI said he also reported to Tim MAKRAS, Senior Manager, at Arthur Andersen. SHIRANI recalle i1AKRAS and HERTZ to give a broad picture, not too deep, of the audit process. SHIRANI said he was skeptical of essage. SHIRANI recalled a situation in which he was supposed to lead an audit of the Exe on travel and entertainment records for the officers and board of directors. According to SHIRANI, as soon as he started preparing for the audit, he was removed as the lead auditor.
SHIRANI said hewas told he would receive training from Arthur Andersen, but never did.
NOT FOR ISCLOSURE WITHOU OVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INVESTIG ,NREGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 13
SHIRANI said he was given reports that Arthur Andersen wrote in previous years, so that he could familiarize himself with the internal audit process (Exhibit 2, pp. 49-54, 60-61, 107).
SHIRANI described the audits performed by the Internal Audit group as more than 90 percent process and management audits, which he correlated to his experience conducting NUPIC audits that involved reviewing management processes, procedures, etc. SHIRANI stated "So I was not a rookie." SHIRANI said he reminde that he needed training, but ept postponing his requests (Exhibit 2, pp. 2-53).
SHIRANI said he was put on an energy delivery audit, which was a project management audit.
SHIRANI stated that he had project management experience. According to SHERANI, Arthur Andersen noted that he highlighted issues that they would never find. SHIRANI said that throughout the year, Arthur Andersen was very happy with SHIRANI and the issues he found (Exhibit 2, pp. 57-58).
SHIRANI recalled two separate incidents with discussed]SH ANI's !
financial experience, salary, and the fact that his current position required 8 to 15 years of financial background, and based on his qualifications, he may need to step down to a lower level.
SHIRANI said the other incident involve making a remark against Asians. SHIRANI said he met\ _it discuss those concerns. _SHIRANIrecalleathat during the discussiojI plo'gized O any misunderstanding that SHIRANI had fr6n eriiarks about the Asian e is cording to SHRANI he was represent ian Americans as thir president during this mting. SHIRANI sair his American Society of Mechanical Engineer ASME) conference fees, whicd not. SHIRANI said he raised these issues to ttentioXn said he an exchanged e-mails after the meeting. S recaed tha e nt SHIRANI an e-mai assuring SHIRAN17ha did not have a problem wit HIRANI, and was complimentary to SHIRANI for being a nice uy who always asked abou _SBIRNI said be reported emarks to the ethics office (Exhibit 2, pp. 54-59, 62).
According to SHIRANI, three months after their meeting ent an e-mail to SHIRANI and about five auditors .in the Philadelphia office informing them thathey had to reapply for their jobs. SHIRANI said old him thaw ad done a miarket analysis,Iand now level E4 was considered to be a principle/manager auditor. SHIRANI recalled Martha GARZA, Director of HR to Finance, Assir DASILVA, who was either the Vice President or Senior Vice President of Diversity, and Eliecer PALACIO, Director of the Ethics office, encouraged SHIRANI to apply for his position or he would lose his job. SHIRANI said DASILVA and PALACIO were aware of his safety concerns. According to SHIRANI, DASILVA talked about the e-mail SHIRANI had sent to KINGSLEY, Chief Nuclear Officer, requesting to be placed in the diversity manager position that he passed up for the principle auditor position. SHIRANI said he sent the e-mail NOT FOR PiE DISCLOSURE WITHOUNPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC 1OFFICE OF INVESTIG NS, REGION III Case^
Case No. ~-aUirU Nusore1.
3-2UUI-U.).) 14
shortly after his meeting with SHIRANI said he was looking for a position in nuclear QA or the engineenng programs. He said KINGSLEY forwarded his e-mail to the director of HR, who responded to SHIRANI's e-mail. SHIRANI recalled the e-mail stating that the diversity manager position was already filled, and that the group he was in while at nuclear had shrunk from eleven people to seven people. SHIRANI said he called KevinYESSIAN, Vice President of the Exelon Nuclear Supply organizationI nd asked for a job.
He said YESSIAN told him that his organization was reducing the nurier of employees and had no positions for SHIRANI. SHIRANI said at that point in his c6nversation with YESSIAN, SHIRANI told YES SIAN that he (SHIRANI) should have gone to the NRC once they (ComEd) were suspicious about it. SHIRANI told YESSIAN that he never wanted to be a whistle blower, and that he thought the company was planning to get rid of him. SHIRANI said there have been job openings since he left to go to audit. SHIRANI stated that he told DASILVA and PALACIO that he would reapply for his job, because he understood that if he didn't reapply, he would lose his job (Exhibit 2, pp. 59-65).
Agent's Note: SHIRANI did not state, nor did he acknowledge that he reapplied for the position that he was currently performing. Instead, SHIRANI actually reapplied to the principle/manager position, which had a higher level of qualification requirements than the senior auditor position. In addition, SHIRANI sent the e-mail to KINGSLEY in either June or July of 2001.
SHIRANI said that he was interviewed for the principal/manager position, level E4 SHIRANI stated that Id him on October 26, 2001f, that he did not get the position, but that he would remain wi the company for 60 days so that he could apply for other positions.
According to SHIRANI, on October 30, 2001, he sent an e-mail to ROWE, Co-CEO of Exelon, Corbin MacNEAL, Co-CEO of Exelon, Exelon's Vice-Presidents, DASILVA, PALACIO, Pam STROBLE, who is in charge of Energy Delivery, and the AACES members describing what he did for the company and the fact that he was laid off. SHIRANI recalled tIaand '70 GARZA called him to an office within five minutes of him sending the e-mail. !He sMIthey told him he needed to leave and asked for the company properties, computer badge, and other items that were assigned to him. SHIRANI stated that they told him he could access job openings through the contractors that help severed employees in that regard (Exhibit 2, pp. 65-68).
Ac rding to SHIRANI, during his conversation with and GARZA, he commenited that ') C
( eld resentments against Hispanics and retaliea ainst SHIRANI because he brought ersity issues to_ i hen hI called security. He said security watched him pack his boxes. He stated that the n t morning, he called and e-mailed the secretary to tell her that he was comn to Pick up his boxes. SHIRANI said that in his e-mail, he warme the secretary that she was W and should watch her back withb because C.,
was a fake.' He recalled requesting, In his e-mail to the secretary, that she not share the NOT FOR PUBLI OSURE WITHO[T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OJq¶:OF INVES17TIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 . 15
e-mail and delete it right away. According to SHIRANI, as soon as he came in through the rotating doors of the building, two security guards requested that he leave the building.
SHIRANI recalled saying that with his dark hair and bein they probably thought they caught a terrorist. SH[RANI stated that he was offended. SHIRANI said he subsequently went outside. SHIRANI recalled that the secretary brought down his boxes, whereupon the secretary passed along a message fro g warning SHIRANI to quit and the other officers of the company 6 -HIRANI told the sec eti, to inform at Co d probably needs to hire 1,000 additional Ia. ers becaus cannot treat ike dirt. SIRANI also told the secretary to tel at he would not settle with the company unti esigns (Exhibit 2, pp. 68-73, 94-95).
In response to the question "What was the official reason given for your termination?", SHIRANI stated that he was told that he was not qualified for the manager position. SHIRANI felt that 4;an n ted to get rid of him because he went to the qc'
-NRC and kept bringing up issues to CorEd licensing (Exhibit 2, pp. 79, 108).
According to SHIRANI, during the 60 day time period following his dismissal, he had become aware ofjob openings. SHIRANI said he received a letter from ComEd's lawyers advising SHIRANI that he could not contact any employees or managers of the company, except those people in charge of nuclear safety concerns, because he had made disparaging remarks and would be dismissed for cause. He said that eve if he applied for a job, he knew he-wouldn't get it. ,
SHIRANI said his troublebea w hy U~~~ZN stated_=_l f in his matter was to serve RWE, KINGSLEY, an - (Eibit 2, pp. 73-76).
Agent's Note :Hl RNI to Internal Audit.
SHIRANI said prior t This performance rating in nuclear oversight was 1A, which was Highly Effecive Behavior-Outstanding. He said his ratings in 1998, 1999, and 2000 were reduced to lB. SHIRANI stated that during his first performance rating meetina e was rated at a 1A level According to SHIRANI, once his performance ratin
_s rating w reduced to 1B. SHIRANI recalled that told SHIRANI that he had to walk on water to deserve a 1A rating. SHIRANI saai so cited SHEANI's trip to Germany, whereupon SHIRANI spent $1,800.00 llars even though his budget was only $1,300.00 (Exhibit 2, pp. 83-86, 103).
Agent's Note: "1B" is Effective Behavior-Excellent.
NOT FOR CICDISCLOSURE WITHOUT ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREc CE OF INVESTIGA REGION m Case No. 3-2001-055 16
SHIRANI said everybody in Exelon knew abotit his issues wit e even S&L knew of the issues. He said he had a conver ation with n July 22, 1998, during which old him "Hys he di not agree with the way I handled myself (S lRA1l) at the GE." SHj described a conversation he had with Walter HAHN, title unknown, in which HAHN described a conversation he witnessed betWee r and JOYCE during a meeting in 1999. According to SHIRANI, HAHN told him'the conversation was in regards to SHIRANI's erformance rating. SHIRANI said HAHN ricaile tellingJOYCE that he _j had to give SHIRANI a better rating because he was est performer. According to SHIRANI, HAHN said JOYCE's response to was do you think *s going to let you?" SHIRANI denied that he had any irect proof oinvolvemenf in his transfer to Internal AudIit. SHIRANI cited HAHN's story as the only indirect involvement o (Exhibit 2, pp. 75, 85-86, 88).
Agent's Note: At no time his OI interview did SHIRANI state thatlwas present during the meetin g edly described to SHIRANI. SHIRANI did not e7c qu ote ein g present during the meeting.
SHIRANI said none of the 18 positions in the Chicago Internal Audit group have been filled (Exhibit 2, pp. 86-87).
SHIRANI said he was offered a severance package o
-vSHRANIsaid he was not going to accept it. According to Sa =AI, you are usually lai off because they have to reduce excess staff or because of poor performance. SHIRANI stated that everything was marked as "on target" on his last mid-year review. SHIRANI recalled that a comment that was written on the bottom of his review was "Oscar works very diligent in his work." SHIRANI surmised that since they were not reducing the size of the group, and because his rmid-year review was on target, the only reasons for his removal were political and safety concern related. SHIRANI said it related to his 1997 GENE and 2000 UST audits (Exhibit 2, pp. 86-88).
- According to SHEANI, on ber 8,2001 he met wit, Ok__rd I know you are making more tha t h-at Mat C-onffi."
SHIRANI reminded at he (SHIRANI) had a very good rapport with S&L. According to SHIRANI ded "Oscar, I'm not dispute. I know you deserve more than thati SHUZANI believe ths was a verbal job offer. SHUZANI said he wvas making
_w bs year at Exelon, whereasi Nis SHIRANI tol hat he. was not rejecting the job offer, but was exploring opportunity.
NOT FOR PUBLIC CLOSURE WIThQUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF IGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 17
According to SHIRANI old him that he would look at,his budget for 2002 and call him (SHIRANI) during the Thanksgiving holidays to firm up the offer. SHIRANI said he received a letter from S&L's HR department two days later, advising SHIRANI that S&L did not have any openings in their QA department (Exhibit 2, pp.96-100).
SHIRANI stated that Myra BURGESS, Manager of the Chemistry section at Exelon, asked him "Would you like to consider a manager or director position working for me?" SHIRANI told BURGESS that he was always looking for opportunity. He said she told him to contact her secretary to set up a meeting. According to SHIRANI, on the day of his meeting with BURGESS, BURGESS told him "I'm sorry, Oscar, that I raise your hope. My manager disagrees with my decision." S1IRANI sai RM said the reasons she gave him was that she could not support his appointment and that she had to run it by her managers (Exhibit 2, pp. 102-103).
Coordination with NRC Staff On November 19, 2001, an ARB requested that OI initiate an investigation to determine whether Exelon management deliberately discriminated against SHIRANI for raising safety concerns, in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 and 50.5 (Exhibit 4).
On May 20, 2002, an ARB requested that OI initiate an investigation to determine whether S&L blacklisted SHIRANI from gaining employment as a result of the safety concerns SHIRANI raised while employed by Exelon, in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 (Exhibit 5).
Coordination with the Regional Counsel This investigation was initiated with the concurrence of the NRC:RIE Regional Counsel, Bruce BERSON, who advised that - egia Cou On January 7 2002, BERSON was furnished a copy of SHIRANI's transcript for review to determine 2002, BERSON indicated that after reviewing SHIRANI's transcrip um mexhibit 3).
Review of Documentation The following documents were obtained and reviewed in relation to this case.
NOT FORP SCLOSURE WITHO PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTR CE OF INVESTIGA¶TS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 18
Report of Telephonic Contact between Special Agent (SA) Langan and SHIRANI, dated May 3, 2002. SHIRANI stated that he was blacklisted from getting ajob at S&L, by S&L. SHIRANI believed that Karaman Consultants, Incorporated (KCI) and Engineering Management Specialist (EMS) did not participate in a scheme to blacklist him from gaining employment (Exhibit 6).
Written statement from SHIRANI, dated May 3, 2002. SHIRANI stated that he had a paid job at KCI, working 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> a week (Exhibit 7).
E-mail from SHIRANI to Jim HELLER, NRC:RII Staff, dated May 14,2002. SHIRANI provided information on three managers from S&L that allegedly asked about SHIRANI during a meeting with ALSAMMARAE (nfi), of KCI (Exhibit 8).
A package of documents titled "Prepared by Oscar B. Shirani for USNRC on December 3, 2001,"
with attachments, provided by SHIRANI to the NRC. The documents restated information that was originally provided by SHIRANI during his 01 interview (Exhibit 9).
EICS document, titled Alleger Visit, undated. The document restated blacklisting information that was originally provided by SHIRANI during his 01 interview (Exhibit 10).
SHIRANI's Charge of Discrimination, as filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charge number 210A20477, dated November 5,2001. SHIRANI claimed that he was fired because he frequently complained about Exelon's unjust treatment toward Asian employees (Exhibit 11).
Letter from Alice BURKE, Assistant General Counsel for Labor and Employment, Exelon, dated December 21, 2001. BURKE stated that there is no basis for SHIRANI's EEOC complaint and that the company's decision not to place SHIRANI in the Internal Audit manager position was for legitimate business reasons (Exhibit 12).
- EEOCDismissal and Notice of Rights, dated January 31, 2002. The EEOC dismissed SHIRANI's EEOC complaint because "...Based upon the Commission's investigation, the Commission is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes..." (Exhibit 13).
E-mail from SHIRANI to HELLER, with attachment, dated April 24, 2002. SHIRANI restated information that was originally provided by SHIRANI during his OI interview (Exhibit 14).
E-mail from SALEHI (nfi) to HELLER, dated March 16, 2002; Letter, sent via e-mail, from SALEHI to Bruce JORGENSEN, NRC:Rf Branch Chief, Division of Reactor Projects, thru NO NQ PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WI UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFIC CTOR, OFFICE OF INVES ONS, REGION IIl Case No. 3-2001-055 19
HELLER, dated December 29, 2001. SALEHI alleged that rtaliated against SHIRANI and himself for raising safety concerns during the GENE audit in 1997 (Exhibit 15).
Letter from Gary J. ANDERSON, Area Director, U.S. Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL/OSHA), to Robert HELFRICH, General Counsel for Exelon, dated February 11, 2002. Attached was a copy of SHIRANI's statement to DOIJOSHA, dated February 1, 2002. ANDERSON stated that SHIRANI filed a complaint with OSHA, alleging discriminatory employment practices in violation of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851. SHIRANI's statement restated information originally provided by SHIRANI during his OI interview (Exhibit 16).
E-mail correspondence from SHIRANI to Jim HELLER, NRC:RII Staff, dated March 28, 2002, with' a letter from SHIRANI to Roy REES, DOLJOSHA, dated March 27,2002. SHIRANI provided additional information to OSHA regarding his blacklisting issue (Exhibit 17).
Exelon's response to SHIRANI's DOLIOSHA complaint, as prepared by Scott E. GROSS, Attorney for Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood, dated February 19, 2002. GROSS stated that during the reorganization process of the Internal Audit department, SHIRANI refused to even be considered for the auditor position, of whicvould have placed him had he applied..
According to GROSS, SHIRANI acknowledge t at he lacked the professional accreditation, the supervisory experience, and the financial accounting experience that were requirements of the manager position, but he applied anyway. GROSS stated that SHIRANI was terminated because he was not placed in the manager position and had not applied for the auditor position. GROSS denied that SHIRANI was terminated because he raised safety concerns (Exhibit 18).
Copies of performance ratings for the following Exelon employees: Performance Year 2000:
SHIRANI (unsigned), rated 2B (Effective Behavior/Achieves Results-Meets; Performance Year 1999: SHIRANI, rated 1B (Effective Behavior/Exceeds Results-Excellent)
JExhibit 19).
Internal Resume, SHIRANI, generated on December 19, 2001. The internal resume identified SHIRANI's performance ratings as "B" ratings for 2001 and 2000. SHIRANI received two performance ratings for 1999, March 29, 1999, "B" rating, January 11, 1999, Meets All Expectations. SHIRANI's rating for 1997 was Excellent, 1996 Meets All Expectations, 1995 NOT FOR DISCLOSURE WIWOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECRFICE OF INVI1GATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 20
Meets All Expectations (+). SHIRANI's salary grade from January 1, 2001, to December 29, 2001, was level E4 (Exhibit 20).
Exelon Selection/Compensation Action (Revised) for SHIRANI, effective date January 1, 2001.
The document stated that SHIRANI received a promotion to the principle auditor, Salary Grade level I an E3 SHIRANI's salary increase wi 19% 0 fro anE3.(Exibt 21).
Exelon Career Opportunity System, Attachment 7.1 - Self-Nomination Form, Attachment 7.2 -
Resume Template, SHIRANI's resume, and the Management Career Opportunity Application submitted by SH6R, for the principal/mauager, Audit, Salary Grade E4 position, dated Octobe SHIRANI's application package to be submitted to the Exelon Employee Service Cente (Exhibit 22).
Exelon Nuclear Job Description - Management Position, Supplier Evaluation Lead in Exelon Nuclear, description date May 16, 2000; Candidate Summary for SHIRANI, signed by Tony BROCCOLO, dated July 21,2000; a copy of SHIRANI's resume; Candidate Summary for SHIRANI; John HELLER's, Title Unknown, notes from his interview of SHIRANI. Both candidate summaries indicated that SHIRANI needed development in building relationships, organizational agility, and managing conflict (Exhibit 23).
GARZA's notes regarding a meeting on October 30,2001, she had withUI and SHIRANI.
GARZA stated that SHIRANI was informed that effective immediately, he will transition his remaining projects so that he can focus his full attent7,Q orking with the outplacement firm.
GARZA said SH]RANI became agitated accuse d GARZA of wanting him out of qC the building because they thought he was a _ GGARA stated that when ft the room to get security, S told tier that they were in the diversity fight together and thattshould stop acting like "them"'.(Exhibit 24)..
Severance Package letter from Christopher LUIS, Severance Plan Administrator, to SHIRANI, dated October 26, 2001; SHERANI's Personalized Statement of Separation Plan Benefits. The business reason provided in the letter was that SHIRANI was being terminated because he had not been placed in the new organization. The letter stated the services being made available to SHIRANI. The Personalized Statement of Separation Plan Benefits stated that SHIRANI's severance pay amount was with other benefits and services being made available to SHRANI (Exhibit 25).
SHIRANI's Candidate Assessment forms.for the manager, Internal Audit position, October 22, 2001; Exelon Performance Planning & Appraisal, mid-year performance reviefor SHIRANI, dated July 17, 2001; E-mail from Darren ZURAWSKI, title unknown, to c dated NOT FOR PUBL ISCLOSURE WITH~ APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO, I OF IN ESTI NS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 21
October 16, 2001; SHIRANI's Performance Evaluation-Professional Audit Staff, end date October 11, 2001; SHIRANI's Performance Evaluation-Professional Audit Staff, end date August 17, 2001. SHIRANI was rated as "On Track" (Exhibit 26).
Various Meeting Notes made by PALACIO regarding SHIRANI and his issues. The notes restated information that was originally provided by SHIRANI during his 0I interview (Exhibit 27).
GARZA's notes from a telephone conversation between GARZA and SHIRANI, dated October 11, 2001. GARZA stated that SHIRANI expressed concern about not meeting the required criteria for ihe manager position level E4. GARZA noted that SHIRANI did not indicate an interest in applying for any other positions (Exhibit 28).
Exelon Internal Audit Services document showin nticipated organization chart for the 1G Internal Audit group; Letter from HELFRICH, date pn 1'6, 2002.'The letter and organization cphart identify the locations of the manager and senior auditor positions in the new organization.
HELFRICH stated that SHIRANI applied for the manager position, but did not apply for the senior auditor position (Exhibit 30).
Various e-mails involving SHIRANI, for the time period of August 9, 2001 to October 30, 2001.
In an e-mail sent by SHIRANI on October 30 2001, SHIRANI said he was originally brought IC into Internal Audit as an E4 _ C odified the position requirements and he was not qualified for the new position. SHIRANI stated that he did not apply for the E3 graded position in Internal Audit because his salary was at the maximum level of E3 and he would have gone above the salary band for E3 (Exhibit 31).
Letter from SHIRANI tated November 26,2001, Letter from P.J. MEEHAN, Manager of HR for S&L ed vember 28, 2001; Letter fiom MEEHAN t N dated November 27, 2001; Letter from SHIRANI to Paul WATELET, Senior Partner at S&L, dated January 14, 2002; Larry JACQUES, Partner atS&L, notes of a telephone conversation he had wi 1 SH1RANI on December 14,2001. SHIRANI's letter, dated November 26, 2001, stated ihai rerbal offer would be negotiable and that he looked forward to receiving a written offer corig the verbal offe'r. MEEHAN's letter, dated November 28, 2001, stated that all hiring decisions at S&L go through the HR division. MEEHAN stated that no offer of employment was made to SH)RANI. JACQUES noted that SHIRANI made a verbal threat to him in regards to NRC regulations that protect individuals who raise safety concerns and that SHIRANI wanted to remain a "good friend" to S&L (Exhibit 32).
Agent's Note: The notes, dated December 14, 2001, are of a telephone conversation between SHIRANI and an unnamed party. Based on SHIRANI's statements during his NOT FOR OSURE WITHO 4JWROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOCE OF INVESTIG REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 22
OI interview, and in his letter to WATELET, OI determined that the notes were most likely made by JACQUES (Exhibit 2, pp.95-101; Exhibit 32, pp. 4 -6 ).
Letter, with attachments, from lIELFRICH, dated June 14, 2002. The attachments identified numerous internal quality control issues identified by GENE prior to, and during SHIRANI's 1997 GENE audit (Exhibit 33).
Review of the DOL Report On June 3, 2002, DOIJOSHA sent a letter to GROSS, notifying Exelon that based on the evidence gathered during the DOL/OSHA investigation into SHIRANI's discrimination allegation against Exelon for raising safety concerns, DOUJOSHA determined that "That the evidence did not support your (SHIRANI) position that you were terminated due to raising safety
& health issues to management or the NRC" (Exhibit 34).
Agent's Note: The DOL/OSHA Final Investigative Report had yet to be received by OI during the preparation of this report.
OI Violation No. 1: Discrimination Against a Principal Auditor For Vendor Audit Findings Evidence
- 1. Protected Activity SHIRANI stated that he served as the lead auditor during the audit of GENE. According to SHERANI, the audit team came up with twelve findings against GENE, which resulted in a stop work order being issued against GENE (Exhibit 2, pp. 10-15).
SHIRANI recalled that in July of 2000, he served as the lead auditor on the NUPIC team that conducted an audit of the Holtec/UST DSQG project. SHIRANI wrote in the Holtec/UST audit summary that the NRC inspection, which occurred six months prior to his audit, did not come up with any issues, nor did a NUPIC audit conducted in approximately 1999. SHIRANI said his audit came up with nine findings against Holtec, which he shared with LANDSMAN, NRC:RII, during a symposium hosted by Holtec on November 30, 2000. He said the symposium also included representatives from approximately 20 utilities and the NRC (Exhibit 2, pp. 34-38; Exhibit 10, p. 4).
- 2. Knowledge of SHIRANI's Protected Activity An wcknowledg d that they were aware of SHIRANI conducting an audit of NOT FOR PUBLkDISCLOSURE WITHOUT4&PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC T FICE OF INVESTIGANQNS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 23
GENE in 1997, and the subsequent issuing of a stop work order (Exhibit 36, pp. 19-21; Exhibit 38, .pp. 11-25).
ecalled that SHIRANI worked on the DSQG audit and had findings of different significance levels _ did not recall SHIRANI working on DSQG audit (Exhibit 36, pp. 57-58; Exhibit 38, pp. 32-33).
w iRecalled SHIRANI telling* about an audit he did while working in nuclear, whereupon both Exelon management and the Vendor disagreed with his findings. did not recall SHIRANI mentioning any audit he conducted on the DSQG or Holtec xhibit 37, pp. 8, 11)..
lid not recall SHIRANI raising any safety issues in regards to Exelon.id acknowledged that SHIRANI mentioned his role in the 1997 GENE audits in the context of his displeasure of not being promoted to a manager position. ecalled S mentioning wha ermed safety issues in "broadbrush terms" of a safety subset siwas uncertain whether those issues were really safety issues or compliance issues. - aid n was under the impression the issues were more compliance related, not necessarily safety related (Exhibit 35, pp. 13-14, 19-20, 30).
ecalled SHIRANI mentioning, to impress upon t i ensity of his work on DSQG and the realm of SHIRANI's aud' abilities in general was unclear as to what type of concerns SHIRANI had raised tated that4Swas not aware that there was even an issue with dry cask storage sald *as not amiliar with UST in relation to SHIRANI.
cknowledged that S did riot mention nyti specific safety issues from his work on the GENE and DSQG audits (Exhibit 35, pp.26-30j.
- 3. Unfavorable Action Taken Against SHIRANI SHIRANI said that he was interviewed for the manager position in Internal Audit SHIRANI stated that told him on October 26,2001, that he did not get the position and U provided him a package of documents which advised him that he was being severed from the aolnpany (Exhibit 2, pp. 66, 94-95).
According to SHIRANI, Mario (Last Name Unknown) told him that he was demoted when Exelon converted from the numeric pay levels to the roman numeral pay levels (Exhibit 2, pp. 105-107).
SHIRANI said prior t 3 his performance ratings in Nuclear Oversight were 1A, which is outstanding. He said his ratings in 1998, 1999, and 2000 were reduced to IB.
SHIRANI stated that during his first performance rating meeting GMhe was rated at NOT FOR PUB> 2ISCLOSURE WITHOIT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT O CE OF INVES TI ONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 24
a 1A level. According to SHIRANI, once his performance rat 0Mf jlhis rating was reduced to lB (Exhibit 2, pp. 83-86, 103).
SHTRANI said the company gave him the opportunity to apply for a manager position during the merger process. He said he had four positions that he could nominate himself for, and that the company said he could ask his supervisor to, and his supervisor should, nominate him for two other positions. SHRANI said id not nominate him for the two additional positions (Exhibit 2, p. 42). -
- 4. Did the Unfavorable Action Result from SHIRANI Engaging in a Protected Activity Aacknowledged that they understood 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 50.7, which addressed the issue of discriminating against an employee for raising safety concerns (Exhibit 36, pp. 12-13; Exhibit 38, pp. 7-8).
stated tha did oj work in the nuclear organization, nor didiweceive training in 10 CFR 50.5 and 5t .7 sai had training re ardin sexual harassment and potential discriminatory issues that come up durin interviews denied receiving training in 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.7 (Exhibit 35, pp. 7-8, 112; Exhibit 37, pp. 7-8).
described SHLRANI's attitude and demeanor during his (SHIRANI's) audit of GENE as one of the most blatant displays of arrogance, narrow- ded, stubborn, pig-headed behaviors that he had ever seen in a professional environment, aid the items SHIRANI-raised at the exit meeting were nothing of any content, the issue-was one of context.aid he already knew GENE had problems with quality prior to SHIRANI's audit.
and making ipo nts. _ _ g A _ th quality, procedure pro essand compliance fstated that It was a very exhaustv ad extensive progra .rcle that thbey were foutofv months into the program when SI1IRANI conducted his audit. SHMANI9s audit identified a narrow documentation issue, aerwor issu aid SHIRANI refused to look at their (GENE) documentation. denied osing his temper or yelling at SHIRANI during the exit meeting. eced that he has never, in his career, experienced behaviors like S L's aid he spoke with WALDINGER about how SHIRANI conducted the audit an d hat was implemented to improve GENE's quality. He said that he and GER recognized that WALDINGER had a behavior challenge in SHIRANI. aid he and WALDINGER worked together to resolve the issues from the audit. stated that the stop work order was subsequently lifted. According to as receiving accolades within three m th of it's implementation from CornEd's QA dep ment and other components of ConEd.said NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS URE WITHOUT A OVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFI NVES TIGATI OR GION III Case No. 3-2001-055 25
the accolades were for the program's improvements to quality (Exhibit 33; Exhibit 38, pp. I1-26).
enied forcing _WALDINGER or NETZEL out of the company because of their support of SHIRANI as unaware of whether NETZEL had left the company (Exhibit 38, pp. 24-26).
According intent t out SHIRANI to discuss his s) behavior du d he told SHIRANI that '2C he did not have any problems with the issues identified by , but that he thouaht there were more effective ways that SHIRANI could have handled the situation, stated that he offered his assistmnceto SHIRANI in helping him find ways to handle interactions more effectively in the future.irealled SHIRANI reacting very positively to his comments.
onsidered SHIRANI's response as a little bit of an acknowledgment that perhaps he (SE ) could have handled the audit more smoothly. said he pointed out to
,,,,W omoniior;,SHIRANI's performance because that SHIRANI's performance at the GENE audit was not very effective. aid he informed KINGSLEY that he had a 'clearing-the-air discussion" with SHIRANI (Exhibit 38, pp. 27-29, 37-39).
aid that when the SES function was or the Nuclear QA organization, SHIRANI S tated that the SES group subsequently was moved from the A
-organization to the uprganizganization. aid SHiRANI was then under would have worked in that branch. I was at least Nwo s'teps reoe roS __6 e, ing with BURGESS about S getting the diversity manager position in nuclear. ie influencing in any fashion,'es ecially in a negative manner, SHIRANI getting the diversity manager position. denied being aware that SHIRANI was the lead candidate for the diversity manager position. aid he could not imagine BURGESS having any connection to the diversity manager position because she was the manager of the Chemistry section. acknowledged that BURGESS, in her role in the area of the Chemistry section, did not have the authority to offer the anyone the diversity manager position.
acknowledged that he did not have any input into the US manager interviews, nor was he aware that SHIRANI had applied for the position. ie that h e tvegl influencedior IC instructed anyone'against SHIRANI getting the SES manager position.denied speaking with BROCCOLO regarding SHIRANI and the~ SES manager position. i I=o _ transfer SHIRANI to the Internal Audit group Itated that he was unaware that had even transferred to Internal NOT FOR PUBLI OSUREW1 %UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, O OF IN S , REGION Im Case No. 3-2001-055 26
Auditocknowledged that he was unaware of SHIRANI being demoted.
denied being aware of SHIRANI having to reapply for his position in Internal Audit.
denied speaking'vith HERTZ and MAKRAS regarding SHIRANI. enie speaking to HICKMAN about SHIRANI and/or the diversity manager position (Exhibit 38, pp. 39-42, 44-50).
IIHIRANI's job prfor'mance for 1998, 1999, and 2000 H Ias nenfor each of those years. 1
- q_ _8or'1998, 1999, and 2000, however, SHIRANI would-not know that because an em loyee's perormance ratings are not shalred with the other empoes_.
perfrance were never cagdted that SUR~ et tat if he was not rated at the top rating level, he felt he was not being treated fairly.lcowledged that SHIRANI reacted that way with each of his performance ratings. said that he did not believe SUERANI deserved the highest ratin cause of the quali HIRANI's written work.
product having any input regarding SHIRANI's performance rwledge that there was no spot on SHIRANI's performance evaluations fo r sign off (Exhibit 36, pp. 18-19, 21-27, 29-31).
aid he was unaware of SHIRANI's performance ratings.
gn on SHIRANI's performance ratings. in eniede.
iestruct-at he wanted either of them to lower 's performance ratin ;lDenied instructing anyone to lower SHIRANI's performance ratings. 7C aidhewas unaware of SHIRANI's performance ratings being lowered. HELFRICH's etter sated that SHIRANI's performance ratings were not downgraded (Exhibit 30, p. 2; Exhibit 38, pp. 41-44).
elieved that u e merger process, employees could put in forjobs using the company's web page. nderstood that nuclear was not using the web page, however, they (referring to management) were not stoppin employees from applying forjobs that they were interested in that were outside of nuclear. cknowledged that during the merger process, he asked employees what they would be interested in doin includin S According t- i NOT FOR P IC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT AVPROVAL OF FIELD H OFFICE DIREiFFICE OF INVESTIGANS, REGION III
,~. 4 rWa At 1WU. -w-Jvase o. 32001055 -
7I
he recalled SHIRANI expressing an interest in ositions inside and outside of nuclear, one such position was the osition that was oc iHedANI w _ _ ecalled U1e_S telling him that he interviewed beDieved that he responded to SHRANI's e-mail requesting nomination for different jobs, by sending an e-mail to SHIRANI advising him that he was out of the office when SHRANI sent the e-mail and that.nuclear was not using the web a e system.
recalled SHIRANI coming to his office later agitated and tellingothat be was not omg what was required of h imnlie was out of compliance for not using the web page system ecalleTthat SHIRANI felt he should have been a vice-president of Exelon and was not being'treated f According to SHIRANI said he brought his concerns to HR and KNGSLEY. lled tat M was not happy with HR's response to his issues. s e told SHIRANI that he understood he was ed, but a as not directed to use the system and had done nothing wrong.
said he was worried about S 's agitated state and sent an e-mail to HR asking what he could do for S said hen untly provided an o0 SRANI cknowledged that he was unaware of whether SHIRAN used the r not (Exhibit 36, pp. 3240).
ecalled that after the merger, SHIRANI accused him of being a racist because he kept 1 C" SHRN nhsWU as an auditor so that~b eelcoul be successful throuh S N on~e ~outside Des n sstate z~sp de ML&MIRN by telling him" that he was-a good auditor that a b teshoa not. acknowledged that SHIRANI was an integral part Stated that he responded to SHIRANI's comment about him being a racist by telling SHIRANI that he took personal offense to his conmnent and that he had never treated SHIRANI other than rofessionally and fairy.
recalled that he also asked SHIRANI to leave his office. aid SHIRANI di Dot leave his office, but did apologize later for his comeit. sa SHIRANI felt the whole company was racist against him personal ackn owledged that SHRANI did not provide any proof for his a to n enied that anyone came tohimre tat SHIRANI work for him. a e at came to him anid asked i could get him a se ckageound time the merger concluded, in the Augustl.Octo rof 2000, time frame. ckkowledged that in his dealings with SHIRANI, outside of being accused of being a racist, SHIRANI did not state that he was being poorly or wrongly treated because he had raised safety issues (Exhibit 36, pp. 41-48, 87).
denied being pressured to quickly resolve the DSQG audit. p id not recall him that he disagreed with the way SHIRANI handled hi self at the GENE audit. denied telling SHRANI, in July of 1998, that as not forgotten NOT FOR PUJkDISCLOSURE WITHOQLAPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INVESTIGNS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 28
about you. He still seems an almost after a year, almost one year after the GE audit?"
said that th , as not forgotten abou...." statement sounded more like something S wding to he did tell SHIRANI that he would probably outlas aid he made that statement to SHRANI because SHIRANI was "...always, always very worried abou developed this concluso based on SHIRANI's statements tha as upset wi n th GENE audit. *dhe had no indication that S s worries regardin eing upset with him were true (Exhibit 36, pp. 70-72).
ecalled SHIRANIapproaching him for career advise, and counsel: said SHIRAN askeiie would be supportive ofSHIRANI appl oooher positions.
aiud he miate to SHIRANI that he would -be supportive. enied that SH1 RAtold him that he (SHIRANI) had been treated negatively or as harassed by ?C management2 did not recall receiving any e-mails from SHIRANI regarding any negative or harassing treatment.by management (Exhibit 38, pp. 37-38).
tated that SHIRANI believed as influencing the direction of his career after he was in nuclear ac owledged that SHIRANI did not provide any proof for.hi statements o I d t bliev S had directeraction whlewasa . sal pkdSe ke who he was. l id iotreca Iayn "yes", however, based on HRANrs response estio though did not even know who S person. id not rec1S informing f any comments tha ade to him (SHIRANI): According t SHIRAN never E spoke to afic treatment toward SHIRANI.[ ecalled SHIRANI believin j was nonetheless an, obstacle to him getting a manager position becau ot in trouble as a result of SHIRANI's audit (Exhibit 35, pp. 20-24, 3740; Exhibit 37, pp. 9, 12).
_=2 iid not recall having any conversations wi e ng SHIRANL aenea ever neaung anyone, other than SIUKtJN1, state tnatpwvasupset or angy we SHIRANI. didn't recall SHRANI ever.describing his relationship wi to bit 35, p. 37; Exhibit 37, pp. 9-1 1).
tated hat feedback received from Arthur Anderson and i dce to at SHMAffiad a difficult time understanding his ros aiblities while in Inte'al Audit. aid Duane DESPARTE, Partner at Afthur Andersen, brought to ttention that S dinot interact well with an audit client. said DESPARTE reled to at SHIRANI told the audit client what they did wrong, what and how they would fix it, and was overbearing with the audit client. ecalled MAKRAS telfiiig- of a separate incident involving SHIRANI, during which he conducted himself in a similar fashi6n as NOT FOR PUBL>SI OSURE WITHOUT ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, O F INVESTIGA REGION II Case No. 3-2001-055 29
- * ( -
DESPARTE had describ tated that Internal Audit does not interact with audit clients that wa 1 described Sp as an individual who liked to be in control. According to SHIRA would take "kernals" of AACES concerns and use them to promote issues mporta, t to him, with the possibility of him getting a promotion or better job out of it '7C SHIRANI regarding his practice of taking AACES issues beyond members':intentions (Exhibit 35, pp. 4249).
cknowledged that Exelon made a decision to rebuild the Internal Audit function.
According tqExelon had approximately five emplo yees in Philadelphia, and an outs ourced fncton performed by Arthur Andersen. tated SHIRANI was the first Exelon auditor hired during the rebuilding of the Internal Audit function in the Chicago office (Exhibit 35, pp.-43-44).
believed SHIRANI showe tremendous amount of disrespect. B id during 2000, SHIRANI-was dis ~
_MMT2~ ated th, t -SHIRANIwas insulted that his Kim aav~=speYculated that SH]AImay have felt the value of his position detracted because he 35, pp. 51-52).
aid SHIRANI was very unhappy and disappointed with nuclear because he was still'an in ividual contributor and not a manager yet which was a consistent tfier H said in Decem 0 SHRANI ask or aposition i_
According nde SHIRAM at the merger dtidpost mere placementof peole poud ustl )t been comuplete oldsaid the jobs that remained unfilled were positions heavy in finande duties.
sald SHIRANI that he did not have a finance background and was not a finance aid IntemIal Audit would be comprised of 27 people said SHIRANI fe t very strongly about making the transitio ledged tha
t SHIRANI the position of principal auditor, hich was an individual contributor.
HIRAANI a supervisory position, because there were no employees to ise.
- ssal ew SHIRANI did not have a financial ba round, but dnot require sucha background. sition that did auditingwhich felt SHIRANI was I o performr, vith co pliance experience. hat the opportunity to build SHIRANI's financial auditing skills could be done over tim said this developrient would occur
'through on thejob training and accessing the Arthur Andersen developmental course and training recalled speaking to DESPARTES and George HERTZ, Director of Internal NOT FOR PUB IC>)LOSURE WITHOAWPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, ( ,E OF INVESTIGAINQNSREGION in Case o. 32001-55 s Case No. 3-2001-055 So0
efore as hired, about SHIRANI's training and development. According to DESPARTES agreed to make all the course material available to Exelon, who would then make it available to SHIRANI. aid asked HERTZ to make training materials from an association of internal auditors available to S RANLid not know if SHIRANI attended any of the training because he immediately got into the audit work (Exhibit 35, pp. 58-66,72).
- M *aid SHIRANI provided information to in regards to his current grade level and performance rating for'2000. called learning of discrepancies in the information provided by SHIRAN[, specifically his grade level, performance rating for g000, and lead candidate status for the diversity position in uclear. According t when SHIRANI
_c contacted LANDY, Nuclear HR, and was told.
that SHIRANI's performance rating was notat {he "A" level that SHIANI had told tbut at was actually at a lower level.q said LANDY informed* that SHIRANI's pay level was actually lower than the level told f by SHIRANI tated that approximately three months prior to this matter, a new rating scale referrin to pay scale) was introduced, causin some grades to merge with other ades.
1lc through this experiencel said a lot of employees went throu h this and those that had a salary above their new pay scale continued to receive their old pay. those employees would never get a decrease in their salaries and would not lose mone acknowledged that the new rating scale came into effect before SHIRANI came to work for Internal Audit.
Knowing this information -aid fbrought these discrepancies to SHIRANI's attention, whereupon SHIRANI told hat his pay grade level had been secretly downgraded (Exhibit 35, pp.:52-58, 68-69, 74).
recalled that SHIRANI toldlthat HR had evaluated all of th evels in Finance and his position was subsequently'bumrpeddown from a level 4 to a level 3. lieved that the reevaluations were actually conducted corporate-wide, in an effort to create corporate-wide consistency did not believe SHIRANI lost any pay and benefits because of the level reductibn san knows this based on SHIRANI tellin that only his level, nQt his
' title, was eftected. did not recall-SHR eANaever discussing witithat his
. performance, rating was secretly reduced. salid notjump to the conclusion that SHIRANI had deliberately misledlyegaring his perfo anc rating and grade level since~.
knew that SHIRANI tended to project what he believes. enied y personal knowledge, or of being aware of anyone reducing SHIRANI's performance ratings'. aid that repeatedly told SHIRANI that he was under no obligation or duress to take the position i organization, he could remain in nulear tated that SHIRANI's reaction to s was to attribute it to somebody eise's.doing and not hims said* told SHIRANI that he should go back and think. about what:' he wanted to do X ecalle tat during a conference call with LANDY, and possibly Virginia BROWN, from HR 'asked LANDY. whether NOT FOR P IS CLOSURE WIkIT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTNSEOF TION, REGION III
_ v NoA.
C - s0 1- 5 a3-2001-055 31 Case No. a. " 31
SHIRANI was the lead candidate for the diversity position in nuclear. A6o din to LANDY tol hat SHIRANI was not being considered for the position. ecalled a discussion with HIRANI regarding the position in Finance and the diversity manager position in nuclear. Accordin to he asked SHRANI if either job had been offered to him at that point in time _ SHIRANI responded "No. Not at this time."
acknowledged that he did not contact anyone in regards to SHERANI and eit er position (Exhibit 18; pp. 4-5; Exhibit 35, pp. 54, 68-69, 74-76, 111; Exhibit 36, pp. 61-62; Exhibit 37, pp. 17-18, 4748).
Accordin t l a wek after nployment discussions with S
_ H LRANI called and told he would like to pcept the position in Internal Audit. ecalled telling SH as delighted with his decision and was looing forward to having him involved in the Inteal Audit function..J bough bad previously given SHIRANI preliminary salary and benefits information regarding his trans er to theposition of principle auditor. " 'ic
- for SH]RANI being hired into Internal Audit I (Exhibit 35, pp. 69-73, 76, 79).
Rec recalled doing a comparisonibetween the osition SHIRANI would occupy and the
- existing positions in Philadelphia.JAccording t. since SHIRANI's'ay grade level was actually below what was lead to believe by S9 a higher grade
-level, which included a'higher dollar promotion Accoring to SHIRANI's self-nomination form and other Exelon documents, SHIRANI was promoted and remained, an E4 when he entered Internal Audit, until the time of his termination aid that based on SHIRANI's rating in nuclear, he also received a erit increase aid SHIRANI received both, a promotional and merit increase. said S wasmng promo-ted to the grade level that he thought he was at previously (Exhit 20; Exhibit 21; Exhuibit 22; Exhibit 35, pp. 52-53, 72-73).
believed *ob rotations were very positive for your career and the c oration. .i cknowledged, from perspective&,SHIRANI lea ,,g his engineering background for aosioninInternal Audit w not an un al transfer. stated that his transfer could be beneficial to his career and the corporation. said that i elt otherwisewould have sted to SHIRANI that there was virtually no pportunity ~rm in finance., According t when SHIRANI accepted the position in Internal Audit, expressed to him that he ought to o oselywith HERTZ and Arthur Andersen to really advantage of learning on the job. sai through the audit plan to determine which audits would be benf i£ to S d not recall whether SHIRANI worked on any of those audits. s aid during with &toldhim that they needed to broaden his experience said SHIRANI agreed. aid'SHIRANI's overall performance on his mid-year evalu on was NOT FOR PBL CLOS THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO FICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2001-055 32
aont ckpsaid there were areas for SHLRASI to develop and improve. iAccording to ?C
_ \tRANT did not disagree with his mid-year evaluation until he applied for the princap elmanager position (Exhibit 35, pp. 77-79; Exhibit 37, pp. 22-24).
said the strategic assessment was conducted in June and July of 2001. elieved fe ternal Audit jobs, which were osted internall at Exelon, were pOsed in th August/September time frame. recalle expressing to that SHLRANI was adamant t hat he very much wanted to considered as a manager in the Internal Audit function. acknowledged that the new Internal Audit function defined p ncipal auditor io differently than when SHIRANI first came to Internal Audit. ecalled, and corroborated, thafd iscussed with SHIRANI that a managerial level position that was r b athis grade level -mihtrequire more direct experience than he brings to the position. wledged that pointed out the qualifications for the manager position to SHRANI called meeting ith GARZA. and SHIRANI, to tell SHIRANI that he did not get the manager osition (Exhibit 12, pp. 4-5; Exhibit 28; Exhibit 37, pp. 16-17, 28-29, 31, 34-38,40).
elieved that althouglthe time frame for applying for olir positions had technically expired, GARZA was going to allow SHRANI to apply as an exception..
said all of the jobs were posted and made public. Rsaid the only position SHIRANI'applied for was the agerial position, for which he clearly did not have the credentials and e kedence to fill elt SHIRANI was not qualified for the manager position. aid did not author the ns for te manager position, the qualifications were determined by best practices in the industryrecalle ncouraging SHIRANI to put in for the n~~sition below the manager position, which wa the position he was currently occupying.
_l6recalled that GARZA encouraged SHIRAI ptly for the senior position, just in case he did not get the managerial position. sai ncouraged SHERANI to apply for every position below the manager level. According t' HIRANI did no for any of the positions below the manager level, including the senior auditor position, _ said the qualificatins for each job were identified in the job postings (vacancy announcements).
saidApecifically told SHIRANI what the job qdalifications were and in what areas he id not meet those qualifications. cknowledged that the five employees in the Philadelphia office had to reapply for their positions, of which only tw re selected for their-positions.
aid the other three employees were terminated., said four of the six existing employees in Internal Audit did not qualify for positions in the new Internal Audit function (Exhibit 35, pp. 83-87, Exhibit 37, pp. 28-30, 34-38, 40,42).
NOT FOR PUB\CDISCLOSURE WITHOb APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC FFICE OF INVESTI ONS, REGION m Case Noa-20,053 Case No. 3-2001-055. 33
. I ecalled SHIRANI telling GARZA nd shesolbaetkn i ie i AZ did not lose her temper, but instead s calmly advised SHIRANI ad nothing to do with the conversation. According t SRANI stoo u and then told them that they Tvere out to get him because they thought eeas a terroristi , said that his stad and heated tone had shake and G eft the meeting and ha contact secu r . called atince SHIRANI was using company equipment inappropriately and his beh c6ncerned ad security watch SHIRANI as h acked his belongings . aid SHIRANI turned in his company badge to security.
ecalled SHIRANI trying to subsequently get into to t dng on a later date, through 1saurity, but was stopped because he did not have a valid ID. d1aid
_ showed an e-mail from SHIRANI, whi are at had better watch out for an not tins According t.' eco ng increasingly concerned over SHIRANI's minc ased frequency of communication toWmhich was also becoming more heated (Exhibit 37, pp. 58-60, 62-68).
aid SHIRANI was serving as a principal auditor when started with Exelon.#e d ned the duties of principal auditor as someone who has a lite more responsibility that a senior auditor, but does not have the responsibilities of a mana r said a principal auditor would lead certain engagements and exercises. According t SHIRANI was qualified for, and was actually perfo ng, duties more in line with the senior auditor position'than the princ al auditor position. did not recall SHIRANI performing any lead" dutiesM sail spoke with M AKRScegarding SHIRANI's readiness to lead an audit. According to KS advise hat SHIRANI was not ready to lead an audit because SHIRANI ada tendency to draw conclus ons that were not necessarily based on the facts of the situation.
said Exelon does not like to demote an employee's title, and since SHIRANI indicated that his title was very important to him, they let him keep his title when Internal Audit was formed (Exhibit 37, pp. 13-16, 21-22).
recalled SHIRANI accusing during a meeting betwee and.
SHIRANL of bringing hirto In e i the false pret nses eing promoted to the vice president level quickly. P ndicatetha ever had a conversation with SHIRANI wher4 Rae such omise, nor didv S& specific 2La level and opportunity. cordin t -SHIRANI wit ledgred that SHIRANI told them that bad a plot to ruin SHIRANI's careers said she an = id not know what e talking about, nor did he elaborate, so they d not respond (Exhibit 37, pp. 53-56).
ecalled aeing concerned about SHIRANI's "crossing of the line" with audit clients, as well with SHIRANI's repeated disregard for their written communication protocol.
NOT FOR C DISCLOSURE WITHO PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE FFICE OF INVESTIG REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 34
ssalspoke to SHIRANI about his written communication and SHIRANI took geat o ense, bu continued to disregard the Internal Audit written communication protocol.
tated that Arthur Anderse a have spoken o SHIRANI regarding his written communications ecalled showin;opies of SHHUM's work tha 1C ecause he kept on commTutting e same errors over and over again (Exhibit 35; 9
pp. - .1 9 4 said SHIRANI told her that he did not apply for the senior-auditor position because the topf the band was w and he was already makin ollars.
recalled SHIRANI tellln 6hat his ability to move up in salary wouldn't be there. if he was.in that band. _I aid d SHIRANI that although SHIRANI's base salary w
!to HIRANI through the quarterly incentive program to keep him wiiole in his mind, from a salary perspective, old SHIRANI that the bands are reviewed annually or every other year, so therefore, it was quite possible for thertoof the band to be broadened, and thus he could get addYtal monetary gains; According to SHIRANI responded by telling them (GARZA and That t he did not want to step back a level in title and pay (Exhibit 37, pp. 36-37, 4345).
According to the criteria were technical experience and ability; industry experience; communication skills, which included written, verbal, and int ersonal skills; problem solving ability; creativity and, innovation; and leadership/teamwork. aid the leadership aspect was more applicable for those positions that were going to lead reviews, while the teamwork aspect was more'applicable for individuals that were working at the staff or senior levels ecalled that the four Ha employees not selected fell short in two or three of the criteria. ckiowledged three of the four employees not selected did not have a CPA or equivalent training (Exhibit 37, pp. 30, 70-76).
i- a S ha 1i er ositionsjin the West location (Chicago), TIC whiWi'thelocation SHIRANIhadpi aid there was one mari stion in the East location (Philadelphia) of which SHRANI di not apply. According to l he two people selected for the manager positions in the West location were rated and ranked higher than SHIRANI. acknowledged that SHIRANI's qualifications were not even close to the two individuals selected (Exhibit 37, pp. 3940).
said SH ANI's employment was terminated as a result of his havin n sed for any otherjob bsides the one posting that he was not selected. Accordin t o te nate SHIRANI. C enined talking wit n regards to finding a position in the organization for SM anyway (Exhibit 35, pp.04, 107).
NOT F(BLIC DISCLOSURE'%i¶WOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIiItOR, OFFICE OF INVTIONS, REGION II Case No. 3-2001-055 ' 35'
- aid SHIRANI's termination centered around his not wanting to apply for the position that was commensurate with his experience and background, and only being willing to apply for the manager position. stated that was not qualified for the manager position and was thus given notice of separation. id SHIRANI was encouraged to apply for positions otherthan the man al position. said Internal Audit conducts financial, operational, and IT audits. believed SHIRANI was qualified as a senior auditor on operational review acknowledged that there was a spot for someone with SHIRANI's qualifications as a senior auditor in Internal Audit to perform opefational audits and that would (
alsoparticipate as a team member for financial reviews until he got up to speed in that area.
stated thatthe osting process was straight forward and made clear to SHIRANI and ever one else. recalled memorandabeing provided to everyone, as well as meetings with E nd HR. ooall six of the existing employees regarding fhe new Intemal Audit structure, and the job posting process.
HR's e-mail, which identified the time line for the process afid decision imiaking period, to ial six employees. ccknowledged that the entire process was laid out for the employees, ncluding Se nied tha "lleviated from this practice in relation to SHIRANI.
called that information was provided to everyone regarding what happens when someone was not selected for ajob, what their termination date would be, and the details of their severance packages. said there would have been a strong likelihood that he would have been a successful candidate for those positions. knowledged that-the three people let go' from the copa~ad years of relevant, direct internal audit and financial experience, more than in. lenied that SHIRANI was terminated because he raised safety concerns.
d theoicial reason for SHIRANI's termination was because he was not selected for te postion that he applied (Exhibit 35, pp. 87-90, 108; Exhibit 37, pp. 31-33, 46, 67-69).
' aid the only perso f ecalled contacting regardi g S ty, who subsequently spoke with the loc police departments near residences because of some of SHIRANI's inflamed remarks toward them. as no aware of anyone in Exelon making any attempt to keep SHIRANI from getting employed anywhere (Exhibit 37, pp. 48, 51-53, 69).
ecalled another incident with where he alleged that there was a discriminatoiy tu against him. According t HIRANI's erorance at the level equivalent to meeting expectations on his mid-year evaluation felt it was a fair rating for someone who had been on the job for only six months. said the mid-year evaluation included areas for SHERANI to focus on imrovin recalled hearing a rumor that SHIRANI had asked KINGSLEY if he could leav d be placed back in nuclear (Exhibit 35, pp. 97-98).
NOT FOR PUBL IS CLOSURE WITHO iŽPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INVESTIG ONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 36
According oIi9I aaii SHIRnNI was stillwwerdn vhen
-nied having conversations with anyone at S&L, MS, NUPIC, and ASME regarding SX{LRANL SHIRANI last year, for him to attend an ASME conference during the time period thqi7teither chose not apply for his same position in Internal Audit, or after he was given notice of termination.
said SHIRANI did go to the conference and made his presentation (Exhibit 35, pp. 99, 10 -12; Exhibit 38, p. 31).
aid that during the merger process, nobody was required to nominate anybody for Zanyhin ecalled that there was a process by which managers could nominate individuals for jobs in addition to their self nominations s aid this process was not a requirement, it could be used at a manager's discretion (Exhibit 35, pp. 102-103).
- - locked a promotion for SIANIis ony amiliar wMcn name trough conversations with LUnMCM.-
en icnpatmg in a scheme to blacklist SHIRANI from gaining employment enied participating in any conspic t etSHIRANI out of nuclear and/or to punish SHIRANI for raising safety concerns n i ed harassing or intimidating SHIRANI to leave the company . aid he made overtures to be supportive to SHIRANI, in an effort to make sure that SILRAN[ had no reason to feel or suspect that vas going to harass or intimidate him. denied blacklisting SHIRANI from returning to nuclear.
q g in regards to 6MLAI. jcienec Cainwith &L, Karaman Co ants, NUPIC, ASME, or E regarding SHI I.
bar ,i~ntimidate, or push SHJRANI out of the opn.A lE _!~about any safety issues raised by SHIRANT. _
egarding She wanted ut of the compan denied influencing SHIRANI's exit from Exelondenied threatening or intimidating anyone under him to get SHIRANI out of the company (Exhibit 35, pp.99-101; Exhibit 37, pp. 48-50; Exhibit 38, pp. 29-31, 35-36, 50-
.52).
ecalled someone forwarding an e-m om HIRAN t a mi SHIRANI
_aid sent the e-maiII with a broad distribution, which included senior management and the AACES membership. eferred NOT FOR PUB DISCLOSURE WIfOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT iOCE OF INV IGATIONS, REGION III muas No. e Te 3-:jUU1-U.1).1) i-2UIUY jI Case No. :37
to SHIRANI's assumptions in his e-mail as his claim of injustices that had been done to him.
recalled intculaat SHIRANI cited concern s __
i id not recall whether SHIRANI cited safety concerns Moe e-'mail. According t nw re were a number of e-mails from ehe members and the leadefship of AACES pologizing or SHIRANI's behavio said they were aghast at why SHIRANI included them on an e-mail that was his personal business. SHIRANI's e-mail stated that he did not apply for the E3 grade position because his salary was at the maximum level for the E3 band (Exhibit 31; pp. 1-2; Exhibit 35, pp. 105-107).
entioned to him that tfiey did care for S said SHIRANI left because he was offered a position in Corport FiacHIRANI, ('
respond to two job postings, both of which.were promotion oppo ,9essaid that..
SHIRANI had asked him for help in moving up in the company. said h agreed that it was time for SHIRANI to move on. HIRAIRNM complete his paperwork for the diversity manager job. stated tha e was a little surprised to hear SHIRANI had another position because he didn't now anything about it until after SHJRANI was offered the position acknowledged that SHIRANI never complained about being pressured by or anyone else, to seek another position. According to' SHIRANI told him that he was taking the finance position because he w going to make mare.
money. ecalled SHIRANI telling him that the level of the position was not as high as
-he Would like, stated that be was pretty sure that SHIRANI was going to be gettin a promotion, otherwise he would not be taki the osition. acknowledged th did not contact him regarding SHIRANL Ied knowing who SHIRANI reported to in Finance. 11"_ denied being contacted b y regards to SHIRANI (Exhibit 36, pp. 53-56, 62-65, 82).
recalled being-asked by YESSIAN whether he had any job openings'!n his group.
IMdid not recall YESSIAN mentioning SHIRANI's name in the conversation. He said he /lb told YESSLAN that his present staffing levels, he didn't have any morebudgeted mone. r another person. said his staffing levels at that time wU-P He said his current staffing levels are the same. According to uring the past two years his staffln levels had been going down. He said he haseen contracting out work as neces s y aid when he was establishing the grade structure for his organizatioft in the new company, e had to send job descriptions to HR and they came back with ratings (grade levels) on the job d c ion owledged that he has not hired anvon October of 2001. denied that HIRANI asked to~comee~
denied being itld to with SHIRANI or to not bring Sl y _ '
(Exhibit 36, pp. 65-66, 83-84, 86-87).
NOT FOR PUB CLOSURE W[TH\APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREO CE OF INVESTINS, REGION m Case No. 3-2001-055 38
Agent's Note: OI speculates SHIRANI's call to YESSIAN may have initiated YESSIAN's solicitous call to (Exhibit 2, pp. 59-65).
said he was a ni_ 3 He acknowledged SHIRANI was
, which was an individual contributoracknowledged that an E3 is below an E4 (Exhibit 36, pp. 67-69;, 83).I did not recall BURGESS ever talking to him about SHIRANI working in her group.
said NETZEL retired from thempany. denied ever talking with i __garddng SHIRANI (Exhibit 36, pp. 56, 89). I .-. , -
sald SHIRANI mentioned to him that shortly af teN approached SHIRANI and made a point of telling SHIRANI that there were no hard feelings and that he was looking forward to working with SHIRANI _denied that SHIRANI had ever informed'him that ried to retaliate agaiiist SHIRANI for raising safety concerns.
enied that SHIRANI ever indicated to him that anybody at Exelon was retaliating againhim because he worked on the DSQG audit and raised a safety issue (Exhibit 39, pp. 9-12).
Agent's Analysis SHIRANI's claim that he was demoted when Exelon converted from the numeric pay levels to the roman numeral pay levels is incorrect. Management testimony and documentary evidence clearly showed that SHIRANI did not lose any pay during or after the conversion to the new pay scale.
Management testimony and documentary evidence indicated that SHIRANI's performance appraisals for 1998, 1999, and 2000 were not downgraded.
estified that managers were not required to nominate employees for positions during the merger process. Even SHIRANI testified that he understood it as managers "should" nominate their employees, indicating that it was not a requirement (Exhibit 2, p. 42).
In SHIRANI's statement to OSHA, he asserted that he was being nominated for the diversity manager position, which was a better paying position than w hat_
SHIRANI acknowledged in his statement to OSHA, thaeminded him that he was a grown up and could make up his mind regarding which position he should take.
SHIR! LNI askek _IIl In response to SHIRANI's request,
.NOT FO LIC DISCLOSURINTHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIR R, OFFICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION III s . 3- 1-Case No. 3-2001-055 39
The new position included a pay increase in excess ofr7,000.00, and a promotion from the E3 to E4 pay level. SHIRANI chose to take the position - as he also initiated the contact to nuclear HR to take his name out of the hat regarding the diversity manager position. Since May 21, 1990, SHIRANI's salary has always gone up (Exhibit 20; Exhibit 21; Exhibit 22).
In the summer of 2000, in anticipation of the October 2000 merger, Exelon reorganized. Internal Audit did not reorganize at that time due to the general auditor vacancy. However, following the arrival of ,Intemal Audit underwent a strategic Performance assessment in approximately -7C the Summer of 2001. The assessen
_provded this information to the HR department, whic then evaluated, graded, and titled the ositions for the appropriate pay levels following suit with the remainder of Exelon, and thus creating an organization that had positions consistently graded for pay and responsibility on a corporate-wide basis. Positions were created and/or changed to follow best industry practices. SHIRANI and the other employees of the Internal Audit organization were kept informed of each stage of this process. Since the positions changed, all of the employees in Internal Audit had to reapply for their positions, not just SHIRANL SHIRANI did not reapply for his current position, instead, he applied for the principallmanager position, for which SHIRANI knew he was not qualified. The qualifications for the new principal/mma rosition were identified in the vacancy posting, as well as covered with S _ SHIRANI was counseled on numerous occasions by a variety of people to apply for the senior auditor position, even though he was applying for the principal/manager position. SHIRANI stated in his e-mail that he chose not t6 reapplv for the senior auditor, E3, 1 cC position because his salary would have gone above the pay band. e'stified that SHIRANI was told that there were different ways for SHIRANI to still experience monetary gains at the E3 level, even though his salary was at the top of the band. Since SHIRANI was not selected for the principal/manager position, and because he did not apply for any other positions, he was notified of his termination. Durin the meeting when he was notified of his termination, SHIRANI accuse of terminating him because of his race/ethnicity, not because he raised safety concerns. estified that SHIRANI was only provided business reasons for his termination. Testimony indicated that SHIRANI was one of four employees, out of a total of six employees, in Internal Audit that did not get a position in the new organization.
-InSHURANI's EEOC complaint, he alleged that his employment was terminated because of his frequent complaints of unjust treatment for Asian Americans. In that same complaint, SHIRANI also alleged that he was discriminated against because he was A Mc SHIRANI made no mention that his termination was also because of safety concerns he raised while at Exelon. In fact, during the meeting in which he was told of his termination, SHIRANI accused management of firing him because of his race/ethnicity, not because he had raised safety NOT FOR PUBLIN CLOSURE WIThQUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTORICE OF INVEGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 40 t4:.
concerns.
S tddtheir oo 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 50.7 training. c enii d harassing or intimidating SHIRANI to leave the anf (a enied threatening or intimidating anyone under him to force SHIRANI out of the company. enied discriminating against SHJRANI.
SHIRANI had not been secretly demoted during Exelon's pay scale conversion, nor was SHIRANI's performance appraisals for 1998, 1999, and 2000 downgraded. Management in nuclear was not required to nominate SHIRANI for any positions during the merger. SHIRANI's termination was based on legitimate business reasons in that he was not selected for the principal/manager position, which was a position that SHIRANI knew he was not qualified, and because he did not apply for any other position.
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed, 01 did not substantiate the allegation that SHIRANI, a Principal Auditor, was discriminated against for raising safety concerns.
01 Violation No. 2: Discrimination by Blacklisting Against a Former Principal Auditor for Raising Safety Concerns Evidence
- 1. Protected Activity SHIRANI stated that he served as the lead auditor during the audit of GENE in 1997. According to SHIRANI, the audit team came up with twelve findings against GENE, which resulted in a stop work order being issued against GENE (Exhibit 2, pp. 10-15; Exhibit 10, p. 4).
SHIRANI recalled that in July of 2000, he served as the lead auditor on the NUPIC team that conducted an audit of the Holtec/UST DSQG project. SHIRANI wrote in the Holtec/UST audit summary that the NRC inspection, which occurred six months prior to his audit, did not come up with any issues, nor did a NUPIC audit conducted in approximately 1999. SHIRANI said his audit came up with nine findings against Holtec, which he shared with LANDSMAN, NRC:RLH, during a symposium hosted by Holtec on November 30, 2000, Which also included representatives from approximately 20 utilities and the NRC (Exhibit 2, pp. 34-38; Exhibit 10, p.4).
NOT FOR PUBLI SCLOSURE WITHOUT ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INVESTI GA 5, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 41
- 2. Knowledge of SHIRANI's Protected Activity cknowledged that SHIRANI spoke frequently about the 1997 GENE audit, but denied that SHIRANI ever mentioned any safety concerns said SHIRANI mentioned that he had audit findings that were significant, including a stop work order (Exhibit 39, p. 9).
cknowledged that SHIRANI mentioned some of his work on the DSQG audi i t denied that SHIRANI shared any safety concern that he had raised during the audit, but rather he (SH]RANI spoke bout how he (SHIRANI) resolved the issue he raised during the audit, demonstrating that there was not a safety concern (Exhibit 39, pp. 11-12).
- 3. Unfavorable Action Taken Against SHIRANI SHIRANI acknowledged that S&L did not hire him because of the safety issues he raised while at CornEd (Exhibit 10, pp. 1-4).
- 4. Did the Unfavorable Action Result from SHMRANTEngaging in a Protected Activity cknowledged that they understood 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 50.7, which addressed the issue otiscriminating against an employee for raising safety concerns (Exhibit 38, pp. 6-7; Exhibit 39, p. 7).
S&L for the division, stated that the hiring process for the QA division begins with the identification of ajob opening, identifying potential applicants, interviews, assessment of credentials after the interviews, and a decision as to whether to extend a job offer. said the job offer is extended by an employee from the HR division or the group manager, followed by HR sending a written job offer to the applicant that management wanted to hire. tated that the verbal offer is a qualified offer that is based on the applicant receiving a written offer from HR. a id there is no exception to this practice of extending an official job offer. acknowledged that it is S&L's standard practice that a job offer is truly not extended to an applicant until the applicant receives the offer in writing. acknowledged that SHIRANI did not receive a letter from HR because he was never offered aob lenied that or IC S&L extended any job offer to SHIRANI. aid the intent of the letter Pete MEEHAN, Manager of HR, sent to SHIRANI on November 28, 2001, was to clarify that no job offer was made to SHIRANI (Exhibit 32, p. 2; Exhibit 40, pp. 7-13).
_- . q -
eI aid SHIRANI mentioned to him that shortly afte approached SHIRANI and made a point of telling SH RANTthat there were no hard~heigs and that he was looking forward to working with .SHIRANL enied that SHIRANI had ever NOT FOR PUB C DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC OTICE OF INVESTIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 42
- ^
informed himn tha tried to retaliate against SHIRANI for raising safety concerns.
denied that SBJRANI ever indicated to him that anybody at Exelon was retaliating against him because he worked on the DSQG audit and raised a safety issue (Exhibit 39, pp. 9-12). 1 Q said SHIRANI'approached hinm in regards to SHIRANI switching employment to S&L.
I ccording t e series of scheduled appointments with SHIRANI were on an informal basis, it was noig to cancel. e enied that he canceled those appointments because somebody else had instructed him to can el. ecalled both of them and SHIRANI) canceling appointments stated that he was not aware that SHW NI was no longer an employee of ComEd until SHIRAI talked to him on November 8, 2001 (Exhibit 39, pp. 13-15).
SHIRANI acpowledged that none of his friends at S&L ever told him that did not meet him for lunc ecause of the safety concerns he raised while at ConEd. SHIRANI admitted that he was specuting as to why id not meet him for lunchiAExhibit 10, pp. 3-4).
- aid they met on November 8, 2001, at S&L's offices, e e called that they discussed SHIANI's employment situation. According tS HIRANI told him 1 C that he sent an e-mail to McNEIL (nfi), ROWE, and KINGSLEY. aid SHIRANI told him that he (SHIRANI) was subsequently asked to leave by security. ecalled that SHEIRANI felt ComEd finally had got him. denied that durin his conversation with SHIRANI, SHIRANI said it was because he raised safety concerns or equal employment issues (Exhibit 39, pp. 15-18).
According t d during the November 8, 2001, meeting with presented his career highlights, credentials, and accomplishments toenied that during this portion of the versation, SHIRANI had told him o any safety concerns that he has raised in the past. ecalled S A making an assumption that S&L had ajob opportunity for him (SH]RANI). aid S told him that "now is the time I need to make the transfer. When can I get started?"T tated that he told S t "slow down" and to talk about the type of work he was in erested in performing. denied that he verbally offered SHIRANI a position at S& enied that he o ered SHIRANI a position working on a specific job project enied offerin tge of employment opportunity to SHJRANI during their November 8,-2001, meetin . enied ever telling SHIRANI that he had any job openings in S&L's 'bit 29; Exhibit 39, pp. 18- - &
22).
c ecalled SHIRAM initiating a discussion about salary during their November 8, 2001, meeting. According to HIR ANI told him that he was earning approximately NOT FOR P k DISCLOSUREWIT OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC1 .L>FICE OF IN IGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2001-055 43
Ja year at ComEd. said SH I ollowed that statement by asking how much more S&L could give him. a aid he was surprised by SHIRANI's ated that he told SHIRANI that they were not talking about that kind of money at S&L that if they did have ajob openin S&L would palecalled S responding by telling that he could bring more business to S&L. According t SEHIRAN also discussed that he wanted a management position with management pay. said he and SHIRANI then C-7 spoke about title, bepefit packages, vacation time, and bonuses, as he would with any other candidate aid he told SHIRANI that he would contact him around the Thanksgiving holiday with either a job offer or no offer. Nicknowledged that in discussin this information, he was not confirming with SHIRANI that he had ajob at S&L. tated that he made it clear to SHIRANI that there was no job offer to S_
' said he told S &mft _,Wbut SHIRANI did not listen real well and may not have been aware of what he was told (Exhibit 39, pp. 22-25, 27-28).
jecalled receiving a letter from SHIRANI, datedrNovember 26, 20 aid
's letter contained assumptions that were incorrect suc the art the letter confirming that SHIRANI received a verbal offer fro Aaid he made no verbal offer of any type. stated that he brought the letter to MEEHAN and told MEEHAN that SHIRANI was badly mistakenecalled MEEHAN asking him, repeatedly, whether he made a verbal offer to S Stated that he reminded MEEHAN that he was a
. xmanager and that he did not make SHIRANI a verbal offer of employment. According to MEEHAN sent SHIRANI a letter apologizi if there was any kind of misunderstanding, but that there was no job offer. aid the letter advised SHIRANI that
-his resume would be kept on file for future consideration, if anything opeped up.
acknowledged that the letter was accurate and correct in stating that no offer was made to SHIRANI (Exhibit 32, Exhibit 39, pp. 29-32).
acknowledged that S&L's, as well as th ist drd practice for offering a position is that the offer conies from the HR department, not him. acknowledged that he 7C&
did not deviate from this practice in his dealings with SHIRANI (Exhibit 39, pp. 32-33).
denied hearing from SHIRANI after MEEHAN's letter was sent (Exhibit 39, p. 33).
aid he did have a candidate in the pipeline for a lower level position vacanc in the Chicago office, i _ S Astated that he hire,
__111=IW_ 2. .
MINNINEMMEW."M - _.,
had initiated employment discussions w 8,2001, meeting with SHIRANI. W 0aid SHIRANI was unaware of the office position opening.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS\OSURE WIThQUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 01aE F GATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 44
According to - e would have told SHIRANI about the position except for the fact that SHIRANI had stated -a strong position that he was after a managerial position with managerial level pay, wanted to interface with clients, and would develop business. %l fted that' based on SHIRANI's salary expectations, title expectations, and the mix of the work load, all of which were initiated in their conversation by SHIRA ANIid not discuss the office position opening with SHIRNI. Icknowledged that he did not make SHIRANI aware of the office position being open, nor did SHIRANI indicate to him that he was aware of the osition being o en. as better qualified for the position than SHIRANI.
ccepted the positiofi and a sal of approximatel year.
ledge that the official job offer tdname from the HR department, not ckoowledged that he did not have any other openings in November (Exhibit 32, p. 3; Exhibit 39, pp. 35-41).
stated neither lie nor e seat S&L were informed b ot to hire SH was not aware of anyone else from Exelon advising anyone at S&L that they shoulnot hire SHIRANI. nmed that he or anyone at S&L contacted Exelon regarding SHIRANI. enied being part of a conspiracy to keep SHIRAN fro gaining employment in the nuclear and/or non-nuclear businesses. IC denied partin a conspiracy to keep SHIRANI from gaining employment at S&L or anywhere else. denied being instructed by anyone at S&L or Exelon to keep SHRANI from gainiing employment (Exhibit 39, pp. 3940; Exhibit 40, pp. 10-11).
lenied participating in a scheme to blacklist SHIRANI from gaining employm e t:jenied participating in any consp toet out of nuclear and/or to punish SHIRANI for raising safety concerns. enied talking with S&L, KCI, NUPIC, ASME, or Engineering Management Specialists regarding SHHRANI (Exhibit 35, p. 101; Exhibit 37, pp. 48-50; Exhibit 38, pp. 50-51).
According t people have contacted him regarding SHIR tANI.said he confirmed to them that S l n d Exelon during a certain time frame.
stated that he told people that SHIRA was t the time he (SHIRANI) left the company, and as a result, he was unaware of the circumstances surrounding SHIRANI's departure from the company. denied blacklisting or making negative 7(
coments about SHIRANI to S&L, KCI,.EMS, NIJPIC members, or ASME members.
denied blacklisting SHIRANI from gaining em ep in the nuclear industry.
enied harassing and/or intimidating SHIRANI. _ N denied keeping or pressuring SIIRANI to stay or leave ecause he raised safety concerns (Exhibit 36, pp. 48-52).
NOT FOR PUBLIC QLOSURE Xg:OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF I TIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 . 45 N
Agent's Analysis SHIRANI was not aware of any vacancies in the A- division, nor did m ake him aware of any. *d there was one vacancy, however, it was for alower level position that clea id nt meet the criteria established by SHIRANI during his conversation withm ot make a verbal job offer to SH .hen SHIANI asked when he could start old SHIRANI to "slow down." testified that he told SHIRANI that he would contact him around the Thanksgiving holiday to tell him whether S&L would be extending ajob offer to him. HR for S&L, upon receipt of SHIRANI's letter, promptly sent him I1,C a letter clarifying that no job offer was extended to him.
10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 50.7.
lenied participati in a scheme to blacklist SHIRANI from gaining employment. .
A dz IM"SMEM5Pned talking with anyone at S&L regarding SHIRANI.
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate the allegation that SHIRANI, a former Principal Auditor at Exelon, was blacklisted from gaining employment at S&L because of safety concerns raised while he was employed at Exelon.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DI LOSURE WITHQUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 E OF INY GATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2001-055 46
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHIRANI provided two additional examples of blacklisting du his 01 interview. SHIRANI said he applied for a-position at KCI and that he also s k" A R owner of EMS, and SHIRANI recalledelling him that Would get him -
some jobs outside of nuclear (Exhibit 2, pp. 147-149, 151)
Agent's Note: These additional examples of blacklisting were later withdrawn by SHIRANI (Exhibit 41).
NOT FOR PUBLI SCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, FFICE OF STIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 47
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS CNSURE WITHOUT AKPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFI F INVESTIGAT S, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 48
LIST OF EXHIBiTS Exhibit No. Description
- 1. Investigation Status Record, 01 Case No. 3-2001-055, Allegation No. RIII-2001-A-0174, dated November 19, 2001.
- 2. Transcript of SHIRANI interview, dated December 18, 2001.
- 3. E-mail from BERSON, dated January 29,2002.
- 4. Allegation Review Board Minutes, RIII-01-A-0174, dated November 19,2001.
- 5. Allegation Review Board Minutes, RIf-02-A-0005, dated May 20,2002.
- 6. Report of Telephonic Contact between SA Langan and SHIRANI, dated May 3, 2002.
- 7. Written statement from SHIRANI, dated May 3,2002.
- 8. E-mail from SHIRANI to HELLER, NRC:R[ Staff, dated May 14,2002.
- 9. A package of documents titled "Prepared by Oscar B. Shirani for USNRC on December'3, 2001 ", with attachments, provided by SHIRANI to the NRC.
- 10. EICS document, titled Alleger Visit, undated.
- 11. SHIRANI's Charge of Discrimination, as filed with the EEOC, charge number 210A20477, dated November 5, 2001.
- 12. Letter from BURKE, Assistant General Counsel for Labor and Employment, Exelon, dated December 21, 2001.
- 13. EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights, dated January 31, 2002.
- 14. E-mail from SHERANI to EIELLER, with attachment, dated April 24, 2002.
NOT FOR PUBIC CLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, FICE OF INVESTI TIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 49
- 15. E-mail from SALEHI to HELLER, dated March 16, 2002; Letter, sent via e-mail, from SALEHI to JORGENSEN, NRC:RE Branch Chief, Division of Reactor Projects, thru HELLER, dated December 29,2001.
- 16. Letter from ANDERSON, Area Director, DOUJOSHA, to HELFRICH, General Counsel for Exelon, dated February 11, 2002. Attached was a copy of SHIRANI's statement to DOIJOSHA, dated February 1, 2002.
- 17. E-mail correspondence from SHIRANI to HELLER, NRC:R] Staff, dated March 28, 2002, with a letter from SHIRANI to Roy REES, DOIJOSHA, dated March 27, 2002.
- 18. Exelon's response to SHERANI's DOIJOSHA complaint, as prepared by Scott E. GROSS, Attorney for Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood, dated February 19, 2002.
- 19. Copies of performance ratings for the following Exelon e ployees: Performance Year 2000: SHRUM; Performanceear 1999: SHIRANI,_
_EN" ormance Year 1998:
- 20. Internal Resume, SHIRANI, generated on December 19, 2001.
- 21. Exelon Selection/Compensation Action (Revised) for SHIRANI, effective date January 1,2001.
- 22. Exelon Career Opportunity System, Attachment 7.1 - Self-Nomination Form, Attachment 7.2 - Resume Template, SHRUANM's resume, and the Management Career Opportunity Application submitted by SHIRANI for the Principal/Manager, Audit, Salary Grade E4 position, dated October 16,2001.
- 23. Exelon Nuclear Job Description - Management Position, Supplier Evaluation Lead in Exelon Nuclear, description date May 16, 2000; Candidate Summary for SHIRANI, signed by Tony BROCCOLO, dated July 21,2000; a copy of SHIRANI's resume; Candidate Summary for SHRUANI; John HELLER's, Title Unknown, notes from his interview of SHIRANL
- 24. '.GARZA's notes fron 'meeting wit1l hnd SHIRANI on October 30, 2001". '
NOT FOR I¶*LIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRiE R, OFFICE OF INitTGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 50
- he
- 25. Severance Package letter from LUIS, Severance Plan Administrator, to SHIRANI, dated October -26, 2001; SHIRANI's Personalized Statement of Separation Plan Benefits.
- 26. SHIRANI's Candidate Assessment forms for the Manager, Internal Audit position, October 22, 2001; Exelon Performance Planning & Appraisal, mid-year performance review for SHIRANI. dated July 17, 2001; E-mail from -
ZURAWSKL Title Unknown, to ated October 16,2001; SHIRANI's Performance Evaluation-Profession udit Staff, end date October 11, 2001; SHIRANI's Performance Evaluation-Professional Audit Staff, end date August 17,2001.
- 27. Various Meeting Notes made by PALACIO regarding SHIRANI and his issues.
- 28. GARZA's notes from a telephone conversation between GARZA and SHIRANI, dated October 11, 2001.
- 29. Report of Telephonic Contact between SA Langan and dated May 2, 2002.
- 30. Exelon Internal Audit Services showing rganization chart for the Internal Audit group; Letter from HE , dated April 16,2002.
- 31. Various e-mails involving SHIRANI, for the time period of August 9,2001 to October 30, 2001.
- 32. Letter from SHIRANI t *ddted November 26, 2001; Letter from MEEHAN, Manager of Human Resources for S&L to SHIRANI, dated November 28, 2001; Letter from MEEHAN to M dated November 27, 2001; Letter from SHIRANI to WATELET, Senior Partner at S&L, dated January 14, 2002; JACQUES, Partner at S&L, notes of a telephone conversation he had with SHIRANI on December 14,2001.
- 33. Letter, with attachments, from HELFRICH, dated June 14, 2002.
- 34. DOIJOSHA sent a letter to GROSS, dated June 3, 2002.
- 35. Transcript o terview, dated April'24, 2002.
- 36. Transcript o n nterview, dated April 16, 2002.
NOT FOR PUB D ISCLOSURE WITMIUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO, E OF IN ES TIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 51
I..
- 37. Transcript offi interview, dated May 17, 2002.
- 38. Transcript of interview, dated May 30,2002. d7 C
- 39. Transcript of interview, dated May 15, 2002.
- 40. Transcript o -nterview, dated May 15,2002.
- 41. Allegation Review Board Minutes, RIII-02-A-0005, dated July 1, 2002.
NOT FOR A C DISCLOSURE~ THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE FICE OF I STIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-055 52