ML20134G117
| ML20134G117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1985 |
| From: | Hayes B, Robinson L, Vorse J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132C567 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-173 2-84-021, 2-84-21, NUDOCS 8508230053 | |
| Download: ML20134G117 (53) | |
Text
- --
s .
CASE No.
2-84-021
, ,p s,'
! 'y , ^i :i Urdted States -
i ! i mo*- no *tm co- **a ...../ i 1,
[
Report of Investigation l.
Shearon Harris huclear Plant:
~
~
l 5 Alleged Harassment / Intimidation an.d }
.. Falsification of Documentationg j.
Commitments 1 -
f l -
A
\
. 3 r
g
~
l -
?
- i I
~
- ~ ... , _
Office of Investigations Reported by 01:
Ril n
[
',lf 05002300S3 850014 PDR
$0$LDO 73 ,
r.
Bil
Title:
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ALLEGED HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION AND FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTATION ,
Licensee: Case Number: 2-84-021 Carolina Power and Light Company Report Date: 5/16/85 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602. Control Office: 01:RI! '
Docket No: 50-400 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed by:
JV '
Mb ma Y m
/ Larry y Robinson
~
games V/'vorse Investigator 01:RII Direct 6t, 01:RII Appro'v by: ,
W h BeYB. Hay'es , D)p6 tor Office of Investi ati s WARNING The attached document / report has'not been reviewed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.79(a) exemptions nor has any exempt material been deleted.
Do not disseminate nor discuss its contents outside NRC. Treat as "0FFICIAL USE ONLY."
SYNOPSIS By memorandum dated October 24, 1984, the Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region 11 requested inves,tigative assistance from the Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II (01:Ril) in the conduct of a joint interview with 01:RII and the Region 11 Technical Staff, of an alleger who claimed he had been harassed and intimidated by Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) supervision because he had expressed safety concerns to them regarding the construction of the Shearon Marris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP). This alleger also claimed that ,
critical construction documentation was falsified.
This alleger had already filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Comission (EE0C) claiming discrimination by his CP&L supervision because of his race (oriental). The alleger had also filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), charging that CP&L had fired him in violation of the Whistleblower Act. 00L determined that the alleger had not engaged in any activity that was protected by the Whistleblower Act, but CP&L settled out of court with the alleger on the EE0C complaint. The CP&L legal staff advised that the alleger's s attorney had initiated the suggestion of.the possibility of a settle-ment. CP&L legal also stated that they did not settle because they felt they would lose the case, but becaus.e the settlement amount was relatively insignificant as compared to the anticipated resources, time, and expense required to take the case through litigation.
At the initial interview of the alleger, it was preliminarily apparent that the construction concerns that the alleger had brought to his supervision were not nuclear safety-related, and that he had no actual indication of intentional wrongdoing on the part of the licensee with respect to his concerns about construction documentation. These documentation concerns pertained to the purchase of steel under a cancelled purchase order number, and the discarding, into a trash can, of QC pipe hanger inspection documents. -
The construction concerns, the purchase order concern, and the inspection document concern were addressed oy Region II Technical Staff.
Although the alleger was not in a QA/QC capacity, and although the construction concerns that he claimed to have been harassed for bringing up were not nuclear safety-related 01 conducted an investi-gation to determine if the alleger had been harassed by his CP&L ,
supervision for any reason.
A total of thirteen of the alleger's co-workers were interviewed, as well as the two CP&L employees who were alleged to have comitted the harassment and/or intimidation. None of the co-workers interviewed ever observed any harassment or intimidation of the alleger by either of the CP&L supervisors. Both CP&L supervisors denied harassing and intimidating the alleger. The alleger's imediate supervisor was generally described by the alleger's co-workers as being professional, unemotional, hard-working, and impartial. Six of the thir;een had I
. _ 7 some problems with this immediate supervisor's leadership ability and lack of nuclear construction experience.
Seven of the thirteen stated that the alleger had the attitude that he '
was superior to everyone, that he was emotional and excitable, and had some degree of a communication problem due to a language difference.
Three of thirteen made negative remarks about the alleger's engineer-ing competence. Two of thirteen indicated acceptable competence. The remainder did not feel qualified to judge the competence of the alleger's work.
Both CP&L supervisors commented on their, gradual realization that the alleger was not performing satisfactorily. They outlined the progression from informal counselling, to formal counselling, to probation, to termination.
The alleger permitted himself to be deposed before representatives of both CP&L and the NRC at Raleigh, NC on February 25, 1985. At this time, both his technical and his harassment concerns were addressed, explained, and resolved.
The status of this investigation is CLOSED.-
4 6
2
. l l
TABLE OF CONTENTS ;
i Page No.
SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................... 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
~
l
\
INTERVIEWEES . . '. . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Predication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Purpose of Investigation ............... 6 {
Background ...................... 6 Results of Investigation ............... 7 Conclusion ...................... 9 LIST OF EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IO W
h 6
3
1 1
t APPLICABLE REGULATIONS i
, e i
- 1. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Section 210a. '
- 2. 10 CFR 50.7
- 3. Title 18,U.S. Code,SectionIdOI,(FalseStatements). i I
- 4. 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8 (Maintenance of QA Documentation), j l
i
' t i
i I
i l
r f
t l
l I
i 4 L -
INTERVIEWEES CHRISCOE, William Patterson, Engineer, CP&L, Mechanical Hanger Section, Exhibit 7 -
DiSLASI, Theodore Anthony, Lead Hanger Engineer, Daniels Construction Company, Exhibit 9
, Exhibit 8 FULLER, Alexander Graham, Principal Engineer, CP&L, Exhibit 21 GERMANY, Charles Regan, Systems Hanger Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, Exhibit 12 GLASS Margaret, CP&L Staff Attorney, Exhibit 6 HARTLEY, William Carl, Engineer, CP&L, Exhibit 19 Exm bit 16 JACKSON, Johnny, Hanger Engineer, Daniels Construction Company, Exhibit 17 JOHNSON, James P., Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith, Exhibit 15 JONES, Richard, CP&L Staff Attorney Exhibit 6 LEE, Jerry Dedge, Hanger Engineer Supervisor, Daniels Construction Company, Exhibit 20 NASH, Larry Wayne, Hanger Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, Exhibit 10 NEWTON, Leslie Eugene, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company,
! Exhibit 14 POLLARD, Gary Allen, Hanger Engineer, CP&L, Exhibit 16 PRUITT, Michael L., Hanger E'ngineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, Exhibit 11 j
/
4 . . . ,
, Exhibit 13 1 WILLETT, Edwin Eugene, Manager of Piping and Instrumentation, CP&L, j
Exhibit 22 1
5 1 -
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Predication '
This investigation was predicated upon receipt of a memorandum, dated October 24, 1984, from James P. O'REILLY, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC to the Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II (01:RII), which requested investigative assistance in an interview of Chan Van VO to be conducted jointly with representatives of the Region II Technical Staff (Exhibit 1).
Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to determine if, as alleged by VO in his affidavit received by the Region II Staff on October 10, 1984; (1) VO was harassed and intimidated by his CP&L supervisors for bringing safety concerns to their attention, and (2) critical construction documentation was falsified.
Background
Chan Van VO was terminated from his employment as an engineer for CP&L at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant -(SHNPP) on February 29, 1984. The reason cited on the official termination documentation was
~
" Unsatisfactory Performance" (Exhibit 4, Page 26).
On August 6,1984, VO filed race discrimination charges against CP&L with the Raleigh, NC area office, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Exhibit 4, Pages 57 and 58). CP&L settled with VO, and the EEOC complaint was dismissed on November 15, 1984 (Exhibit 4 Page 53). CP&L Staff Attorneys Richard JONES and Margaret GLASS advised 01:RII that the suggestion of a possibility of a settlement in the VO matter was initiated by V0's attorney. JONES advised his reconmendation to settle with VO was not based upon any thought of possibly losing in litigation, but was based upon the settlement amount being relatively insignificant as compared to the cost of CP&L in manpower and resources to take the case through the full litigative process (JONES and GLASS Results of Interview is Exhibit 6).
On September 13, 1984 (approximately one month after V0's submission of his EE0C complaint, but prior to its disposition), the Department of Labor (DOL) received a complaint from VO, alleging that he had been terminated by CP&L in violation of the-Employee Protection Provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) (Exhibit 4, Pages 59-62). On October 10, 1984, CP&L was notified by DOL of their (00L's) determina-tion of no violation on the part of CP&L with respect to this ERA complaint (Exhibit 4, Page 1 Para. 10).
Additional extensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding the termination of VO was done by CP&L personnel and a consultant from i
Puke Power Company (Exhibit 24).
1 I
6 i -
- \
Results of Investication On November 1, 1984, VO was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L.
Robinson and William P. ANG, Region 11 Staff (Exhibit 2). VO was acco panied by his attorney, Robert GUILD. This intervien centered on four main concerns by V0. (1) That a voided purchase order number had been used by CP&L to purchase steel .that was to be used in plant construction; (2) A steam generator feednater pump discharge pipe was irrproperly " cold pulled" and welded onto one of the pump nozzles, causing unacceptable stresses in the nozzle; (3) That portions of pipe support inspection records had been apparently discarded into a trash .
can, and (4) That when VO brought these and other safety-related items to the attention of his supervisors at CP&L, his concerns were ignored and/or discredited, and he was subsequently harassed and intimidated by CP&L supervision and management, primarily Alex FULLEF, because he voiced these concerns.
In this interview, VO provided no evidence of any indication or knowledge that there was any intentional wrongdoing in connection with concerns (1), (2), or (3) above. He stated that he had no indication that CP&L intentionally used a cancelled purchase order number to order steel. He stated that he thought it was just lack of coTunication and coordination between the field and the purchasing department. He also stated that, althoegh he found portions of pipe support inspection records in a trash can, he had no indication that anyone from CP&L was intentionally destroying required inspection documentation. These concerns were addressed by the Inspection Staff of Region 11 and were itemized in Inspection Report No. 50-400/84-43 (Exhibit 5).
In response to V0's allegation of harassment, thirteen of V0's fellow engineers in the piping / hanger section, who were either presently, or at one time under the supervision of FULLER, were interviewed regard-ing their knowledge of any harassment or intimidation of VO by FULLER.
These engineers were also questioned about their knowledge of anyone in CP&L supervision or management ignoring or " stonewalling" any nuclear safety concerns brought to CP&L supervision by VO, or anyone else. These engineers, some employed by CP&L, some by Daniels Construction Company, and some by Tompkins and Beckd th Company, were also questioned regarding FULLER's supervisory style, and whether FULLER had ever harassed or intirridated any of ther. The follo.cing personnel were interviewed: William Patterson CHRISCOE, Engineer, CP&L, Nechanical Hanger Section (Exhibit 7); Theodore Anthony DiBLA51, Lead Hancer Enrineer, Daniels Constr H nn Company (Exhibit 91- , .
_m ., - thnicitof;t.nariesRegan tr,e d Systems Hanger Engineer, lompkins and Beckwith Company (Exhibit 12); William Carl HARTLEY, Engineer, CP&L (Exhibit 19); ; ; -, r. 7,e Exn Dit 1 ); Jonnny CK Oh, Hanger Engineer, Daniels Construction Company (Exhibit 17); James P. JOHNSON, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith (Exhibit 15); Larry Wayne NASH, Hanger Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company (Exhibit 10); Leslie Eugene NEh70N, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company (Exhibit 14); Gary Allen POLLARD, Hanger 7 --
Case No. 2-84-021
Engineer, CP&L (Exhibit 16); Michael L. PRUITT, Hanger Engineer, i Tompkins and Beckwith Company (Exhibit 11),
(Exhibit 13) .
None of the engineers interv'iewed ever observed any harassment or intimidation of VO by FULLER. None of these engineers knew of any nuclear safety-related concerns that VO had brought to FULLER's attention that had been ignored or " stonewalled" by FULLER. Most of these engineers described FULLER's supervisory style as being professional, unemotional, unbiased and hard-working. .
One described FULi.ER as having a tendency to " talk-down" to his people. Two said FULLER's inexperience ~in nuclear construction supervision, added to his tendency to " blindly follow the company (CP&L) line,* made him unreceptive to engineering suggestions from subordinates with prior nuclear construction experience. .
Th'e remaining majority of the thirteen either praised FULLER's management style, or they had no problems with FULLER. Two thought FULLER was too lenient with his people. One thought that Van VO received preferential treatment by FULLER because Van VO was a minority (Exhibit 19, Page 1).
~
Seven of these thirteen engineers stated that VO had the attitude that he was superior to everyone in the section that he was emotional and excitable, and that he had a problem communicating and understanding because of his language difference. One of the thirteen had been in a .
verbal and physical confrontation with VO (Exhibit 12). 1 Alex FULLER and Ed WILLETT were both interviewed (Exhibits 21 and 22) and categorically denied any harassment or intimidation of Chan Van V0. , Both stated that they could not r(call VO ever coming to them with a t ue nuclear safety-related concern.
WILLETT stated that V0's personal problems of having some of his family remaining in Vietnam, plus V0's refusal to recognize a backlog of problems in his area of responsibility in waste disposal, and V0's refusal to accept constructive criticism of his job perfomance, all led to an eventual level of unsatisfactory performance on V0's part
. and thus his temination.
FULLER advised that what he initially thought was a language problem of coimunication and understanding with VO eventt. ally surfaced as inadequacies in engineering judgment and an inability to organize and accomplish his work.
FULLER also advised that what VO may have interpreted as inaction on his (FULLER's) part when VO brought construction concerns to him was the fact that FULLER had knowledge of documentation and/or corrective action in process on that concern that YO was not aware of.
8 Case No. 2-84-021
On February 26, 1985, Chan Van VO permitted himself to be deposed by representatives of CP&L with NRC representatives also present. At '
this time, V0's technical concerns and supervisory conflict concerns were explained and resolved (Exhibit 23).
Conclusion There was no evidence developed to indicate a pattern of harassment, intimidation, or pressure to resign resulting from VO bringing safety concerns to his supervisors, which ultimately resulted in the termina- ,
tion of V0's employment by the licensee.
Based on V0's testimony on November 1, 1984, there was no evidence or indication of intentional destruction of required QA documentation by CP&L, and no evidence or indication that the misuse of the purchase order number was anything other than a lack of communication and/or coordination between the field and purchasing (Exhibit 2). V0's concerns regarding construction deficiencies, discarded inspection documentation, and the misuse of a purchase order number were addressed and will be resolved by NRC Region II inspection personnel (Exhibit 5).
1 e
h
\
_k f
LIST OF EXHIBITS
- 1. Memorandum of request for investigative assistance and affidavit of Chan Van VO, dated October 24, 1984, 18 pages
- 2. Transcript of Interview of Chan Van VO, dated November 1, 1984, 114 pages
- 3. Letter from Chan Van VO, citing his corrections to his transcript of November ll, 1984, 20 pages
- 4. Copies of Documents from review of Department of Labor investigative files, 66 pages
- 5. Copy of Region II, NRC Inspection Report No. 50-400/84-43, dated December 14, 1984, 9 pages
- 6. Results of Interview of Richard JONES and Margaret GLASS, dated February 13, 1985, 1 page
- 7. Results of Interview'of William P. CHRISCOE, dated February 14, 1985, 2 pages
- 8. Results of Interview of s
, 3 pages
- 9. Results of Interview of Theodore A. DiBLASI, dated February 15, 1985, 2 pages
- 10. Results of Interview of Larry W. NASH, dated February 15, 1985, 2 pages
- 11. Results of Interview of Michael L. PRUITT, dated February 15, 1985, 1 page
- 12. Results of Interview of Charles R. GERMANY, dated February 15, 1985, 2 pages
- 13. Results of Interview of' 3 pages 14 Results of Interview of Leslie E. NEWTON, dated February 20, 1985, 2 pages
- 15. Results of Interview of James JOHNSON, dated February 20, 1985, 2 pages
- 16. Results of Interview of Gary A. POLLARD, dated February 20, 1985, 2 pages
- 17. Results of Interview of Johnny JACK 5GE, dated February 20, 1985, 2 pages , ~~-"-~~ ~~
- 18. Results of Interview of 2 pages
- 19. Results of interview of william L. nxeTLEY, dated February 21, 1985, 3 pages
- 20. Results of Interview of Jerry D. LEE, dated February 21, 1985, 3 pages
- 21. Results of Interview of Alexander G. FULLER, dated February 21, 1935, 3 pages
- 22. Results of Interview of Edwin E. WILLETT, dated February 22, 1985, 3 pages
- 23. Transcript of CP&L Deposition of Chan Van VO, dated February 26, 1985, 316 pages 24 Quality Check Program Report by CP&L on quality issues raised by Chan Van VO, dated January 15, 1985, with attachments, 49 pages i
l i
i 10 l Case No. 2-84-021
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD JONES AND MARGARET GLASS ON FEBRUARY 13, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 13, 1985, Richard JONES and Margaret CLASS, Staff Attorneys for Carolina Power and Light Company (C &L), were interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson, in JONES' office at CP&L Headquarters, j Raleigh, NC. -
The nature of the interview was explained to JONES and GLASS as pertaining to their knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harassment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his former CP&L supervision.
. JONES stated, with GLASS' concurrence, that regarding CP&L's decision to settle with Van VO regarding his allegations, the'following events took place:
JONES stated thet CP&L, as well as the U.S. Department of Labor, had done extensive investigative work into these allegations of harassment by Van VO, and the situation was about to come to the hearing point. JONES stated that prior to the hearing, Van V0's attorney, Robert GUILD, called JONES' office and discussed an extension to the hearing date. JONES stated that also during this telephone conversation, GUILD " opened the door" regarding the possibility of a settlement with Van VO prior to the hearing.
J0NES stated that at a later date, he had a meeting with GUILD and GLASS in his office and the broad aspects of a possible settlement with Van VO were discussed.
JONES advised that in no way was the decision to settle with Van VO influenced by the thought that CP&L was at fault in these allegations. He stated that the decision to settle with Van VO was made strictly upon the economics and the manpower and resources utilization required in taking these allegations through the full hearing process. He stated that the amount of the settlement to Van VO was relatively small as compared to the expenses and. resources that would have been required to take the case through the full process.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 19, 1985.
//Y Jrty L. Aotfinson, Investigator LN7) i S \Q4e i
l EXHIBIT @)
Pages l Page , / of /
_ _ _ . - _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ , _ _ . _ _ . _ ,
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM P. CHRISCOE ON FEBRUARY 14, 1985 AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR !
LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 14, 1985, William P. CHRISCOE, Engineer, Mechanical Hanger Section, Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L), was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to CHRISCOE as pertaining to his -
knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his former CP&L supervision.
CHRISCOE stated that he graduated from North Carolina State University in May 1981 with a Civil Engineering Degree, and was employed with CP&L in i June 1981, and has been so employed since.
CHRISCOE stated that when he went to work for CP&L, he worked in the same building with Van VO, but VO was in the piping section and he was in the hanger section. He stated that approximately a year after he was working with CP&L, Chan Van V0 was transferred to the hanger section. CHRISCOE stated that he did not know why Van VO was transferred from piping to ,
hangers.
CHRISCOE stated that his relationship with Van V0 was primarily ;
professional, but he had some non-work related conversations. He stated that at no time did Van VO confide in him about any personal matters that were related to either work or van V0's personal situation. CHRISCOE stated that he had a slight language communication problem with Van VO, but nothing that he could not overcome.
CHRISCOE advised that Van VO seemed to change personalities when he was '
transferred from piping to hangers. He said that he had heard Van VO j making the statement that he was discriminated against. CHRISCOE stated -
that to the contrary, he felt that most people went out of their way to '
make Van VO feel comfortable in his work situation.
CHRISCOE stated that his and Van V0's supervisor, Alex FULLER, would hold ;
group meetings with the hanger engineers, and would look for suggestions on i solving engineering problems. He stated that if the suggestions were not t utilized, FULLER would fully explain the reasons for not taking this '
suggested action to all the engineers, including himself and Van V0.
CHRISCOE stated that Van VO seemed to think that FULLER was not as competent as he (Van VO) was. '
CHRISCOE stated that in his opinion, both FULLER and Ed WILLETT were both fair and competent engineers. He stated that he never saw FULLER single !
out Van VO, or any other CP&L engineer for any harsh criticism of perfor- {
mance. -
CHRISCOE described FULLER as a dedicated, hard-working manager that leads by example, and does a large amount of overtime work himself, without getting paid for it. He stated that he did not feel intimidated at all by FULLER, but that VO could have pessibly felt that way. He reiterated that 2tth
_XHIBIT (7)
Page / of 1 Pages
through his observations and association with Van VO, he could not see any reason why Van VO would feel intimidated by FULLER, but that he (CHRISCOE),
obviously was not a witness to all the interaction between FULLER and Van V0.
CHRISCOE stated that, from his observations, Van V0 seemed to have trouble accepting the fact that he was being supervised in the performance of his job at all. He stated that an example of one of the problems that Van VO had was that Paul HOWARD, who was in the same job classification as van VO, was given the responsibility to review pipe hanger problems, and Van VO ~:
resisted the fact that HOWARD was in a position to review Van V0's work. ;
CHRISCOE stated that he carpooled with FULLER from about July 1981 through !
April 1984, and that during that time FULLER never made any negative or derogatory coments in the car about Van V0.
'CHRISCOE stated that he was not aware of the date when Van VO went on probation for his work performance. CHRISCOE stated however that during the last six months of Van V0's employment, he was spending a lot of time writing a paper on how to build a nuclear plant, instead of doing his assigned work.
CHRISCGE stated that, regarding the distribution of the workload among the hanger engineers by FULLER, that Van VO was working in the turbine ;
building, where the pipe hangers were non-seismic. He stated that the I problems over there in the turbine building were easier. He stated that j van VC may have had more problems in the turbine building, and he c.ay not '
have. CHRISCOE advised that he did not think that Van VO had a heavier I workload than any of the other engineers.
CHRISCOE stated, in closing, that he knew of no specific problems where Van VO brought a problem to FULLER and got no response or feedback pertain-ing to that problem.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 19, 1985.
4s Y f C71 M arry 1,4 Robinson, Investigator 2 : c ,iSlT (7) 3.ge ,_/ cf & Pues
RESULTS OF INTEPVIEW WITH
. AS PREFAPED BT INVESTIGAlVK LARRY L. ROBINSON was interviewec by HEC In%estigator Larry L. Robinsor' on site at the Carolina Fower and Light Company's (CP&L) Shearon Harris huclear Power Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to- as pertaining to his knowledge cf facts and circurrstances regarding allegations of harassment and intirridation of "han van VO by his fortner CP&L supervision.
stated that his relatiorship with Var. VO was basically prcfessional.
and that he only had two or three contacts with Van VO in the field f ron October 19E3 until twc months before Van VO was terrinated. He stated that maybe, at most, he hac a total of five one-on-one Conversations with Van VO at lunch wher everyone carne in froc the field tC eat. He stated that he has had no other contact with Van V0.
described FULLEF as intelligent, and borderline egetistical. He statec that FULLER pretenas to lister, but does not really hear. He stated that FULLEF dic not satisfy hirt as to why he did not accept one of his suggestions as a procedu r e for utilizatior in the targer depart-nert. He stated that FULLEF's answer to hin was that he \ did not unterstand "the CF&L progran."
stated that in the 9roup engineering freetings, Var. VO always asked a let of Questier.s. He stated that he could oc,t tell whether the Questions were bcthersome to FULLER or not. He stated that the Questions did not bother him advised that Van VO did have a communication protlen , due to the language barrier, and that many times he would net understand van VO.
advised that Var VO acoeared te be very excitatie. statec that ir his opinion, Var. VO thought that he (Var. VO) was starter that the rest of the er.gineers, stated that as ar e> a'rple of that, he re.erbered that in one o' these meetir.gs ar engineer asked FULLEF a cuestion ateut a hanger ar.d Van VO ir.terrupted, answered the cuestior h1rself, ard said "ar.ycr.e should know that.*
' stated that he has no knowledge that FULLEP. stonewalled or blocked' any of Van V0's safety concerns regarding the Shearon Harris plant.
stated that he did r.ct see any difference in the feedback fror FULLET tc the on probierr I
EXHlBIT r ge a / o' (8) Pl age.
.y solvirg suggestlers. He stated. however, that FULLED was naturally more ler.ient with -
stated that FULLEF would reject, without gising any feedtack, suggestions of all the other engineers, advised that in his opinion, FULLER was not a good " leader of men.*
He stated that his (FULLEF's) lack of nuclear experience probatly was one of the causes of this. stated that FULLEP is very intelligent, professier.al, and unerotional. He stated that he thought FULLER's previous experience was at a hydroelectric plant.
stated that he had no indication that FULLEF discriminated, harassed or inticidated Van VO in any way. . advised that Van VG never told hit that FULLEC discririnated against hita in ary way. He also stated that he never saw FULLEP harassing or intiridating Var V0.
stated that he had seer enaroles o' poor pipe herger paperwcr6 done
. by Var VC, specifically inspections. He stated that the problers were not
] that coi;licated, but that he had to correct some inspections
! that had been done by Van VO. Turther explained this by stating j that Van VO had done sore paperwore indicating that he (\ar. VO) had dcne ar j ir.spectior., wher, ir, f act, he had not dor.e a proper irspectior.
stated that the probler would have pcssibly been a Cursory inspectior. of ll hargers by Van VC. He stated that he routinely had problems with Van V0's inspeetion paperworb.
i '
- - stated that FULLEF has no particular favorites within the engineer-ir.9 sectior.. He stated that FULLEF is stoic and that FULLEF has good i potential, but not as a manager of people. He stated that he has never seen or heard cf FULLEE ha-assinc or intimidating Var. VO, or anyone else .
advised that he cid rct itir6 that FULLEP ristreated Yar VO ir any 4
way. He acrised that Van VG wode have beer. g one ' froi a long tire ago, mearing wesid have fired Var V0 for poor perforrar.ce long before CD5L hac done it.
i stated that van VO tended to be erotional and terperamental. He
, cited the ircident in which Var VC get into a argurent and figFt with j Charlie GEEF.c'a . He statec that F' vLLEC gave Var. 50 every bere'it of the l Cc tt ir his jC: per#0 r.i.a nc e .
i 1
i A
i
, ,; ; O* E & ~
L, 1
I Ihis Results cf Inteniew was prepared on February 2E, 198E.
/A f'fD 97,
- arry L L f-c: rsor, ;nvest 93:t,
{
l 3 EXHLBIT 6 _,
Fase gota Pages
3 r..-, -
j r r-Y'~ - _ -
- .a u st e er e t t er. t r.e t
- :st c r es ic( in (cr. scr-: e :e ;te e ! twclear
- platory ( p .- i s s i er. (he{ i i r t ons; a'. e M es ! T 5 ' cgf C. ' CCr#'ct'.11ality as C C"i c i t i e r ei fresic*ne th)
- inferr3: 10 r. I o I 'i e *. c { } mill nc; Det s s c( this ;
- c e r.c t i e r v e'. u'i t a r i l y IC
- ht he{ . . ; n; s t ! v c t. ( c r. ' ' c t r.11 a l i t y ci t r,C e p; er.f t d
.c r e .
It is my uncerstanding, consistent with its legal obilpations, the NRC, by agreeing te this confidentiality , will adnere to the follo*1ng concitions; (1 ) The NRC will not identify rie by narre or personal icentifier in any NRC initiated document, conversation, or cornunication released to the public which relates directly to the information proviced by me. I unoerstand the tern "public release
- to encompass any distribution outside of the ARC with the E3ception of other public agenCles which may reovire this inforn.ation in ,
futherance of their responsibilities unoer law or public trust.
(? ) The NRC will disclese ry identity within the NRC only to the cztent recuired for the concutt of hRC related activities.
(3) During the course of the inquiry or investigation the NRC will also make every e f fe rt centistent with the insestigative needs of the Co=1ssion to avcid actions which would clearly be e7Detted tC result in the cisclosere of my identity tc pe-sons suesecuently ccr.tacted by the hat. At a later stage I ur.cerstand that e s e r. though *he NRC will mare every reaser.able ef fort to cro:ect my icentity, m.s icentification could be corcelied by crcers or surcoenas 'ssued by courts of ,
Irw. nearing scards, or similar legal entities. In su:h ceses, tne asis for granting inis promise of conficentiality anc any ett.er relevent facts will be
( s t'unicated te the authority ordering the disclesure in an effort ic :r.aintain -
( c o r. fi c e n t i a l-i ty . If this e f fort preves unsucces s ful , a rerres er.tatise of
- NF.C will atter.pt to inforn me of any sucn action before oisclosing my identity.
} aise understand that the NRC will censider me to hase maisec ry right te ccnficentiality i f I take any actier. that r.ay be reast .atly exce:tec te disclose ey identity. I further uncerstanc that the NRC will censicer me tc have waised rr.., ripris to conficentiality if I provide (or have oreviously presiced) infc-r.ation te any other party that contradicts the informatier. that I croviced ic the NRC j or if circu-stances indicate that I arr intentionally croviding false inferr.ation i
~
to the NRC. I Other Conditions: (if any) i i
i teve reac and fully understand the contents of this acreerent. I acree with i ts orovis t ors .
~
r~
f
- 1. j -. . x DM 7L:
m e w _~- _
s c ,. c ; w .. ..
f W', "'
Q_ .
w 7a u n w ItihstM D ~' ex Avup ,e ei. swrou
[ $l _
b *( __
t l f 155f/Uf7N) gW/7 / /A://SM
4 i
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH THEODORE A. DiBLASI ON FEBRUARY 15, 1985 AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR .
LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 15, 1985, Theodore A. DiBLASI, Lead Hanger Engineer, Daniels Construction Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to DiBLASI as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts or circumstances regarding allegations of harassment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his fonner Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) supervision.
DiBLASI stated that he has been employed by Daniels Construction Company since February 1979. He advised that he has been at the Harris Nuclear Pcwer Plant since October 1983, having come on board as a System Engineer in charge of monitoring piping systems.
i DiBLASI stated that Van VO was a field engineer in the turbine building.
He advised that his relationship with Van VO was strictly professional, and not personal, and that he had dealt directly with Van VO in a one-on-one discussion, maybe once or twice during the whole time Van VO was there.
DiBLASI stated that he observed Van V0's participation in the group engineering meetings that were held by Alex FULLER occasionally.
i DiBLASI stated that he has no knowledge of any harassment or intimidation by FULLER of Van V0. He also stated that he has no knowledge of Van VO bringing any safety concerns to FULLER and getting stonewalled with these concerns.
DiBLASI stated that Van VO was not a bother or a " pain in the neck" to FULLER. He advised that Van VO asked a lot of questions at the group meetings, but a lot of the other engineers also did. He stated that some of Van V0's questions in these group meetings were legitimate. DiBLASI stated that Van VO should have known the answers to some of these ouestions, but that the questions were not unreasonable. DiBLASI stated that FULLER treated 'lan VO fairly.
1 DiBLASI described FULLER's management style as being competent, and very professional. He stated that he had no problems with FULLER's management style, and that FULLER played no favorites. DiBLASI advised that FULLER may not call on the knowledge of his subordinates as much as DiBLASI would do in a management situation, but that he (DiBLASI) was still comfortable with FULLER's management style.
DiBLASI stated that Van V0 has neither complained nor complimented FULLER in any conversation that he (DiBLASI) has had with Van V0. DiBLASI stated that he has never had any non-professional, or non-business conversation with Van V0.
1 EXHIBIT (9)
Page - 'd-
~
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 19, 1985. l
@ iddO , 'UOf tarry L./tobinson, Investigator I b
$, g E CI E
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH LARRY WAYNE NASH ON FEBRUARY 15, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 15, 1985, Larry W. NASH, Hanger Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to NASH as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his former Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) supervision.
NASH stated that he has been employed by Tompkins and. Beckwith since February 1982, and has been on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant project since August 1983. He stated that he has 13 years nuclear construction experience.
NASH stated that Van VO was already working at Shearon Harris when he (NASH) came on board. He stated that he thought that Van VO was working in the turbine building at that time.
NASH stated that originally he and Van VO were handling problems in the office, and when the pipe hanger work stoppage occurred, both he and Van VO went out to do work in the field.
NASH stated that he had a slight communication problem with Van VO, but that that was natural in dealing with someone that was not conversant in the English language.
NASH advised that he never observed any harassment or intimidation of Van VO by Alex FULLER or Ed WILLETT. He stated that FULLER was very hard line, but was equal to everyone. He stated that FULLER appeared to have no favorites or no " whipping boys." NASH stated that one of the problems that FULLER had, as well as other CP&L supervisors, was CP&L's inexperience in the construction field. He stated that he did not get any feedback on his suggestions to improve the construction process, but that FULLER was good at making procedure and policy changes. NASH advised that at first, FULLER was a little bit too "hard line," due to his inexperience.
NASH stated that he has no knowledge of FULLER " stonewalling" any safety concerns that had been brought to him by Van V0.
NASH stated that he has not been under FULLER's supervision for approxi-mately six to nine months, but that after he had been on site for about two or three months, he saw that Van V0's desk was moved close to FULLER's office so that FULLER could see everything that Van VO did.
NASH stated that an example of FULLER's inexperience was that at one time, FULLER was anxious to turn over a piping system that had only cable supports, rather than the permanent hangers. He stated that the cables supporting this piping system would not even hold up the piping with the added weight of the water that would be flowing throuch the pipes.
)h Ik IC3 EXHIBIT V4
- ~
Page -- / 0I-8'
NASH stated that he had heard that FULLER did not really give good ratings or interviews of prospective employees. He stated that FULLER never rated him. NASH advised that he had heard that FULLER had given bad ratings because of a incident involving an employee by the name of Bruce DEESE. He
! stated that DEESE was a slow, methodical worker, but very good. NASH advised that DEESE resigned however, when FULLER told him at one point that he better do his job more quickly or he $.ould be terminated. NASH stated
- that this incident had happened about nine months ago.
NASH stated that after DEESE had resigned, he (NASH) had been told by a ,
co-worker, whom NASH preferred not to identify, that DEESE had called this co-worker and told him that he (DEESE) had been blackballed. NASH stated +
that this unidentified co-worker found out that there was a note in DEESE's personnel file indicating that DEESE should not be eligible for rehire. ,
NASH stated that somehow this note eventually got removed from DEESE's i file, but he (NASH) was not sure whether DEESE ever got the job that he had
> applied for at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.
NASH stated, in closing, that although FULLER and many of the other CP&L
! supervision were inexperienced in nuclear construction, he had never had ,
any direct kncwledge of any harassment or intimidation of Van VO by FULLER.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 19, 1985.
W // l.;sN(. '
f arry y. irobinson, Investigator I
d l
l N
2 D'H!5iT Pc) & P::se,
- r. e ._ 2__.ci
l 4
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL L. PRUITT ON FEBRUARY 15, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 15, 1985, Michael L. PRUITT, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
, Plant. -
t The nature of the interview was explained to PRUITT as pertaining to his i knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his fonner CP&L supervision.
PRUITT stated that he has been employed by Tompkins and Beckwith since June 1982, and has been on site at Shearon Harris since September 1983. PRUITT advised that he has six years nuclear construction experience, and was at the Waterford site with Tompkins and Beckwith prior to coming to Shearon Harris. He stated that he was employed by Daniels Construction Company prior to working with Tompkins and Beckwith.
PPUITT stated that since he has been at the Shearon Harris site, he has always been under Alex FULLER's supervision. He stated that he was a pipe restraint engineer, and Chan Van VO was working in " baby hangers," so he was not directly associated with Van V0.
PRUITT stated that on one occasion, he asked Van VO his opinion about one of PRUITT's restraint designs, and Van VO answered competently and i professionally. PRUITT stated that Van VO was a loner, and that he (FRUITT) saw the animosity between Van VO and FULLER when Van VO knew he was going to be terminated.
PRUITT stated however, that he has never seen FULLER harass or intimidate Van V0. He also stated that he has no knowledge of FULLER blocking or ignoring any safety concerns that were brought to him (FULLER) by Van V0.
I PRUITT stated that his office was close to FULLER's, and that he has heard l Van VO making general statements, as he came out of FULLER's office, about FULLER's incompetence.
PRUITT stated that FULLER was also kind of a loner. He stated that FULLER played no favorites, and did not single out any particular person as a non-favorite.
1
) PRUITT stated that he has had some " strong, opinionated, discussions" with l FULLER. PRUITT, however, described Van VO as also being very strong-
] willed, hot-headed, and emotional.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 19, 1985.
V . &ffr?
Astry L./ <obinson, f InvestigatoY l 3II/I)
EXHIBLT W Page / Of 1 @
4
- RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH CHARLES REGAN GERMANY ON FEBRUARY 15, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 15, 1985, Charles R. GERMANY, Systems Hanger Engineer Tompkins and Beckwith Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. .
The nature of the interview was explained to GERMANY as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-i ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his fonner CP&L supervision.
GERMANY stated that he has been employed by Tompkins and Beckwith for approximately three years, and has been on site at Shearon Harris since the end of October 1983. -
GERMANY stated that when he came on board at Shearon Harris, Chan Van VO
! was already employed on site.
GERMANY stated that, one day, he and Van VO had an argument over a hanger
- problem in the office. He stated that Van VO would not change his mind i
about how to handle the problem, and the argument persisted. GERFANY stated that Van VO got louder and more emotional, and finally he (GERMANY) said "f--- it, Chan, go ahead and do it your way." GERMANY stated that he i
turned away from Van VO and went back to sit down at his desk. He stated j that a few seconds later Van VO grabbed him from behind and said "you can't talk to me like that." GERMANY stated that Alex FULLER intervened, and sent both he and Van VO home for the rest of the afternoon without pay. !
i GERMANY stated that Van VO seemed not to be able to understand why we had so many procedures to do the engineering items that were required to be ,
done. He stated Van VO would have liked to have done things the short way.
I GERMANY stated that he has never seen FULLER harass or intimidate anyone, especially Chan Van V0. He stated that FULLER treets everyone equally, and i
is very straightforward and helpful. He stated *. hat FULLER does a lot of researching and checking for his engineers.
4 GERMANY stated that he has no knowledge of FULLER stonewalling any safety concerns that were brought to him by Van V0.
GERFANY stated that Van VO did cause a lot of problems within the engineer-ing section. He stated that Van VO was always arguing and was very "hard-headed." GERMANY stated that he did not think Van VO understood his (Van V0's) position in the chain of comand.
- GERMANY stated that in his observation, both FULLER and Paul HOWARD were very receptive to suggestions made by the engineers in group meetings. He j stated that FULLER and HOWARD would explain why they did not use the
] suggestions, if the suggestions were not used, l-IN EXHIBIT @D Page - l 0I - Pages ,
J GERMANY stated that he heard rumors that Van VO was copying classified ,
documents sometime just before he (Van VO) got fired. j GERMANY described FULLER's management style as very professional and !
business like. He stated that FULLER did not want to get too friendly or !
personal with any of his engineers. GERMANY stated that a lot of the engineers that worked around Van VO did not really like him. GERMANY gave i the name of Ed BULLARD as an example, ,
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 19, 1985. 'l
, i
, .f i / At A rry L.p obinson, Investigator
- j
'I O h b i ;
v 1 r f
}
i i
I i t
t 9
i w
, \
2 1). .ilii ,,._gW'.cf.2 - Pegae pg,
RESU'is . OF INTEEVIEk WITF A5 PREPACEC Et INkEST! GAT 0F LA F) L. R0Elh5CN
... was intervicaec by h;C 1rustigaser Larry L. Robinson at the Carclina Foner and Light Coe;any's (CF&LI Shearer Harris Nuclear Po.er Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to' as pertainir.g to his knowledge of any facts and circurstances regarding allegations of harass-r.er.t and inticidatior. of Char. Var VO by his forr.er CF&L supersisior.
r i statec that he was ir. the sa~e er.gineering grouc witt Var. VD for a perice c' five to si> months. He stated that he had a casual pe-scr.al relatierstic with Var. VO and aircst no professional relationsric. He statec that he neser get into ary specific technical protlems witt var. V0.
[ stated that Van VC tcid tir that he (Van V0) was being treated un'airly by CF&L, ranagere"t , be:ause they were not listening to his sugge st 1or.s . ( ~ y tatec that \ a r. VC ha d subritted a suggestior. ebout corstruction or ope-ations r.anagement of a nuclear p l a r.t . ar.d that this suggestior. was nct given any atter.tior by CP&L management.
[ , stated that 1r his 0; inion, ier. W telt that he hac something te c'fer Cc5.. and var VC cic nct thirb te was being teker se 'cu'y by trer. O statec that Var VO tad a larg , age p otier w4 tt the cre'is ir the field. 'T statec tnet they cesld nct e,er unde rstaric what Var V0 was say;rg, msch less wc-k with b'.r.
{ l adsised that he anc Ver VO talled about the higher level rer. age ert suggestions together, and that he and Van VG did not really discuss ar.y de) to day technical protlers.
[ stated that var. VD nese- tcld tir that Eley FULLE; threaterec rirr l\ar VO) C- irtiriCatec Fir if a") w!y. ( g alst !*a*td tha*. he hac r.:
kr,0,le ge cf Var VC trinc1r.g ary Ea#ety Cor.; errs to the attertior c# FULLgF inat were cisregarded or not heeced.
i _
_ - . _ - _ - - - 3)I[13 1 EXrilBIT Vs)
/ o' Y Pages Page
e.
i C
i s
l o
i 1
l i
t I
i I
stEted t F.a t te dic r.et specifice'ly rererter Ver. VC a slir.; any i r.t e rt i cr 2 1}y ir.'iametery cuestitrs during tr.e grou rec u r.;s of the e r.g i r r. e r s . He reiterated tr.at he had dif ficulty urderstar, ding Var V0's cuesticos te:ause cf the language difference.
4 l
2 :.. ..r.T p f, s. '
. -s 22 3 _ page
stated that FULLEP's de <.ar.or in the grovt was rneeb are trild, anc that there was no esictrict of ary ir.t ir ida t t or, of dry:nt ir public.
This Eesults of Ir.terview w e. 5 trepared or. Februa*y 19, 19EE.
D nWufW amt.
g rry L p;;1rsor., Investigator 3 EXHtBIT M p3;,e l ot i Pares
- , - ; ; r. a 1
- : 5 vec e c f T r f s-re: 1 n . {f> D 4 e '+t t ei n s i c e': :: y o f durlitait original) j l
a .-- - m
} tevt i r.ie rr a t i on ita; I w i s t. c pres:ce in coni cen:e :c the U. 5 hs; lear
- trelatory Cor.tissier (NCC) i recces; an ero-ess ri eepe ci cr.f ten la11
- y as a tenciller o' ;eesic'ng :nis 1 ricer.a: 1r to 5e L?~. I will nc: cre,1ce this i ra c rra t ior, vol ur t a ri ly ic .5e NR . .:nt s: 5u;t c:nf :er.;1ality Ofir; triended it me.
1: 1s my ur.ce-s tanding, cersis tent with its lecal obi t :a t ions , t he hDC , by a greeing ic ;ris ccn ficer.tlality , will adr.ere to the folic ing conci:1ons :
(1 ) Ine NR will no: 1centify ne y r.are or perscnai icer.ti fie- : r any NRC i nlii a t ed :o:umer.; , conversa:1cn, or cc.7,unica lon releasec ic ine : colic which relates ci rec;1y te Ine informa: 1on Orevice by re. I uncerstanc at . e re "psblic release' :: encer:ess any cis;ribut;en cuisiae ci he f.R w1 r the e) eD: ion Of 0:ner pub 1 1c acencies =Sitr C.ay reOui re ini s i r.fe rr.a t ion i n y futnerance of inei- res; nsitilities enter law or parlic ; ust.
(? ) The NPC will disciese ry icentity within the NRC crly :: :ne Extent recuired for One C t v:* cf hR~ relatec activities.
(3 During te :O v -s e c f ne i n e gi r.s or i r ves t i c. a t ion t he NRC =ill 2 50 make e,er.v 7
e f:r: cent sten- .;;r :ne irses:: ca;;ve neecs ci 5e Cen 15 sien ic eve'c a:: Tons
- "'Cr
- JI : CIEarly be en0P::eC :C resul; in the Cis: 10sLre cf Py i c f ".:i t) IC Of !:* : IL:se ;er;iy ccr:a :ec ey ne *.;:. A: a la e- 5:apr : u :e-stanc that e t' t r.c u c * : ne N * .'
- 11 ' r a r e e s e ry -easor atie e fior; tc trot e : cy ' entity .
s .:ar.;1f;;a: 1on :cuic de ter ei;e: :y crce-s o ;:::.e at is,ec y : u- s cf i; . sar n; a ar:s, or sic;)er legal en d; es. ;r (v;r ::s es . * .E :as's icr
- 'a ;in;
- n11 *r:Fise Of CO ficen!!aIi*y a'ac any . ~. f r Pf'e.ct; fa *! mill be
- - ani; ate
- ic int autt:rity crce-in; .5e ci stics -e in er (##:r: :: aintalr -
~; C;nficer ;ali*). I f ;r.15 e f f e r *. ; r;\ es J"s u ~ e! s f ul . a -E ~ei enta:is e o'
- e L': alil a;;e :: c in1 crc me of ery sucr ac ;or. : titre c 4 s;:: s ;n; my icent ty .
! a't: u n O E - s *. c r - *
- a *. . r. f 4R" will C t i de - Of C nasf -a'*Y: P3 P I O * *. I
- --ice. iality ;' ; ate a y a;;itr
- a c.ay be rfas a
- 'y ta:t: ec :: cistiese
-; i:t - y. . f. -*e u et-1:a : I ta *ne NRC al l' ~ 53:e' t ". : 'isf ati$90
. r ; is :: :;- f':e-: ali ty if tr: .ict (c" nase o-es'Oci ') - ='ct: 1 r. f o rr a ; ; c r
- c cry c;ns r ;3- 3 ina; ce". rac
- ct; :nt r. f o rta 1;n t r.a ; : :-: tce: c :ne N::
c- i
- ci r;;rstances incicate tha .' at i r.: e r. i c n a l l y cresic nc 'a se re c-r.ation i
- C the N;;.
0 Ser Conciti ns: (i f a n.v i
- 'avt rea: am: f aily st:t-s anc the ::r:ents of this acre,.ent,
- a ;- e e w i r.
..e.. .
. ,.3.c3,.... ,
I i 4
-_ ._,A l
-cie g._---= 3 CWM c' OM... .. sf L. .
. A f ;; etc ;c cr e
- a '. f c f t h e US '.s:; e a - re p u ; a :c ry ; ,r s s i c t. . ' * - - --
- '~7fij .' c'/ f 4-Q~7 7
-: f i . ; .a !.re/ . .
~'
- g g. .I[ ped bI 'I1n.eO
- arf anc ei$,.e
) "
~
_f~A jffy*7C./f / (/ ' $ ~/f [ W V W "f N I O.
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH LESLIE EUGENE NEWTON ON FEBRUARY 20, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 20, 1985, Leslie E. NEWTON, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to NEWTON as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his former CP&L supervision.
NEWTON stated that he has been employed by Tompkins and Beckwith since March 1982, and that he has been at the Harris site since May 2, 1983. He stated that when he first came on board, he was in the piping section for about two or three weeks under Ed WILLETT's supervision, and then trans-ferred under Alex FULLER in pipe hangers. NEWTON stated that he has approximately 13 years nuclear construction experience, to include working at the Waterford, Bellefonte and Midland plants.
NEWTON stated that he only knew Van VO on a professional basis, and that there was no personal relationship between the two. He stated that Van VO never confided in him or talked to him about being mistreated by CP&L supervision. NEWTON stated that Van V0 naturally had a communication
-- problem and that he (NEWTON) could not understand Van VO too well.
NEWTON stated that Van VO had a very bad attitude, " carrying a chip on his shoulder," so NEWTON stated that he stayed away from Van V0.
NEWTON stated that FOSCOLO, who was in the chain of management over WILLETT and FULLER, suggested that NEWTON help set up some computer operations in the engineering group. He stated that FOSCOLO had suggested, through WILLETT, to FULLER, that NEWTON set up this computer system because FOSCOLO had known NEWTON's work at the Waterford plant. NEWTON stated that FULLER did not really accept this idea, and did not put NEWTON on the computer job right away because CP&L, in the person of FULLER, wanted to do it their own way. He stated that eventually they recognized his (NEWTON's) expertise with the computer, and used his talents properly.
NEWTON stated that FULLER was one of the nicest guys you would ever want to meet, but that he was a little indecisive about what he wanted done. He stated that FULLER never spoke harshly to anyone, and would not hurt anyone's feelings, even when he probably should have. He stated that he never saw or heard of FULLER harassing or intimidating Chan Van V0 or anyone else in the section.
NEWTON stated that he never had any occasion to write-up a non-conformance report (NCR) at Shearon Harris, but that he felt perfectly free to write one if he felt it was necessary. He stated that he was never told that he had to try to get a non-conforming condition resolved at a lower level prior to writing a NCR.
3H/M-EXHIBIT (59 Page / of Pages
[
)
NEWTON stated that he always got feedback on any suggestions that he made for improving the systems whether they were used or not. He stated that if his suggestions were not utilized, the feedback usually was that "we don't do that in our program."
NEWTON stated that he had some questions about Cher van V0's engineering competence, mainly from his design review of sor,e :4 Van V0's work. He ,
stated that Van VO asked a lot of " stupid" questio ... ,
^
NEWTON stated that no one had ever told him that he had to discuss any ;
internal problems with CP&L people before he went to the NRC resident. He i stated however that he probably would discuss problems internally first, and that it had to be a pretty serious problem to go to the NRC over CP&L's head.
This Results,of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985. '
///// / . f.dMr '
J arry L / Robinson,'
f Investigator d
1 9
s . y ha.'e dd
- RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH JAMES P. JOHNSON ON FEBRUARY 20, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 20, 1985, James P. JOHNSON, Engineer, Tompkins and Beckwith Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. ,
The nature of the interview was explained to JOHNSON as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van V0 by his former CP&L supervision.
JOHNSON stated that he has been employed at Tompkins and Beckwith since October 1981, and that he has been at Shearon Harris since May 23, 1983.
He stated that prior to this he worked in the engineering office at the Farley plant from 1973-1976, and at the Bellefonte plant in 1979. He stated that after about one month at Shearon Harris site, he went into system engineering under Alex FULLER's supervision.
JOHNSON stated that he only knew Chan Van VO from a professional basis. He stated that he had no personal conversations with Van V0, and that Van VO never complained to him about being harassed or intimidated.
JOHNSON stated that Van VO was always asking questions and making comments in the group meetings. He said that in his opinion, Van VO had a little bit of an attitude problem. He stated that some of the questioning by Van VO were legitimate but that some of the questions appeared to be just testing FULLER's knowledge.
JOHNSON stated that he never saw FULLER lose his temper with Van VO or anyone else in the section. He stated that he (JOHNSON) usually went to Paul HOWARD or Rick FICHERA with any of his engineering problems, but that if he did have to go to FULLER, FULLER was helpful and would go in-depth in researching the problem with him. JOHNSON stated that both HOWARD and FULLER were responsive to Van V0's questions.
JOHNSON stated that no one ever told him whether he could or could not write up a non-conformance report (NCR) if he wanted to. He stated that he never had an occasion to do it, so he is not sure as to whether it would have been a problem.
JOHNSON advised that at the time, he had no indication that FULLER would ever stonewall, or block any safety concerns that were brought to him by Van V0, or anyone in the section. JOHNSON stated that he had heard since that time, through reading the paper and through the rumor mill, that Van VO wrote some letters to FULLER that FULLER had just thrown in the trash can. He stated that he had no knowledge of the content of these rumcred letters.
JOHNSON stated that he had seen no indication of FULLER harassing .or intiridating Van V0. He aisc advised that FULLER never harassed or intimicated him.
3 \\ I F EXHIBIT W7 Page - l of 2 Pages
/ JOHNSON stated that FULLER was consistent in his management of everyone in the group. He advised that if anything, FULLER was kind of relaxed on the length of lunch period that he allowed his people to take,- and also permitted people taking off a little bit early and coming in late. JOHNSON stated that he was not in contact with Van VO enough to say whether or not Van VO intentionally made himself an irritant to FULLER.
JOHNSON stated that some of the other men in the section did not really care for Van VO, giving the example of Charlie GERMANY and William HARTLEY. .
! JOHNSON advised that Van VO was generally competent, but would sometimes come up with some inadequate engineering decisions. JOHNSON did not specify any of these inadequate decisions.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985.
JU Ut^7i M ry L. Jobinson, investigator i
I
& e," $
he- 2 ct2 hm
l RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH GARY ALLEN POLLARD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 20, 1985, Gary Allen POLLARD, Hanger Engineer, Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L), was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L.
Robinson on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. .
The nature of the interview was explained to POLLARD as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his former CP&L supervision.
POLLARD stated that.he has been employed by CP&L since June 20, 1983. He stated that prior to that time, he was a co-op student with CP&L for one year and four months, while he was attending school at North Carolina State. He stated that he has no prior nuclear construction experience.
POLLARD advised that he knew Chan Van VO since he was doing co-op work with l CP&L. He stated at that time Van V0 was in the piping section. He advised that Van VO was transferred ficm piping to hangers while POLLARD was still in his co-op status.
POLLARD advised that at the time, Van V0 was going to school in Fayetteville, NC. He stated that Van VO would occasionally call him over and ask him about integrals or pump problems. He stated that Van V0 showed him some copies of some type of educational degrees from schools in France or Vietnam.
POLLARD stated that Van VO never complained to him about being harassed or intimidated by Alex FULLER.
POLLARD advised that in his opinion, Van VO thought that he (Van VO) was more qualified than the position in which he was working. POLLARD stated that he never got the impression that Van VO was testing FULLER by asking questions to determine FULLER's competence. He stated that Van V0 was not trying to be a " thorn in the side" of FULLER.
POLLARD stated that FULLER was openly receptive to suggestions, always responsive, and had a good attitude toward discussing any problems that were brought to him.
POLLARD stated that no one at Shearon Harris had never told him that he could not write a non-conformance report (NCR), or that he had to "run it by supervision" before he wrote it. POLLARD stated that as a matter of fact, he had recently written an NCR without " running it by anyone."
POLLARD stated that he has never had any conversation with anyone abcut not taking any problems to the NRC Resident Inspector without checking with CP&L supervision first. He advised that he feels that he could go to the NRC without any management repercussions.
) ll EXHIBIT (/4.)
Page / of 7 Pages
POLLARD stated that FULLER treated all of his engineers alike, singling out no favorites or non-favorites. He stated that Van VO kind of kept to himself before he was terminated. He stated that Van VO was in the turbine building and he (POLLARD) was in the auxiliary building. He stated that most of his contact with Van VO was when he (POLLARD) was co-oping.
POLLARD stated that he did not feel that he was qualified to judge the competence of Van V0's engineering work. He stated that he was not really aware of any problem situation between van V0 and FULLER. ,
POLLARD stated that he never saw any indication of any harassment or intimidation of Van VO by FULLER, or any indication of FULLER blocking any safety concerns that were brought to him by Van V0.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985.
j *
&4WVY 'N ,./Mf
.J,ary L. fobihson, l'nv'estigator -
2 . . ,;5 ', M
}.ge Ac!A PE5'
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH JOHNNY JACKSON ON
- FEBRUARY 20, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 20, 1985, Johnny JACKSON, Hanger Engineer, Daniels Construction Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Pobinson on site at ,
the Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Shearon Harris Nuclear Power j Plant. ,;
The nature of the interview was explained to JACKSON as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his fomer CP&L supervision.
JACKSON stated that he has been employed by Daniels Construction Company since F. arch 1982, having come to-the Shearon Harris site at the same time. '
He stated that he worked at the Brunswick plant for about a year and a half to two years for A&M Company of Wilmington, NC.
JACKSON stated that most of his contact with Van VO was strictly on a professional basis, but he remembered Van VO talking to him about his children in Vietnam on one occasion.
JACKSON stated that he heard Van VO make a coment about wanting a transfer out of the hanger section, but that he could not get out. JACKSON advised that his desk was near Van V0's desk, and some personnel man came down and ,
talked to Van VO one day about the transfer problem. 1 JACKSON stated that he never saw or heard Alex FULLER harass or intimidate Van V0. He stated, as a matter of fact on one occasion, he saw FULLER spend approximately 45 minutes with Van VO discussing a hanger problem. He stated it was a normal discussion, just like FULLER would have had with him (JACKSON).
JACKSON stated that he had never had any problem with FULLER, and that FULLER had been his imediate supervisor for two years. He advised that he never had any problem with Van VO, and he never saw or heard Van V0 trying to make FULLER look bad.
JACKSON stated that FULLER's management style was fine. He stated that he was a " company man," serious, but friendly. JACKSON stated that he never felt harassed or intimidated, and that he felt FULLER was fair and thorough in his perfomance evaluation of JACKSON.
JACKSON stated ,that he always felt that he could initiate a formal non-conformance, report (NCR) if he wanted to. He stated that no one had ever told him that he had to do a speed letter, or talk to someone about it before he wrote up an NCR.
JACKSON advised that he has always felt that he could go to the NRC with a problem if he wanted to, but that on his own he would probably run it by his immediate supervision before he did go to the NRC.
311/n EXHIBIT M
~ Page d d
E 5
l This Results of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985.
MW f f.Larf L. p6binson, Investigator 4
h i
i b
4 .
l t
1 l
s 1
I 4
r 1
1 I
i 1
i
- t i
+
t 2 :Q-t:Bli f/Te
.ge. 3d
RESULTS OF lhiEFU EW W]TH AS PREFAFEE EY INVESTIGATOP LARP) L. R0Eih50N
! was interstewee ey im insestigator Larry L. Robinsor en site at the Carolina Power and Light 1 Conpany's (Cr&L) Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
The r.ature of the interview was explained to as pertaining to his knowledge of any f acts and circurstances regarding allegations of harass-rent ar.d inticidation of Chan van VO by his former CP&L supervision.
stated that he hac only a professional relationship with Chan Var. VD l and no persor,al relationship.
5;ated that abcut a menth before he was terrinsted, Van VO told hirt
- that he (Van VO) had gone to Ale > FULLEP witt sa'ety concerns and was turrec back, he stated that var VO indicated that there was no harass-ment and inticidatior, involved, just that FULLEF would not lister to his safety concerns. could nct specify the nature of these sa'ety cencerns.
stated that he always felt that if he wartec te write a nor-cor.for-mance reccet en a r.cr-cor'cering coditier at the Shearon harris Flara, he cc/ c ta6E. He statec :na; he reser had an occasict it dc se, but that nc cre- at St e a ror. Harris had ever tcid hirr that he could net write a l ncr-cor.formance report.
alsc stated that no one at Shearon Harris eser tcld hit that he had
- te discuss ary problems that he disccvered witt CP&L supervisior. prior to gcing tc the NFC with the probier. He stated that the situatier never occurred.
1
- stated that Van VC asked a let of cuestiers at the grou; engineer freetir.gs that were conductec by FULLEF. He stated the; r.aybe the reasor, that there was some CCr.f U!ict. over these ouest1chs was because of the i lar.;; age tarrier, ar.d that he Cid not feel trat \ar \0 was testing FULLEE's competerce by asking tnese cuestions.
. stated that he has never seen or heard of FULLEF harassing er intiridating Var. VO. He stated that he has never seen FULLEF Icse his ter:er with anyone. , stated, hoaever, that FULLER does telk dowr*
to his pecfle, as if they were thirc graders.
3 11[18 E.XHIB T (/6
- E'
~ . - - . .. - - .. . - . . - - - _ .
I !
< i f
4, 1
I 1
I t :
. t i
I stated that FULLEF was consistent in his tranagement approach to all ',
of the encineers. He stated that he had no favorites or non-favorites. He statec that FULLEF listens to suggestions and gives feedback, but that it l usually boils cowr, to doing it the way FULLEF wants it done.
t i
i
! in closing, stated that if anything, Van VO was .iust like all the !
i ether orier.tals that he knea. They were proud anc die not like to !
te taibec co r. tc. l This Results of Inteniem was Dreparec on February 25,19EE.
. n !
. . :< !w ~>?l0 c,m
- jarr, L.n ee,nse , investigator 1 1
i i
4
+
1 l
I
)
2 s , .;i::d's n'/'-
- .g 4
- * JL. ki"
I
. . p r.e ; c 3.e v c e c1 rie- r:icn. .- ; :( r e;, i r :: i: . . . c- :.. .:a.. .ie-DO NDi D'sttCst EoYams Idee', ei
] S e s'e 17. f O r. a : 1 o r, i%et } w s i r. 1 C E 'es t hNYb N"*? *c !lt U. 5 'i:1 ear . ..
- npu'.atory Cem sssior. ( N ; ; .' . i recues; ar, evt.eets ::+ege e , cer 1 ces ialit.s at a cencitier of r ees icing t hi t r ic: r r:1 er to *te ??:. I =111 ne c rc tice this
. ra c e c : l e r. vc.; ur.t a ri ly te 16.e i.?C itnest t u: t c r.' er:1a;1ty :, e i r. ; e s : erice d
. t c ree .
It is try uncerstanding, censistent with its lecal obligations , the h4C, by agreeing to this confidentiality, will adnere to the following concitions:
(1 ) The NRC will not icentify rne by r.ame or personal s centi fier in any NRC initiated occument, conversation, cr comunication released to the ;ublic which relates cirectly to the information previoed by rne. I un c e rs t a nc t h e t e rsr.
- public release
- to encorr:,ess any distribution outsice of the hRC wito *he E 2CeD! ion of other public agencies which c.ay reovi re t his in f orr.a tion in ,
fulnerance of their responsibilities unoer law or public trust.
(7 ) The NRC will disclese r y icentity within the NRC only te tne catent reccired for the cor.cuct of hRC related activities.
(3) During the ceurse of the inceiry or investiga!)or the N C will aise mene every e f f Cet C C*. L i $ t e n t with the ir.vestigatist netCs of !*1e
- n'tr *cule clearly be enoected te result in the C1sclosure of rny icentity to De soas sutsecuently ccr.tacted by the f.RC. At a late
- stage i vrce-stand tha*
eser t ho ug* t he f,F C i i l r.a r. e e v e ry
- easer.able e f f ort Ic cepteC r.s icentit),
try centification could be co-celled by crce rs or :,::eer es
- s sued ty ccurts c.f i t=. rea ring sca res , or sirnilar legal entities. ;r suc r. c e s es t r.e :,a s i s ic r g* anting Inis :,r:Mse of ccnficentiaisty ano any etr.er r e '. e . e r.1 f6 cts *111 be tc--'anicated tc the aut".crity orce*ing the disclet ure in an t (fert te ainte tr.
ry c r.f i cer.!)a h ty. }f this Effort tr0s es unsuc c e! s f ul . a r e;*ei er.tatis e of tne NRC will atte :t tc 1r.forn rne of any sucr actior, te fcre c* sclesing ry i c e nt i t.s .
I AIsc ur.CE* star.c I nal
- he hPC will CCr' side r f.e IC nave ma'seg ty riget to cO*f1Ce".11ality if l ! a t e a r.) a c t i or 1 *.a t tr.ay be r f a ! C
- a t
- y e n *;t : t e t 10 C i s C I C s t r*y i c e ".t i t y . } f u r t r.e e u".C e *1 t a *.c t *.a t t hE fiPC mill CO*s'. e* .~e 1 *
.ase maist 0 r*y right! *c cer #1certiality if I Or:vidt (or hatt D re v ) C u t '. y c r 0 6 *. Ct : 1 ' r fc cma t i C r tc any c!Be r par *y tha t Contrad1 Cts the in fc rea*.1or. tha t I fros' cec IC the hPC cr if circu itance! incicate that I art intentionally crevicing false ir.fo*raticn tc the NRC.
Otter Conditions: (if any)
! tave reac and fully u .ct' stand the contents of this acret. emt.
r I acree mitt its cacsisse-i.
- i D3 N".4 D'5 LC5t Ce.vo es t w v , or Cc.r.I,wa.2 so..e, Pri 77
- 4 # 8
,t:6 / N A Tr u. 4 /wd er ;rn C A. A t G U ,. /jdc imer / (ds./,.:.:m jit . ,,r k -O&,
r, . in ,, w drsw e ri . .' : u
.=_, ,
1 i
) RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM C. HARTLEY ON '
FEBRUARY 21, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR
[i, LARRY L. ROBINSON I
! i 4
I
- On February 21, 1985 William C. HARTLEY, Hanger Engineer, Carolina Power ,
i and Light Company (CP&L), was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. ;
Robinson on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
i
! The nature of the interview was explained to HARTLEY as pertaining to his .d j knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-
, ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his former CP&L supervision.
i
- HARTLEY stated that he has been employed by CP&L since July 23, 1979. He i' advised that he spent three weeks at CP&L headquarters in Raleigh, NC and three months working at the Brunswick site in Southport before he came 4
on site at Shearon Harris. He advised that he graduated from Virginia.
Western Comunity College in June 1979. j l'
i i HARTLEY stated that when he came to the Shearon Harris plant, Van VO was ,
) working for a man named Ed McLEAN. He stated that at that time there were l l only about seven people in the section. HARTLEY advised that McLEAN had a definite language problem with Van V0. He advised that he worked with
! ' Van VO in the piping section and not only did Van VO have language problems with people in the section, but Van V0's pipe modifications were not
] working.
1
' HARTLEY stated that after McLEAN left, Ed WILLETT became the manager of both the piping and hanger sections. He stated that at some point in time
' after WILLETT came, Van VO transferred from piping to hangers because of the problems Van VO was having in the piping section. HARTLEY stated that '
- Alex FULLER was the lead in the hanger section when Van VO was transferred, i
HARTLEY stated that he remembered, at the first group meeting after Van VO l was transferred, that Van VO made a definite effort to try to impress
] everyone at the meeting with how much he knew.
t j HARTLEY advised that Chase THOMAS transferred from hangers to piping when 2
Van VO came from piping to hangers. He stated that THOMAS was supposed to j teach Van VO about hangers, but THOMAS gave up because Van VO would not let l THOMAS fully explain anything to him.
! HARTLEY stated that Van VO was always doing irrelevent calculations to try i to solve simple engineering problems.
l i
HARTLEY advised that he has never seen FULLER harass or intimidate Van VO
! or anyone else. He stated, to the contrary, that Van VO would make j mistakes in calculations, but FULLER would not correct or discipline him.
{ He stated that he felt that Van VO got away with a lot of mistakes because j he was a minority.
i HARTLEY stated that Van VO was always talking about being a Major in the i Vietnamese army, owning two Mercedes automobiles, owning a construction
{ company, and being a very wealthy man in Vietnam. HARTLEY advised that b
I eXHielT 5sge L d @S
- Van VO always was of the opinion that he (Van VO) should be in charge of the operation.
HARTLEY advised that about a year after he knew Van VO, Van VO started to 3 "go o'f the deep end," and really started to think he should take over. He stated that Van V0 was always working on some kind of large scale plan during working hours instead of working on the hangers that he was supposed to be working on.
~
HARTLEY stated that FULLER was a hard worker, set a good example, and would never criticize individual employees in public. He advised that if FULLER was going to criticize or discipline anyone he would always call them privately into his office. He stated that FULLER was always fair in his dealings with people, and worked many overtime hours without being paid for them.
HARTLEY added that FULLER did not have a hard-line attitude. He stated i
that he was friendly, and receptive to suggestions. He advised that an example of this was FULLER's initiation of a " hanger of the week" program.
HARTLEY stated that the bottom line was that FULLER was a hard worker, and just wanted everyone else to work as hard as he did.
HARTLEY stated that he has never heard of Van VO bringing any safety i concerns to FULLER, and FULLER " stonewalling," or blocking these concerns ,
from going any further.
HARTLEY stated that approximately six to nine months ago a procedure entitled "QCA-3" was issued, and it stated that anyone could write a non-conformance report (NCR). He stated that back when WILLETT was in charge of piping and hangers, his verbal instructions were contact a QA man if you felt NCR needed to be written, and have OA write up the report.
HARTLEY stated that no one has ever told him that it was mandatory to cor. tact CP&L management and discuss any type of problem prior to contacting the NRC about it. He stated, however that when WILLETT was in charge, he told him (HARTLEY) that if he talked to the NRC, of if the NRC talked to him, he should brief CP&L's management about the discussion.
HARTLEY stated that the situation with respect to Van VO was not really as it was pictured in the media around the Raleigh area. He stated that the Van VO case was a " classic case" of a disgruntled employee causing problems.
HARTLEY stated that years before Van VO was terminated, Van VO would say things like "if they (CP&L) ever fire me, I'll sue them."
]
HARTLEY stated that Van VO was always " bad mouthing" FULLER, WILLETT, and anyone else that graduated from North Carolina State. He advised that Van VO used to quiz new North Carolina State graduates on engineering flow problems.
J HARTLEY stated that he thinks about the time that Van VO got into the shoving incident with Charlie GERMANY was the time Van V0 went on probaticn. He stated that he did not know definitely if that incident 2
E.XHIBIT VS i
Pase d- d1 M
, I i
i
- was definitely related to Van V0's probation, but that it probably had t something to do with it. HARTLEY stated he remembered that during that i confrontation between GERMANY and Van VO, Van VO made a statement like "I
- engineer, you pipefitter."
j
- This Results of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985.
4 1 6/
f y ry L./ Robinson, Investigator 1
1 j
i j
- I I
.T k
i 4
i I
r i
I 4
j L
4
! 3 MHisiT t4 -* "'"
I age n Y o'-#
. ~ . _ - . ~ . . . . - . _ .._. _ . _ . _ _ - . . . - . . . _ _ _ . . - _ . _ . - _ . _ _ . - - . _ . . _ _ _ - . . , - . - - , _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . . . -
, RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH JERRY DEDGE LEE ON FEBRUARY 21, '.985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 21, 1985 Jerry Dedge LEE, Hanger Engineering Supervisor, Daniels Construction Company, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L.
Robinson on site at the Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Shearon .
Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to LEE as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by his former CP&L supervision.
LEE stated that he has been employed by Daniels Construction Company for a tctal of 16 years. He stated that he first came on site at Shearon Harris on April 15, 1984 LEE stated that he has eight years nuclear construction experience.
LEE stated that he never knew a man name Chan Van VO, as he (LEE) had come on board at the Harris site af ter Van VO had lef t.
LEE stated that he had been at the Harris site about six weeks when Alex FULLER initiated at " shape up or ship out program." LEE advised that FULLER asked him to pick three men from the section that were the poorest performers of the group and give these names to FULLER. LEE stated that he did not feel that he had been there long enough to make this choice and that FULLER would have to make the choice. LEE stated that at that time there were about seven or eight people in the hanger section. He stated that there were three in whip restraints, and four or five hanger systems engineers.
LEE advised that the three names that FULLER finally chose were Bruce DEESE, Buddy WEST and Jim FAIRRIS.
LEE advised that when FULLER called DEESE into his office and counselled him about his performance, he talked about DEESE needing to do more inspections and having a better knowledge of procedures. LEE stated that Jim JOHNSON, who was DEESE's supervisor before LEE became his supervisor, was the one that gave FULLER some of the regative aspects about the perfor-mance of DEESE. He stated that he did not really know whether JOHNSON really had any problems with DEESE's perfomance or not.
LEE stated that he thought that FULLER had received orders from his manage-ment to initiate this " shape up or ship out program" but that FULLER did not seem to be reluctant about carrying out the program. He seem to be doing it willingly. LEE stated that WEST was a little more verbal about making suggestions on how to improve the operations in the section, so he talked FULLER out of including FAIRRIS in the program and " substituted" WEST for FAIRRIS.
LEE stated that he talked to other people at CP&L in other divisions and, to his knowledge no one else was doing this " shape up or ship out program."
311/20 EXHIBIT (/c) pqp / of J Pages
1 LEE stated that he felt that FULLER was sincerely trying to be a good manager but that he was inexperienced and blindly following the company line. He stated that FULLER was not very receptive to suggestions. ,
LEE cited one instance where CP&L needed some overtime hours but were only going to pay people for a 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> week, and FULLER made sure that everyone in the section understood that they were still going to work their 50 to 58 hours6.712963e-4 days <br />0.0161 hours <br />9.589947e-5 weeks <br />2.2069e-5 months <br /> a week, but that CP&L was only going to pay for 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> during that period. .,
LEE stated that he held his own nuclear safety meetings with his people, and FULLER was not even aware that LEE was holding these meetings, or that i the meetings were even required. He stated that experienced workers handle j nuclear safety "in spite of" FULLER.
LEE stated that he felt that if CP&L and FULLER find out that he (LEE) had i provided this information to the NRC, that they would probably take i retribution against him. He stated, however, that he gave this information freely and with no malice intended.
In closing, LEE stated that he felt that FULLER was sincerely trying his j best to do his job for CP&L at Shearon Harris.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985.
i, M//Y Sirry L. jrobFnson', Investigator
/J M L l
2 0;nsT t'4 '
_ . . . _ , .pr.re
.__ 5__C' 1 *_ _ _ _
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH ALEXANDER GRAHAM FULLER ON FEBRUARY 21, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVESTIGATOR LARRY L. ROBINSON On February 21, 1985, Alexander Graham FULLER, Principal Engineer, Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L), was interviewed by NRC Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to FULLER as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by him (FULLER), or any of Van V0's former supervisors at CP&L. -
! FULLER stated that he was employed by CP&L on May 29, 1973, and that he has 1 been at the Harris site since that date. He stated that he had no prior i nuclear ex;:erience, and that he came directly to CP&L from graduation at
- North Carolina State Un m rsity with a Civil Engineering Degree.
FULLER stated that about February 1981, he was in charge of the construction engineering group, specifically the pipe hanger section, under the supervision of Ed WILLETT. FULLER stated that he came to the construction engineering group having worked at the Shearon Harris Reservoir.
FULLER stated that in about April 1982. Chan Van VO transferred into the hanger section from the piping section. FULLER stated that at that time i WILLETT told him that Van VO had had some problems in piping. He advised that WILLETT did not specify these problems to him.
1 FULLER stated that initially he assigned a man that he did not further identify, to work with Van VO in handling Van V0's transition from piping i
to hangers. FULLER stated that Van VO told him that he was ready to accept the responsibility in the hanger section right away without any transition, but FULLER kept this other individual with him for a while, and then let Van VO go on his own.
FULLER stated that initially Van VO was a "go getter," but as the months went by certain things did not " ring true" about Van V0's performance.
FULLER stated that he initially passed these things off as normal problems that would come up when an individual was transferred to a new section and also due to Van V0's language difficulty.
FULLER stated that in October 1982, he prepared a rating on Van VO and rated him competent. He stated that he did not recall that Van VO had any problem with that rating. He stated that he discussed it with Van VO, and he did not recall Van VO having any objections to the competent rating.
FULLER stated that during these first six months from April to October 1982, as he said before, certain things did not " ring true," but that there were no specific items that he could pinpoint to give Van VO a less than competent rating at that time.
i 4
3ii/2.i EXHIBIT #6 Page / of d- Pages
__ q l
l FULLER stated that when formal counselling was initiated on van VO on March 11, 1983, the five areas in which Van V0's performance were indicated to be less than acceptable had all exhibited themselves within a two week period just prior to this formal counselling. He stated that he was initially willing to give Van VO the benefit of the doubt with respect to areas in engineering judgment, but that in the March 1983 time frame he realized that it was time to formally counsel Van VO on his performance.
FULLER stated that in August 1983, approximately five months after he had -
initiated formal counselling with Van VO, FULLER put Van VO on a pipe hanger surveillance project. He stated that as a result of this project, Van VO brought him some problems, which included the use of an apparently voided purchase order number to purchase steel. FULLER stated that he remembered that Wayne HARRIS, who had been his (FULLER's) predecessor as the leadman in.the hanger section, was a very meticulous man and if he would have used Purchase Order No. 21022 to order steel, he would have logged it in a separate logbook maintained there in the office, rULLER stated that he told Van VO to check that book. He advised that Van VO checked with accounting and purchasing and found that Purchase Order No. 21022 had been voided, but that he never really resolved the discrepancy in the purchase order. FULLER stated that he wanted to double check the use of this purchase order number before he actually wrote a non-conformance report (NCR) on it, so he had Rick FICHERA,'who was also a very meticulous individual, check on the reportability on the misuse of the purchase order number. He stated that FICHERA actually found the fact that Purchase Order No. 21022 was used as a substitution for the actual purchase order used by purchasing to buy the steel.
FULLER stated that on August 15, 1984, he had a meeting with Van VO to advise him that he was not going to be able to put him on the second shift.
During the course of this meeting he (FULLER) mentioned that he had had FICHERA research the three problems that Van VO had brought to him as a result of the hanger surveillance, and that FICHERA had found different resoluticr,s on these problems, and that they were not reportable items. He stated that Van VO became very upset at this.
FULLER stated that he never told Van VO that he had to clear any subject with FULLER before going to the NRC. FULLER stated that Van VO probably misinterpretated the memoranda that stated that'CP&L wanted to be advised of the nature of any contact between their employees and the NRC.
FULLER stated that in 1981, it was not site procedure for anyone except CI or QC inspectors to write-up NCR's. He stated that obviously at present, anyone on site could write NCR's.
FULLER stated that at no time has he ever harassed or intimidated Van VO and that at not time has he ever disregarded or ignored any type of concern that Van VO has brought to him. He stated that he does not recall Van VO ever bringing a true nuclear safety related concern to him during Van V0's employment under FULLER's supervision. FULLER stated that regarding V0's constructicn cancerns Van VO may have interpreted any apparent inaction on FULLER's part improperly, because he (FULLER) may have been aware of corrective actions already in process, which Van VO may not have been aware of.
2 ?.XHSIT H
- ye _.L_oi L 'W'
~. -
p FULLER advised around June 1984, Ed WILLETT supervisor, Al RAGER, told him (FULLER) and some other section heads, namely Paul HOWARD and Bob SISSON, to select scme of their weaker performers because there was about to be a lay-off of employees.
FULLER stated that he gave a list to RAGER that included the names of Ferrell GASS, Duc NUYGEN, Buddy WEST, Bruce DEESE and Jim FAIRRIS. FULLER stated that HOWARD and SISSON also gave RAGER their list, FULLER stated that as he recalled GASS was the only individual on that list .
of five names that was actually laid off. He stated that GASS worked for Tompkins and Beckwith. He stated that NUYGEN was moved to the second shift, and WEST and DEESE were both counseled.
FULLER stated that he would have counseled DEESE about his performance items at review time anyway, but he would not put the 30 day deadline on improvement.
FULLER advised that he did not really think that anything would happen in 30 days to the men that he was counseling, but he could not really tell the people that he was counseling that fact.
FULLER stated that he thinks he remember that a fellow by the name of KIRBY {
was the man that actually got laid off that was on SISSON's list. He '
stated that he did not know if either SISSON or HOWARD did their counselling as they were instructed to do.
FULLER stated that he has no knowledge of any routine, or intentional, discarding of past inspection documents that had been superceded with an inspection under a revised inspection procedure.
FULLER stated that he wanted to make sure that the NRC understood that CP&L was very concerned about nuclear safety and quality.
This Results of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985.
4Y/Y l' t"rt
, pry L.f<obinson, Investigator 2
~ EXHIBIT 40 p,g,_J__.o1 1 D
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH EDWIN EUGENE WILLETT ON FEBRUARY 22, 1985, AS PREPARED BY INVEST *"')R i
LARR4 L. ROBINSON On February 22, 1985 Edwin E. WILLETT, Manager of Piping and Instrumenta-f tion, Carolina Pcwer and Light Company (CP&L), was interviewed by NRC.
i Investigator Larry L. Robinson on site at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power .
Plant.
The nature of the interview was explained to WILLETT as pertaining to his knowledge of any facts and circumstances regarding allegations of harass-j ment and intimidation of Chan Van VO by WILLETT, Alex FULLER, or any of Van V0's former CP&L supervisors.
WILLETT stated that he was employed by CP&L in September 1973. He stated
, that he has 14 years prior nuclear experience at Newport News Ship Building as a piping draftsman and in the nuclear Navy Ship Building program.
WILLETT stated that in May 1980, he came into the piping section at CP&L as a second level supervisor over FULLER and Steve FRESHWATER.
WILLETT stated that he was initially very positive about Van VO, who was working under him in piping. He stated that because of Van V0's age, experience, and maturity, he thought about grooming him for a " lead" job.
WILLETT stated that he observed a confrontation between Van VO and
< FRESHWATER in which Van VO became very emotional and the confrontation boiled down to some physical contact in the form of pushing. He stated that he knew that Van VO had a lot on his mind from a personai standpoint about relatives in Vietnam, because he had seen two or three letters from Van V0's homeland that were very emotional. He stated that he did not
] recall specifically what the confrontation was about.
WILLETT stated that because of this conflict between Van VO and FRESHWATER he decided that he would put Van VO in the h l whom WILLETT thought was a better supervisor.lnger He stated section under that he tookFULLER, a
walk with Van VO and explained why he was transferring him, and that Van VO accepted this reason fairly well. ,
WILLETT stated that the only professional performance factor that entered i
into his decision about transferring Van VO to the hanger section was that when Van VO was working in the waste processing area, there was a terrific backlog of prcblems that needed to be solved and Van VO would not admit i that he had this large backlog. WILLETT stated that Van VO kept denying that there was a backlog of problems in waste processing. WILLETT advised that other than this, there was no " quality of work" factor that played a part in this transfer decision.
WILLETT advised that in April 1982, immediately after the transfer of Van VO from piping to hangers, he (WILLETT) got some feedback from FULLER that Van VO was having difficulty scoping his work. WILLETT advised that FULLER told him that van VO was also having difficulty and managir.g his job.
S ii/za.
E.XHlBIT @4 Page L J 1 M
WILLETT advised, however, that in October 1982.he and FULLER went ahead and promoted Van VO to engineer. He stated that at that time he was not personally aware of any specific quality problems in Van V0's performance in hangers. He stated that engineering aides that have achieved a competent performance evaluation can be promoted to engineers.
WILLETT stated that as time went by FULLER became more and more doubtful about Van V0's performance, and WILLETT told FULLER that they needed to
" rescue" Van V0. He stated that he told FULLER to go ahead and do a performance appraisal on Van VO at that time, which was six months prior to
- the scheduled October 1983 potential salary action date. He stated that he and FULLER had a discussion with Van VO and pointed out five areas in which they thought he could improve his perfonnance. WILLETT advised that Van VO did not accept their evaluation of his performance.
WILLETT stated that at this point in time, around March or April 1983, he .
was trying to tell Van VO that he had a chance to improve himself before the official salary action time in October 1983, and that was why they were having this early performance discussion. WILLETT stated that Van VO refused to accept this evaluation and they reached a " impasse." WILLETT stated that Van VO was not accepting that he had a performance problem, and WILLETT decided that he had tc escalate the improvement plan into formal probation.
WILLETT stated that he has no knowledge of Van VO ever bringing any safety problem to FULLER that was not fully explored. WILLETT stated that he does not recall Van VO ever coming to him with a true nuclear safety related problem.
WILLETT stated that he wanted to emphasize that CP&L is very concerned about quality and safety at Shearon Harris, giving the example of the
" hanger of the week" program.
WILLETT stated that he has never seen FULLER harass or intimidate anyone, much less Chan Van V0.
WILLETT stated, with regard to Van V0's accusations of his denying Van V0's transfer request, that Van VO and Ed McLEAN were friends, and Van VO came to WILLETT several times saying that all the problems would be over if WILLETT would simply transfer Van VO to McLEAN in the Equipment /HVAC section. WILLETT stated that they needed Van VO in hangers, and WILLETT also did not think that Van V0's " friend" McLEAN would objectively supervise Van V0. He stated that he received no request from any other areas for Van VO to be transferred.
With respect to Van V0's educational discrimination allegations WILLETT stated that Van VO wanted to attend California Coast University. WILLETT stated that he found out that it was not an accredited university. WILLETT suggested that Van VO attend Duke University. He stated that Van VO told him that it was too expensive. He stated that he advised van VO that CP&L would sponsor him at Duke University, and yet Van VO decided not to attend Duke.
2 MHtEli @4
.g,.e _ > c' i' I'cE%
u l
WILLETT reiterated that CP&L management is very concerned about safety. He stated that the organization of the hanger surveillance team in which Van VO participated was a quality action in itself. And finally, that Van V0's allegations of CP&L not being concerned for safety were totally unfounded.
WILLETT advised that in June 1984, his supervisor, Peter FOSCOLO, told he and Al RAGGER that he (FOSCOLO) needed list of names for lay-offs.
VILLETT advisec that FOSCOLO said he needed five names. He advised that he had about 100 people in the Equipment, Piping and Instrumentation Division M at the time. He stated that he thought he only laid off one of the five names on the list that he gave to FOSCOLO. He stated that the decision on who was going to be laid off was made based on who would hurt the organization the least by being laid off. He stated it was not a seniority type laycff, but was based strictly upon performance.
WILLETT stated that to get the list he went to his leads in Instrumenta-tien, Piping and Equipment and asked for names. He advised that FOSCOLO said to counsel the people that were selected ard tell them that they had 20 days in which to improve.
This Pesults of Interview was prepared on February 25, 1985.
A'/ .. I h*C I
Wry L./ <cbinson, Investigator
/
3 EXHlBli (M Page I- d