ML20236U951

Partially Deleted Investigation Rept 5-93-023R.No Noncompliance Noted.Investigation Conducted to Determine Whether Technician Vacancy at Plant Had Been Discriminated by Plant

ML20236U951
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	05/11/1994
From:	Hayes B, Logan K, Mcnulty W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236U926	List: IA-98-273, Partially Deleted Investigation Rept 5-93-023R.No Noncompliance Noted.Investigation Conducted to Determine Whether Technician Vacancy at Plant Had Been Discriminated by Plant ML20236U924 ML20236U939 ML20236U951
References
FOIA-98-273 5-93-023R, 5-93-23R, NUDOCS 9807310195
Download: ML20236U951 (35)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Title:

PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION:

ALLEGED EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION Licensee: Case Number: 5-93-023R Arizona Public Service Report Date: May 11, 1994 400 N. 5th St.

Phoenix, AZ 85004 Control Office: RIV:WCF0 Docket No.: 05000528; 05000529 Status: CLOSED 05000530 Reported By: Reviewed By:

^

Keifi G. Logan, /nve tigator William J. McNultf, Director /

Offi ce of InvestQa ons Office of Invedgations /

Fielq Office, Region IV:WCF0 Field Office, Region IV:WCF0 Approve  : -

1

/

WB.~ Hayes, Ef re or / '

Office of Investi tips 3

( w an  ? 's 7

att :hedloum ep t bas 1 3 r evi e/purguntt 4t I l p on r in xe np t ri 1 ee de e e l

secti iMte(or o' ; diss n 6790(a)2s it u'

n1 bu side T re as 01: I '

N 3 ms t c, r, r ,:U',;n i'. '.O i :' : , T 3 'D. E Copy of ii j,,, g;id.;Cd tiidl S f b) c In Offn3Ei0n

{r[.$$Y7 73 1 5 980728 d PDR N - ~ -_ ROSS98-273 j

SYNOPSTS On August 17, 1993, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (OI), Region V (RV), initiated an investigation to determine whether an applicant (alleger) for a contract Instrument & Control (I&C)

Technician vacancy at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) had been discriminated against by Arizona Public Service (APS).

ervisor contacted the Atlantic Group In (TAG) early December to inform 1991, it that APS wouldaneed UnitI 1 I&C sup&C technicians for an upco) refueling outage planned to begin shortly after the Unit 2 outage ended. In response to this request, TAG sent resumes of I&C technicians then working on the Unit 2 outage to the supervisor. He consulted with a Unit 2 supervisor about those employees and was provided with a copy of evaluations of the Unit 2 contractor employees.

On about December 17, 1991, the Unit 1 supervisor gave the resumes to his.

foreman, with whom he has worked for 12 years at PVNGS. The foreman reviewed the resumes and annotated the resumes with "yes" or "no." On December 19, 1991, the foreman returned the annotated resumes, with his recommendations.

The Unit 1 supervisor reviewed the annotated resumes and chose 11 I&C technicians for the upcoming Unit 1 outage. The alleger was the only candidate recommended by the foreman that the Unit 1 supervisor did not select.

After an investigation by the Department of Labor (DOL), Wage and Hour Division concluded that the allegation of discrimination was not ,

substantiated, the alleger sought a hearing before an administrative law '

judge.

A hearing was held and testimony was heard from the I&C supervisors end several other APS employees. The Unit 1 supervisor denied discriminating against the alleger, in that he denied making a nonelection of the alleger based on any prior knowledge of his protected activitic.s. The Unit 2 supervisor testified that he had not discussed his knowledge of the alleger's protected activities with the Unit 1 supervisor. In a May 10, 1993, Recommended Decision and Order, the judge found in fdvor of the alleger on his complaint against APS.

After the DOL decision there were numerous inquiries by APS of their employees {

and attorneys about what transpired. In an August 10, 1993 letter, APS informed the NRC that the Unit 1 APS supervisor had admitted on August 6, l 1993, that he declined to hire a contractor employee because he learned of the )

employees protected activity.

The OI investigation also determined that the Unit 2 supervisor had discussed with the Unit 1 supervisor rumors concerning the alleger's protected l activities prior to the Unit 1 supervisor's nonelection of the alleger for the outage. These facts are contrary to the supervisors' sworn testimony

during the DOL Wage and Hour Division hearing on a discrimination complaint filed with the 00L.

Case No. 5 93 023R 1

The nonelection of the contractor employee for an APS contractor position at PVNGS on the basis of protected (whistleblowing) activities is discrimination in violation of 10 CFR 50.7. The Unit 1 I&C supervisor and APS discriminated against the alleger by not selecting him for work at the Unit 1 outage.

False statements made under oath at the DOL hearing constitute perjury, in violation of 18 USC Section 1621. The Unit 1 and Unit 2 supervisors committed perjury during their testimony at the DOL hearing.

The Unit 1 supervisor's actions also constitute a violation of 10 CFR 50.5, because the supervisor's discriminatory action placed the licensee (APS) in violation of NRC regulations.

Case No. 5 93 023R 2

. ACCOUNTABILITY

' r T' folio ing port ~i ns this)Repohtofl est' gat [ $-

i i not incl de in he mdterial lac 1h he P lic g

(C,s cu N9 ', t hs j

ist pages thr u h-34. ,

i l'  !

I l

1 l

l I

f f

I l

i Case No. 5 93 023R 3

I' l

l t

I l

l i

l l

l l \

I i

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY i

i t

Case No. 5 93 023R 4 I

l m.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace SYN 0PSIS........................................................ I t ACCOUNTABILITY.................................................. 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.......................................... 7 ORGANIZATION CHART.............................................. 9 LIST OF ACRONYMS............... ................................ 11 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES............................................ 13 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION........................................ 15 Pur]ose of Investigation................... .............. 15 Baccground................................. .............. 15 Florida Power & Light (FPL)............................... 15 The Atlantic Group (TAG).................................. 15 Arizona Public Service (APS).............................. 15 Allegation No. 1: APS and WARRINER Allegedly Discriminated Against SAPORITO By Not Hiring Him For An Upcoming Unit 1 Outage in January 1992........................... 19 Summary....................................... 19 Evidence............................................ 20 i C oncl u s i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . 21 Allegation No. 2: WARRINcR Committed Perjury During His Testimony at the Depart 'nt of Labor Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Summary............................................. 22 Evidence............................................ 22 Conclusions......................................... 26' l Allegation No. 3: GROVE Committed Perjury During His l Testimony at the Department of Labor Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . 26 i Summary............................................. 26 Evidence............................................ 26 C o ncl u s i ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 SUPPLEMENTAL INF0RHATION........................................ 31 LIST OF EXHIBITS................................................ 33 i

l i

( 1 1

I i

i l

Case No. 5 93-023R 5 1

1

l

• i 1

1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I

l l Case No. 5 93 023R 6 l

t i

. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 10 CFR 50.5 Deliberate Hisconduct (a) Any licensee or any employee of a licensee; and any contractor (including a supplier of consultant), subcontractor, or any employee of a contractor or subcontractor, of any licensee, who knowingly provides to any licensee, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's activities subject to this part; may not:

(1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Commission, or (2) Deliberately submit to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC.

(b) A person who violates paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section may be subject to enforcement action in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart B.

(c) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act of omission that the person knows:

(1) Would cause a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or (2) Constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order or policy of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor.

10 CFR 50.7 Employee Protection (a) Discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act.

(1) The protected activities include but are not limited to.

(i) Providing the Commission information about possible violations of requirements imposed under either of the above statutes:

(ii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements: or (iii) Testifying in any Commission proceeding.

(2) These activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the employee assistance or participation.

l I

Case No. 5 93 023R 7

1 18 USC 1621. Perjury Generally Whoever -

l (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an i

oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true: or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28 United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true: is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or l without the United States.

. l 1

i i

i Case No. 5 93 023R 8

i i

i Presidrnt Chief Exzeutive Officer .

C. Mark Dealchsle l

- C001 Public Affaire Corp Fin Flag 4 Catl Jaron 8. Norberg Ezec Vice Freeldent nuclear Chief Financial Officer W1111as F. Conway

- 1100 Rasc VP - 8103 I Law Department ""'I**#

Nancy C. Loftin Production Corp sec & Corp Counsel #**** "* M j Unit 1-Plant Unit 2-Plant W1111as E. Ida Unit 3-Plant site Servicae

! Ronald E. Flood Robert J. Adney Mgr - 8215 Mgr - 8301 Mgr - 8400 Paul J. Caudill Dir - 8201 l l

I I

Site Red Protection Patrick W. Eaches Gen Mgr - 8800 Unit 1-Plant Unit 2-Plant Richard P. Schaller Timothy D. Shtiver Aset Mgr - 8215 Aast Mgr - 8301 Plant Sprt Richard E. Souge

- Mgr - 8500 Maintenance Maintenance caniel a. Phillipe l- Mgr - 8230 .W1111ae n. siako Mgr - 8321

. I l

I&C IEC Frank W. Warriner Jr. stephen M. Crove l supv - 8231 Supy - 8322

Thomas 3. Carroway III

David L. Larson !aadore J. Chaves Warren 5. Jones

! Archibald T. Porter Kenneth C. Meyer Thomme E. Seipel Phillip I. MMrick FEMN - 8231 FRMN - 8322 l

Mechanical John P. Winsor Macht.nical Supv - 8233 Franklin K. Floyd Supv - 8324 Kevin D. 31steelee Dennie L. Donovan Earles D. Emerson Charles W. Bankine Letter C. Sewell -

Cathleen L. Ray (Vacant)

'I FRMN - 8233 (Vacant)

FRMN - 8324 Case No. 5-93-023R 9 -

L.

l

. l l

l t

I l

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY i

Case No. 5 93 023R 10

. 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS .

APS Arizona Public Service DOL De artment of Labor ECP Em loyee Concerns Program FPL F1 rida Power and Light I&C Instrument & Control L/R Law Firm of Lewis & Roca N/H Law Firm of Newman & Holtzinger NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 01 Office of Investigations PVNGS Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station RV Region V (Now Region IV, Walnut Creek Field Office)

S/W Law Firm of Snell & Wilmer TR Transcript (DOL Hearing) e I

l j

Case No. 5 93 023R 11 1

_ _ _ -- - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- J

l l

l l

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ,

l l Case No. 5 93 023R 12 L--__--__--____-

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES EXHIBIT CHAVEZ, Isadore, PVNGS Foreman................................ 16 GROVE, Steven, (Former) I&C Supervisor, PVNGS................. 6, 8, 10, 15 LARSON, David E., PVNGS Foreman............................... 22 LOUGH, James F., Security Screening Analyst................... 11, 12 LYONS. Esq., George, Partner, S/W............................. 8, 26 THORNTON, Esq., Steve C., Associate, S/W...................... 27 WARRINER, Frank, (Former) I&C Supervisor, PVNGS............... 3, 6, 17 t

i Case No. 5 93 023R 13

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY i

l Case No. 5 93 023R 14

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION .

Puroose of Investigation On August 17. 1993, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region V (RV) initiated an investigation to determine whether an applicant (alleger) for a contract Instrument & Control (I&C)

Technician vacancy at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) had been discriminated against by Arizona Public Service (APS) (Exhibit 1).

Backaround Florida Power & Liaht (FPL)

SAPORITO worked as an I&C technician at FPL from March 1982 to December 1988.

While at FPL, SAPORITO filed labor grievances and raised alleged safety concerns causing an NRC investigation of that utility. SAPORITO was eventually terminated by FPL for refusing to disclose certain information to management. SAP 0RITO then brought several Department of Labor (DOL) actions against FPL, namely 89 ERA 7, 89 ERA 17, 90 ERA 27, and 90 ERA 47, SAPORITO has frequently been in contact with the media through press releases, interviews, and television appearances on safety concerns involving FPL and the NRC.

The Atlantic Group (TAG) 1 The Atlantic Group, Inc. (TAG), is a services contractor which supplies l personnel primarily to public utilities throughout the country. TAG's main office is in Norfolk, . Virginia, and it has seven regional offices, including one in Phoenix. Arizona. In 1991 TAG entered into a contract with APS to provide professional and technical contract labor personnel for PVNGS. In late summer /early fall 1991. SAPORITO contacted TAG regarding assignment as a contract I&C technician at PVNGS.

Arizona Public Service (APS) i On September 10, 1991, SAPORITO signed his security questionnaire for a security clearance at PVNGS. On September 29, 1991, SAPORIT0 was selected by APS to begin work as a TAG employee /APS contractor I&C technicien at PVNGS Unit 2 for that unit's refueling outage. SAPORITO received training from APS in September and October 1991 and was awarded a series of certificates for 1 technical skills, eventually becoming an independently qualified I&C  !

technician in October 1991.  !

l Prior to SAPORIT0's arrival, various I&C technicians at PVNGS who had worked I with him at FPL learned of his hiring. The co workers approached first line supervision with descriptions of his prior activity. There were additional contacts with outside sources. l l

During the Unit 2 outage (October December 1991), SAPORITO worked for l Steven GROVE. the Unit 2 I&C Supervisor, and GROVE's foremen. GROVE was aware i of SAPORITO's protected and other activities at FPL. The interview notes of '

Case No. 5 93 023R 15

George LYONS indicate that GROVE recalled talking to Frank WARRINER on several occasic s about SAPORITO and a TAG representative informed WARRINER and GROVE about rumors concerning SAPORITO: but GROVE has testified (Exhibit 7) and told APS investigators that he did not discuss SAPORIT0's background with WARRINER (Exhibit 10). GROVE (with his attorney present) invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and would not discuss this matter with NRC investigators (Exhibit 15).

During the Unit 2 outage, other Unit 2 employees and APS management officials I became aware of SAPORITO's activities and problems at FPL ore CHAVEZ, (Exhibit 16), a Unit 2 foreman, heard about SAPORITO from q (',

who worked with SAPORITO at FP n Zr d heard to GROVE ho also received information from and --

Starting in October 1991, SAPORITO raised several technical and safety issues, concerns and questions with his APS supervisors during the course of the ,

Unit 2 outage, including several matters which were later brought to the attention of the APS Employee Concerns group.

In late 1991, Jim LOUGH, APS security screening analyst, indicated that GROVE called him to ask about SAPORITO's background investigation, because GROVE told him that he had gotten a call from FPL and wanted to know if there was anything negative. In an interview with APS outside counsel, LOUGH indicated that he contacted GROVE indicating that SAPORITO was not being cooperative regarding information he needed. LOUGH recalled that "]robably sometime in November " GROVE called him and asked LOUGH to check SA)0RIT0's file if there was anything that would be of concern about SAPORITO getting his Automated Control Access Device (ACAD) or "anything derogatory in the file or anything that would come up that would make [them] look further." GROVE told LOUGH that "SAPORITO was a whistle blower, and that's why he had some concerns" (Exhibits 11-12). WACKENHOT completed its report on SAPORIT0 on November 20, 1991.

GROVE prepared a list (Exhibit 24) of Unit 2 outage contractor technicians reflecting his opinion of their work performance. GROVE discussed the work of SAPORITO and others with WARRINER and provided WARRINER with a copy of his evaluation list. At the conclusion of the APS Unit 2 outage on December 31, 1991, the APS/ TAG employment of SAPORITO ended.

In early December 1991, Unit 1 I&C Supervisor WARRINER contacted TAG to inform it that APS would need I&C technicians for an upcoming Unit I refueling outage planned to begin shortly after the Unit 2 outage ended. In response to WARRINER's request, TAG *s William ENGLEKING and Jan GILLIARD had the resumes of I&C technicians then working on the Unit 2 outage sent over to WARRINER.

WARRINER consulted with GROVE and received a cooy of GROVE's evaluations of

'~

the Unit 2 contractor employees.

On about December 17, 1991, WARRINER gave the resumes he received to his foreman, Dave LARSON, with whom he has worked for 12 years at PVNGS. LARSON l

' reviewed the resumes and annotated the resumes with "yes" or "no," indicating his recommendation as to whether WARRINER should hire that person (Exhibits 19 and 22). On December 19, 1991, LARSON returned the annotated resumes to WARRINER. WARRINER discussed the resumes with GROVE: he reviewed the annotated resumes and chose 11 I&C technicians for the upcoming Unit 1 outage.

WARRINER marked "no" on SAPORIT0's resume (Exhibit 23) below the "yes" that Case No. 5 93 023R 16 nn c b, L

LARSON made, and gave the annotated resumes to another one of his I&C foremen, Robert WAGNER. WARRINER directed WAGNER (Exhibit 20) to notify TAG (Tina BIEBL) and to get additional resumes for two more selections. SAPORITO, along with four other Unit 2 I&C technicians, was not chosen by WARRINER to work on the Unit 1 outage. SAPORITO was the only candidate recommended by LARSON that WARRINER did not select.

On December 20, SAPORITO met with H. Daniel ROBERTSON, ECP (Employee Concerns Program) Investigator, and Clyde STEWART, ECP Manager, and alleged that he was being discriminated against in that he would not be selected for the outage work in Unit 1 because he raised safety concerns (ECP file #9109013).

WARRINER sent ROBERTSON a memorandum regarding a January13, 1992, meeting indicating that he made the selections for the Unit 1 outage based on input from LARSON and GROVE.

On January 2,1992 ENGLEKING informed SAPORITO that he had the selection list and SAPORITO had not been selected for work during the Unit 1 outage. On January 23, 1992. STEWART sent a letter to SAP 0RITO indicating that the ECP investigation found no evidence to support his discrimination charges.

On January 13, 1992 LYONS and Steve THORNTON, attorneys with Snell & Wilmer (S/W) the outside firm APS selected to represent the company in this matter, interviewed GROVE and WARRINER: others were present. The following information is reflected in the attorneys' notes (Exhibits 4 and 5):

LYONS on GROVE: GROVE recommended SAPORITO for hire, a category #1 as he F called nvo'it. WARRINER did not hire SAPORITO who was dismissed from andi wsuit and was on television. GROVE talked with 70-wi ho worked at FPL with SAPORITO. GR0VE had spoken securi y in v mber and was told they might aull his ACAD.

Someone from TAG had called GROVE and asked if he leard rumors about SAPORIT0.

THORNTON people regardin on GROVE: GROVE has file on SAPORITO and met with several those concerns.g SAPORITO's allegations, but is no longer working on GROVE gave his list to WARRINER. They discussed rumors two to three times during the Unit 2 outage. They met on a weekly basis and would interface regularly. With regard to rumors, he received a from '7C acts group (Neil HOWARD's group). He spoke with nd ho knew SAPORITO from FPL. In the beginning of er a question ame up regarding SAPORIT0's ACAD and he was later told that SAPORITO had given the information that was requested. He also received a, call from TAG to see if he heard rumors: there were many discussions with TAG regarding Unit 2 contractors.

i.YONS on WARRINER: He was initially worried about being able to hire I&C contractor technicians because he did not have enough money in his budget. He received contractor resumes from GILLIARD with TAG: he gave them to LARSON. He got with LARSON and selected names. LARSON gave them back and the selections were made before December 25. 1991.

THORNTON on WARRINER: He recalls seeing SAPORITO's name on the list and thcught that GROVE had not recommended him; he has destroyed the list.

About a week before Christmas, he called the TAG to request names of Case No. 5 93 023R 17 n, r,

l-f

' people for the Unit 2 outage. GILLIARD brought the resumes over and he game them to LARSON to get his input. He got LARSON's comments and then talked to GROVE. He made selection before Christmas day. He only selected 11 names and had to request more resumes for two more individuals. He does not recall the reason for refusing SAPORIT0. His only knowledge about SAPORITO was from a call with THORNTON on January 1,1992, STEWART on January 7,1992, and a lady lawyer on i January 6, 1992. His only knowledge of SAPORITO was from the resumes l

andget not his high conversations marks. with GROVE. in that he recalls that SAPORITO did On January 27, 1992, SAPORITO filed a Complaint with 00L alleging that he was discriminated against in violation of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act.

THORNTON and Thomas KENNEDY, the S/W attorney assigned to handle the DOL investigative matter for APS, met to discuss an affidavit that was needed from LARSON regarding the non selection of SAPORITO. KENNEDY had conversations with William WHITFIELD, DOL investigator, and was preparing documents and a i

response for WHITFIELD regarding the selections made for the Unit 1 outage,

! On about. March 5th THORNTON became aware of the LARSON annotated resumes.

These resumes indicated LARSON's recommendation of SAPORITO for hire and, t

ultimately, that the actual non se'ection was made by WARRINER.

KENNEDY sent a letter to DOL dated March 6, 1992 (Exhibit 13), with a signed 1

statement by WARRINER and copies of the " resumes which were reviewed by Mr. Warriner." Both KENNEDY and WHITFIELD believed these were the actual l

' resumes used by WARRINER in making his selections. Neither was aware of the existence of the annotated resumes until after the 00L hearing decision (Exhibit 21).

After a fact finding investigation, the DOL, Wage and Hour Division concluded l

that the allegation of discrimination was not substantiated, SAPORITO sought a hearing before an administrative law judge.

A hearing was held and testimony was heard from the I&C supervisors and l

numerous other APS employees. There was extensive document and testimonial l

disc ~overy. SAPORITO's Complaint was heard by Administrative Law Judge Michael P. LESNIAK from September 28 to October 7,1992. In a May 10, 1993,

! Recommended Decision and Order, the judge found in favor of SAPORITO on his

! complaint against APS.

After the DOL decision there were numerous inquiries by APS of what facts led to the D0L judge's decision and how the S/W attorneys handled the case. In an l August 10, 1993 letter, APS informed the NRC that the Unit 1 APS I&C supervisor, had admitted on August 6, 1993, that he declined to hire SAPORITO l because he had previously raised safety concerns (Exhibit 14).

k At the request of the NRC 0I, on August 13, 1993. APS representatives met with Keith Logan and William McNulty to discuss the SAPORITO matter and the findings of Judge LESNIAK. APS, through Nancy LOFTIN, its corporate secretary and general counsel, waived attorney client privilege to the NRC on all matters involving SAPORITO which arose prior to and including August 6,1993, regarding the failure of WARRINER to hire SAPORITO (Exhibit 25).

Case No. 5 93 023R 18

Pursuant to NRC Administrative Subpoenas WARRINER and GROVE appeared with . I their attorneys before NRC investigators. WARRINER and GROVE invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer questions regarding this case.

On January 18, 1994 SAPORITO and APS/ TAG filed a joint motion for approval of a settlement agreement and dismissal with prejudice to the Secretary of Labor.

Alleaation No.1: APS and WARRINER Allegedly Discriminated Against SAPORITO By Not Hiring Him For An Upcoming Unit 1 Outage in January 1992 l

Summarv l During the Unit 2 outage (October December 1991), SAP 0RITO worked for Steven GROVE, the Unit 2 I&C Supervisor, and GR0VE's foremen. GROVE was aware of SAPORITO's whistle blowing and other activities at FPL. The interview notes of-LYONS indicate that GROVE recalled talking to WARRINER on several occasions about SAPORITO and a TAG representative informed WARRINER and GROVE 3 about rumors concerning SAPORITO. In early December 1991, Unit 1 I&C Supervisor WARRINER made preparations for an upcoming Unit I refueling outage i

planned to begin shortly after the Unit 2 outage ended. In response to WARRINER*s request, TAG sent WARRINER the resumes of the technicians then

! working on the Unit 2 outage. WARRINER consulted with GR0VE and received a ,

t

{

i copy of GROVE's evaluations of the Unit 2 contractor employees. On about December 17, 1991, WARRINER gave the resumes to his foreman, LARSON. who reviewed the resumes and marked "yes" or "no" on each resume. WARRINER discussed the resumes with GROVE: he reviewed the annotated resumes and chose 11 I&C technicians for the upcoming Unit 1 outage. WARRINER marked "no" on SAPORIT0's resume below the "yes" that LARSON made. SAPORITO, along with four other Unit 2 I&C technicians, was not chosen by WARRINER to work on the Unit 1 outage. SAPORITO was the only candidate recommended by LARSON that WARRINER did not select. WARRINER testified that SAPORITO was not selected for various reasons but denied discriminating against him because of SAPORITO's l

involvement in 3rotected activities. On August 6,1993, WARRINER admitted to APS attorneys t1at he discriminated against SAPORIT0.

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Throughout the evidence sections of this report the symbol Exhibit , TR 9 -

will be used in identifying various sections of testimony furnished toTL. The Exhibit number followed by TR 9 -

identifies the page and line number of the transcript containing the testimony to DOL.

Evidence i 1. WARRINER testified at the DOL hearing as follows:

LYONS: "Let me ask you one more time. sir. When is the first time you ever heard of Tom Saporito?"

WARRINER: "The first time I ever heard of Tom Sa have sat down and read those resumes."porito is when I would LYONS: "You had a conversation with Mr. Grove?"

Case No. 5 93 023R 19

WARRINER: "Yes, I had a conversation with Mr. Grove."

LYONS:

"Had you heard of Tom Saporito before that conversation?"

, WARRINER: "No."

LYONS:

"Have you told the Judge everything that Mr. Grove told you about Mr. Saporito?"

WARRINER: "Yes."

! LYONS:

! "Other than your conversation with Mr. Grove have you ever heard of Mr. Sa>orito from any other source a,t any other time prior to t1e start of his litigation, sir?"  ;

t i

WARRINER: "No." l LYONS:

"Did you discriminate against Mr. Saporito?"

WARRINER: "No, I did not." '

i LYDNS:

"Did you know Mr. Saporito's history, other than what l Mr. Grove told you and what is on his resume?"  !

WARRINER: "Only his resume and Mr. Grove." i i LYONS:

l "Are those the total sources of information you had available at the time you made your selection?"

WARRINER: "Yes, they are." (Exhibit 2 TR (a 1607 8)

2. In an APS interview, "WARRINER stated, "I lied on the stand. I met with l

t Grove to talk about the I&C Technicians. We talked about Saporito.

GROVE told him that SAPORITO had worked at other sites, that he raised concerns to the NRC, and that SAPORITO had brought a lot of good concerns up while wnrking for GROVE. GROVE did not say whether those concerns had been elevated to the NRC. WARRINER stated that at that aoint in time he (WARRINER) decided that he would not select SAPORITO aecause of what GROVE told him" (Exhibit 3, p. 6).

3.

LYONS' handwritten Saporito interview for hire..." (Exhibit 4,notes

p. 1).indicate: " Grove recommended Tom

! 4.

l LYONS' handwritten interview notes indicate: " Frank did not hire....

dismissed FPL Lawsuit... CNN about this" (Exhibit 4, p. 1).

5. "

LYONS' handwr1tten interview notes indicate: .. . Atlantic Group called Grove and asked if he heard rumors..." (Exhibit 4, p. 2).

6.

THORNTON's handwritten interview notes indicate: " Grove gave list to Frank Warriner... They discuss (sic) rumors discussed 2 3 times during U2 outage" (Exhibit 5, p. 4).

Case No. 5 93 023R 20

(

L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '-~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -

1

~

l \

7. THORNTON's handwritten interview notes indicate: " Rumors. . . call from i contracts ... Rex informed Grove that rit d FP&L I problems. worked w/Saporito at FP&L... had worked g' at FP&L.... TS let go fo ...que ions came u up re ACAD. ... call from security. . . {

antic called, asked if j had heard rumors..." (Exhibit 5, p. 4).

8. In an interview with APS attorneys WARRINER said, "I lied on the stand.

I met with Grove to talk about the I&C technicians. We talked about Saporito. He [ Grove] said that Saporito had worked at other sites and {

had reported concerns to the NRC. He [ Grove) also said that Saporito J brought up a lot of good concerns." WARRINER said at that point he made up his mind that he would not hire SAPORITO because he did#t want to have to deal with a whistleblower" '(Exhibit 6, pp. 6 7).~~

9. In an interview with APS attorneys WARRINER "said that when he first got the resumes he did not review them. Instead, he quickly leafed through them to whether any of the names there were recognizable by him as-people who had previously worked for him or otherwise. When he saw the name, SAPORITO. it reminded him of his conversation with GR0VE and he recognized SAPORITO as a whistleblower and concluded that, based on the information he had been given, he was not going to hire SAPORIT0" (Exhibit 6, p. 7). l

10. WARRINER and GR0VE were interviewed by the NRC on August 19 and 25,  ;

1993, respectively and in the presence of their attorneys and, after a i few background questions, exercised their Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer any questions (Exhibits 17 and 15). ,

Conclusions WARRINER and APS discriminated against SAPORITO by not selecting him for work at the Unit 1 outage. WARRINER's actions also constitute a violation of 10 CFR 50.5, because his discrimination placed the licensee in violation of NRC regulations.

Alleoation No. 2: WARRINER Allegedly Committed Perjury During His Testimony at the Department of Labor Hearing Summary While under oath at the D0L hearing, in his testimony. WARRINER denied discriminating against SAPORITO and denied talking with anyone about SAPORITO except GROVE. He only acknowledged talking to GROVE about SAPORIT0's work in Unit 1 and that GROVE recommended SAPORIT0. WARRINER later admitted that he lied at the hearing. He admitted that he met with GROVE to talk about the I&C technicians. They talked about SAPORITO and GROVE told him that SAPORITO had worked at other sites and had re mrted concerns to the NRC, WARRINER said at that point he made up his mind tlat he would not hire SAPORITO because he didn't want to have to deal with a whistleblower.

l Evidence

1. In the D0L hearing, while under oath, WARRINER testified as follows:

1 Case No. 5 93 023R 21 Y /;ir / -

SAPORITO: "Mr. Warriner...did you become aware of that message during the time period of August through - August '91 through January '92?"

WARRINER: "During that time period, I never heard your name mentioned or heard of any conversations that were held by anyone concerning Mr. Saporito." (Exhibit 2, TR @ 1493)

SAPORITO: "You hold any conversations with Mr. Grove?"

WARRINER: "I had a conversation with Mr. Grove concerning the contractors that had worked for him during his refueling outage."

SAPORITO: "Did Mr. Grove mention that Mr. Saporito had been previously employed at Floride Power and Light?"

"I don't recall that being mentioned."

i WARRINER:

(Exhibit 2. TR @

1493 4)

.SAPDRIT0: "Dering the time period of August '91 to January '92, did I you hear Mr. Saporito referred to as a ' whistle blower?'"

WARRINER: "No, I did not." (Exhibit 2. TR @ 1494)

, SAPORITO: "Do you recall reviewing Mr. Saporito's resume after you got it back from Mr. Larson?"

WARRINER: "Yes."

SAPORITO: "And, did he make an indication on Mr. Saporito's a 'yes' or a 'no?'"

WARRINER: "I can't recall, specifically, right now which one he did."

(Exhibit 2, TR @ 1510)

• • • +*

SAPORIT0: "Did Mr. Larson place the 'yes' on that document?"

WARRINER: "Yes, I believe he did."

SAPORITO: "Did Mr. Larson place the 'no' on that document?"

WARRINER: "I believe tnat's my writing."

SAPORITO: "Why was that note placed on that document?"

WARRINER: "It was based on that document, because after my review I decided that I didn't want Mr. Saporito as a contract technician for my outage."

SAPORITO: "And, what were your reasons?"

l WARRINER: ....In both those cases, I didn't see much experiento in j the areas where I was interested in seeing experience. You '

Case No. 5 93 023R 22

go up to the last job, that on this resume that Mr. Sa)orito held, the first thing he put down there was, ' responsible for procedure writing.' I don't care.to use procedure writers as technicians." (Exhibit 2 TR @ 1511 12)

LESNIAK: ....Was Saporito rejected this is after you were looking i at his resume. Was he rejected because in your mind he did 1 not have outage expcrience?"

)

l WARRINER: "I don't recall, specifically, thinking about Mr. Saporito j in relation to refueling outages. As I stated earlier, for the reasons, as I went through his prior employment and the statement of procedure reader, or procedure writer, excuse j me, the reasons that I didn't accept Mr. Saporito's resume."

(Exhibit 2, TR 9 1522 23)

LESNIAK:

"Could it have been in the month of December '917" WARRINER: "I just can't remember when I sat down with him."

LESNIAK: "Did you meet with Mr. Grove on that occasion just for that reason, that is, to get his opinion on the contract workers?

WARRINER: "Yes, sir."

LESNIAK: "That was the sole purpose of that meeting?"

WARRINER: "yes, sir." -

3 LESNIAK: "Were others present?"

I WARRINER: "No one that I can recall." '

LESNIAK: "Just you and him?" .

WARRINER: "Yes, sir."

LESNIAK: "And you ran down the list of all of his contract workers?"

WARRINER: "Yes, sir....

I wanted to know if Steve had had any iroblems with any of his contractors in the area of being a)le to interface .

either with the people in his shop, especially the Foreman.

or with outside groups, because you have to work with a lot of outside groups." (Exhibit 2. TR @ 1554 1555)

LESNIAK: - you were interested in hiring people for your outage.

l That's why you met with Mr. Grove on this occasion."

I WARRINER: "That's correct."

Case No. 5 93 023R 23

-LESNIAK: "Now, did Mr. Grove tell you that he had problems with any of his contractors in that area; you were talking about interfacing or interacting?"

WARRINER: "I don't recall that he said that he had problems in that area at all ." (Exhibit 2, TR @ 1557)

LESNIAK: "Now, in your mind then, there was a positive opinion on the part of Mr. Grove regarding all contractors?"

WARRINER: "Yes, I would say so." (Exhibit 2. TR @ 1557)

• • • ++

LESNIAK: "All right. Looking again at Mr. Saporito's rest:me "

WARRINER: " Yeah."

f LESNIAK: "Did his resume reflect that he had the experience in those four areas that you mentioned?

WARRINER: "Yes, I would say it does." (Exhibit 2. TR 9 1571)

• • +**  ;

SAP'ORITO: "Okay. Now, sir, there are no negative recommendations from Mr. Larson that you changed to a 'yes,' is that correct?

Every time he said "no," you accepted it as a 'no.'"

WARRINER: "I believe that's correct." (Exhibit 2 TR @ 1593)

SAPORITO: "Did you discriminate against Mr. Saporito?"

WARRINER: "No, I did not."

SAPORITO: "Did you know Mr. Saporito's history, other than what Mr. Grove told you and what is on his resume?"

WARRINER: "Only his resume and Mr. Grove." (Exhibit 2. TR 9 1607)

2. In an interview with APS attorneys "WARRINER said, "I lied on the stand.

I met with Grove to talk about the I&C technicians. We talked about Saporito. He [ Grove] said that Sa l

had reported concerns to the NRC. porito had worked He [ Grove] at other also said sites and that Saporito brought up a lot of good concerns." WARRINER said at that point he made up his mind that he would not hire SAPORITO because he didn't want to have to deal with a whistleblower" (Exhibit 6, pp. 6 7).

l 3. WARRINER stated that after he spoke with GROVE he decided he would not j select SAPORITO because of what GROVE told him (Exhibit 3 p.6).

4. LYONS* handwritten interview notes indicate: "... Atlantic Group called  !

Grove and asked if he heard rumors..." (Exhibit 4, p. 2).

5. THORNTON's handwritten interview notes indicate: " Grove gave list to Frank Warriner... They discuss (sic) rumors discussed 2 3 times during U2 outage" (Exhibit 5, p. 4).

1 l

Case No. 5 93 023R 24

)

6. In WARRlNER's sworn affidavit t7hich was attached to KENNEDY's DOL letter, WARRINER stated: "At the time I selected the contractor I&C technicians...Mr. Saporito was not known to me as a 'whistleblower.' nor did I know of any concerns which Tom Saaorito may have filed with the Palo Verde Employee Concerns Program" (Exhibit 13, p. 5).

7. WARRINER told the APS PVNGS ECP (ROBERTSON) that he " met briefly with Steve Grove and discussed the work safety, productivity and interfacing activities of the contractors who worked for him" (Exhibit 18, p.1).

8. LYONS stated that he had a clear understanding (regarding his January 13, 1992, notes) that GROVE stated that he discussed rumors concerning SAPORITO with WARRINER (Exhibit 9, p. 3).

9. In an interview with APS attorneys WARRINER "said that when he first got the resumes he did not review them. Instead, he quickly leafed through them to whether any of the names there were recognizable by him as people who had previously worked for him or otherwise. When he saw.the name. SAPORIT0, it reminded him of his conversation with GROVE and he recognized SAPORITO as a whistleblower and concluded that, based on the information he had been given, he was not going to hire SAPORIT0" (Exhibit 6, p. 7).

10. WARRINER and GROVE were interviewed by the NRC on August 19 and 25, 1993, respectively and in the presence of their attorneys and, after a few background questions, exercised their Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer any questior,s (Exhibits 17 and 15).

Conclusions WARRINER committed perjury at the DOL hearing when he denied discriminating against SAPORITO and when he denied discussing with GROVE the fact that SAPORITO raised concerns (which went to the NRC).

Alleoation No. 3: GROVE Allegedly Committed Perjury During His Testim 6ny at the Department of Labor Hearing Summary GROVE denied discussing with WARRINER, SAPORITO's protected activities at FPL and PVNGS. The attorneys (LYONS and THORNTON) notes of the January 13, 1992, interviews of WARRINER and GROVE contradict this. WARRINER stated that he met with GROVE to talk about the I&C technicians, They talked about SAPORITO and GROVE told him that SAPORITO had worked at other sites and had reported concerns to the NRC.

Evidence

1. In the D0L hearing, while under oath, GROVE testified as follows:

SAPORIT0: "Mr. Grove, isn't it true, towards the latter part of the Unit 2 outage that you in fact met with Mr. Frank Warriner to discuss who he was going to hire for the Unit 1 outage,

! I&C technicians?

Case No. 5 93 023R 25

GROVE:

"I met with Mr. Frank Warriner and I offered to give my l

o) inion on the people who were in Unit 2 for my outage."

{

(Ixhibit 7. TR @ 525) l SAPORITO: "And what was your opinion on Mr. Saporito, do you recall?"

GROVE:

"The exact words I don't recall. There was nothing negative." (Exhibit 7 TR @ 526)

• • • +*

SAPORITO: "Did you also tell Mr. Warriner that Mr. Saporito raised some good concerns over here in my unit?"

! GROVE: "Yes, I believe I did." (Exhibit 7, TR @ 526)

SAPORITO: "Did you go into detail about what kind of issues Mr. Saporito had raised in your department?"

GROVE: "We went into no details about any employee."

SAPORITO: "Did the conversation come up between you and Mr. Warriner that Mr. Saporito had employment at Florida Power and Light?"

GROVE: "To the best of my knowledge, no. (Exhibit 7. TR @ 526 7)

I don't recall having any conversation with Mr. Warriner about Mr. Saporito's employment at Florida Power and Light."

(Exhibit 7. TR @ 527)

• • k**

, LESNIAK: "Now by this time - and what was the purpose of running down the list?"

GROVE: "I was giving my opinion on the people that were there. He could use that input in his selection of contractors, or he could just negate what input I gave him." (Exhibit 7. TR @

562)

"I don't know that I knew that there was a lawsuit against Florida Power at that time."

LESNIAX: "But you knew he had worked there and you knew he was fired?"

GROVE: " Yeah, I knew he had been terminated." (Exhibit 7.

TR @ 563)

LESNIAK: "Did all that come up when you ran down the list when you came to Mr. Saporito's name with Frank Warriner?"

GROVE: "To the best of my knowledge there was no mention made other than the basically one or two word statements about each person on my list. Nothing to do with any particulars about anything to tell you the truth." (Exhibit 7. TR @ 563)

Case No. 5 93 023R 2t;

. LESNIAK: "And when was the meeting with Frank Warriner where you discussed the virtues of these employees?"

GROVE: "I would say that it would be, again, some time after 10/31/91 and I wish I could put an end date on it but "

(Exhibit 7 TR 9 614 5)

• • ++*

LESNIAK: "Now subsequent to that time you had other weekly meetings with Mr. Warriner, true?" '

GR0VE: "That is true."

LESNIAK: "And did you have occasion to discuss employees during those meetings?"

GR0VE: "No."

LESNIAK: "Never again did you discuss anybody?"

GROVE: "To the best of my knowledge we'd never discussed anybody other than at that one particular meeting." (Exhibit 7. TR 9 615)

2. "When asked to reconcile the attorneys' notes and GROVE's statement that he had no discussions with WARRINER regarding rumors, GROVE stated that as far as he knew, he had no conversations w,th WARRINER about rumors" (Exhibit 8, p. 7).

3. "Regarding page 1 of LYONS* notes of GROVE interview on January 13.

1992. GROVE was questioned about the notations referring to Frank Not Hire (Saporito) " Dismissed," " lawsuit" and "CNN." GROVE stated he did not recall telling the lawyers this information" (Exhibit 8, p. 7).

4. " GROVE stated that he agreed it would be a crime to have had these conversation (with WARRINER) cnd later lied about it under oath. He had no recollection of such conversations. He stated that he "can't say 100% never a conversation with Frank regarding SAPORITO at PVNGS and work." But that the conversations wouldn't have been about FPL because it was just more rumors" (Exhibit 8, p. 7).

5. "WARRINER stated, "I lied on the stand. I met with Grove to talk about the I&C Technicians. We talked about Saporito." GROVE told him that SAPORITO had worked at other sites, th d he raised concerns to the NRC, and that SAPORITO had brought a lot of good concerns up while working for GROVE. GROVE did not say whether those concerns had been elevated to the NRC. WARRINER stated that at that 3oint in time he (WARRINER) decided that he would not select SAPORITO 3ecause of what GROVE told him" (Exhibit 3, p. 6. Exhibit 6, pp. 6 7).

6. WARRINER "said that when he first got the resumes he did not review them. Instead, he quickly leafed through them to whether any of the names there were recognizable by nim as people who had areviously worked for him or otherwise. When he saw the name. SAPORITO, le recognized SAPORITO as a whistleblower and concluded that, based on the information Case No. 5 93 023R 27 l

t

he had been given, he was not going to hire SAPORIT0" (Exhibit 6, p. 7).

7. GROVE advised (APS/ Jordan GREEN, Esq.) that he couldn't " explain why Mr. Warriner says he got it from me....I have no recollection of ever discussing these issues with him" (Exhibit 10, pp. 18 19). I

8. LOUGH recalled speaking with GRCVE sometime in November, when GROVE stated that he had received a call from someone at FL&P (FPL). GROVE stated further that SAPORITO had had problems at FP&L and asked LOUGH to l check SAPORITO's file to determine if there was anything that would be of concern about him getting his ACADS.... GROVE told LOUGH that i "Saaorito was a whistle blower, and that's why he had some concerns" l (Ex11 bit 11, p.1).

9. In a transcribed interview of LOUGH by APS/ Richard C0 HEN Esq.

(Exhibit 12, pp. 9 10), LOUGH indicated:

C0 HEN: "Mr. Lough. do you remember whether Steve Grove used the term ' whistle blower'?"

LOUGH: "Yes, he used the term ' whistle blower.'"

C0 HEN: *Did he give you any more detail about where he had blown the whistle or how?"

l

! LOUGH: "No, and I didn't ask him."

COHEN: "Just said he was a whistle blower?"

t LOUGH: "He just said they were told that he was a whistle blower and had some problems and he was employed by the NRC before.

10. WARRINER and GROVE were interviewed by the NRC on August 19 and 25, 1993 1 res)ectively and in the presence of their attorneys and, after a few $

! bac(ground questions, exercised his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer any questions (Exhibits 17 and 15). l i

11. In his 01 interview LYONS stated as follows:

LYONS: "Next bulletin says, ' Frank did not hire.' ' Dismissed FLP.*

L

" Lawsuit.'

LOGAN: "It's the next line that I'm not sure who it was attributable to. ' Dismissed from Florida Power & Light.

Involved in a lawsuit.' Is that something he discussed with Frank Warriner?" ,

I LYONS: "At the time that I took these notes, that was my understanding."

LOGAN: "Was it also your understanding at the time you took the notes, that Frank Warriner didn't hire because he'd been dismissed, because it was a lawsuit, and because he was on i CNN?" '

Case No. 5 93 023R 28 L_______-______-_____-____ . _ _ _ _ --- -- - - - - - - - - --

LYONS: "No sir."

LOGAN:

"Just that Frank Warriner was aware of it and that Steve Grove, had in fact, discussed it with him?"

LYONS: "That was my understanding at the time" (Exhibit 26, p. 7).

12. In his 01 interview THORNTON stated as follows:

LOGAN: "Do you recall Mr. Grove mentioning anything about Grove having talked with Warriner on several occasions about Saporito's prior employment issues?"

' THORNTON: "I do recall Mr. Grove answering a specifically just like the one you' question from ve asked, me he had whether discussions. I do not believe those were asked in this ,

January 13 meeting. As I indicated my notes reflect that I there apparently was a question to Mr. Grove about his.  !

discussion with Frank Warriner.

"Then there a) pears to have been a question directed to Mr. Grove if le discussed rumors of Mr. Saporito. At the time it appeared that the questioner was asking if Mr. Grove had discussed rumors of Mr. Saporito with Mr. Warriner. But the way Mr. Grove answered the question I was left with the impression that Mr. Grove was answering: Had he discussed rumors of Mr. Saporito with anyone?" (Exhibit 27, p. 18)

13. In response to questions THORNTON also stated:

LOGAN: "He advised Mr. Warriner about Mr. Saporito's prior employment issues."

THORNTON: "I do not ever recall him making a statement that he had discussed Mr. Saporito's prior emaloyment history sith Mr. Warriner. I do not remember 11m making a affirmative statement like that. Your question, I think earlier was did he ever say anything about it" (Exhibit 27, p. 19). i

14. THORNTON stated:

THORNTON: "[ GROVE] said he had a meeting with Mr. Warriner about 4 Unit 2 contractor I&C Technicians.

"In that meeting, Mr. Grove gave Mr. Warriner a list that had all the Unit 2 contractors' names on it, and there was a ranking over in the left hand side as I recall, and Mr. Warriner asked general questions about these - about these Technicians' performance in Unit 2.

"They were general questions, they weren't questions about how did Mr. Saporito perform, in general.. perform, but how did your Technicians

Case No. 5 93 023R 29

l l 1

< l "However. Mr. Grove I do not recall Mr. Grove in this  ;

i meeting or any other -- saying that he had a discussion l with Mr. Warriner about Mr. Saporito's reautation or his work history, either at Palo Verde wit 1 the exception of what I've already said or more specifically about any of his activities at Florida" (Exhibit 27 p. 20).

Conclusions GROVE committed perjury during his DOL testimony when he denied discussing j with WARRINER. SAPORITO's protected activities.

i ,

l

. J i

i ,

l l

i l

l i

i l

l l-Case No. 5 93 023R 30

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION .

l-

! The substantive matters addressed during this investigation and those contained in this resort of investigation have been discussed with l representatives of t1e Office of the United States Attorney, District of I

Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona.

This report does not address the issues relating to allegations concerning the

' conduct of the attorneys involved in the investigation, the civil litigation of SAPORIT0's discrimination complaint against APS before the Department of Labor, and other related matters which are before the U.S. Attorney.

l C N No. 5 93 023R 31

F-----~-

a n

)

l 1

l THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY i

i Case No. 5 93 023R 32 4

i

i .

LIST OF EXHIBITS 1

Exhibit No. Description 1 Notification of Investigation, dated August 17, 1993.

2 Excerpts of WARRINER's DOL Testimony of October 5, 1992.

3 WARRINER interview of August 6,1993, by APS.

4 Interview Notes of George LYONS, dated January 13, 1992.

5 Interview Notes of Steve Thornton, dated January 13, 1993.

6 Interview of GROVE and WARRINER on August 6,1993, by

Jordan GREEN.

7 Excerpts of GR0VE's DOL Testimony of September 30, 1992.

! 8

{

APS Interview of GR0VE on August 6, 1993.

9 APS Interviews of GROVE and LYONS on August 2,1992.

l 10 APS GROVE Interview Transcript of August 6,1993.

11 APS Interview of LOUGH on September 27, 1993, by Rick C0 HEN. '

12 Transcribed Interview of LOUGH on September 27, 1993.

13 Letter from KENNEDY to WHITFIELD, dated March 6, 1992.

14 Letter from CONWAY to FAULKENBERRY, dated August 10, 1993.

15 Interview of GROVE on August 25, 1993.

16 Interview of CHAVEZ on September 22, 1993. l 17 Interview of WARRINER on August 14, 1993.

1B Memo by WARRINER re: January 13, 1992 Conversation.

19 Memo by LARSON re: January 15, 1992 Conversation.

l 20 Memo by WAGNER, dated January 20, 1992. l 21 Letter from KENNEDY to WHITFIELD, dated August 10, 1993.

22 Interview of LARSON cn October 6, 1993.

23 Resume of Thomas SAPORITO.

24 GROVE's List of Unit 2 Workers.

Case No. 5 93 023R 33 l

l L

l 25 Letter from LOFTIN, dated September 21, 1993.

26 Excerpts of the 01 interview of LYONS on October 27, 1993.*

27 Excerpts of the 01 interview of THORNTON on October 28 29, 1993.

I t

l 1

Case No. 5 93 023R 34 L _ ___ - ._ ._ - _.