ML052440459
| ML052440459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/2003 |
| From: | Elizabeth Wilson NRC/OI/RGN-I/FO |
| To: | Miller H Region 1 Administrator |
| References | |
| 1-2003-010S, FOIA/PA-2004-0191 | |
| Download: ML052440459 (15) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE, REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 December 22, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Hubert J. Miller, Regional Administrator Region I Ernest P. Wilson, Direct Office of Investigations eld Office, Region I SALEM/HOPE CREEK: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SENIOR ENGINEER FOR RAISING CONCERNS THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CASE NO. 1-2003-0 1OS)
Attached, for whatever action you deem appropriate, is the Office of Investigations (OI)
Report of Investigation concerning the above matter. Neither this memorandum nor the report may be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director, OI. Please ensure that any internal office distribution of this report is controlled and limited only to those with a need to know and that they are aware of the sensitivity of its contents. Treat as "Official Use Only."
Attachment:
Report w/exhibits cc w/attach:
F. Congel, OE cc w/report:
L. Chandler, OGC J. Dyer, NRR (Attn: G. Cwalina) in this record was deleted In accordance with Dukedom of Information Act, ex mptions FOIA-L PatLoi of ahadC~w4 cc r~qL, Cal;
S..
a
Title:
SALEM/HOPE CREEK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SENIOR ENGINEER FOR RAISING CONCERNS THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM Licensee:
Case No.: 1-2003-01OS Public Service Electric & Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Docket Nos.: 50-272/311/354 Reported by:
ReportDate: December 18, 2003 Control Office: OI:RI Status: CLOSED Reviewed and Approved by:
'. Alfred
///1 r7t4(~
Kristin Monroe, Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Ernest P. Wilson, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I
\\
WARNING
/
DO NOT DISSEMINATELPCE IN THE P DOCUMENT ROOM OR DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF S
RT OF INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTH OF THE APPROVING OFFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNA ZED DIS SURE MAY RESULT IN ADVERSE ADMINIS VE ACTION AND!
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
cLK
SYNOPSIS This supplemental investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations (O0), Region I Field Office, on September22, 2003, to determine if a senior engineer, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), working at Salem/Hope Creek Generating Stations, was discriminated against for engaging in a protected activity. Specifically, the senior engineer believes that PSEG showed a continuing pattern of discrimination when he/she received an unsatisfactory mid-year performance appraisal in August 2003 because he/she raised a concern through PSEG's Corrective Action Program in July 2002.
Based upon the evidence developed during this supplemental investigation, 01 did not substantiate that the senior engineer was discriminated against for having engaged in a protected activity.
IELD T-FOR BtL.I
, UtHLO STUf iTIAT
, EGO F
__hC I 1,UFC FIVS1AT NR ze4 Case No. 1-2003-OlOS I
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PULIC DISULuSMiQUT:P, V? OF
- F1LL OFFIC'E J)DC 1 UK, UtIILJ OF INVSeiATONg, TEGION I Case No. 1-2003-01 OS 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS..............................
l LIST OF INTERVIEWEES..............................
5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION.....................
7 Applicable Regulations....................
7 Purpose of Investigation......................
7 Background....................
7 Allegation: (Discrimination Against a Senior Engineer for Raising Concerns Through the Corrective Action Program).....
7 Evidence.7 Agent's Analysis.10 Conclusion
.11 LIST OF EXMHBITS.13
-N i w r v
PuBLiC DISCLOSURE WIIIOUT APPRO VL or Case No. 1-2003-01 OS 3
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY OT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOS-U T0U BPOUT r
.FIELD OFFICE DIECTOt OFFICe oF WSTIGAONS, -RGION I Case No. 1-2003-O0OS 4
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit Licensed Practical Nurse, Adecco, working at Salem/Hope Creek Generating Stations (Salem/Hope Creek)........
.............. 6 PSEG Nuclear LLU, Salem/Hope Creek.
5 OT FORPUBIfIe DIsef OSRE-Wv1IIEhUT APPROVAL OF-
.EEL ~33-~EE}~rBFSC) DNR°HoYRM~lEGIONe-I CaseNo. 1-2003-OlOS 5
QL"
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF IITSTIGAONS,
GION I Case No. 1-2003-OlOS 6
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (2003 Edition) 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (2003 Edition)
Purpose of Investigation This supplemental investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigati(JOI), Region I Field Office, on September 22, 2003, to determine i Senior Engineer, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), working at Salem/Hope Creek Generating Stations (Salem/Hope Creek) was discriminated against for engaging in a protected activity. Specifically!,elieves that PSEG showed a continuing pattern of discrimination whe eive an unsatisfactory mid-year performance appraisal in August 2003 becausraisa concern through PSEG's Corrective Action Program (CAP) in July 2002 (Exhibit 1).
Background
In a letter to the NRC dated December 20, 2002
_j advised that on raised a concern regarding procedural non-compliance with the Transient Assessment Response Plan (TARP) via PSEG's CAP.
claimed that as a result of raising that concem, several adverse actions were taken againi' including suspension of employment and threats of a poor performanc appraisal. On January 8, 2003, 01 initiated an investigation (01 Case No. 1-2003-010) intdclaim of discrimination. On July 25, 2003, the case was closed and issued as unsubstantiated (Exhibit 1).
On September 22, 2003, a Region I Allegation Review Board was held wherein it was determined that OI would revie September 2, 2003, letter to the NRC which alleged continued discrimination (Exhibit 2) and conduct such other investigation deemed ppropriate to determine i unsatisfactory mid-year performance appraisal related to aaving engaged in a protected activity (Exhibit 3).
Allegation:
Discrimination Against a Senior Engineer for Raising Concerns Through the CorrectiveAction Program Evidence Review o
-ptember 2.2003 letter to the NRC (Exhibit 2)
X
_rote that in accordance with fitness-for-duty (FFD) requirementOjfornled Case No. 1-2003-01OS 7
9~
LiC
supervisor) on several occasions tha wsanmedication.
letterfurther discloses tha wrote thacompliance withthe FFD program is "a defacto refusar' to accept a TARP assigment, which resulted in an "Unsatisfactory" performance appraisal rating on August 29, 2003, which was the lowest rating possible.
Iso wrote that the rating required immediate corrective action up to termination oimployment (Exhibit 2, p. 1 and Exhibit 4).
AGENT'S NOTE: Following a review ofd OI determined that it was not necessary to inter information. However, OI did request thatlU year appraisal andZ2002 appraisal.
Protected Activity Ifo atter d related documentation,
~to obtain additional
,ward a copy of the 2003 mid-O n
1 initiated.PSEG Notificaf on No. WI"regarding procedural non-compliance with the TARP prn so discusselWoncerns about*
qualifications to be on TARP w itsee 0I Report 1-2003-010).
Management Knowledge ecamea lad a concem withLIWARP qualifications in a July 8,2002, email, knew that had initiated a notification [about the TARP procedure] because eviewed noti daily (see 01 Report 1-2003-010).
Adverse Action as Perceived On August 29, 200_
ecived an "Unsatisfactory" mid-year performance appraisal rating (Exhibit 4). i W aM id-vear Performance Appraisal Adversely Impacted Due to Raising an Issue About TARP Through the Corrective Action Program?
- Exhibit 4 is a copy o-iyid-year petomnance appraisal dated August 28, 2003. The erformance appraisal discloses that rated on five Core Job Objectives.
received a satisfactory rating on four objectives and a rating of highly competent on the fifthl objective.
as also rated on eight Power Behavorsreceived six satisfactory ratings, one marginal and one unsatisfactory rating.
overallrmid-year performance rating was "satisfactory."
AGENT'S NOTE: When OI requested the mid-year performance appraisal from
'onwarded only an excerpt which reflected the "unsatisfactory" rating which was not a true reflection of his overall performance rating, i.e., satisfactory.
N If OR F
D seL IFlbGNICE D l
F Oh C,
iC Case No. 1-2003-OIOS 8
- iK geQ
received only one unsatisfactory rating, that being for Power Behavior 6 (Exhibit 4,
- p. 8), entitled "Engenders Respect and Trust." The manager feedback section for that behavior discloses tha recent acceptance of the TARP assignment occurred with the single word "fine" which was followed up with a "de facto refusal" via an email that indicated that a medical restriction of duty was known at the time of his acce tanc of the TARP assignment.
The repeat behavior "shades the core of this behavior."
behavior was a significant oppression of open communication. Prompt improvement of this behavior is required (Exhibit 4,
- p. 8).
Interview of E
bit.5)
Due to restructuring at the site dvised that as of Se te no longe supervisor.
ow reports t f
) (p. 3).
'[pxplained that the mid-year performance appraisal was meant to be a "course adjustment opportunity." If there was an area(s) that required improvement, it was an opportunity to identify to the employee the area(s) which needed improvement. The final performance appraisal at the end of the year summed up the year's activities with an emphasis on end of the year behavior (p. 5).
Exhibit 4, Power Behavior 6, "Engenders Respect Trus'discloses in part th at,_
interaction with4 upervisor was unsatsa.
hose not to communicate with This was characterized b to participate in normal office matters, failure to discuss progress or status ofii curt and non-responsive answers to L
inquiries and responding only tcrirect questions, never initiating discussions (p. 8).
ixpla ned thatbehavior was not good for the oup. Prior to documentig the comment in the mid-year performance appraisaaad one discussion with
[between May and August 2003] wher Ztold
_atl non-communication was an ongoing issue andthat thetneeded to work ogether as professionals.
did not receive any response from nor dicsehavior change (Exhibit 5, P. 9)-
Circa August 4, 2003, ol at was time to otate TARP positions and that it wa*uM to be a TARP members2 e to
_was "fine:."
Based upon that comment, ssured twas accepting the position. A week later [August 11, 20 03 received an email (Exhibit 2, p. 6) indicated that
_cou ld not drive while takin medication, essentially tellin hatfi ould not be on the TARP team.
said that the email contradicted earlier acceptance of the assignment the previous week. The "de facto refusal', coment We mid-year performance appraisal (see Exhibit 4, p. 8) relates to the fact thaiclearly knew" whenUccepted the TARP assignment that some oactivities would be restricted CaseNo. 1-2003-OIOS 9
Pig-yv Q L
becausqVtvas on medicatio n_ jhought thatacceptance of the assignment knowing thajad restrictions because of the medication was a "less than forthright" way to deal with a supervisor. As suchbviewe behavior as unsatisfactory (Exhibit 4, pp. 11 and 12).
Regarding the repeat behavior comment in the mid-year performance appraisal
-said that in August 200 had accepted the TARP assignment and then a few hours later, thd at was not fit for duty because of the medication thatlawas taking (Exhibit 5, p. 15
-j"estestated that the purpose of the mid-vearperformance appraisal was the opportunity to correct behavior, which is whatiWold toldhat prompt improvement of the behavior was required and sit till had an opportunity to do very well if' hangedWehavior (Exhibit 5, p. 18).
o by 01 if one unsatisfactory rating ptlI n a position for te es nded. "Hardly. It is not even a pimple on the road to termina.itnj did not te hat the unsatisfactory rating could lead to termination.
viewedlmid-year performance appraisal as being a positive apprrai (Exhibit 5, pp. 18 and 19).
Licensed Practical Nurse, Adecco, working at Salem/Hope Creek was interviewed by 01 for purposes of obtaining info ation Salem/Hope Creek's FFD policy.
id not have any information that related to allegation of discrimination J' x~h b t6).
Agent's Analysis s worked at Salem/Hope Creek for approximately twelve yearsliklleges that there was continued discrimination aganin-iecauseaised a safety concern about TARP in July 2002. _sserts tha4Veceived an unsatisfactory mid-year performance appraisal in August 2003 as a result of raising that safety concern.
It is 01's view that ossibly misrepresente4n dear ierformance appraisal to the NRC by not providing the complete appraisal for context.tny provided the NRC with an excerpt fro nid-year appraisal which reflected one "unsatisfactory" rating, when, in fac had received an overall mid-year evaluation of "satisfactory." By providing only ected information credibility is called into question. Furthermore, the mid-year review is designed to identify weaknesses in performance and opportunities for improvement.
The end of the performance appraisal becomes the official rating of record.
Contrary to _ssertion to the NRC thatreceived an unsatisfactory mid-year performance evaluation, 01 deemstestimony that the purpose of the appraisal was
-FELDOFFICE DMRECTOR;-OGEF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-OIOS 10 QLT7D E
Y to identify areas for improvement and thw~was rated satisfactory overall to be credible. In OI's view o timony anddocumentary evidence, it appears mid-year review of
)erformance was a good faith effort to he l
on the one area that needed mprovement, i.e., power behavior #6.
Conclusion Based upon the evidence veloped during this supplemental investigation, OI did not substantiate tha as discriminated against for having engaged in a protected activity.
A OT F:OR PUBLIC DJSCLO SUI W
I T
II~POV O
Case No. 1-2003-01OS 11 f JLo'4 LY
. I I
- c THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
-aFIELD OFFICE DI2CTOR, OFFICE OF INTVESGATIONS, RI Case No. 1-2003-0105 12
Exhibit No.
1 2
LIST OF EXHIBITS Description Investigation Status Record, dated September 22, 2003 (I page).
Letter to the NRC's VITO, fro; dated September 2, 2003, with attachments (15 pages).
Allegation Review Board Disposition Record, Allegation No. RI-2002-A-01 13, dated September 22,2003 (1 page).
3 4
A copy 2003 Mid-Year Performance Appraisal (11 pages).
5 6
Transcript of Interview wit{
Transcript of Interview withl ited October 14, 2003 (21 pages).
lated October 14, 2003 (24 pages).
NOT FOR PLIC DISCLOS
{C PROV
OF TTELD OrFIICE DIRECTO Case No. 1-2003-01 OS 13