Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:30:15 -0500 (EST)
From: OShirani_at_aol.com
Message-ID: <192.225a1084.2ce1cde6_at_aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:30:14 EST
Subject: Shirani rebutting NRC's response for ALLEGATION NO. 1 (Discrimination)
To: jkh@nrc.gov, sjl@nrc.gov, gam@nrc.gov, jag@nrc.gov, mwh@nrc.gov,
ewb@nrc.gov, WFS1@nrc.gov
Cc: ebrackett_at_wttw.com, mlgav_at_hotmail.com, Karilyde_at_aol.com,
rhoffman_at_animatedsoftware.com, lampert_at_adelphia.net,
dlowryrmb_at_compuserve.com, nirs.se_at_mindspring.com,
vaughn.gail_at_uwlax.edu, hedayatshirani_at_msn.com, mboyd_at_citizen.org,
sara_at_cleanenergy.org, JASavageHonest_at_cs.com, moconley_at_yahoo.com,
pgunter_at_nirs.org, kevin_at_nirs.org, dlochbaum_at_ucsusa.org,
jschmitt.enteract_at_rcn.com, sreddy_at_kciconsultants.com,
ksalehi_at_msn.com, APALANG_at_aol.com, aalinaghian_at_butlermfg.com,
APickel_at_aol.com, arkangel_at_comcast.net, ace123_at_alltel.net,
cjconn_at_uic.edu, volz921_at_msn.com, mnmeng_at_hotmail.com,
mosaff_at_dot.state.tx.us, alih_at_abbnm.com, gksmile_at_msn.com,
BMSRB_at_cs.com, jcumbow_at_greatlakes.net, done_at_greens.org, nci_at_nci.org,
johnsrud_at_csrlink.net, TOMHANDY2_at_aol.com, Radwaste_at_RWMA.com,
DRITTER_at_CITIZEN.ORG, will_at_tectn.org, CTCAN_at_snet.net,
tom.clements_at_wdc.greenpeace.org, dianed_at_nirs.org, FthYoung_at_aol.com,
ieer_at_ieer.org, d.janeway_at_att.net, johnjEF_at_bledsoe.net,
bhoffman_at_citizen.org, Mitra_biglari_at_hotmail.com, neis_at_forward.net,
Crinklenose_at_aol.com, MKeshani_at_aol.com, mdshirani_at_yahoo.com,
grove_at_lasvegassun.com, andrew.dowell_at_dowjones.com, fahys_at_sltrib.com,
PSisson_at_nctimes.com, Bbrown52W_at_aol.com, rbl@nrc.gov,
slindber_at_titan.iwu.edu, neis_at_neis.org

Dear Mr. Jim Heller, NRC Region III, Sr. Allegation Coordinator:

Since you have not responded to my repeated requests within the past two months via my e-mails regarding whether NRC is willing to accept its shortcoming in its investigation of my case and/or whether NRC is willing to reopen its investigation of my case or not.

I take your silence as yes, may be? So, I decided to rebut to your series of responses to me from 2002-2003 for all my allegations.

In this e-mail, I am only rebutting your response to my Allegation No. 1 (Discrimination Case).

In the upcoming e-mails to you (near future), I will send you my rebut/response to my other 8 Technical Allegations one by one. And I get a chance to point out to the Code of Federal Regulation Violations by NRC and Exelon.

I believe that I have already provided you with rebut/response to your response regarding my Zion Part 21 allegation last month that Exelon Switched my Part 21's for other subjects and NRC did not catch them. I have not heard any response from you in that regard as yet. Are you investigating that case? If you don't recall it, I will send it to you again.

You have to prepare your staff to be ready to read my case once and for all with a fair and an open mind. I will promise you that the public of the United States would appraise you for a fair investigation and would not allow ComEd/Exelon Lawyers to FRY you/NRC anymore.

When you read my response, then gather your staff and invite me for a challenge meeting and your documentation of your investigation with all your objective evidence that you never provided me. This meeting should be in an open public forum. Is it fair?

I won't talk to NRC without witnesses. You don't have to worry about protecting my identity anymore. I have been ruined already by your partners. I am willing to be exposed and identified.

Thanks, Oscar Shirani

[] Shirani's Response to NRC regarding Allegation No. 11.doc

As a concerned citizen of this country and a nuclear power plant worker, I have the following ALLEGATIONS against Exelon/ComEd, the operators of the largest nuclear plants in the United States, partly located in State of Illinois regarding the safety of our public:

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Public Affair (Washington, DC 20555-0001) NUREG/BR-0240, Revision 1, September 1998, Page 4 States:

"Acts of discrimination by a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor taken against a worker for bringing safety concerns to the attention of licensee management or the NRC are against the law. Specific examples of discrimination include firing, reduction in pay, poor performance appraisals, and reassignment to a lower position or job".

Page 10 of the above NRC publication in Summary Section states:

"Workers who raise safety concerns serve a vital role in the protection of public health and safety. Retaliation against those who do so is unlawful and will not be tolerated by the NRC."

ComEd has been in violation of the above NRC laws based on the discrimination, harassment, oppression, intimidation, conspiracy, retaliation, and denial of civil/human rights of the nuclear worker (Quality Assurance Lead Auditor, Oscar Shirani). Ref: File No. "Oscar’s life modified for NRC" as documented on pages 1-22 of my December 3 Report to NRC.

Mr. Helwig retaliated against Messrs. Kombiz Salehi and Edward Netzel (potentially against Mr. Waldinger, and Renuart) for the support of Mr. Shirani who issued the Stop Work Order to GENE under Mr. David Helwig. In addition, Mr. Helwig stunted Oscar Shirani’s career. Mr. Shirani was demoted at nuclear without his knowledge in early 2000 time frame. Then the Exelon’s executives conspired to give him a promotion to his own level in December 2000 and transferred him outside of his expertise area to the Exelon Corporate Finance with the golden parachute and laid him off at the same level that he was serving since 1995.

In February 2002, I also made an allegation of employment blackballing by Sargent & Lundy (S&L) and forwarded my three letters to S&L dated Jan.14, 2002, November 28, 2001, and November 26, 2001.

We did not substantiate that you were the subject of discrimination for safety concerns (GENE, US Tool & Die; Reporting the cask issues to NRC; demoted and then placed in a position that led to your termination on October 30, 2001; Mr. Helwig interfered with your potential promotion to a manager/director; were lowered from an "A" to "B" rating from 1998-2000; Bastyr did not nominate you for the two positions that you had requested during the merger).

Your concerns were the subject of an investigation conducted by the NRC’s Office of Investigation (OI). The results of the investigation were reviewed by members of the NRC staff located in our Region III and Headquarter offices.

A. Concern 1 (RIII-2001-A-0174):

The staff reviewed the OI report and determined that (1) your performance appraisals for 1998, 1999 and 2000 were not downgraded (See My comment 1); (2) you did not lose pay during the conversion to a new pay scale (See My comment 2); and (3) managers were not required to nominate individuals for positions during the merger process (See My comment 3). Lastly, the group that employed you, the internal audit group, underwent a company wide strategic performance assessment. An outcome of that assessment was the requirement that all employees within the group reapply for their positions. You were encouraged to apply for the senior auditor position; the position you occupied. However, you elected to apply for the principal/manager position, a position for which you were not selected because you did not meet the qualification listed on the vacancy posting. In addition, you were one of the four individuals who were in the internal audit group that did not get a position in the new organization. We determined that your employment from Exelon was terminated because you failed to apply for the senior auditor position (See My comment 4). We found no evidence to support your contention that your findings associated with the vendor audits performed at GENE or US Tool & Die and the discussions you had with the NRC prompted your termination from Exelon (See My comment 5). Normally, based on our evaluation, we would close this concern. However, since you filed a complaint with the Department Of Labor (DOL) and have completed the Administrative Law Judge phase of DOL process and may file an appeal to the Administrative Review Board, we will keep this concern open so that we can monitor the DOL proceeding regarding your discrimination complaint. After the DOL has completed its proceeding, we will review the results to determine what NRC follow-up action, if any, is warranted. We will provide you the results of our follow-up review (See My comment 6).

B. Concern 13 (RIII-2002-A-0005):

You claimed that you had been blackballed from employment at Sargent & Lundy as a result of the safety issues you raised while employed at Exelon.

We interviewed personnel at Sargent and Lundy and confirmed that a manager from that company met with you to discuss employment opportunities. That manager stated that his division did not have an opening. In addition, you informed our investigator that you were not aware of any employment vacancies within that manager’s division. The manager stated that prior to the meeting between him and you, Sargent and Lundy had begun employment discussion with the previous co-worker you mentioned. The manager also stated that employment offers are issued by the Human Resources department and are not extended by him.

We interviewed the Sargent and Lundy Human Resources Manager and confirmed that employment offers are only made from the Human Resources department. We interviewed Sargent and Lundy personnel to determine if Exelon personnel tried to negatively influence your employment opportunities at Sargent and Lundy. We also interviewed Exelon personnel to determine if they tried to negatively influence your employment opportunities at Sargent and Lundy (See My comment 7).

Based on the results of our investigation, we did not develop eveidence to support your claim that you had been blackballed from employment at Sargent and Lundy as a result of the safety issues you raised while employed at Exelon.

NRC stated: "The staff reviewed the OI report and determined that (1) your performance appraisals for 1998, 1999 and 2000 were not downgraded."

Refer to DOL Hearing, Exhibit RX-12 (1999 CFR, dated 12/9/98), Page 3 and 5. I was rated as "1" on page 3 and "A" on Page 5. Instead of checking "1A" block (page 5), Russ Bastyr had checked "1B" in my CFR. "1A" translates to the grade "A" and not grade "B". Even "1B" rating was assigned with the grade "A" for me in 1997 by Mr. Ed Netzel (I have Mr. Netzel’s documentation. Exelon did not produce it). NRC is ignoring to look at the factual evidence. Exelon gave me a "B" rating for 1998-2000. Bastyr lied under oath at DOL hearing that he gave me the highest rating in the SES Group. Everyone in the SES Group got "B" even his best auditor (Shirani) as Bastyr claimed in the DOL hearing that Shirani got the best rating in SES Group. Please request these documents from Exelon and verify carefully.

In addition, Mr. Roger Sproule, Exelon current Byron QA employee and previous SES Group Member and my co-worker, was my witness in 1998 that Bastyr also had assigned me with an "A" rating in 1998, but his supervisor had changed it to "B" rating. Roger saw the document in Bastye’s office with an "A" rating for Shirani.

Exelon lawyers talked to Roger when I had identified him as my witness. Roger became concerned for his job to come to court as my witness, but indicated that if my lawyer subpoena him, he would be forced to come to court. Exelon lawyers wanted him to go to Chicago to talk to him prior to his appearance in my court. Mr. Sproule told me that he called NRC Region III, Mr. Jim Heller for protection one day after the Exelon’s lawyers contacted him.

My lawyer and I decided not to bother Roger and jeopardize his job. I had mentioned Roger’s name to NRC. Why didn’t NRC interview Roger?

NRC stated: "you did not lose pay during the conversion to a new pay scale".

My Salary Grade prior to Jan. 2000 was a Level 9 (since Jan. 1996) and when in Jan. 2000, ComEd decided to change the numbering system to an alphabetical system, it translated my level 9 to the "E" level instead of the "F" that was supposed to do by company’s standard.

Company had published a brochure in early 2000 that Levels 9 and 10 were translated to "F" and Salary Grade Levels 7 and 8 were translated to "E" level. These were the overlaps in the transition from one system to another one. My grade level should have been translated to an "F", but Bastyr and his boss with the HR’s assistance downgraded my Grade Level (NOT PAY as claimed by NRC). By this demotion, I lost bonus (from 12.5-20% for Level "F" vs. 4-7.5% for level "E") and one lower grade level for the future advancement.

In addition, In March 2001 at my new job in Exelon Finance, Mario Bastista, Exelon’s HR Representative showed me the HR computer screen and admitted that I was demoted in Jan. 2000 prior to the merger. He showed me that my level was reflected as "E" instead of "F". He told me that I should have been an "F" level vs. "E". During the merger in October 2000, the grade levels changed again. The "E" position was changed to "E3" and "F" position changed to "E4".

When Ruth Ann Gillis Called me to give me a so-called promotion to E4 "Principal Auditor" to her organization in Finance in December 7, 2000, she informed me that my position in nuclear was reflected as "E3". Her so-called promotion to "E4" was a scam. The "E4" position was equivalent to "F" and Level 9 in which I had held since Jan. 1996.

As documented in the Exelon Records, on December 7, 2000, Ruth Ann Gillis, Exelon SVP and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) assigned my level as "Principal Auditor Band/Grade Level: E4" (Refer to DOL Hearing Exhibits CX-19, CX-21 Page 2, or the Attachment 14 of my December 3, 2001 Report to NRC) and not the Senior Auditor position that NRC reflected as my current position in its response dated June 25, 2003.

I lost my job in the same position of "E4" nine months later by Ellen Caya (direct report to Gillis) in October 26, 2001 when she changed my title to a manager four days after my October 22, 2001 interview and she terminated me for the same salary grade level that I had held since Jan. 1996. It is noticeable that from May 1990 when I joined ComEd until Jan. 1996, I was promoted twice (Level "8" in 1993 and Level "9" in 1996), but never got promoted since the new officers, Kingsley and Helwig arrived after my GENE audit’s Stop Work Order (SWO).

Helwig stopped three of my promotional opportunities and demoted me in Jan. 2000. Refer to Mr. Walter Hahn’s testimony in my DOL Hearing that Tom Joyce, Bastyr’s boss told all the supply managers in nuclear department that Shirani would never be promoted and he laughed at the suggestion of promotion opportunity for Shirani. Tom Joyce was a direct report to Helwig.

I was the only one in the company whose name appeared in front pages of ASME-PVP Volumes as an Editor, or Author, or Co-Author, or Session Developer, etc. I was the only one in the company who had developed more than 8 technical standards and saved ComEd’s plants from being shutdown for various equipments. I was the only one at ComEd that Nuclear Users Procurement Issues Committee/Dry Cask Storage Quality Group (NUPIC/DSQG) Chairmen requested to lead the major NUPIC Audits. My records and qualifications could not be matched within ComEd/Exelon’s system. However, I was hated the most by Kingsley, Helwig, Bastyr, Joyce, St. Clair, Gillis, Rowe, Yessian, Palacios, Garza, Dasilva, Benjamin, etc. due to my audit damages to ComEd.

My Level 1 Finding against ComEd Engineering Departments at all its nuclear sites in Jan. 1998 speaks for itself. All the engineering managers resented my Level 1 Finding (The one Exelon denied that there were any Level 1 finding and NRC believed them without searching for that Finding), especially a few months after I had issued a SWO against its largest contractor of Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), General Electric Nuclear Energy (GENE), San Jose, CA.

Now, NRC you should search for that finding and figure out the motives of Exelon against me. NRC, you should read the testimony of Walter Hahn in my DOL hearing to know the history of hatred towards me and stoppage of my promotions.

If you need more evidence, I have Mr. Bastista’s voice on my answering machine and tape recorder. He got scared to lose his job at the McDonald Headquarter to come to my court. NRC did not interview any of these three gentlemen (Hahn, Sproule and Bastista).

Martha Graza, Exelon HR Manager in DOL hearing admitted the fact that when the company translated the grade levels, there were some overlaps. She could not deny that I was not demoted.

My lawyer repeatedly requested from Exelon to produce the established company wide charts for conversion of Level 9 into "F" level. Exelon ignored this request. As you see in Exhibit RX-20, Exelon only produced a document that only shows the chart at merger time period (October 20, 2000) and it did not include the level 9 and the conversions of Jan 2000 when my level 9 converted to "E" instead of "F" that subsequently changed to E4 at October 2000.

ALJ (Judge) himself asked Ms. Garza where is the Level 9 in that chart (RX-20)? She could not respond. DOL testimony of Martha Garza should provide the evidence that revealed there were overlaps of levels in Jan. 2000 (i.e. In Jan. 2000, Levels 7 & 8 were converted to "E" and Levels 9 & 10 converted to ""F". In Oct. 2000, Level "E" converted to "E3" and Level "F" converted to "E4").

Exelon did not want to show the evidence of my demotion in Jan 2000 to be so conspicuous. Now NRC should pursue to find out why Exelon did not want to show a chart of conversion to show Shirani’s level 9 in its exhibits. Where is the level 9 conversion in Exhibit RX-20? Why Exelon denied my right to produce a document to show what happened to my level 9 conversion and why wasn’t it produced to DOL? This will conspicuously show my demotion in nuclear division prior to my removal to Finance. NRC should read its own rules stated above: "Specific examples of discrimination include firing, reduction in pay, poor performance appraisals, and reassignment to a lower position or job".

NRC stated: "managers were not required to nominate individuals for positions during the merger process".

In 2000, as part of the company merger process, all employees, nuclear and non-nuclear had to apply for their jobs and were given the opportunity to nominate themselves for four positions and also ask their supervisors for an additional two positions, for which the supervisor was expected to nominate the employee upon his/her request. This policy was not restricted to the managers’ discretion.

On October 4, 2002, the NRC found that Exelon had discriminated against a Byron Nuclear Station employee who had raised a safety concern (Refer to NRC Report, dated October 4, 2002 on NRC website) requested his manager to nominate him for two positions (in August 25, 2000 during the merger), but the manager refused. The employee was subsequently terminated a few months later.

I had requested that my Supervisor, Russell A. Bastyr prior to August 17, 2000 (the same month as the Byron employee had asked his supervisor) and in writing on August 17, 2000 (DOL Exhibit CX-31), nominate me for two positions during the merger and he refused similar to the Byron employee above. Two weeks prior to my request for nomination (August 4, 2000) for the two positions, I had raised a safety concern regarding the US Tool & Die 9 findings and proposed a Stop Work Order, which was denied by Bastyr. I issued 9 findings and requested a Stop Work Order against US Tool & Die/Holtec QA Program. In addition, I had raised several safety concerns in the past. This is the same audit report that Russ Bastyr falsified on August 4, 2000.

Since these two cases (Byron Nuclear Station’s Employee and Shirani’s case) are exactly the same and within ComEd’s nuclear division, how could the NRC conclude the discrimination in one case and no discrimination in the second occurrence of the same event for Shirani?

The NRC concluded that Byron station was involved with the merger process and agreed that Exelon discriminated against the Byron employee who raised safety concerns. For my case, Exelon Corporate, where I worked, was also involved in the merger process and I also had raised safety concerns as did the Byron employee.

NRC stated: "Lastly, the group that employed you, the internal audit group, underwent a company wide strategic performance assessment. An outcome of that assessment was the requirement that all employees within the group reapply for their positions. You were encouraged to apply for the senior auditor position; the position you occupied. However, you elected to apply for the principal/manager position, a position for which you were not selected because you did not meet the qualification listed on the vacancy posting. In addition, you were one of the four individuals who were in the internal audit group that did not get a position in the new organization. We determined that your employment from Exelon was terminated because you failed to apply for the senior auditor position".

I was the only employee in Chicago office. The other four employees that you are talking about were at the PECO office and I had never known that they ever existed. Those employees were accountants and were not brought to the group by their Chief Financial Officer, Gillis with the promise of promotion and extensive training that never occurred. Their arrivals to their group was not congratulated three times by Exelon CEO, John Rowe. Their arrival to their group was not announced two times as "a good news" by the Exelon, CFO, Ruth Ann Gillis to the Exelon CEO, Rowe" as Gillis admitted at the DOL hearing. Refer to the Kevin Yessian’s testimony in my DOL hearing that he admitted the promises of extensive training to Shirani by Gillis. I did not receive even one single hour of training by Gillis or Caya in Finance.

I did not even know what the scope of the financial audit was when Gillis three times (in December 7, 14, and 21, 2000) consistently persisted that I should transfer to her group outside of nuclear for my own sake. Gillis admitted in her deposition on November 1, 2002 that she never provided me with the qualification requirements of the E4 "Principal Auditor" position when she brought me to finance. She also admitted that the qualification for E4 position was announced in the fall of 2001 (the time that Caya and Gillis terminated me) and not in December 7, 14, and 19 of 2000 when Gills so persistent to lull me out of nuclear with a joint conspiracy with John Rowe, Exelon CEO).

In the fall of 2001, Gillis’ direct report, Ellen Caya, my boss planned to restructure the finance organization all by herself as she claimed in the court. She said that she was a lone manager who made that decision without any input from Gillis, Kingsley, Helwig, etc.

Caya lied under oath that she got the input for my mid-year evaluation in 7/19/01 (Exhibit RX-1) based on the Arthur Anderson’s Manager, Darren Zurawski. Darren Zurawski’s record was produced in the court and it was dated 10/11/01 (Exhibit RX-2). When my lawyer caught Caya lying under oath in this regard, she said that dates (of Exelon’s own exhibits that were produced as their evidence) must be wrong. Then she came the next day to change her testimony. She was not smart enough that records that Exelon produced spoke by themselves and she was caught lying about her input for my performance from Andersen. She indicated that the date of their exhibit produced for DOL hearing as evidence must be wrong. This is the same person who forged my signature in the Self Nomination Form (CX-23) for me.

How could Caya be trusted as a credible witness by NRC and DOL? Where is your justice, the government employees of the federal agencies?

Darren Zurawski who was assigned to do my performance evaluation was an employee of our contractor, Arthur Anderson who subsequently took my job when I was terminated. Arthur Anderson Managers and staff knew that very soon they would lose their jobs when Caya came from a competitor entity to Anderson (Pricewater Cooper). When Caya told NRC that she was restructuring her organization, NRC accepted her word as a fact with no doubt about her role of participation in the Exelon’s conspiracy to terminate me by forging my signature.

When I read the John Rowe’s e-mails from December 20, 2000 and the promises of Gillis for a bright future, I should have even applied for higher positions (E5 or higher), but I became skeptical to apply for higher positions not to give them any excuse to terminate me.

I did not apply for E3 for two reasons. First, it was a demotion for me. Secondly, my salary was at the top range of E3 position. I never thought that I was brought to finance to be demoted again like Jan. 2000 at nuclear.

On October 26, 2001, when Caya announced that I was terminated for the job, I asked her and Martha Garza that I would consider another demotion to go to the E3 level to just save my job. Caya and Garza replied that they would think about it and let me know.

On October 30^th, 2001, Caya told me that she would not want to keep me for E3 position either. Caya lied again in the court that if I had applied for E3 position, she would have waived the requirements for me. The requirements of E3 and E4 were very identical as shown in the exhibits produced in the court. How could you trust her that she would have waived the requirements of E3 for me? Please observe the dates of Exhibit RX-5 for E4 position (10/25/01) vs. Rx-7 for E3 position (10/4/01). My interview was on 10/22/01 and position of E4 was not available to me. On 10/16/01, Caya forged my signature and applied for a job on my behalf to have a proof of my application for the manager position. It is also very strange that from 10/25/01, the E4 position became a manager level and in Jan. 2002, the E5 became manager again and not the E4. This was the artistic move by Caya, Gillis, and HR to falsify documents and make their action as legal and were able to deceive authorities, DOL, and NRC. This case is in appeal process to ARB now. I hope that justice prevails.

With all these planned conspiracy, anyone with the right mind would know that I would not have any chance to stay in that company. Finance was the area to clock me out after my 180 days of whistle blower protection window had expired.

NRC should pay attention to the Eliecer Palacios’s testimony in the DOL Hearing, on Page 599 that he admitted that he had ensured me that Level E4 position was safe for me to apply. None of the Exelon witnesses as they testified under oath ever told me to apply for E3 position. On October 30, 2001, I even begged to be accepted for E3 position to save my job and no one was a candidate for that job yet, but Caya refused to accept my begging for mercy. After my job was terminated, then they had to hire someone from outside candidates and finally hired Darren Zurawski from Arthur Anderson as they planned it in advance. Exelon at DOL hearing was comparing my qualification in finance with people that did not even applied for the job yet and were from outside firms.

Palacios at least admitted that E3 and E4 positions were safe for me to apply for. NRC ignored the three congratulatory e-mails from John Rowe, Exelon CEO to me in December 20, 2000 (Exhibit Nos.: CX-26 and CX-27). NRC has ignored all these Exelon motives to get rid of me.

When Caya performed my mid-year evaluation on 7/19/01, I was so disappointed and sent an e-mail to Kingsley to return back to nuclear (Exhibit RX-31), but he refused to accept me back. They threw me out of nuclear and closed all the doors for my return. I requested from Kingsley for positions in engineering, supply, and QA. Exelon supply group only responded that it has no job opening for me. This was the group who tried so hard to get rid of me due to my audit findings and damages to the production within Exelon and to their respected Contractors (GENE, Holtec, and US Tool & Die, etc.).

Why did Exelon only consider my request to the supply/SES with only 7 employees and did not consider me for the remaining nuclear jobs of 7700 employees as quoted by Kingsley on his deposition in 2002? Should I still discuss the Exelon’s resentment and hatred towards me?

In Exhibit CX-23, Caya had forged my signature and terminated me. When I found about the qualification of the job in October 2001, I was terminated for the job that Gillis had offered me in December 7, 2000 (E4, Principal Auditor and not the Senior Auditor that NRC reflected in its response to me dated June 25, 2002).

Gillis lulled me out of nuclear by contacted me three times in December 7, 14, and 19, 2000 (at home from her vacation) and she could not deny that fact in the court and her deposition. She also repeated twice in the DOL hearing that she called John Rowe on the night of December 19, 2000 to give him the "good news". Gillis contacted Exelon Nuclear HR three times and was aware of my situation in nuclear. Refer to DOL Exhibit Nos. RX-42 and 43 that reflected the history of my complaints to Nuclear HR Director, Stephanie Hickman. Gillis had admitted that she was in contact with HR to get my information prior to my transfer out of nuclear into her organization.

There is only one record that Exelon could produce that I had applied for a job with Gillis. Refer to DOL Exhibit No. 8 dated August 9, 2000. This exhibit does not show any request for job with Ruth Ann Gillis. I was asking Frank Clark/Gillis for mentoring me and leading me to the right direction to find the right place in the company that is a mutual interest. Frank Clark was the President of the Transmission and Distribution (T&D) at ComEd and Gillis knew him and I. T&D had many jobs related to engineering, but Gillis only wanted me for her organization and not in August 9, 2000 when she received my request. She waited till December 7, 2000 only seven days after I publicly spoke in front of NRC’s Dr. Landsman on November 30, 2000. Why didn’t Gillis care for me in August, September, October, and November 2000? What other motives should I list for NRC and DOL?

Gillis encouraged me to call nuclear VP, Richard Landy and to refuse the job that I had interviewed for (Exhibit RX-34). She advised me not to take that job, because I would not be successful in nuclear and I had openly criticized Kingsley regarding diversity issues and he was not happy about my speeches of diversity and condemning the nuclear for not including Asian American employees in the management selection process. She said that I was in the hot seat and would put myself in line of fire if I were chosen for the diversity manager’s position. She also told me that Asian American employees would be disappointed with me when I would not be able to help them moving up the ladder with no support in nuclear management.

Gills was focusing on the diversity issues for me not to be suspicious about my conversation with Dr. Landsman a week before her offer of December 7, 2000. I was so naïve and trusted her as a friend.

NRC stated: "We found no evidence to support your contention that your findings associated with the vendor audits performed at GENE or US Tool & Die and the discussions you had with the NRC prompted your termination from Exelon".

Apparently, NRC has absolutely ignored Dr. Landsman’s testimony in my DOL hearing in December 17, 2002. NRC has absolutely ignored Mr. Kombiz Salehi’s testimony in my DOL hearing on December 18, 2002. . NRC has absolutely ignored Mr. Walter Hahn’s testimony in my DOL hearing on December 18, 2002. NRC has absolutely ignored the fact that Exelon had instructed Bastyr to change the results of my US Tool & Die audit in August 4, 2000 not to delay their loading of casks. After my August 4, 2000 audit report was issued, Bastyr refused to issue a stop work order. Bastyr denied to nominate me for two positions that I had asked him to apply for me in August 17, 2000. NRC has absolutely ignored my demotion in Jan. 2000. NRC should read Mr. Curtis Overall’s case from TVA that was finally resolved in May 2003 to Mr. Overall’s favor. Mr. Overall was subjected to the same planned conspiracy by Kingsley when he found problems and raised safety issues. He was also transferred out of nuclear with promises of bright future and job security and was subsequently terminated when his 180 days of whistle blower protection activity expired. NRC should also know that I was subjected to numerous retaliations by Helwig, Bastyr, Joyce, Kingsley, St. Claire, etc. in nuclear prior to transfer to finance.

NRC is ignoring to fairly investigate my case. This is the reason that I want a congressional hearing and/or FBI and/or Higher enforcement agencies and/or Senate Oversight committee to punish NRC for negligence by endangering the public and nuclear safety by siding with Exelon who falsified numerous Quality Assurance Records of my audit findings and allegations.

NRC stated: "Normally, based on our evaluation, we would close this concern. However, since you filed a complaint with the Department Of Labor (DOL) and have completed the Administrative Law Judge phase of DOL process and may file an appeal to the Administrative Review Board, we will keep this concern open so that we can monitor the DOL proceeding regarding your discrimination complaint. After the DOL has completed its proceeding, we will review the results to determine what NRC follow-up action, if any, is warranted. We will provide you the results of our follow-up review."

This is passing the buck to DOL and contrary to the requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Public Affair (Washington, DC 20555-0001) NUREG/BR-0240, Revision 1, September 1998, Page 4 that NRC should protect the nuclear power plant worker who brought up safety concerns and was subjected to numerous retaliation, demotion, lower ratings, and transfer to another area outside of his expertise. The law sound so beautiful, but it is not enforced. Why? NRC is providing a false hope to the nuclear worker that he/she is protected. I was so encouraged in the November 30, 2000 when I saw Dr. Ross Landsman from NRC Region III. I revealed all the information about my US Tool & Die NUPIC Audit in front of all my managers and NUPIC Utility Members. He tried to protect me, but NRC refused to listen to him "not to be fried by Exelon lawyers" as quoted by Jim Heller in NRC Region III in Feb. 2002.

The OIG, Senate oversight committee, General Attorney Ashcroft, FBI, or any other agency should provide some justice to me for the criminal wrong doings by Exelon managers and NRC staff’s negligence. This would only serve as a reduction in commitment by NRC to enforce the law.

NRC stated: "You claimed that you had been blackballed from employment at Sargent & Lundy as a result of the safety issues you raised while employed at Exelon.

We interviewed personnel at Sargent and Lundy and confirmed that a manager from that company met with you to discuss employment opportunities. That manager stated that his division did not have an opening. In addition, you informed our investigator that you were not aware of any employment vacancies within that manager’s division. The manager stated that prior to the meeting between him and you, Sargent and Lundy had begun employment discussion with the previous co-worker you mentioned. The manager also stated that employment offers are issued by the Human Resources department and are not extended by him.

We interviewed the Sargent and Lundy Human Resources Manager and confirmed that employment offers are only made from the Human Resources department. We interviewed Sargent and Lundy personnel to determine if Exelon personnel tried to negatively influence your employment opportunities at Sargent and Lundy. We also interviewed Exelon personnel to determine if they tried to negatively influence your employment opportunities at Sargent and Lundy. Based on the results of our investigation, we did not develop evidence to support your claim that you had been blackballed from employment at Sargent and Lundy as a result of the safety issues you raised while employed at Exelon.

NRC should have interviewed Mr. Jim Clark who was hired six weeks after S&L refused to hire me for the same position. Jim Clark was only hired for a short time that S&L could justify its action. He was terminated a few months later. Randy Kurtz, S&L QA Manager had repeatedly told me "if you don’t want to work for ComEd, I will be more than happy to hire you. I would not let an asset like you to slip off my hands. I would take you with an open arms. You have been responsible for the rewriting of more than 50% of S&L’s QA Topical Reports and technical procedures by your audit findings, etc."

Randy Kurtz had hired many people by my recommendation either face to face or by phone calls such as Jim Zych and Keith Miller when they were getting laid off by ComEd. How did Kurtz turned his back towards an old and a long term friend, Oscar Shirani. What happened to all his respect for Shirani. How in the past Kurtz could make a decision without the S&L’s HR, but could not do it for his friend this time?

NRC is expecting that ComEd/Exelon and S&L come forward and admit their sins towards Shirani. Just two months prior to my termination from Exelon, Randy Kurtz was begging me to join S&L and produce my ASME-PVP Tutorial Course under S&L’s and Shirani/Kurtz’ names for reputation. NRC should learn to fairly investigate this case and not solely take their words as a face value. NRC is ignoring the Exelon’s motives and of-course, S&L had to make a business decision and not to jeopardize its long term relationship with Exelon for Shirani. But Blackballing is against the law.

Posted online November 11th, 2003 by Russell Hoffman