ML060030326

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Morris County, Civil Action, Nancy Rutigliano V. Public Service Enterprise Group Et Al

ML060030326
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/28/2005
From:	Woodruff R - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Federal Judiciary, Superior Court of New Jersey
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194, MRS L-2630-03
Download: ML060030326 (11)

Text

J114004ftj Algeier Woodiuff: P.C. I i 60 Washington Stet  ; . ,U ,,X,\ <

Morristown, NJ 07960 (973) 539-2600 Attorneys fcrPlaintiff t\;\

NANCY K RUTIGLIANO SUJPEI:iOR COURT OF NEW~ JER2SE!Y LAW DlYISIONMORRIS COUNTY Plaintif DOCKET NO -c4P.3D - II V.

CIVEL A~r~

PUBLIC SERVICE ENTPEISE GROUP (PSEG); PSEG POWER, LLC; COMPLAINT, JURY DEMAND, PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC HAROLD W. DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL, KEISER, individualy ad inhis capaity as CIRTICATION sretdeand ChiefNulear Officer ofPSEG Nuclear. LLC E. JAMES FERLANDi individually amd in his capat as Chairman, Presidext, and CbiefExcive Offs=,

PSEG; FRANK CASSDY, individualy and in his capadty as Prsidet and Cbief Operatig Of cz., PSEG Powe:, LLC; Defedant.

Plaitif Nasscy K. Rutigliano, riding at 165 Edgesnt Road, Wztcinm. NJ 07069 by way of Complaint apinst dedants hereby says.

FAcrs

1. At all tm reeva heren plaintiff was employed by deeda=t PSEG PawF LLC and worked W-time at Its subsidiary PSEG Nuclear. As Principal Orgariz-fion Development Consulta with the title ofMAger-of Cult= TrZaSfrmation, plain reporte directly to PSEG Nuclear Preident and ChiefNuccar Ofer Harold W. Kaiser (henalfer Kiser"). Her duties andresposbilities included mr nb: sppting oganizasio eMcdvncrss and high perfbmanmce through teamwork and debcti re leadership within work pups and betweesm orgizations; acting as Leadership Caceh to Vicc-Presidents. Directou Managers, indiuals and select Unio leaders, Outage Leadership Teams, and Operaions Leadership Teams, supporting working relatiosibps nd parmership

/

between Ma =mat amd Union emiployes; and bringing to ec gementrs attdtion issmes and barris to excellence in permanc; including nuclear, industrial and rad ological safety issues, leadership weahsses, and other concers.

2. At all times relevant herein defendant PSEG Nucler (hereinaer "Nucleae) was in the business of operating the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generai; Staticns located in Lower Alloways Cree, New Jescy.

3. PSEGs principal place of busines is located in Newark, New Ietscy.

4. At all times relevant herein defendant PSEG Power LLC was a mnrporate euthy.

of which PSEG Nuclear LLC was a subsidiary.

S. At all times relevant herein defendant Harold W. Keiser was President and ChiefNuclar Officer ofPSEG Nuclear.

6. At all times releva herein deiendant E. Janies Ferland, was Chdym, Prasidestand ChiefExecutive Oficr of PSEG.

7. At all times relevant herein defiedant Frank Casaidy was Presidest and Chief Operaing OM=ce ofPSEG Power LLC.

& InrFebruay 1998, plaintiff was hired by PSE&G Corporate in Newark, New Jersey. Within three monts, she accepted a Ispecial assipmn+/-" at PSEG Nuclear located in Salem Cqrty. New Jersey. She connued as a capore employee on Ioa, hi.time to Nuclear for seralyears. in DeOcbcr, 2001, plaintif accepted a permanent tuanfer to PSEG Power and continued her work atPSEG Nclaras a direct report to defculant Kaser.

9. On Septebe24, 2002, plainN attended ametingwithvaricui membirs of£ the Operations Ladeip Team at the Salm Nuclear Genting Station. At that mecting Pinti zecehed ;i formationftom cetainSalem Nuclar OpcratiosShift m=agwh is a Nuclear RegVaI~y Commission (CNRC) licensed Senior Nuclear Reactor Oesator. This ifrmatiocn caused plaintiff ret concem with respect to plant, personne and ncmlear safety.

2

10. 'Accordingly, on tha evening of September 24, 2002, at the request of the Salem Nuclear Opcrations Shif M a, plaintiff did speak with various Salen Nuclar Operats assigned to this Salem Nuclear Operations Shift Manager. These Sal,= Noclr Operators reported that in the very recent past a high-raidng member of the Salem Nuclear Operations Leadehrsip Team had peformed an unsaf: at in order to kehp the Salem (Jencza-ting Station on-lixe and genratin electy to m t pduci e G.

Sal= Nuclear Opcztr were cocanied that pressure for 'meeting the hmbces' was being cxcntcd by FSEG and PSEG Nuclear Corporzte Mc= and led to the unsafe ait which they believed was deemed a violation ofNRC regulations, acceptable nuclear opacng prIles, company policies, and manae t-voiced expectatim Furdhermore, these SAlem Nuclear Operators viewed tbis as an example of a leaderjeopardizing his halth and safity and the heath amd safety of the public in order to "please senior managemenrt by maintining the level. of plant production, thereby increasing revenues. They were concemed thit senior management at the highest levels was stressing production over safety, therby I'essuring mnagement and union employees to compromise nuclear safety. These Salem uclea Operators enpressed grave cncem that these mangemt practices were puttiq; the nuclear fadity atz iscofbeing shut down by the Nuckl Reguatory Commnissic Th £feard an extended shn vn whichh ad occred i 1994. I addit, these Salem Nuelear exprssed fsion at senior managent ignoring or only paying 'Up se.rvie to ther safety concens, including nuclear safety cozce=. These Salem Nuclear Operators cited extensive lsts ofsafety concers and "broken promises" by PSEG Nuclear Vice President David Garchow and PSEG Nuclear Vice President John Culin to address th=. Furthneore, several Salem Nuclear Operators cited reprimands and mprisals for "eying to do the right ting."

3

11. 'ollowing this meeting, plaktiff met with the aforementioned S dem Nuclear Operations Shift Manager. He was so upset about the unsafe act perfirmed by his boat; a the loss of command and control essential to safe operations of the sriclear fatcity tha he was contemplating reining his position. Plzintff asked him to reconsider and to cisnsa the mtter with Salem Operations Leadership.

12. Within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> plaintiff received various contacts from Sal= Nuclear Operato detailing Idditional umresolved safety cone--s and inappropriate maaagemenxt actions. It was made clear that the Salem Nuclear Operators viewed plaindtffa 'Harry's Ear" (defcedant Keise and they cxpeced her to cowvcy these concerns allowing them to be fre frm frther reprisals.

13. On the evening of Scptember24, 2003 and the following day, P1 ffadvised senior members of thc Salem Nuclear Operadions Leadership Tean of the couctss noted by the Sale= Nuclear Operators and the Salem Nuclear Operaions Shift Managr. Platiff was chastised for "aiding with the Union" ad believing the Sal=m Nuclear Operators We genely concend about the m r safety nd pltafety. Plidntifftrssed that e considered the matsu "scie and needing line manageme's attention im btely.

Employee COcmCDS (a d Sept within wNuclea) was called in to invadgata the mat.

A confidentialryont was generated which ubstantiates plintif' claims.

14. On or about October 2, 2002, plaiitff advised defendant Kalsr of she aforenoted unclear safty, idusttial safety, and loss of c azd and conttol ccrs tessedbythe Sale=N uclearOperaos andSle OpatiosSbift Mana Platiff advised Keiser Ct he should sc: to insure Salem Nuclear Operatos leadcrahip was working t lve du esoh sermos saety cocom Plandff also advsed that Opeztos Sh..i M ru st uit o his s Defdan Kiselstatedth h poblm li:s with e Union!'and that Salem Nuclear Operations management has it toug&

4

15. Thereafer the xmion instituted a gievence relative to the incident described above and other safty issues. At a Third Step grievance proceeding an JIanay 21, 2003*the EEW (Intnatonal Brotherhood of Electrical Woxeks) Business Agent Chargie Haslersaid that manzgemzeat rewards unsafe behavior in thc name of production and rewads people who work and follow -maag ent's direction even when it is urnsac to do so. Easier cited several tamyples. Following the Toird Stkp proceeding, plaintiadid speak wilh the vmious members of management in attdanc- and clerly advised that it was theirjob as ledersto promote a workig relationship with the union employees and not "stone wafr on issues as sgnifcant as nuclear facility safety, industria safety, and other mattems.

16. In eary Fbruary 2003, plaintiffmet apin with defendant Kaer. She lid our a plmn, co-sponsored by the Site VicePresid amnd a Direcor, to address the lack of management ecgagemect at the site and build a stonger focus on site issues, iajtuding nuclear, radiological, and industial safty. human perf:rmance, and suprvisor presec..

Kaiser angrily icnfced plaintiff this was 'not herjob" rnd that she was to focus solely n the Salcm Opeadons ognizion. Pinff ponted ou that progress with Sals Operations was thwarted because Kaiser had not tau n the action to insure PSEG Nuclear Operatics Vice President O'Connor had the support he needed, dt Salem Operationsleadersbip wasn engedin wi tht Salem Nucler Op trs that was inatt e to te eaety pd oth dser issues plaidfbad brout to his autention previously, and continued to view ths union wor s thc prcbem. PLaitffvoiced she did not share tis vicwpoint md th ty issues, as cvidecd by recet data, were on the rise because of senior rAgz idt ftonistcy and Iack of cagagment. Plaintff specically cited Kaiser toleratiog the lack of egag=entby Dicar of Production Maintence Mar Sehi-mel whose orgmiadon's safety and wozkpezformance was ignifcant decie. Plaintiffquoted tateSaUrothe Third Step grievane proceeding ncluding "Maagem t rewds unsafe behavior."

S

Plaintiffpointed out that the gains in managaent-union partnership that had 'von industry acclaim in 2002 were being lost and Nuclear Operators felt a Vowing disrust towards senior leadership, especially in the arc=s of plant, nuclear, and industial saety. Plaintiff once aain urged Kaiser to take action, including insisting PSEG Nuclear Operaticrs and Maintenance Di-c.ors become re-cngaged in working with the Salern Nucleai Operators-and stewarda to resolve the long list of plan, personnel and work environment saafty issues. She fither stated that some NRC-licensed Senior Nuclear Ractsor Operators In charge of the nuclear conuol rocms felt PSlEG Nuclear Officcrs were inconsistent in their arproach to plant and nuclear safety. Plairti cited the upcoming Hope Creck outage as an oppurtuzity to, streas safety of all types over production and she praised plans by the Hope Creck Outage Manager to insr a "Safety-firsr foc:s in the outage.

17. OnFebnzay 24, 2003 plaintiff was called by deftudat Keiser's secretaryto me-. with defendant Kaiser to "go over your bonus." Plaintilfmet with defendant Keiser on February 26,2003. Deendant Keiser asked for an update and plaintiff described once again, cocens about Lack ofhigh level management engagemcent, especially in Maiteace where pedionance was declining, concers about the rowing rift between senior leadership and those wth nuclear reactor operators licenses and concerns about the Salem Nuclear Equipment Operatos still not feeling their afety and work crA tm issues werebemng addressed. At the end of this oral report, defendant Kaiser said "Anything else?" Plainiff replied, Nat tight now," cXpectig to move into the discussion ofbar "bonus." Defendat Keisce than told plainff her emnployment was being trminted as a result of positn elimination effective April 16,2003. Kae explained this was stictly due to nunbers and 4ot plansperrpf aneG The meeting endedabrptly.

18. Plaintiffitsued to her oice and met shortly thereazer with PSEG Nuclear Vice President of Operations ?znothy J. O'Conmor. O'Connor cxpressed surprise at her 6

ermination, said he had expected plaintiff to soon report to him, and apologiZd for 66mismading Harry (Kziserl." O'Conor promised to speak with Ieiser on plaintiff'- behalf:

O'Connor urged plaintiff to keep doing her job up until the last day, look at vacant positions she might qualify for, and "don't give up." Plaintiff took his advice and continued performing her duties and responsibilities.

19. On March S.2003 Defeant Keines retret was formally announced..

Following this, O'Connor reported to plaintiff that vcvs though he was a Corporate Ofiice; and Vic: President ultimately in charge of nuclear safety he hod bec:striped of all authority, could ill the nmerous vact positions requiring him to cover all ofthem himself, and that PSEG Power President Frank Cassidy was Ncalling the shots." O'Connor cepressed.

conc:; for PSEG Nuclear's ltumr

20. Or. March 19 and 20, 2003, whe the iHope Creek Nuclr GeneratingStation was not producing electricity duc to equipment problexs, high-level mnge nt employees at PSEG Nuc'er scke with plai;dff about their concems about nuclear safty and inappropriate pressure icem Corporae Of icars to for non-conservative nuclear safety decision makg. Plaintiffurged these leatdrs to voice their concerns to Appropriate parties but they crssed fear and reluctance to do so. OConoor reported that he was under consideable pre e fm PSEG Powe Prident Frnk Cassidy andPSEG Chairman t Board Sunes Ferland to retzm the Hope Creek Nucler Gectg Unit to service prematurely from its fircd outage sc the company was losing th msilliont dollars a day in lost revenues. In addition to O'Conor, others in senior manageent positions and in the Hope Creek Operations organizatin including those licensed by the NRC to run the kcility safaly, expressed concu about this produzcdc-at-thc-expense-of-Cufery pesm being exerted by the bighest-tanking officers ofPSEG Power amd PSEG. One executive called the stuatio Udadg Wous addaid, The fat that we wrec vn ther...mans...We don't cane 7

fron safety.. ..They don't trust any of us. . . Yep, it s ludicrous... .The people who want to be part of the solution get mazzinalized." He firther expressed the viewpoint that this could be grounds for the NRC "taldng the keys away." These commcrts cased plaint grave conceni.

21. Plaintiff wantcd to insure managtcnent knew of these concerns and the gravity of the sitoation therefore on Thursday, March 20, 2003 she again met with deftedant Keiser.

Plaintiffexpressed that Licensed Nuclear Operators and Senior Licensed Nuclear Operators fct they wer being pressured to start the Hope Creek unit bac up when it wasn't safe to do so. Plaintiff added that various managmcent employees in key positions had these conce-ns but were afraid to come to Keiser directly. Plaintiff told Kaiser one executive had called the.

situation `dangerous.' Plaintiff asked, "What do we do?" Keiserresponded, "We don't do anything, because you know, it's evarything you'd expect to see It's a bunch of bullshit" Defedat Keiser went on the make disparagng cocument about the site's unionized nuclear operators and their lack of sincerity about safety matters.

22. Defend Keiser told plaintiffthat the Company's "issues are toe to toe, knock down, drag out with the unio." Defateiser indicated that plai could not help in that ara and that she was 'actually a detriment in that arena,'jusfying her position elimtio n Defendant Keiser was refecring to ha support of union employee-voiced mzclier and industial safety issues with which defendant Xdser clearlytook exception. It was ctear Keiser was not interested in heoing more about the leadership and clea safety cocens plaintiffwas coutining to voice on balfunion and ag en t emtployes. He asced no clarifying questions as managers are trained to do whenever safety concemns are expressed.

23. The next day. Friday, March 21, 2003, plaintiff was contacted by Huma Resources for a meting with defendant Hma Resources manager David BEmn about her termiaon. On Msrch 24,2003 at which time defendant Braun Infoed the plaintiff Ihat S

deftdant Kez er Wad detemined that her final day at work should be.'accied"l to Match 28" fom April 160, ErBm ackxowledged baving bern cntacted by defendant Keism after Keiser had met with plaintiff on Masch 20, 2003. Plaintiff expressed her commitment to completing important projects and wor! ig as planned until April 16 but defendant Brasm informed her she no longer had that choice. Defendant Braun said she would however retain access to company hcilitics umil April 16, 2003 as previously promised.

24. Plaintiff recogized defendants Keiser and Brann's actions as reprisals for her efforts and a violation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Following company.

policy she reported to defendant Keiser's supervisor, E. James Faedan, Chaitm, President nChief E= tive Officer of PSEG via three-page lctter err atmpts at rising nclcar.

at safety concCs and the reprisals directed at her. Plaindt also followed company policy zod met with Employee Concms Managcr T1omas Lake to voice her safety cnceans and the reprisals directed at hr,.

25. The next day, March 26, 2003, plaintiff was iormed by Brats that her access to all company hcilies, aterils, and rsmuces would be severed prematurely as wen on.

March 28,20t3. Plainti voiced her objections, stating he had told her otherwise just wov days before Plaintiff saw this as frther illegal realiation for voicing nuclear safety and Crporat O = st a cacems to defnzdmnt Chai-- Farand and defedat -

Emplyee Concerns Mnager Thomss Lake snd rcqsted the decison be reversed. Her reque was denied.

26. O Thursday, Mrch 27,2003 plairtiff was told by Vice President O'Cormor that defeda :eiser had, i fact, oird planstifs last day be moved up to March 2,2003.

O'Connor also acknowledged that "they ame after you and they are after others." .Plaintiff clcarly understpod this to refer to her escalating the reporting of anclear safmty concems up to and inctuding defend=nt Chairman ofthe Board E. James Ferland as well as her providing 9

support for Union concerns. Plaintiff was being terminated for fiiling to be silent or silmccd about safety issu, PSEG Nuclear seicr magemet &lings, szd inappropriate Pressure towads production over nuclear plant safety by the highest level offncers of the PSEG Entempse and PSEG Power. O'Coimor stated, "I's coming and you should not stay. You don't nced to fid yourself caught up into it and being cracified....You did ecactly what you should have and yu bold your head up high."

27. On March 28, 2003, plaintiff worked her Ifal day for PSEG Nuclear.

FUMCO l1. Plaintiff rcpeas the allegations of the Facts as set ford above.

2. disclosed to a upervisr Plainti, as set forth bove, an activityr, policy or practice of defendant that she reasonably believed was in violation of a lzw, rule or regultion..

Further, plaintiff objeted to an activity, policy or practice of defendant which she reasonably believed was in violation of a law, rale or regulation and which was incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare or protection ofthe envirornent.

3. Plaintiffs aformentioned conduct is protected by the Conscientious Employee ProtetionAct N.T.S.A 34:19-1 to 8 (CEPA).

4. DCf*d3ts. a5 set forth above, retaliated against plaintiffbecause of her protected cduct = viohlon ofCEPA.

S. As a rsult of defedtS rongfl conduct plintiffbas suffered economic loss, eotional distress and has been othervise nured.

10

SECOND COQlT

1. Plaffrpeas each and every allegation of the First Count as if set forth at jength hereiz

2. Plaintif's discharge was contrary to a clear mandate of public policy, in viclation of Pierec vs. Ortho Phar=acL-icn Cor.. 84 N. J. 58 (1980).

3. As atesult of defendants wrng l conduct plainff as be,: injured.

WHEREFOE, plapntfftdcnds jiudgmct aginst defendants for front pay, back pay, compsatory daages, puotive dazagu, tmeys' fees and litigation amta, 8iterst d any other rriefthe Court des fix and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY Plaintiffheby demands a trial byjury as to all issUes.

DESICNATnON OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pusat to the provions of RF 4.254 the Cout is kc:*y advised that Robert B.

Woodro, of the f Algejer Woodru, P.C. is hereby desiganted as trial cosl in the aboe cptiond matte CERTiFICATON ctify that to thebest of my kwledM, & ation Ind bewie atlo: thrp.:

no parties who sbould bejciedin this action. Additon~ally, the are o ctter pending or contewplated proceedings that pertain to this matte.

AII DATED: Y