ML092860275
| ML092860275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/2009 |
| From: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Orf, T J, NRR/DORL/301-415-2788 | |
| References | |
| 2.206, 2.206 Petition, EDATS: OEDO-2009-0091, G20090107, NRC-2814, OEDO-2009-0091, TAC ME0759, TAC ME0760 | |
| Download: ML092860275 (77) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
2.206 Petition on Florida Power and Light Company by Thomas Saporito Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Thursday, May 7, 2009 Work Order No.:
NRC-2814 Pages 1-76 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
+ + + + +
6 THURSDAY 7
MAY 7, 2009 8
+ + + + +
9 2.206 PETITION ON FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 10 BY THOMAS SAPORITO 11
+ + + + +
12 13 The conference call was held, Thomas B.
14 Blount, Petition Review Board Chairman, presiding.
15 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
16 THOMAS B. BLOUNT, Chairman, PRB 17 TRACY J. ORF, Petition Manager 18 TANYA M. MENSAH, Petition Coordinator 19 MOLLY L. BARKMAN, OGC/GCHEA/AGCMLE 20 AUDREY L. KLETT, NRR/ADRO/DIRS/IP 21 LISAMARIE JARRIEL, OE 22 PETITIONER:
23 THOMAS SAPORITO 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2
NRC REGION II STAFF:
1 MARVIN SYKES, DRP/PB2 2
3 APPEARANCES:
4 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
5 MOLLY L. BARKMAN, ESQ.
6 Office of General Counsel 7
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
One White Flint North 9
Mail Stop O-15D21 10 11555 Rockville Pike 11 Rockville, Maryland 20851 12 (301)415-1117 13 On Behalf of Florida Power and Light Company:
14 WILLIAM BLAIR, ESQ.
15 700 Universe Boulevard 16 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3
P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(1:33:45 p.m.)
2 MR. ORF: I'd like to thank everybody for 3
attending this meeting. My name is Tracy Orf, and I 4
am sitting in for Jason Paige, the Turkey Point 5
Project Manager. We are here today to allow the 6
Petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, to address the 7
Petition Review Board regarding the 2.206 Petition 8
dated January 11th, 2009. I am the current Petition 9
Manager for this petition.
10 The Petition Review Board Chairman is Tom 11 Blount, Deputy Director for the Division of Policy and 12 Rulemaking. As part of the Petition Review Board's, 13 or PRB's review of this petition, Mr. Thomas Saporito 14 has requested this opportunity to address the PRB.
15 This meeting is scheduled from 1:30 p.m.
16 to 3:30 p.m. The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 17 Operations Center, and will be transcribed by a court 18 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement to 19 the petition. The transcript will also be made 20 publicly available.
21 I'd like to open this meeting with 22 introductions, and as we go around the room, please be 23 sure to clearly state your name, your position, and 24 the office that you work for within the NRC, or your 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4
subject organization. I'll start it off. My name is 1
Tracy Orf. I work for NRR at the NRC.
2 MS. JARRIEL: Lisa Jarriel. I'm the Agency 3
Allegation Advisor in the Office of Enforcement.
4 MS. BARKMAN: Molly Barkman. I'm an 5
attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
6 MR. BLOUNT: I'm Tom Blount. I'm the PRB 7
Chair. I'm also Deputy Director for the Division of 8
Policy and Rulemaking in NRR.
9 MS. KLETT: My name is Audrey Klett. I'm 10 a Reactor Operations Engineer in the Office of Nuclear 11 Reactor Regulation, Division of Inspection, Regional 12 Support.
13 MS. MENSAH: My name is Tanya Mensah. I'm 14 the 2.206 Petition Coordinator.
15 MR. ORF: Okay. That's everybody at NRC 16 Headquarters. Has anyone from the regional office 17 joined us yet?
18 MR. SYKES: Hi. This is Marvin Sykes from 19 Region II.
20 MR. ORF: Okay. The licensee for Turkey 21 Point is Florida Power and Light. Would you please 22 introduce yourself?
23 MR. BLAIR: My name is William Blair. I'm 24 an attorney with Florida Power and Light.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5
MR. ORF: Okay. And, Mr. Saporito, would 1
you please introduce yourself for the record.
2 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, sir. My name is 3
Thomas Saporito.
I'm with Saporito Energy 4
Consultants, and I am the Petitioner for this meeting.
5 MR. ORF: Okay. Is there anyone that I've 6
missed? Okay. I'd like to emphasize that we need to 7
speak clearly and loudly to make sure the court 8
reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If 9
you do have something that you would like to say, 10 please first state your name for the record. At this 11 time, I'll turn it over to the PRB Chairman, Tom 12 Blount.
13 MR. BLOUNT: Good afternoon. Welcome to 14 the meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by 15 Mr. Thomas Saporito. I'd like to first share some 16 background on our process.
17 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 18 Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 19 the primary mechanism for the public to request 20 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
21 This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take 22 enforcement-type actions related to NRC licensees, or 23 license activities.
24 Depending upon the results of this 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6
evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an 1
NRC-issued license, or take any other appropriate 2
enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC 3
Staff Guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition 4
requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is 5
publicly available.
6 The purpose of today's meeting is to allow 7
the Petitioner, Mr. Saporito, an opportunity to 8
continue with his presentation of March 19th, 2009, 9
providing any additional explanation or support for 10 the petition before the Petition Review Board's 11 initial consideration and recommendation.
12 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 13 an opportunity for the Petitioner to question or 14 examine the PRB on the merits or issues presented in 15 the petition request. No decisions regarding the 16 merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.
17 Following this
- meeting, the Petition 18 Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations.
19 The outcome of this internal meeting will be 20 discussed with the Petitioner. The Petition Review 21 Board typically consists of a Chairman, usually a 22 Manager at the Senior Executive Service level at the 23 NRC. It has a Petition Manager, and a PRB 24 Coordinator.
Other members of the Board are 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7
determined by the NRC Staff based on the content of 1
the information in the petition request.
2 At this time, I'd like to introduce the 3
Board. I am Tom Blount, as I indicated earlier, the 4
Petition Review Board Chairman. Tracy Orf is the 5
Petition Manager for this petition under discussion 6
today. Tanya Mensah is the Office's PRB Coordinator.
7 Audrey Klett is the Office of NRR, or Nuclear Reactor 8
Regulation Technical Lead on Safety Culture. Marvin 9
Sykes is the NRC's Region II representative. We also 10 obtain advice from our Office of General Counsel 11 represented by Molly Barkman. We also have a 12 representative from the Office of Enforcement, OE, 13 Lisamarie Jarriel, Agency Allegation Advisor.
14 The PRB notified the NRC OIG of the 2.206 15 PRB meeting today in consideration of Mr. Saporito's 16 request that the OIG be in attendance. The OIG has 17 requested a copy of the transcript of this PRB 18 meeting.
19 As described in our process, the NRC staff 20 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 21 understand the Petitioner's presentation, and to reach 22 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 23 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 24 process. Florida Power and Light, the licensee for 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8
Turkey Point, has been invited to this meeting, and 1
will be afforded an opportunity to ask clarifying 2
questions of the Petitioner. For clarification, the 3
licensee is not part of the decision making process, 4
or the NRC's review of 2.206 petitions. We invite the 5
licensees so that they are aware of a request for 6
action against their
- facility, and provide an 7
opportunity to ask questions so that they may 8
understand the details pertaining to their facility.
9 I would like to summarize the scope of the 10 petition under consideration, and NRC's activities to 11 date. On January 11th, 2009, Mr. Thomas Saporito 12 submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding 13 concerns with Turkey Point's Employee Concerns 14 program. In this petition request, Mr. Saporito 15 identified the following areas of concern. One, 16 request for issuance for notice of violation with 17 civil penalty for $1 million. Two, request that NRC 18 issue a confirmatory order modifying the Florida Power 19 and Light license to impose requirements for safety 20 culture assessments, ratings of supervisors and 21 managers by employees, training programs for all 22 supervisors and managers on safety conscious work 23 environment, and the employee protection rule. And 24 the licensee shall inform all employees of the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9
confirmatory order and their rights to raise safety 1
concerns. The proffered basis for the two requests 2
are that the licensee did a self-assessment of its 3
- ECP, which identified weaknesses and areas of 4
improvement in the ECP; that the NRC has issued two 5
Notices of Violations for violations of the Employee 6
Protection Rule, and that Florida Power and Light has 7
a 20-year history of retaliatory actions.
8 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 9
date. The NRR Petition Review Board has not met 10 internally to make an initial recommendation on this 11 2.206 petition. Following the conclusion of today's 12
- call, the Petition Review Board will convene 13 internally to make an initial recommendation. You 14 will be informed of the initial recommendation.
15 As a reminder for the phone participants, 16 please identify yourself if you make any remarks, as 17 this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 18 transcript that will be made publicly available.
19 Thank you.
20 As I
have stated
- before, this 21 teleconference is a continuation of the March 19th, 22 2009 teleconference. Mr. Saporito, there is no need 23 to begin anew, as the PRB has been provided a 24 transcript of the previous teleconference. For your 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 10 information, we have received and reviewed the 1
documents that you provided to Mr. Paige on April 2
21st, 2009. You will have one hour and a half, 90 3
- minutes, to provide the PRB with additional 4
information in support of your request. And we will 5
alert you when there are 10 minutes remaining.
6 With that said, Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it 7
over to you, and allow you to provide any information 8
you believe the PRB should consider as part of this 9
petition.
10 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you very 11 much. I appreciate the second opportunity to address 12 the PRB in this matter. I think it's important for 13 the public to interface with the government regarding 14 nuclear power operations in this country.
15 Just for the record, I believe the first 16 meeting was on March 14th, and not March 19th. Because 17 this is a public record, I heard the acronym NRC OIG 18 mentioned. NRC OIG for the public's information is 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of the 20 Inspector General.
21 I'm going to be referencing the documents 22 that I did provide to the Agency, and they were 23 enumerated with a SEC number at the top of each 24 document, with the first document being SEC Number 1.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11 And that would be the petition. So, the PRB members 1
have those documents at their disposal at this time.
2 Is that correct?
3 MR. ORF: This is Tracy Orf. Yes, we have 4
them.
5 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. Great.
6 All right. As the Petition Manager, Mr.
7 Blount, accurately stated, the petition was filed on 8
January 11th, 2009, and was seeking a $1 million 9
penalty, Notice of Violation with a $1 million penalty 10 to get the licensee's attention to correct the work 11 environment. That's the essence of this petition. We 12 strongly believe in nuclear power production in this 13 country, but the employees have to have a work 14 environment that encourages them to raise safety 15 concerns without any fear of retaliation whatsoever.
16 And that's what the essence of this petition is, is 17 for, number one, to get the licensee's attention with 18 a stiff penalty, a monetary penalty. And, number two, 19 to modify the license in such a way that the licensee 20 is required to take aggressive measures to change, 21 what I believe to be hostile culture, hostile work 22 environment because of poor management culture at that 23 nuclear plant just over the last 20 years.
24 Okay. The first document we're going to 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 look at is SEC Number 2, which is where we left off in 1
March. This is the State of Florida Public Counsel 2
brief, the Citizen's brief on Issue 13. It's a 3
document that was submitted in the Florida Public 4
Service Commission Rate Hearing involving Florida 5
Power and Light. The page I want to continue on is 6
page 11, where I left off last time, and specifically 7
at the bottom of the page under Paragraph 5.
8 There is language there that talks about 9
Commissioner Skop, S-K-O-P. Now, he pursued a concern 10 with the Public Counsel and with Florida Power and 11 Light attorneys regarding a hole that had been drilled 12 in the plant system as an act of sabotage related to a 13 contract worker who was permitted unescorted access to 14 the facility.
15 The part that I want to highlight to the 16 PRB is that a co-worker became knowledgeable of this 17 vandalism before FPL discovered the vandalism, but the 18 co-worker did not report it immediately. So, there 19 was some apprehension of that co-worker. It's my 20 understanding, the beliefs that the co-worker did not 21 want to be subject to any type of retaliation for 22 identifying this safety issue, and it shows that in 23 this one instance, in any event, that there was a 24 delayed reaction in not coming forward with the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 13 information. And if my recollection serves me 1
correctly, I believe FPL offered $100,000 reward to 2
anyone at that plant with information leading to the 3
individual or individuals who performed this act of 4
sabotage. So, the fact that a licensee has to offer 5
$100,000 for their workforce to come forward with 6
information should be a red flag to the NRC that there 7
is a problem with that work environment, where people 8
aren't properly trained to come forward with these 9
concerns, and fear retaliation if they do come forward 10 with safety complaints.
11 If you turn to page 12, the next page of 12 that same document, the Public Counsel is talking 13 about the same point I just made. It raises the 14 issues of the adequacy of FPL's training of workers 15 with nuclear power plant access, and that they must be 16 trained about the importance of reporting anything 17 that could be a safety concern. In fact, this 18 particular worker, who was a co-worker, failed to 19 report this serious act of vandalism, that's a concern 20 of itself, and it reflects FPL's failure to properly 21 train its nuclear workforce at the Turkey Point 22 facility. And the fact that this contract worker was 23 allowed access to the power plant, also calls into 24 question FPL's failure as a licensee regarding plant 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 14 access to their nuclear power plant. So, it's an 1
illustration of failed training programs at the 2
facility.
3
- And, Commissioner
- Skop, his concerns 4
included the adequate emphasis of how critical it is 5
for nuclear workers to report safety concerns. FPL, 6
according to this document, is not able to properly, 7
or definitively answer the Commissioner's concerns.
8 The very end of that document, the last 9
paragraph talks about -- there's a statement there.
10 "First, this failure arose in the training process 11 just as in Docket No. 900001." And the reason why I 12 highlight that particular sentence is because that 13 docket was another Public Service Commission public 14 hearing. That was back in 1989 where numerous 15 operators at the Turkey Point facility failed to pass 16 the NRC required re-qualification exam. So, the NRC 17 took action back then, and those plants were not 18 permitted to restart until those operators could 19 demonstrate their knowledge of how to operate that 20 plant. So, you can see that there's quite a lengthy 21 history of 20 years, where we're addressing training 22 problems at that facility.
23 The next page, page 13, under Paragraph 6, 24 this talks about, there was an NRC augmented 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 15 inspection team sent to the Turkey Point facility in 1
2006 when this vandal drilled a hole in one of the 2
reactor system loops. And the augmented inspection 3
team went in and investigated, and made a report. And 4
that was followed by a report by the FBI, who did 5
their own investigation. FPL put a witness on the 6
stand, and the individual took an oath to tell the 7
truth at a public hearing. And the Public Counsel, 8
his comment related to that testimony. And after 9
referencing the ATR report, the Public Counsel goes on 10 to say, "Nevertheless, FPL witness took liberties to 11 make several public representations which purported to 12 characterize the AIT's findings, the actual language 13 of the confidential
- report, however, directly 14 contradicts the public representation that FPL made 15 about AIT's findings."
16 And the very next sentence says, "The 17 utility's witness claimed that the NRC's confidential 18 findings exonerated FPL." And the Public Counsel 19 pointed to the Commissioner saying that, "Mr. Jones' 20 claims, however, are directly contradicted by the 21 report, itself."
22 And the next page has a big section at the 23 top that you can't read because it was crossed out, 24 because it's confidential part of that report because 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 16 it's a security-related matter. That's why that's 1
blacked out like that, or redacted. But that's what 2
he's referring to. He said FPL put a witness under 3
oath up here, testified that the NRC exonerated the 4
utility, which meant they did nothing wrong allowing 5
this contractor to come on their site, even though the 6
contractor ended up vandalizing the plant. And Public 7
Counsel is saying that's all -- what he's saying 8
really is suborned perjury, putting somebody under 9
oath. You're saying one thing, and it's totally a 10 lie. That should be of grave concern to the NRC, 11 because we're talking about a licensee here who's 12 entrusted with public health and safety in operating 13 two nuclear power reactors on this Turkey Point 14 facility. So, these are very serious situations when 15 you have a utility, in what appears to be a very 16 blatant act of suborned perjury, in my view.
17 Anyway, on page 14, the next page of that 18 document, Public Counsel goes on to say, "The clear 19 and unambiguous language the AIT report itself 20 directly contradicts Mr. Jones' claim that the AIT 21 found FPL's programs, processes, and procedures in 22 full compliance with the NRC." And "in full 23 compliance with the NRC" is in quotes, meaning that's 24 the words of Mr. Jones, the FPL representative.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 Then at the bottom of page 14, Public 1
Counsel goes on to talk about that, "Initially, FPL 2
never mentioned any red flags, but rather led the 3
Commission to understand that the individual's 4
application, meaning the vandal, was clean. And then 5
just days before the hearing, it was revealed that the 6
individual's security questionnaire, with FPL has 7
possession since 2006", okay, for two years they've 8
had that, "showed a number of red flags that should 9
have concerned FPL." So, that was the point made by 10 the Public Counsel.
11 And, on the very next page, on page 15, 12 the Public Counsel talks about, "The vandal had 13 confided to a co-worker that he had drilled the hole, 14 and had the co-worker reported this serious violation, 15 serious admission in a timely fashion, the hole would 16 have been discovered and repaired without any 17 additional outage. Requiring workers to report 18 incidents of such magnitude is the responsibility of 19 FPL's program for training nuclear plant workers."
20 And that brings us back to the point that FPL has a 21 failed training program across the board over there at 22 the Turkey Point facility with respect to compliance 23 with the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 50.7.
24 They don't properly train their 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 18 management, and they don't properly train their 1
supervisory personnel. They don't properly train the 2
nuclear workers, themselves, about the employees 3
unfettered right to raise nuclear safety complaints 4
directly to the NRC, directly to management, or to the 5
media without any fear of retaliation, whatsoever. And 6
this particular exhibit, which is SEC Number 2, 7
amplifies that point in spades.
8 All right. The next document I'm going to 9
talk about is SEC Number 3. Number 3 is entitled, 10 "FPL Turkey Point Employee Concerns Program, Self-11 assessment dated January 14th-17th, 2008." And, I 12 guess we'll go to page 7 first, and we're just going 13 to highlight the points that I want to emphasize here.
14 On page 7, there's a methodology, I'm sorry, that 15 they talk about. If you go down to the second 16 paragraph, it talks about the team performing 17 interviews on off-site personnel. And it says they 18 performed 27 interviews. And, in my view, 27 19 interviews is not representative of the volume of the 20 personnel at the Turkey Point site. Therefore, the 21 base, what I consider the baseline data for Turkey 22 Point Nuclear Plant's Employee Concerns Program 23 evaluation by the licensee is flawed, the methodology 24 is flawed, just on that basis alone. And I would 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 19 extend that concern back at least five years on all 1
their programs. You have to look at the baseline 2
data, how many employees did they interview? How many 3
were nuclear workers, craft, mechanics, electricians, 4
they type of people, how many people were in 5
Operations, how many people did you talk to, or 6
supervise? How many people did you talk to who were 7
managers, executive managers, corporate managers that 8
have responsibility and authority over the operations 9
at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant? So, 27 people is 10 not adequate. It's not representative of the work 11 environment at that facility, in my view.
12 The next page we're going to look at is 13 page 10. And this talks about, the second paragraph, 14 specifically, "Employees continue to have a negative 15 perception that ECP, or Employees Concerns Program, 16 will address and investigate concerns properly. The 17 level of upper management support is sufficient, and 18 that the program not be used without fear of 19 retaliation, and that confidentiality of the concern 20 will not be maintained." So, what they're saying here 21 in this one paragraph is the employees have a very 22 negative perception about using the program. They 23 feel that their concerns not only will not be properly 24 addressed or investigated, but they also have a fear 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 20 of retaliation if they would go ahead and use that 1
program. And they certainly don't feel that there's 2
any measure of confidentiality maintained about people 3
who go and avail themselves of this program. So, 4
that's a pretty serious finding, and, let's face it, 5
that's the heart of any Employee Concerns Program.
6 You have to have a nuclear workforce at your facility 7
that is encouraged to use the program. They have to 8
feel good about it, they have to feel confident about 9
it. They have to know that when they raise a nuclear 10 safety complaint, that management takes that complaint 11 seriously, that management will exhaust no finite 12 amount of resources to insure that that concern is 13 investigated, and that at the proper point in time 14 when the licensee investigates, and either concludes 15 or fails to validate the concern, that there is proper 16 feedback to the individual, or individuals who brought 17 that concern. So, these items, or these elements of 18 the Employee Concerns Program are failed at the Turkey 19 Point facility. And, therefore, you have a generic 20 pervasive problem in implementing the existing 21 Employee Concerns Program. And this Employee Concerns 22 Program is labeled the icon ECP, is a product from the 23 prior program, which is called "Speak Up". And that 24 program is a failed program, also, so it's just a 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 21 continuation of that failed program.
1 If you would turn to page 11 of that 2
document, again, at the top it talks that the team 3
only interviewed 27 employees. And some of those 4
employees were contractors, meaning that they didn't 5
work directly for the licensee. And, at some point, 6
there services would no longer be needed, and they 7
would leave. At the bottom of that page at Paragraph 8
5, it says, "Some individuals felt there has been 9
retaliation in the past for CRs", and CRs are 10 Critters. It's the licensee's documentation for 11 concerns. "There has been retaliation in the past for 12 CRs, and were concerned that it would be the same now.
13 A lot said there is retaliation for using the ECP.
14 This is part of the perception, where individuals --
15 they fear retaliation if they raise safety 16 complaints, and that they feel that there is 17 retaliation going on right now with people who engage 18 in the licensee's current ECP program."
19 All right. Then the next page of the 20 document, page 12. I'm going to go down to Paragraph 21 7, and it talks about, "None of the interviewees could 22 recall having any ECP specific training." So, of the 23 27 individuals that were interviewed, nobody was 24 trained. No one was trained on the ECP. Here is our 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 22 program, here's an outline of the program. If you 1
have a concern you would go here. You go here, this 2
is the next process. We look into the concern. We 3
either validate it or we don't, and then there's a 4
feedback step. We'll come back and ask for more input 5
from you before we make a final determination. But, 6
at some point, you're going to get feedback. And you 7
are protected as an employee in raising this concern.
8 If you feel -- if you've been retaliated against, you 9
can contact the NRC, because it's a violation under 10 10 CFR 50.7. They can't make you whole economically. If 11 you get some economic harm, you get fired, or 12 whatever, you can file a Department of Labor complaint 13 under 42C-58.51.
14 None of that was explained to these 15 employees, and that's part of the heart of the failed 16 program. If you don't train your nuclear workers 17 about your program, if you don't train your first 18 level supervisors about the program, if you don't 19 train your managers about the program, and you don't 20 train your executive management about the program, the 21 program is inherently flawed, and it will fail, as 22 this program has failed.
23 We go down below Paragraph 9 on page 12, 24 you'll see "Conclusions." And what I want to 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 23 highlight, it says, "The majority of the employees did 1
not know the ECP Coordinator, or his name." Now, I 2
think that's very significant. I mean, if you're 3
going to have an effective Employee Concerns Program, 4
well, then individual charged with the responsibility 5
of implementing that program, and operating that 6
program, had darned well better become the most 7
popular individual at that nuclear power plant. That 8
individual should be attending management meetings.
9 That individual should be attending daily tel board 10 meetings in the maintenance department, in operations 11 department, health physics department, wherever that 12 individual can engage the volume of employees, that 13 individual should make himself known, make himself 14 seen, should be wearing a badge, I'm the ECP 15 Coordinator. You've got safety concerns, come talk to 16 me. He should go out there and solicit concerns, you 17 know. He can go in there at a plant safety meeting, 18 say I'm the ECP, in case you forgot who I am. I'm 19 still here. My name is whoever. Just want to let you 20 know, if you've got a concern, you come talk to me, or 21 I'll come meet you. You need to have a rapport with 22 people. You've got to make them understand that the 23 program is meant to encourage them to use it. And if 24 they do use it, I'm the guy that's going to help you 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 24 get through this. If something bad happens to you 1
after you talk to me, darned sure someone is going to 2
be held accountable for it.
3 Well, these things aren't being done.
4 Hell, the people don't even know who this individual 5
is. They didn't even know what his name was, so, I 6
mean, that's a very, very big red flag. And NRC 7
should be very, very concerned about that.
8 Let's move to page 21 of the same 9
document. This says, "Conclusionary Statement" under 10 ECP facility, under Paragraph 1 at the very, very 11 bottom. Conclusionary Statement. "The ECP facilities 12 did not create a welcoming environment to conduct 13 investigations/interviews. Office accessibility was 14 also discussed, and the location of the trailers in an 15 area with heavy traffic, which could compromise the 16 concerned individual's confidentiality."
17 What they're saying here is that the 18 office facility where this unknown Employee Concerns 19 Program facility resides, it's not conducive -- it's 20 not a professionally -- it's an unprofessional looking 21 facility. It's a trailer. First of all, it's a 22 trailer, and it's a heavily trafficked area. If Mr.
23 Smith wants to go report a safety concern, he's going 24 to be seen by all these people going into this 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 25 trailer, where everybody knows the trailer is the ECP 1
Coordinator's home. So, that does nothing to instill 2
confidence and encourage people to use the program.
3 And I have recently attended NRC Region II progress 4
meeting regarding Turkey Point Power Plant down in 5
Homestead, Florida a couple of weeks ago. I believe 6
Mr. Sykes on the line here, and he can validate that 7
one of the Commissioners stood up there. I believe 8
her name was Kathleen Soresen, I believe, if my memory 9
serves me right. And one of her concerns was, she 10 says, "Look, when people called in, talked to me, they 11 said there's a trailer out there at this Turkey Point 12 facility, and that's where people are supposed to 13 voice safety concerns. And there's a camera on it.
14 And she said that's something I want the NRC to look 15 into." She told that to the Region II people. So 16 this is the same trailer that we're talking about.
17 She's saying her people, and I have actually since 18 that time confirmed, or even prior to that time 19 confirmed that that is one of the concerns of these 20 people. Someone has told me yes, there is a camera 21 there, and that is one reason people don't want to use 22 that trailer facility to report concerns. And, as the 23 report documents, when you go in there -- you've got 24 to have an Employee Concerns Program, employees, 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 26 whether they feel confident in using that program or 1
not, depends on a number of elements, some of which 2
we've already discussed. But one of those elements is 3
certainly whether or not management is serious about 4
the Employee Concerns Program, or do the majority of 5
the employees, including supervision and management, 6
believe that the program is just superficial; meaning 7
that, you know, the NRC is our regulator. And NRC 8
regulations at 10 CFR 50.7 says we've got to have a 9
work environment that encourages employees to raise 10 safety concerns. To meet that obligation, to keep our 11 operating license, we're going to come up with this --
12 we came up with this ECP program. But if the 13 employee sees that it's so superficial-- and, believe 14 me, if I walk into a trailer that has a camera on it, 15 and I've got to go through a bunch of my co-workers to 16 get there, management is not telling me that they're 17 very serious about this ECP program. They're not 18 spending any amount of resources, whatsoever.
19 I
- mean, there are very well-built 20 professional looking office facilities available at 21 that Turkey Point nuclear site. And there is 22 absolutely no reason that some of those resources 23 should not have been expended, and allocated, and 24 dedicated to the Employee Concerns Program. I'm 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 27 talking about going into a professional office, not a 1
trailer, a structure, building that's going to at 2
least withstand a hurricane, and that it's made out of 3
concrete and bricks, and it's well lit, and it's got 4
an Employee Concerns Program in there, and it's got a 5
secretary in there to assist this individual, so that 6
these employees can see that management is serious.
7 Management is not serious if you've got to report your 8
concerns to an individual who hangs his hat on a 9
trailer and monitoring everybody that comes in and out 10 of there with a camera.
11 Turning on to page 22 of that same 12 document, under the second half is highlighted 13 "Training". There's two paragraphs highlighted there.
14 First one I'm going to talk about, it says, "Team did 15 not conduct any interviews with site 16 supervisors/managers." Think about that. Here is a 17 licensee doing a self-assessment of their Employee 18 Concerns
- Program, and the reason they're 19 theoretically, the reason they're doing a self-20 assessment is to identify deficiencies, to highlight 21 those deficiencies, and to resolve those deficiencies, 22 and to enhance the overall effectiveness of the 23 program. So, this team -- my understanding, there was 24 a team of individuals, people from other nuclear 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 28 plants were part of this team, so they're getting 1
input from all these other nuclear plants, which is an 2
excellent idea. It's an excellent way to handle this.
3 They have their ECP -- their licensing manager round 4
up all these individuals from these other plants and 5
made this team, but then they don't talk to any site 6
supervisors. They don't talk to any managers at the 7
site. I mean, what's with that? That's very, very 8
important to have -- and when you're going to 9
establish a baseline for your program -- I mean, you 10 have to have an effective baseline. You have to 11 interview from the top. You have to start with the 12 executive management level. You have to talk to this 13 guy J.A. Stall, who's been there since probably the 14 first brick was laid at the Turkey Point facility.
15 You have to start with him. You have to interview 16 him, get his understanding of how serious he is about 17 dedicating resources to this program. What he knows 18 about the program, does he understand what 10 CFR 50.7 19 means? Does he understand employees can go directly 20 to the NRC without -- have to be able to go there 21 without fear of retaliation to raise safety 22 complaints. And if you don't start there, the rest of 23 your baseline is flawed to begin with.
24 You have to interview the licensing 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29 attorneys, like this fellow, William Blair that's on 1
the line. You need to interview him. You need to get 2
his aspects, because he counsels executive managers 3
like Mr. Stall, and like Louis Hay, who is the CEO of 4
this company.
5 They want to build two more nuclear plants 6
out there, and here we have two nuclear plants which 7
they can't even manage effectively with respect to an 8
Employee Concerns Program, which is the heart of 9
protecting public health and safety. So, this program 10 is serious
-- this self-assessment is seriously 11 flawed, and it shows how seriously flawed the ECP 12 existing at the Turkey Point facility is.
13 The next couple of lines down it talks 14 about conclusion. It says, "Employees are not trained 15 on HIRD effectively."
HIRD is Harassment, 16 Intimidation, Retaliation and Discrimination. It 17 says, "There is no specific ECP HIRD training for 18 supervisors and managers." There is no training.
19 They're not trained on the program. They're not 20 trained about 10 CFR 50.7. They're not trained that 21 you cannot retaliate against employees who raise 22 safety concerns, either to the management, or directly 23 to NRC, or if they decide to go to the media. Say 24 look what happened here at this plant. They're not 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 30 trained at all, so if you're not training your 1
supervisors, if you're not training your managers, 2
guess what, your program is going to fail. People who 3
use the program, the crafts, the operators, HP 4
technicians, they're going to get retaliated against 5
for raising safety complaints. Why? Because 6
management and supervisors, they don't know any 7
better. They weren't even trained as to how to 8
ascertain what the route for a safety complaint is, 9
the protected status of the employee bringing that 10 concern, and how to interface, react, and deal with 11 the safety concern that was raised, and how to 12 interface, react, and deal with the employee who 13 raised that safety complaint. This is very, very, 14 very, very serious. It's a very serious finding.
15 The next
- page, page 23, has three 16 paragraphs highlighted there. I want to go to 17 Paragraph 3. It says, "There is no formal ECP 18 training. This is not applicable." So, this is a 19 generic statement about there is no training, period.
20 The employees aren't being trained, the craft 21
- workers, the electricians aren't being
- trained, 22 instrument control technicians aren't being trained, 23 mechanics aren't being trained, electricians aren't 24 being
- trained, management isn't being
- trained, 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 31 supervisors aren't being
- trained, plant nuclear 1
licensed operators aren't being trained. Nobody is 2
being trained.
3 Paragraph 5 below that says, "There are no 4
ECP training objectives." There's no module, there's 5
no trainer to conduct the training sessions. So, this 6
is a failed program that will continue to fail because 7
there is absolutely no training going on at all with 8
respect to training the nuclear workforce at Turkey 9
Point Nuclear Station, or to train management, or 10 supervision. This amplifies, and exemplifies the 11 comments made by the Public Service Commissioner, 12 Commissioner Skop, S-K-O-P, when he said, "Look at 13 this contract nuclear worker that you allowed on your 14 plant. He drilled a hole in one of your nuclear 15 reactor loops. And a co-worker observed this, became 16 aware of it ahead of FPL, but that co-worker did not 17 report this concern."
18 Well, why would they? They were never 19 even trained that they were supposed to report that 20 nuclear safety concern. Had they been trained, even 21 though they're a contractor, they should be trained.
22 They're working at a licensed facility, licensed by 23 the NRC. Had the employee been trained, the issue 24 could have been dealt with swiftly. The plant could 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32 have been brought on line much quicker than the week 1
or so it took to expend the funds for replacement 2
fuel. FPL would have saved themselves about $6 3
million. It's a failed program, and that's what 4
happens when you have a failed program. You have a 5
contract worker drilling a hole in a loop, and it's 6
not reported in a timely manner. It could not have 7
been reported at all, and it could have been another 8
system where the reactor started after it came up to 9
some level of power, another system would have failed.
10 It could have been vandalized in a much more 11 sophisticated manner. And this is very serious. If 12 you have a program that's failed, public health and 13 safety is at risk. That's the bottom line.
14 If we have a Three Mile Island incident 15 here, and there is a release of radiation, then we're 16 not going to be coming back to our homes. We live in 17 this area, and we like coming back to our homes, so we 18 depend on the NRC to constantly monitor the activities 19 of these plants in such a way that protects our health 20 and safety. And, right now, that's not being done.
21 When I attended the performance meeting 22 held by Region II, they gave them green lights across 23 the
- board, green,
- green, green,
- green, green.
24 Everything is fine. Everything is safe. There's no 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 33 problems at this nuclear plant. It's unbelievable 1
comments in the light of what's progressed over the 2
last couple of years over there, with the hole being 3
drilled, security guards sleeping, security guards 4
covering for sleeping security guards, security guards 5
disassembling their
- weapons, nuclear engineer 6
violating a procedure willfully, licensee denying the 7
willfulness of these security violations, and the fact 8
that the violation even existed. All these things 9
transpiring at a couple of nuclear plants licensed by 10 the NRC where there is a failed Employee Concerns 11 Program, people -- the public should be gravely 12 concerned about their health and safety, at this 13 point, because no one knows if there is a safety 14 concern out there that hasn't been reported, because 15 people -- due to the hostile work environment. I'm 16 telling you, right now, and people are scared to raise 17 safety complaints. And, on top of that, you have an 18 Employee Concerns Program which is a failed program, 19 where there is absolutely no training across the 20 board, a pervasively failed program, where no one is 21 being trained. And there are plenty of examples to 22 that extent.
23 Okay. On page 26 of this report of SEC 24 Document 3, Exhibit 3, it says, "Another example of 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 34 event-based investigative focus contained in the 1
report of a substantiated concern involving the 2
chilling behavior of a supervisor." It goes on to say 3
that, "The report noted some of the interviewees had 4
mentioned that the performance of this supervisor had 5
been called into question before." So, then it says, 6
"Did you have a problem with a supervisor?" It says, 7
"Chilling behavior. Supervisor did something that was 8
very what's called aberrant, aberrant behavior is a 9
concern that should raise the eyebrows of the NRC, 10 because this is a nuclear plant." If you have a 11 supervisor acting in an aberrant manner, then that's a 12 big red flag.
13 So, they found this guy, this male, 14 female, whoever, supervisor acted this way before.
15 Other people have seen this supervisor act in this 16 manner, and this team of licensee -- this licensee's 17 team is doing this ECP review, and in their view it 18 was chilling behavior. So, that just emphasizes again 19 the negative and hostile retaliatory work environment 20 at that facility, at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power 21 Plant.
22 The next page, page 27 talked about, 23 "There's recurring concern expressed by station 24 personnel in various forms. The perception is ECP is 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 35 either unwilling or unable to maintain 1
confidentiality." And then it says, "This issue is 2
evidenced not only from a number of interviews 3
described previously in this report, but has been 4
extensively documented in previous inspections and 5
surveys dating back, the 2005 survey, the 2006 survey, 6
NRC problem identification and resolution inspection, 7
and in January of 2007, and in July 2007 when the NRC 8
did a PINR inspection." And it goes on to say, "The 9
problem" -- this says, "The team is not aware of 10 significant efforts underway to address the problem, 11 or relay the problem, underlying issues appears to 12 have gone unnoticed, and the ineffectiveness of 13 previous corrective actions." Meaning, the licensee 14 was aware of this dating back to 2005. I've mentioned 15 this point before. "They're aware of this deficiency, 16 that there's a problem with the confidentiality, with 17 the ECP program. They known about this for now over 18 four years, and the problem has not been resolved."
19 And it's been, again, documented here, so this is a 20 big red flag that the licensee's program has failed.
21 I'm going to move on to page 23 of this 22
- exhibit, at the bottom of page 23 are some 23 conclusionary statements. "These efforts to prevent 24 the perception of retaliation have not been 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 36 effective." Now, how could they? No one even knows 1
who this guy is, or what he does. They don't even 2
know what his name is. No one is given any training 3
from the nuclear worker, and all the way up through 4
management. So, it's no reason that the conclusion is 5
that there is a perception that there's no effort to 6
prevent retaliation. In fact, retaliation has 7
occurred at that plant. They forced the resignation 8
of a senior nuclear plant operator because he had 9
safety concerns in restarting a nuclear reactor, and 10 he had numerous other safety concerns this individual 11 had raised during his employment there. And it got to 12 a point where they were challenging his NRC license, 13 because is a licensed operator. So, they were 14 challenging his license and ordering him to restart 15 this reactor. And it's coming from Bill Jefferson, 16 the Plant Manager. Bill Jefferson, being perceived by 17 a Senior Nuclear Plant Operator, is retaliating 18 against him because he wants to operate the plant in 19 conformance with his own NRC license, plus the plant's 20 license, of course.
21 At the bottom of that page, again, it 22 says, "Some station personnel expressed a concern that 23 ECP is unable to prevent retaliation." It is. It's 24 unable to prevent retaliation, because, again, there 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 37 is no training. People aren't aware of the program.
1 Managers aren't trained, supervisors aren't trained.
2 Therefore, if there is retaliation going on, no one 3
knows that what they're doing is wrong. Managers 4
don't know, the supervisors don't know that they're 5
not supposed to act this way to a nuclear worker, and 6
that's a violation of NRC requirements and regulation 7
at 10 CFR 50.7, because they weren't trained. They 8
have no idea, they have no concept.
9 I've worked at that nuclear plant, believe 10 me, and I stayed in touch with a lot of people there 11 over the years. There's a lot of good quality people 12 there. But I don't care how good you are, how 13 professional you are, how many degrees you have, how 14 many years experience you have, if you aren't trained 15 in a specific area, or specific function, you're not 16 knowledgeable. And you're going to make missteps, and 17 the
- licensee, management, supervisors have made 18 missteps, and continue to make missteps, and will 19 continue to make missteps in retaliating against 20 nuclear workers because they have not been trained 21 otherwise. This is very, very serious.
22 I mean, Paul Insanger used to be their 23 licensing manager. He was the fellow who gathered 24 these nuclear professionals from the other NRC 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 38 licensed facilities, and formed this team. They fired 1
him. They fired him right after he turned this report 2
in to FPL management and NRC. So, think about that.
3 People know who Paul Insanger was out there. He's 4
well liked, professional individual, probably 15 or 5
more years in the industry. He was fired right after 6
he submitted this report. Because why? This report 7
puts FPL, puts the licensee in a bad light to the NRC.
8 And the individual doesn't have a job there anymore.
9 His co-workers know he doesn't have a job there 10 anymore, and they know that he was the main author 11 behind this report. And they know that FPL was made 12 aware of this report, and NRC was made aware of this 13 report. That just goes to instill the hostility and 14 the retaliatory work environment at the Turkey Point 15 plant. That's probably one of the most serious 16 nuclear safety concerns that this PRB will ever hear.
17 The licensee -- the manager gets fired for engaging 18 the licensee on the failure of their ECP. It's just 19 an incredible, incredible event.
20 Okay. Page 41 of this document at the 21 third paragraph
- down, talks
- about, "Management 22 attention to the EC program did not meet expectations.
23 Management awareness of the EC program was 24 superficial, and program values had not been 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 39 emphasized with their employees. The ECP facility was 1
of low quality, and did not give the impression of 2
being important to management. Two of the items we've 3
previously talked about, three of the items we've 4
talked about. "There is a perception problem with the 5
ECP in the areas of confidentiality, and potential 6
retribution", the report goes on to say. So, again, 7
people do not feel that their complaining about safety 8
complaints will be kept confidential, and they 9
certainly feel that they'll be retaliated against if 10 they use this program.
11 "Previous surveys and assessments have 12 identified this perception, but little or no progress 13 has been made in reversing this perception." I mean, 14 they knew about it. The licensee has known about this 15 for the better part of four or five years. Nobody has 16 done anything about it, to correct it, so the program 17 continues to be a failed program.
18 Then at the very end it says, "A large 19 percentage of concerns submitted anonymously hampers 20 feedback to individuals." This is a very, very 21 critical and important statement for the NRC to 22 analyze. What they're saying here is, our licensee 23 employees, including management, supervisors, they can 24 raise safety complaints anonymously if they fear 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 40 retaliation. Because, you know, if you do it 1
anonymously, no one is supposed to know who you are, 2
so how can you be retaliated against, if you're doing 3
this anonymously? Well, the licensee is saying here 4
that there's a lot of people filing complaints 5
anonymously. So, number one, that raises a red flag, 6
should raise a red flag to the NRC saying well, these 7
people were fearing retaliation, because everybody 8
wants to be anonymous.
If you didn't fear 9
retaliation, you just go up to your supervisor, you go 10 up to your manager, or if you're a manager you go to 11 your next level of management and say look, this 12 indicator over here on the control board, you know, 13 doesn't look right to me. It's supposed to indicate 14 this, it's indicating this. We may have a problem 15 with the pressure coming out of this pump, whatever.
16 And let me know how you make out on this. That's not 17 happening. No, no, no. People are trying to secretly 18 submit their concerns because, like I say, the people 19 at Turkey Point facility are very excellent workers.
20 They're very talented, they're educated, they're 21 professionals, and they have due regard for public 22 health and safety. And they want to see that nuclear 23 power plant operate safely. Hell, their jobs and 24 their livelihoods depend on that plant running safely, 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 41 and their kids go to the same schools as the people 1
who live in the area. But, on the other hand, they 2
don't want to take that complaint directly to 3
management or NRC, because if they get found out, 4
they're going to lose their job. They're going to in 5
some way get retaliated against.
6 In the past, they've seen Gino Urbanos, 7
who was a nuclear engineer, he got discriminated 8
against. He got fired. He was a nuclear plant 9
operator, he got demoted, failed to get a promotion.
10 They were cited on both of those occasions by the NRC 11 as retaliation. How many retaliatory issues does the 12 NRC Region II, that they're not even aware of over the 13 last 20 years? Numerous ones. Go to the DOL website, 14 there's been many DOL complaints filed. Now, it's 15 very hard to prosecute a DOL complaint under 42 USC 16 58.51, because when you're economically damaged by an 17 employment action by
- FPL, you get
- fired, the 18 attorneys, they want $10,000 minimum before they're 19 even going to talk to you. You got $10,000? Sit 20 down, I want to talk to you. You don't have $10,000 -
21
- well, why don't you go see Joe Blow down the street 22 here. He might be able to help you out. You're just 23 left twisting in the wind.
24 However, if any one of those nuclear 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 42 workers at Turkey Point decided to go rob a bank down 1
there in Homestead, God forbid, but they decided to 2
rob a bank and they got caught, first thing the 3
Department of Justice does is appoint the individual 4
an attorney free of charge if you're economically 5
disadvantaged. Free of charge. You can rob a bank, 6
you can get represented by this government. You can 7
raise a nuclear safety complaint, get fired, and 8
you're on your own.
9 Anyway, back to this report, on page 41.
10 "A large number of employees are using the program 11 anonymously, and the licensee is saying that that 12 hampers their ability to provide feedback." Well, 13 that's a ridiculous statement, because if the program 14 was set up correctly, and properly managed, and 15 operated, you can have employees raise concerns 16 anonymously. You can identify those concerns with a 17 number, enumerate them, FPL B you can have the 18 Employee Concerns forms somewhere out there in the 19 plant. And they're all numbered with an FPL number, 20 or a Turkey Point number, TPN 0002. And these forms 21 could be throughout the plant, different boxes, 22 Employee Concerns stations, and people can on the fly 23 pick these up. And, hell, the licensee could mandate 24 and require all supervisors, managers, and nuclear 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 43 workers to have one of these forms. They should be 1
everywhere. There should be no -- you shouldn't have 2
to tiptoe around the rose bushes to find one of these 3
forms, and try to get one secretly. They should be 4
everywhere, so that everybody has access to them, so 5
that if you want to raise a concern anonymously, you 6
have the form already. It's enumerated. When it goes 7
into the little locked box, or however they want to 8
get it to the Employee Concerns manager, that manager 9
has a document with a nuclear safety concern on it 10 from an individual that he has no idea who it is, but 11 it's enumerated. So that nuclear safety concern can 12 be readily identified. It could be investigated. It 13 can be corrected, if need be. And, in any event, when 14 final resolution is achieved by the licensee, that 15 nuclear safety complaint can be posted publicly at the 16 nuclear facility on another FPL form with that FPL 17 tag. This is Turkey Point Nuclear Safety Concern 18 Number 2. It doesn't identify anybody, but, guess 19 what, it gives feedback to the guy or girl who raised 20 the safety concern, because they know. It could be a 21 tri-part form. They kept the last part before they 22 turned it in. Their part says it's Concern Number 2, 23 and this is my concern they're talking about. And 24 here's what they did about it.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 44 Not only does that instill confidence in 1
the individual who used the program, whose safety 2
complaint was looked at by FPL and investigated, 3
whether it was validated or not, it shows the employee 4
that FPL took his concern, his or her concern 5
seriously. There was an effort made to investigate 6
it, and to resolve it one way or another. And it was 7
posted, so the employee knows that it was done. And 8
his or her co-workers see that a concern was raised.
9 FPL took the following actions, and here's final 10 resolution. And that's the way the program could be 11 run, and should be run to address those individuals 12 who want to remain anonymous. So, don't tell me, 13 being the licensee, don't tell me, FPL, that this 14 hampers your ability to provide feedback to 15 individuals. That's totally absurd. That's a failed 16 analysis by this team, who did this report. And it's 17 a failed conclusion by the licensee, itself. So that 18 should be a separate concern with the NRC, to the 19 extent that the licensee can't even manage their ECP 20 program, which is a failed program to begin with.
21 The next page, page 42 down here it talks 22 about -- Paragraph 2, "Weakness", there's a number 3 23 after it. Talks about the quality of the Employee 24 Concerns office. It says -- it talks about, "The 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 45 appearance of the office is such" -- it's a poor 1
appearance. It doesn't give the appearance that 2
management is serious about the program, or that 3
management is going to expend any amount of resources 4
to enhance and operate the Employee Concerns Program.
5 We talked about that before.
6 Hello? Are we still on the line here?
7 (Chorus of yeses.)
8 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. I'm sorry. It must 9
have been my phone.
10 So,
- again, the perception problem 11 certainly needs to be addressed. And you've got to 12 start with providing professional building office area 13 for the ECP Coordinator or Manager to work from. And 14 they do need some help, whether it's a male or female, 15 the person needs at least one secretary, some help.
16 You need to look -- the NRC needs to look at the 17 program from an operational perspective, first of all, 18 or the use of computers if they -- as their filing 19 system, and how do they manage it? Is it an 20 electronic filing system? How is it managed? Is it a 21 paper system? How is it managed? Where are all these 22 things kept, and how -- you need to interview the ECP 23 coordinator. How are you operating your program? Are 24 you out there talking to people? Are you making 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 46 yourself known? Do you interface with management, 1
interface with supervisors, interface with first-level 2
workers, craft? Do you attend meetings? If people 3
give you a concern, what do you do? How are you 4
keeping it confidential, if they want to be 5
confidential? If you investigate, how it is being 6
investigated? Do you turn it over to quality team, 7
people that have specific experience?
If an 8
operations concern, do you have a -- do you have a 9
licensed plant operator as part of a three or four-10 member team to address it? If it is an operations 11 problem, and it involves a piece of equipment, motor-12 operated valve, do you have an electrician on this 13 team? Do you have a mechanic on this team? Licensing 14 department on this team?
15 One individual cannot effectively manage 16 the entire program by themself, so you have two 17 nuclear plants out there. One individual cannot 18 investigate the volume of safety complaints that are 19 out there. One individual certainly is not qualified 20 to address the array of nuclear safety complaints that 21 come in nuclear plants to the extent the individual is 22 not a licensed operator himself. What is his 23 background, electrical, mechanical? No one possesses 24 all those skills to, in a sufficient quantity or 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 47 quality to ascertain, and validate any nuclear safety 1
complaint. He needs teams at his disposal, he or she 2
needs teams at their disposal so that when they get 3
safety complaints, these teams are already in place.
4 Here's
- one, operational nuclear safety concern.
5 Here's a
mechanical maintenance nuclear safety 6
complaint. Here's a health physics nuclear safety 7
complaint.
8 The team analyzes the complaint, 9
investigates the complaint, makes their preliminary 10 findings. He can review it with the team, and then 11 they can decide on resolution, and then feedback to 12 the individual bringing it about. But as it exists, 13 the entire program, the overall program is a failed 14 Employee Concerns Program. It is a failed program.
15 This only a sampling of 27 people, and 16 there is no managers, or no supervisors in this 17 sample. So, the baseline -- there is no baseline, 18 first of all, for this particular self-assessment.
19 Other self-assessments will show you the same. And, 20 therefore, the baseline for the entire -- the last 21 five, ten, fifteen, twenty years, there is no baseline 22 of what the environment is out there at Turkey Point 23 Nuclear Station.
24 So, first of all, you know, 2.206, you can 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 48 request a modification of licensee's -- to order the 1
licensee to have valid self-assessment done. And you 2
need to have an outside entity, someone outside of 3
FPL's business relationship to come in there and do a 4
self-assessment. You have to -- if you're going to do 5
a baseline, a valid baseline, you need to talk to I 6
would say 100 percent of the people. You need to talk 7
to 100 percent of the people out there to get your 8
first valid baseline. You need to be talking to Lou 9
Hays and get his understanding, how serious is he in 10 operating nuclear power plants under his authority.
11 You need to talk to J.A. Stall, certainly. And to the 12 licensing attorneys, Blair and Ross, get their 13 understanding of how serious are they about 14 implementing a valid program, something that's going 15 to work. And then you need to interview the entire 16 population at that facility, the Turkey Point Nuclear 17 Plant. And that's your baseline.
18 From there, you can start. But this is --
19 this program is garbage. This is a major and 20 significant nuclear safety concern that the NRC should 21 be very concerned about, very gravely concerned about.
22 And, to the extent that the NRC Office of the 23 Inspector General is going to read these transcripts, 24 the OIG should be extremely concerned about Region II 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 49 representing to the public at its recent meeting that 1
everything is green at the Turkey Point Plant.
2 Everything is safe. The plant is running just fine.
3 Where was the NRC over the last 20 years? Why did the 4
NRC Region II allow these plants' work environments to 5
degrade to this degree? That's what the OIG should be 6
looking into.
7 Okay. The next document we're going to 8
look at is SEC Number 4, Exhibit 4. It's a "Miami 9
Herald" news article entitled, "Court papers reveal 10 nuclear feud at Turkey Point". It's dated March 12th, 11 2009. And page 1 of this document talks about this 12 fellow I mentioned earlier, David Hoffman. He's a 13 Senior Nuclear Plant Operator, and he's a licensed 14 individual. He holds a license from the NRC separate 15 and apart from FPL's operating license as DRP-31 and 16 41, which regard the operation of those two nuclear 17 reactors.
18 Mr. Hoffman -- well, he happened to be on 19 duty on February 26th, 2008, when another engineer at 20 one of the FPL substations obviously violated, 21 apparently violated a
procedure, maintenance 22 procedure. He pulled some relays he shouldn't have.
23 He tripped the entire Florida Power and Light high 24 line, which caused an imbalance, and then scrammed 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 50 both nuclear reactors at the Turkey Point facility 1
automatically as a safety function of that system.
2 And Mr. Hoffman was in charge. He was the senior 3
nuclear power operator. And, yet, all his safety 4
concerns about starting this reactor in less than 12 5
hours were cast aside by plant management. He was 6
brushed aside. People from Juno Beach were apparently 7
sent down there, and given orders. And he got very 8
concerned about safety. He had safety concerns 9
before. They apparently weren't addressed, and now 10 his authority has been usurped by people from the Juno 11 facility. And the licensee, being FPL, and through, I 12 would imagine, Bill Jefferson, the Plant Manager, 13 wanted to get this reactor started back up within 12 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />. So, the licensee sets a time table. We want 15 this reactor restarted within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
16 Well, think about that. You're putting 17 your operations department on a time line now. It 18 doesn't matter what happened, doesn't matter what the 19 status of that nuclear reactor is at the core when the 20 neutron flux in that reactor, whatever it did when 21 these reactors scrammed, and whether it was too much 22 Xenon in there, or displacement of the flux within 23 that core, or the status of any of the equipment that 24 was involved in the significant action of a nuclear 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 51 reactor scram. No matter what, we want this reactor 1
started within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Okay? So, you're putting 2
your -- the licensee is putting plant operations in a 3
very precarious position to look at changing their 4
focus from the safety aspects of what just happened, 5
to let's get this reactor back on. Let's make our 6
million dollars a day. It's an economic consideration 7
over safety, licensee is putting money over safety.
8 And they're doing it in a very direct, and forceful 9
manner. They're having their management from their 10 corporate offices, Juno Beach rush down there and take 11 over, brushing away Mr. Hoffman, who was in charge, 12 who knows how to operate a nuclear reactor. He was 13 hired to do so by FPL for many years. And brushing 14 him aside, and all his authority, and all his 15 insights, and you're saying we want a time line, and 16 we're going to have this reactor back up in less than 17 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
18 That is a nuclear safety concern, in and 19 of itself, putting your operations department in such 20 a precarious position. So, Hoffman got to the point 21 well, this is it. I'm out of here. You're going to 22 jeopardize my NRC license. The guy's got a family.
23 He's got to make a living, and if he loses his plant 24 operating license, what is he going to do? So, he 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 52 leaves. He resigns, and he resigns on the cusp of 1
having raised a significant nuclear safety concern to 2
management, who just brushed it aside, and brushed him 3
aside, all in the name of economics, to get the plant 4
back on line.
5 Page 2 of that news report, you have a 6
statement by this fellow, Tom Veenstra. He represents 7
Florida Power and Light as their spokesman. He 8
represents the licensee. He's making a statement to 9
the public. And he's quoted as say, "Without 10 exception, the safety of our customers, communities, 11 employees is always FPL's top priority at Turkey 12 Point, and all of our facilities. The facts clearly 13 show this case is totally without merit, having 14 nothing to do with
- safety, but
- rather, one 15 individual's attempt to improperly keep a retention 16 payment that he chose to forfeit."
17 That's the most outrageous, and 18 incompetent statement I've ever heard from any 19 manager, or any spokesman for the Florida Power and 20 Light Company. That is outrageous, and it's totally 21 contradicted by the actual events that happened 22 concerning Mr. Hoffman. And it's contradicted by the 23 Employee Concerns Program report we just went through.
24 Because FPL does not, without exception, look after 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 53 the safety of their customers and communities, and 1
their employees. That's not always their top 2
priority. Their top priority is restarting this 3
reactor as fast, within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Their top priority 4
isn't maintaining the facilities for the Employee 5
Concerns Program. No, let's just get them a fricken 6
trailer out somewhere back there. You know what, put 7
a camera on it. I want to know who's coming in and 8
out of there. And make sure it's a heavily traveled 9
area, in case somebody sees them. We want somebody to 10 see who's going in there. That's FPL's top priority, 11 making money. So, this statement is just totally 12 outrageous. And that's how they retaliate. This is 13 retaliation against Hoffman, because he -- Hoffman.
14 Yes, he was paid a big amount of money, like all the 15 people. We're going to get that, all these nuclear 16 workers down there are paid a big bunch of money by 17 FPL because no one wants to work there. Believe me.
18 Everybody in the nuclear industry knows how bad it is 19 at Turkey Point, everybody. All the other nuclear 20 plants know how bad it is at Turkey Point, so to get 21 anybody to work there, you're going to have to pay 22 them a lot of money. And if you pay somebody a lot of 23 money, they're going to say oh, if I have to work 24 there, I could probably stick it out for three years, 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 54 and I'll maybe get my house paid off. I mean, that's 1
the only incentive, that's the only reason that people 2
like Hoffman, who are professionals, would go to 3
Turkey Point, to begin with. So, the fact that 4
they're saying oh, you know, Hoffman is just trying to 5
get out of his bonus payment. That's totally 6
frivolous. That's totally without merit, and it's a 7
misrepresentation to the public of what's really going 8
on at Turkey Point.
9 The report goes on to say that, according 10 to this reporter, "29.2 percent", and they're talking 11 about the Employee Concerns Program -- it says, "The 12 Employee Concerns Program found that one in four, 29.2 13 percent disagreed with the following statement. `I am 14 confident that nuclear safety and quality issues 15 reported to the ECP are thoroughly investigated, and 16 appropriately resolved.' More than one in three agree 17 with this statement. `I can use the ECP without fear 18 of retaliation." So, here again, you have a reporter 19 that apparently reviewed this report, and even the 20 layman can see that there's a problem, where people 21 fear retaliation using the Employee Concerns Program 22 at Turkey Point. And they don't believe that the 23 issues that they raise in that facility are going to 24 be resolved. So, you know, this is -- it just 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 55 exemplifies in layman's terms. It's a news reporter 1
who can take this report, and see the inherent 2
problems with it.
3 The next exhibit, Exhibit 5, is a Miami 4
News article, "Silence clause aims to keep Turkey 5
Point workers quiet". It's dated March 12th of 2009.
6 Page 1 of this document, if you go down to the fourth 7
paragraph, it says, "One reason" -- they're talking 8
about "virtually, all operators are reluctant to talk 9
to journalists. One reason is that many signed bonus 10 agreements, which they promise not to say anything 11 bad." It's supposedly quoted in the bonus agreement 12 that, "The employee shall not at any time in the 13 future, and in any way, make any statements that may 14 be derogatory or detrimental to the company's good 15 name." And the reporter is saying, this is the way 16 that the document was phrased on the contract of 17 employment agreement that David Hoffman signed. So, 18 these employment agreements where FPL is paying 19 operators, and health physics technicians, and non-20 licensed operators, and other craft a lot of money to 21 come work at it's Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. And 22 they require them to sign these agreements.
23 This is inherently discriminatory. This 24 document is inherently discriminatory, where you 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 56 require the employee to sign saying they won't make 1
any statements that are derogatory or detrimental to 2
the company's good name, because it precludes them 3
from raising safety complaints at that facility, at 4
the Turkey Point facility. And that is a direct 5
violation of 10 CFR 50.7. I mean, there is no if, 6
- ands, or buts about it, that is inherently 7
discriminatory, and inherently in violation of NRC 8
requirements and regulations under 10 CFR 50.7.
9 But, FPL Spokesman, Tom Veenstra, in this 10 report is quoted as saying that, "The utility 11 vigorously encourages any one at any of our nuclear 12 power plants, or our other facilities, to identify 13 safety concerns without fearing reprisal of any kind."
14 Well, that is totally false. I mean, their own self-15 assessment contradicts that statement by Mr. Veenstra, 16 and they're making this to the public, again. They're 17 misleading the public.
18 The fact of the matter is that FPL doesn't 19 vigorously encourage anyone. They don't even train 20 people about their nuclear safety concerns program.
21 If you don't train people, how are you going to 22 encourage them? I mean, it's just -- it's totally 23 ridiculous. And there was -- FPL is a huge company.
24 They renamed their FPL groups into FPL Next 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 57 Generation, and FPL or something. They renamed it.
1 But, anyway, they have other power plants that are 2
licensed by the NRC, and I just want the PRB to make 3
note of a document dated December 22nd, 2008. It's 4
FPL's response to an NRC enforcement action, EA 5 178, regarding the safety culture of the Point Beach 6
Nuclear Plant, that the NRC inspected and found the 7
safety culture to be very, very poor. And, actually 8
modified FPL's license to operate that plant in such a 9
way as to correct the work environment there. So, 10 where you have an FPL spokesman, Tom Veenstra, saying 11 that we vigorously encourage anyone working at any of 12 our nuclear power plants, or other facilities, to 13 identify safety concerns without fearing reprisal of 14 any kind, is totally false, totally misleads the 15 public. And it's contradicted by the ECP, and it's 16 contradicted by the fact that the NRC cited another 17 nuclear facility operated by FPL, because they have a 18 work environment that doesn't encourage employees to 19 raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal. That's 20 what you're dealing with here. You have a licensee 21 who denies everything. They deny all violations, they 22 deny there's nothing wrong with our facility, and it's 23 a mess.
24 Exhibit 6
is a
Miami News article 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 58 entitled, "Amid nuclear worker shortage, FPL says it's 1
following the rules", dated March 12th, 2009. Page 1 2
of this document, third paragraph down, talks about, 3
"In the first six weeks of 2008, the Nuclear 4
Regulatory Commission found that the Florida Power and 5
Plant Nuclear Plants had 21 overtime deviations, 17 6
plant operators that worked more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> a week, 7
which exceeds the maximum allowed, and that two of 8
those workers were involved in a spill of 200 gallons 9
of boric acid used to control the nuclear reaction in 10 the core."
11 At the bottom of that document there's a 12 couple of paragraphs that talks about, "The NRC 13 Chairman, himself, Dale Klein, he visited Turkey 14 Point, and then he spoke with journalists. And he 15 talked about "how furiously understaffed the facility 16 was." This is dated March 12th, 2009. But this 17 reported document that Mr. Klein visited the facility 18 last year, so this is approximately one year dated.
19 He's talking about the serious under staffing. And 20 Mr. Klein was quoted by this reporter as saying, "This 21 is the first time I've delivered a message of this 22 magnitude on a plant's human performance issues." And 23 then he's quoted again as saying, "A lot of operators 24 are complaining about the overtime they do." And he 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 59 says, "FPL was way behind in filling openings, and its 1
training programs weren't sufficient."
2 Well, the NRC -- the Commissioner, the 3
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 4
telling the public that it's an overtime issue, 5
because Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants are being 6
overworked. They're working numerous hours, and that 7
he's personally coming down to the plant here. He 8
personally came there, admonished them about it, 9
because he's serious about it. He's concerned for 10 public health and safety. But the fact of the matter 11 is, FPL has failed training programs, is what the 12 Commissioner said. And we already talked about their 13 failed training programs with the ECP. He's talking 14 about now failed training programs regarding plant 15 operators. The fact that there aren't enough 16 operators. You're working too much overtime. But 17 even though it's an overtime issue, it also deals with 18 training, failed training program at the licensee's 19 plant. And it also deals with the situation, 20 extensive overtime, 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> a week, extensive 21 overtime takes away from the overall work environment 22 at Turkey Point Nuclear facility. And there can be no 23 if, ands, or buts about it. I've worked at that 24 facility. I've worked seven days a week, ten, twelve 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 60 or more hours a day, and you're just a zombie down 1
there. So, it takes away from the work environment, 2
believe me. And Mr. Klein was perfectly correct that 3
there's a very serious problem here.
4 The next document is SEC Exhibit 7. It's 5
a "Miami Herald" news article entitled, "At the heart 6
of Turkey Point plant worker's unrest overtime", March 7
12th, 2009 is the date of it. And, again, the second, 8
the third and fourth paragraph is talking about the 9
core issues involved, bonuses, which operators could 10 get $40,000 or $50,000 a year in addition to their 11 regular salary, which can easily run over $100,000 12 with overtime. Overtime is important at Turkey Point, 13 because there is so much of it. The lawsuit said that 14 most operators, an average work week is sixty or 15 seventy hours more."
16 What you have here is a news article 17 related to a lawsuit filed by at least 20 operators at 18 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant regarding overtime 19 issues, and the way that FPL allocates the overtime 20 with respect to the Department of Labor rules and 21 regulations in that regard. But, the only reason I 22 bring this to the PRB's attention, again, because it 23 deals with overtime. It deals with the fact that FPL 24 is paying large monetary bonuses to recruit workers, 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 61 and to force workers to stay at Turkey Point Nuclear 1
Power Plant. And those two issues, again, go to 2
illustrate the poor work environment at the Turkey 3
Point Nuclear Power Plant facility.
4 People don't want to work there. People 5
know you get retaliated against. You raise safety 6
complaints, they know how bad it is down there.
7 Money, that's the only reason FPL is offering this 8
money, is to get these people down there for at least 9
three years.
10 The next exhibit, SEC Exhibit 8, an 11 "Associated Press" article entitled, "Ex-Worker of 12 Florida Power Company puts safety second". It's dated 13 March 14th, 2009. And it talks about Hoffman again.
14 It says Hoffman or FPL's B and he's quoted saying, 15 "Horrible management". He was quoted as saying in his 16 resignation letter to Bill Jefferson. And, Hoffman, 17 of course, he hired an attorney. He's suing FPL 18 because FPL is wanting to get back their bonus pay 19 they gave him. And they're claiming that's the only 20 reason that he quit. He's trying to weasel out of 21 this payment. But according to Hoffman's attorney, 22 this guy, Joe Hackney, he said that his client's case 23 was the, "tip of the iceberg."
24 It's an attorney who's in the know. He's 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 62 in the know, because he's talking to Hoffman. That's 1
his client, and witnesses that are involved in the 2
Hoffman case, and whatnot. The attorney is saying 3
it's the tip of the iceberg. So, the NRC should be 4
very concerned. That's a red flag to the NRC that 5
there's many, many other issues regarding safety, and 6
the environment at that plant that are going to be 7
coming out.
8 And just a point of record here, one of 9
those plant operators, there's 20 operators, I think 10 the name is Klein, I think it's Mark Klein. There's 11 another document that references the name, so I can 12 identify that later. But he told this reporter that 13 people are retaliated against when they raise safety 14 concerns at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. And he's 15 working there right now. He's an operator, licensed 16 operator, so Region II, you might want to look into 17 that.
18 Okay. The next exhibit, SEC 9 is a "Miami 19 Herald" news article entitled, "Turkey Point Nuclear 20 Operator Response to Miami Herald Article." It's 21 dated March 14th, 2009. This is Hoffman. He 22 responded to the news article. I guess the one that 23 said there's a feud going down there, a nuclear feud 24 at Turkey Point. But, anyway, he's quoted here about 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 63 the third, fourth paragraph down. He said, "FPL has 1
chosen to continue to neglect the environment created 2
at Turkey Point regarding the retaliatory nature of 3
the management team in place. Multiple examples of 4
this inappropriate behavior will continue to be 5
presented as the lawsuit moves forward."
6 So, remember my earlier comment about his 7
attorney saying this is just the tip of the iceberg.
8 Well, here, this is the iceberg, Hoffman is telling 9
you what the iceberg is. There is retaliation, there 10 is a hostile work environment at Turkey Point Nuclear 11 Plant. There's going to be witnesses testify to that 12 effect. Some of the NRC should be very concerned 13 about it.
14 The last paragraph talks about, "As the 15 Senior Licensed Operator with the NRC who was charted 16 to safely operate the nuclear power plant, while 17 insuring the health and safety of the public, I left 18 FPL when I was no longer allowed to satisfy these 19 requirements."
20 That's what the -- Dave Hoffman. That's 21 what that Senior Nuclear Power Operator had to say.
22 He quit, he could not meet the requirements under 23 NRC's licensing requirement. And his license that he 24 holds with FPL -- Dave Hoffman's license that he holds 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 64 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the DRP-1 31, 41, which are licenses FPL holds with the Nuclear 2
Regulatory Commission, David Hoffman is saying he 3
can no longer maintain the -- to work at the Turkey 4
Point facility, because he can't work where there is a 5
safety environment which it's required, where he'd get 6
his safety concerns acknowledged, addressed, and 7
resolved to protect public health and safety. So, 8
he's saying there's a retaliatory work environment.
9 That's what that -- he's telling the public here 10 through this reporter.
11 And, again, I go back to Region II 12 presentation a week or so ago to the public, that 13 everything at Turkey Point is fine. We give them 14 green across the board. The Region II Administrator, 15 he never even attended the meeting. I guess it's not 16 important to him. It's not important to him to 17 interface with the public, and all the concerns that 18 were raised at that meeting.
19 He should have been there giving answers 20 to myself, and to other members of the public who have 21 some serious safety issues that they're bringing to 22 Region II. And many of those issues weren't -- there 23 was no answer. I guess, people that were representing 24 Region II at the time were going to look into it, and 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 65 didn't have an answer available at that time. But 1
they said everything is green. I think that's a gross 2
misrepresentation what's actually happening at Turkey 3
Point Nuclear Power Plant.
4 And to the extent that OIG is going to be 5
reviewing these transcripts, OIG needs to look into 6
how regions, like NRC Region II, interface with the 7
public. And they should be more -- there should be 8
more sunshine. There should be more transparency.
9 The NRC should say we cited them these violations. We 10 sent a guy in there. They found guards sleeping on 11 the job. They found guards covering up for other 12 guards. They found guards taking their weapons apart.
13 And this is what we did about it. And this is where 14 that situation is now. Yes, we know Hoffman resigned 15 after this reactor scram, and we're looking at it, and 16 this is where we are now.
17 No, they didn't do any of that stuff.
18 It's just dancing around this silly report, these 19 White findings, and Green findings, and Orange 20 findings. And hell, the public don't know what the 21 hell they're talking about. All they hear is the NRC 22 thinks everything is fine out there.
23 MR. BLOUNT: Excuse me, Mr. Saporito.
24 MR. SAPORITO: Yes.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 66 MR. BLOUNT: Just to let you know, we're 1
coming up on an hour and a half. You've got about 10 2
minutes left.
3 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. BLOUNT: Yes.
5 MR. SAPORITO: All right. So, SEC Number 6
10, I just want to get through these, so I'm going to 7
go a little faster here. An article talking about 8
FPL's response to the Turkey Point story. And this is 9
by Bill Jefferson. He's the Turkey Point Site Vice 10 President. Everything he says in this report, I'm not 11 going to read it to you. You can read it for 12 yourselves. But everything it says is contradicted by 13 the documents we've already reviewed, and the Employee 14 Concerns Program itself. And by statements made by 15 Hoffman in those reports, so that's why I put that in 16 there. He's trying to make the public think that 17 everything is fine. It's really not.
18 The next exhibit, SEC Number 11, this 19 talks about the David Hoffman lawsuit.
- But, 20 specifically, the first page. If you go down to the 21 dotted paragraph, there's are safety concerns that 22 Hoffman raised. Okay? And that's the reason he quit.
23 These safety concerns, all of them, not just the 24 incident that happened on that one night where he 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 67 quit, but all these incidents he didn't think were 1
getting resolved.
2 But there's a paragraph, the second one 3
from the bottom of that paragraph, says, "The 4
operating crews should never be placed in the position 5
to get the reactor startup completed under a time 6
pressure condition, which to me seem -- the IV 7
plotting requirements for the third doubling with a 8
rapidly changing Xenon condition. This lack of desire 9
to listen and act on input continues to force written 10 correspondence, and is a major contributor to why we 11 have an SCWD issue at the station. People are not 12 valued, and they're treated like equipment and 13 numbers."
14 What he's saying is, I raised these safety 15 complaints, including the one to restart this reactor, 16 and no one cares, no one listens. They want to get 17 the reactor back on line. We're nothing more than 18 equipment and numbers to this plant. Again, that goes 19 to the work environment.
20 The next couple of pages, this one is 21 entitled, "Counterclaim Count One-Retaliation", not 22 that one. I'm sorry. It's the next page following 23 that. It's Item 11 and 12, talks about, "The plant 24 manager insisted that Hoffman start the reactor", and 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 68 it talks about Hoffman being put in the position of 1
being constructively discharged because he refused to 2
do something he thought was not safe. And, again, 3
that goes to the environment.
4 And on, this page is not numbered. Oh, 5
it's page 4 of 6 of the Retention Bonus Agreement, 6
Paragraph D. It says, "The employee shall not, at any 7
time in the future in any way disparage the company, 8
its related entities, or any current or former 9
officers, directors, and employees orally or in 10 writing, or make any statements that may be derogatory 11 or detrimental to the company's good name, or business 12 reputation, of that of its related entities." This is 13 the statement that Hoffman and all these nuclear 14 workers have to sign to get their bonus pay. This is 15 inherently discriminatory.
It's inherently in 16 violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
17 The next, Exhibit 12 is just the Union's 18 Memorandum of Understanding. Again, it highlights the 19 amount of pay and the fact that it's across the board.
20 It's a pervasive bonus program to keep their nuclear 21 workers at Turkey Point. They don't even want them 22 transferring out of Turkey Point to another plant 23 owned or operated by FPL. They're paying them big 24 dollars, $40-50,000, to agree to stay at Turkey Point.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 69 It's because the environment is so poor there, they 1
have to offer these kind of bonuses.
2 The next document, SEC Exhibit 13. This 3
is the amended complaint. I don't have time to go 4
through this. It's pretty self-explanatory. But, 5
again, the reason I put it in there, it accentuates 6
issues concerning the environment at Turkey Point, the 7
poor environment.
8 SEC Number 14, again, this is a Memorandum 9
of Understanding. It talks about the bonuses. And 10 number 9 on the first page of it says, "Operators 11 execute the election agreement will not be eligible to 12 bid out of Turkey Point, TPN is Turkey Point 13 Operations Department prior to 2010." Again, the 14 environment is so bad, they want to pay you big 15 dollars, thousands, and thousands, and thousands of 16 dollars, and they don't even want you bidding out of 17 the department, let alone the plant.
18 Okay. The next document, SEC Number 15, 19 is FPL Motion to Dismiss. Again, I'm not going to go 20 through this document. This document said -- so the 21 PRB has some insight as to FLP's challenge to the 22 lawsuit.
23 And, SEC Number 16, I wrote a letter to 24 Louis Hay. He's the Executive Officer of FPL, the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 70 Chief Executive Officer. And I offered my services to 1
go in that plant, assess the environment, do a 2
baseline, put a training program together, talk to 3
employees, bring everybody up to speed what their 4
protections are, why you need to raise safety 5
concerns, how important it is, and their avenues of 6
protection within the Department of Labor, and how the 7
NRC investigates under 10 CFR 50.7.
8 He never responded, not even the courtesy 9
of a reply. So, you need -- in closing, I just want 10 to say that the petition asks for $1 million Notice of 11 Violation issues with a civil penalty. That's to get 12 their attention. Money talks. They don't care about 13 anything else. You've got to hit them with the money 14 first.
15 If you say send us $1 million, you're 16 going to get the attention of Lou Hays, believe me.
17 You're going to get the attention of Lou Hays. You're 18 going to get the attention of Stall. You're going to 19 get the attention of William Blair, and of Mitch Ross, 20 because $1 million is $1 million. And the public is 21 going to see that, as hey, the government is doing 22 something about safety at these plants.
23 Second of
- all, the modification of 24 licenses, because you need an independent firm to come 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 71 in here and do a baseline, do an assessment of the 1
Employee Concerns
- Program, and to make 2
recommendations, and require the licensee to make the 3
changes that are recommended, and to monitor that 4
program over the next 10, 15, 20 years.
5 So, if there's any questions, I'll be 6
certainly happy to answer them.
7 MR. BLOUNT: Thank you. Any questions 8
from the folks here at headquarters for Mr. Saporito?
9 Okay. How about the Region? Does the Region have 10 any questions for Mr. Saporito?
11 MR. SYKES: No. No, we don't.
12 MR. BLOUNT: Do we have any questions from 13 the licensee?
14 MR. BLAIR: Yes, if I may. I'll try to be 15 brief. This is William Blair from Florida Power and 16 Light.
17 Mr.
- Saporito, what specific
- rule, 18 regulation, or order are you alleging that Florida 19 Power and Light violated at Turkey Point?
20 MR. SAPORITO: Well, Mr. Blair, it's 21 pretty obvious that 10 CFR 50.7 has been violated over 22 the years at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. It's a 23 matter of public record. The NRC has cited Florida 24 Power and Light twice to the extent that those 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 72 regulations have been violated. The fact that the 1
Turkey Point Nuclear facilities are being operated, in 2
my view, with a hostile work environment, and not in 3
full compliance with the requirement, the NRC 4
requirement to maintain a healthy work environment 5
which encourages employees to raise safety concerns 6
directly to the NRC, or directly to the licensee 7
management, or to the media, if they so desire, is a 8
violation of NRC requirements.
9 Because
- that, certainly, the work 10 environment there is nothing near, it's not even close 11 to complying with the NRC requirements to maintain 12 that type of environment, which encourages employees 13 to freely raise safety complaints without fear of 14 retaliation.
15 MR. BLAIR: All right. You've mentioned 16 the pressurizer piping hole incident. Mr. Saporito, 17 do you have any specific information as to the 18 individual that would have committed that act?
19 MR. SAPORITO: I reference the Public 20 Counsel's 13C brief. It's in that brief. There is an 21 FBI investigative report, an FBI Special Agent 22 conducted an investigation, apparently interviewed the 23 individual who drilled the hole. And I would point 24 you to the FBI for that specific information.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 73 MR. BLAIR: Okay. So, you have no 1
specific knowledge, other than what the FBI and NRC 2
looked at.
3 MR. SAPORITO: Well, yes, I do. If you --
4 I don't have all the pleadings in that Public Service 5
Commission hearing before me right at this time. And 6
it goes into quite specific detail about what 7
transpired when that hole was drilled.
8 MR. BLAIR: All right. I'll move on.
9 You went on at length about the ECP report 10 from January of 2008. Who performed that report?
11 MR.
SAPORITO:
That's proprietary, 12 confidential information at this time. I can't 13 release that to you.
14 MR. BLAIR: Well, do you know if there 15 were any corrective actions taken as a result of that 16 report?
17 MR. SAPORITO: Do I know what?
18 MR. BLAIR: If there were any corrective 19 actions taken as a result of that report?
20 MR. SAPORITO: No, I don't. I'm not 21 knowledgeable at this time if there was any corrective 22 action. In my view, whatever corrective actions that 23 may have been taken, were not sufficient to overcome 24 the overwhelming evidence which points to a failed 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 74 program.
1 MR. BLAIR: Right. I don't doubt that.
2 Do you know if the NRC inspects the safety conscious 3
work environment at Turkey Point?
4 MR. SAPORITO: I know they're supposed to.
5 I haven't followed the inspectors around at the plant 6
to monitor their actions.
7 MR. BLAIR: Thank you. You mentioned that 8
the Hoffman case, as well as Insanger, do you know if 9
those issues were raised those individuals to the NRC?
10 MR. SAPORITO: Do I know what?
11 MR. BLAIR: If those individuals raised 12 their concerns for themselves to the NRC?
13 MR.
SAPORITO:
I am under the 14 understanding, certain communications that the NRC 15 Office of Investigations, is conducting an 16 investigation of the Hoffman case.
17 MR. BLOUNT: At this point -- this is Tom 18 Blount, the PRB Chairman. I'd like to make sure that 19 we're directing our questions of the Petitioner to 20 clarifying the petition.
21 MR. BLAIR: I'm confused, quite frankly, 22 as to what his petition is. I was going to make sure 23 that I understood his statements, but I'll skip to the 24 chase. The petition is dated January 11th, and 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 75 addressed to the Office of Inspector General. Mr.
1 Saporito, now after a period of two and a half hours, 2
has talked about everything except what he thinks 3
Turkey Point did to violate, so I'm just confused.
4 And I'll just leave it at that. It's not clear to me 5
what his alleged violation is.
6 MR. SAPORITO: And this is Thomas Saporito 7
with Saporito Energy Consultants. I just want to 8
confirm that Mr. Blair is confused, because the 9
petition, January 11, 2009, was addressed to the NRC 10 Executive Director for Operations, and not to the 11 Inspector General. So he, apparently, is confused.
12 MR. BLOUNT: I understand. With that in 13 mind, I want to thank you very much for the final 14 clarifying remarks.
15 Are there any members of the public on 16 line? If there are, before I conclude the meeting, 17 the members of the public may provide comments 18 regarding the petition, and ask questions about the 19 2.206 petition process. However, as stated in the 20 opening, the purpose of this meeting is not to provide 21 an opportunity for the petitioner, or the public, to 22 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of 23 the petition request.
24 Hearing no questions, I want to thank Mr.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 76 Saporito for taking time to provide the NRC with 1
clarifying information on the petition you've 2
submitted. With that, this meeting is concluded, and 3
we'll be terminating the phone connection.
4 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you.
5 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 6
record at 3:16:50 p.m.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25