ML12353A497
| ML12353A497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/2012 |
| From: | Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | |
| Orf, T J | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13043A462 | List: |
| References | |
| G20120748, LTR-0554, NRC-2070 | |
| Download: ML12353A497 (49) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings (corrected as noted)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE [FPL, St. Lucie] Nuclear Plant Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: (teleconference)
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 Work Order No.: NRC-2070 Pages 1-49 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 + + + + +
6 PETITION FOR [ST. LUCIE] NUCLEAR PLANT 7 + + + + +
8 TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER 11, 2012 10 + + + + +
11 The conference call was held at 12:30 p.m.,
12 Ho Nieh, Chairman of the Petition Review Board, 13 presiding.
14 15 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 16 17 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
18 HO NIEH, Petition Review Board Chairman 19 TRACE ORF, Petition Manager 20 21 NRC STAFF:
22 TANYA MENSAH 23 DAN RICH 24 OSCAR DeMIRANDA 25 JESSIE QUICHOCHO 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 1
2 NRC STAFF (Continued):
3 MOLLY BARKMAN MARSH 4 PAT JEFFERSON 5 ROBERT RZEPKA 6 LISA JARRIEL 7 DAVE VITO 8
9 ON BEHALF OF FP&L:
10 WILLIAM BLAIR, ESQ.
11 12 ON BEHALF OF MARK HICKS:
13 MARK HICKS 14 PETER TICKTIN, ESQ.
15 16 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 1
2 3 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 4 (12:30 p.m.)
5 MR. ORF: Okay, we will go ahead and begin.
6 My name is Trace Orf and I would like to thank everyone 7 for attending this meeting. We are here today to allow 8 the Petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, Senior Consultant 9 for Saprodani Associates to address the NRC Petition 10 Review Board, also referred to as the PRB, regarding the 11 2.206 Petition dated October 1, 2012.
12 The Petitioner requests that the NRC take 13 enforcement-related action against the licensees 14 Florida Power and Light Company or FP&L and NextEra 15 Energy as the result of information provided on a CBS 16 television broadcast that described a lawsuit filed by 17 Mr. Mark Hicks alleging whistleblower discrimination by 18 FP&L.
19 I am the Petition Manager of this Petition 20 and Mr. Ho Nieh is the PRB Chairman.
21 As part of the PRB's review of the Petition, 22 the Petitioner was offered an initial opportunity to 23 address the PRB to provide any relevant additional 24 explanation and support for the Petition.
25 At the request of Mr. Thomas Saporito, he 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 1 requested this opportunity to provide supplemental 2 information to the Board for the Petition before the PRB 3 meets internally to make the initial recommendation to 4 accept or reject the petition for review.
5 This meeting is scheduled for one and a half 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
7 It is being recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will 8 be transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 9 become a supplement to the Petition. Prior to placing 10 the transcript in ADAMS, the PRB will review it to ensure 11 that it does not contain any allegations of [sensitive]
12 information.
13 I would like to open this meeting with 14 introductions of the NRC meeting participants. I ask 15 that all participants clearly state for the record your 16 name, position, and your organization. Would those here 17 in the room please speak up so that those on the phone 18 can hear clearly and so that the court reporter can 19 accurately record your name? We will start with myself 20 and the other NRC participants here in the room.
21 My name is Trace Orf. I am a project 22 manager in NRR and I am also the Petition Manager.
23 MR. QUICHOCHO: My name is Jessie 24 Quichocho. I am the Branch Chief for [Plant] Licensing 25 Branch in NRR.
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 1 MS. MENSAH: My name is Tanya Mensah. I am 2 the 2.206 coordinator in the Division of Policy and 3 Rulemaking, NRR.
4 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Hi, I'm Ho Nieh. I am the 5 Director of the Division of Inspection and Regional 6 Support in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRR.
7 MS. MARSH: I am Molly Marsh. I am an 8 attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
9 MR. ORF: That completes the introductions 10 of the NRC Staff in the room. For those NRC participants 11 on the line, could you introduce yourselves?
12 MR. JEFFERSON: Pat Jefferson with the 13 Office of Investigations.
14 MR. RICH: This is Dan Rich in NRC Region 15 II, Division of Reactor Projects Branch 3.
16 MR. DE MIRANDA: Oscar DeMiranda, Region 17 II, Senior Allegation Coordinator.
18 MR. RZEPKA: Rob Rzepka, Special Agent In 19 Charge, Region II, Office of Investigations.
20 MR. ORF: Are there any participants from 21 the licensee on the line?
22 MR. BLAIR: William Blair, Senior 23 Attorney, Florida Power and Light company.
24 MR. ORF: Mr. Saporito, would you please 25 introduce yourself for the record?
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 1 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, my name is Thomas 2 Saporito. I am the senior consultant for Saprodani 3 Associates located in Jupiter, Florida.
4 MR. ORF: Okay, if there is anyone else on 5 the line that I missed, would you please now state your 6 name and organization?
7 MR. TICKTIN: Peter Ticktin, the Ticktin 8 Law Group.
9 MR. HICKS: And Mr. Mark Hicks, former FP&L 10 employee.
11 MR. ORF: I'm sorry, Peter, could you 12 repeat your name?
13 MR. TICKTIN: Yes, Peter Ticktin, 14 T-I-C-K-T-I-N of the Ticktin Law Group. I represent Mr.
15 Hicks.
16 MR. ORF: Thank you. I'm sorry. Please 17 remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 18 noise or distractions. If you do not have a mute button, 19 this can be done by pressing the keys *6. To un-mute, 20 press the *6 keys again.
21 Please note that the Operation Center will 22 have muted the phones of people who are not addressing 23 the PRB. Those lines will be un-muted during the public 24 comment portion of this meeting.
25 I would also like to emphasize that we need 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 1 to each speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the 2 Court Reporter can accurately transcribe. If you do 3 have something you would like to say, please first state 4 your name for the record.
5 Let's see. We have just been joined by a 6 couple more members of the NRC. If you could introduce 7 yourself.
8 MS. JARRIEL: Lisa Jarriel, Office of 9 Enforcement.
10 MR. VITO: Dave Vito, Office of 11 Enforcement.
12 MR. ORF: Okay, at this time I will turn it 13 over to the PRB Chairman, Mr. Ho Nieh.
14 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you Trace.
15 Good afternoon everybody. Thank you for joining this 16 meeting of the Petition Review Board.
17 Before we begin, I just wanted to share some 18 background about the NRC's process for handling 2.206 19 Petitions under Title 10 of the Code of Federal 20 Regulations. This is a primary mechanism for the NRC to 21 deal with any requests from a member of the public for 22 an enforcement-related action related to the NRC's 23 license activities. And this process permits anybody 24 from the public to petition the NRC for such action.
25 Depending on the NRC's evaluation of the 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 1 Petition, the NRC could choose to modify, suspend, or 2 revoke an NRC license or take any other appropriate 3 enforcement action to resolve the issue. The NRC's 4 guidance for dispositioning these types of petitions are 5 contained in Management Directive 8.11, which is a 6 publicly available document.
7 The purpose of today's meeting is to provide 8 the Petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, the Senior 9 Consultant for Saprodani Associates, an opportunity to 10 provide any additional information to the Petition 11 Review Board before we consider and make a recommendation 12 on how to disposition the Petition.
13 The meeting today is not a hearing, nor is 14 it an opportunity for the Petitioner to question or 15 examine the Petition Review Board on the merits of the 16 issue contained in the Petition. The Petition Review 17 Board will not be making any decisions regarding the 18 merits of this petition during this meeting. Following 19 the meeting, however, the Petition Review Board will 20 conduct its internal deliberations and the outcome of our 21 deliberations will be discussed with the Petitioner.
22 The Petition Review Board typically 23 consists of a Chairman and I am serving in that role. It 24 is usually a senior manager at the NRC. We also have a 25 Petition Manager as Mr. Trace Orf already noted, and the 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 1 members of the Petition Review Board are determined by 2 the NRC staff, based on the content in the Petitioner's 3 request.
4 So at this time, I would like to introduce 5 the other members of the Petition Review Board besides 6 myself and Trace Orf. We also have technical staff 7 supporting the PRB, who include Ms. Tanya Mensah from the 8 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mr. Dan Rich from 9 NRC, Region II, Mr. Oscar DeMiranda also from NRC Region 10 II. And we are obtaining advice today from the Office 11 of General Counsel who is represented by Ms. Molly 12 Barkman Marsh, the NRC's Office of Investigations 13 represented by Pat Jefferson. And Mr. Pat Jefferson and 14 Mr. Robert Rzepka from Region II, and also the Office of 15 Enforcement as we heard, Lisa Jarriel and Dave Vito 16 joined us just shortly before.
17 As described in our process in Management 18 Directive 8.11, the NRC staff may ask clarifying 19 questions in order to better understand the Petitioner's 20 requests, in order for us to help reach a reasoned 21 decision on whether to accept or reject the Petitioner's 22 request for NRC action.
23 Also in our process, the licensee, any 24 affected licensees in the Petition have been invited to 25 participate in the call today. And I did hear someone 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 1 from Florida FPL was on the bridge with us. While the 2 licensees may also ask questions to clarify the issues 3 raised by the Petitioner, I do want to stress that the 4 licensees are not part of the NRC's independent Petition 5 Review Board decision-making process.
6 At this time I will briefly summarize the 7 Petition Review Board's current understanding of the 8 scope of the Petition and how they relate to the NRC 9 activities to date with respect to that Petition.
10 On October 1, 2012 Mr. Saporito, otherwise 11 referred to as the Petitioner, submitted a 2.206 Petition 12 to the NRC. In that Petition, Mr. Saporito requested 13 that the NRC: 1) take escalated enforcement action 14 against the licensees and suspend or revoke the NRC 15 licenses granted to the licensees for operation of any 16 nuclear reactor facility; 2) that the NRC issue a notice 17 of violation with a proposed civil penalty against the 18 licensees in the total amount of $1 million; and 3) that 19 the NRC issue a confirmatory order to the licensees 20 requiring the licensees to take their nuclear facilities 21 to cold shutdown until specific actions described fully 22 in the Petition have been completed. And those actions 23 include completing a number of independent assessments 24 and comprehensive evaluations.
25 The circumstances of the Petition are 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 1 described in the October 1 Petition submitted to the 2 Agency and these circumstances pertain to a potential 3 chilled work environment related to a personnel matter 4 at an NRC-licensed facility.
5 With respect to the NRC's activities to date 6 on this Petition, I will summarize these in a moment, on 7 October first the Petitioner submitted the Petition to 8 the NRC. On October 12th, Mr. Trace Orf, the Petition 9 Manager, contacted Mr. Saporito to inform him of the 10 NRC's receipt of the Petition. During that time, Mr.
11 Saporito requested an opportunity to address the 12 Petition Review Board and that is the purpose of today's 13 teleconference.
14 On October fifth, the Petition Review Board 15 Members and advisors met to discuss the request for --
16 the Petitioner's request for immediate action, which was 17 to require that licensees take their nuclear reactors and 18 facilities to a cold shutdown condition as described in 19 the Petition.
20 In an email dated November 28, 2012 the 21 Petition Manager, Trace Orf, informed the Petitioner of 22 the Petition Review Board's decision to deny the request 23 for immediate action. In accordance with Management 24 Directive 8.11, the Petition Review Board determined 25 that no information was provided regarding the existence 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 1 of a safety problem at the plant site that would justify 2 an immediate shutdown order from the Agency.
3 Again as a reminder for the meeting, 4 participants please identify yourself prior to your 5 remarks. This will help up in transcribing the meeting 6 and that transcript of today's meeting will be made 7 publically available.
8 And with that by way of introduction, I 9 would like to turn it over to Mr. Saporito for you to 10 provide the Petition Review Board with any additional 11 information you would like us to consider. Mr.
12 Saporito, you have the floor.
13 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, Mr.
14 Chairman and thanks to the NRC and Petitioner Review 15 Board for this opportunity to expand upon the specifics 16 of the October 1, 2012 Enforcement Petition.
17 For the record, my name is Thomas Saporito 18 and I am the Senior Consultant at Saprodani Associates 19 based in Jupiter, Florida. I represent myself and the 20 interests of Saprodani Associates in filing an 21 Enforcement Petition with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission on October 1, 2012 requesting that the NRC 23 take certain and specific enforcement actions against 24 the Florida Power and Light, or licensee, in connection 25 with the licensed operation of Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant, 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 1 which appear to have violated NRC regulations and 2 standards under 10 CFR 50 and CFR 50.7 and under other 3 NRC regulations and authority, as defined in the NRC 4 licenses issues to FPL authorizing the licensee to 5 operate Saint Lucie and Turkey Point Nuclear Reactors in 6 the State of Florida.
7 To the extent that NextEra Energy, Inc. is 8 the parent company for FP&L and to the extent that NextEra 9 Energy, Inc. is identified as an NRC licensee in the 10 instant action, the Petition specifically requests that 11 the NRC take enforcement action against both licensees, 12 FP&L and NextEra Energy, Inc. and require both licensees 13 to complete an independent safety culture assessment 14 through a third-party contractor to determine whether 15 employees at all of the licensees' nuclear facilities 16 operated by FPL and/or NextEra Energy, Inc. feel free and 17 are free to raise nuclear safety concerns to management 18 and to the NRC without fear of retaliation.
19 This additional request is hereby 20 incorporated into Petitioner's October 1, 2012 21 Enforcement Petition filed under 10 CRF 2.206 through 22 this reference and must be considered by the NRC within 23 the scope of the Petition and in accordance with 24 Management Directive 8.11 accordingly.
25 As will be discussed later in this 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 1 presentation, the NRC has failed in its mission to 2 protect public health and safety by allowing FP&L and 3 NextEra Energy, Inc. to foster a work environment which 4 does not encourage employees to freely raise perceived 5 nuclear safety concerns to the licensee without fear of 6 retaliation. Therefore, Petitioners request that a 7 copy of the record transcripts be provided to the United 8 States President's Office of Professional 9 Responsibility and to the NRC Office of the Inspector 10 General to enable those government agencies the ability 11 to make an informed decision about whether to initiate 12 the investigation of the NRC in these circumstances.
13 Notably, two well-respected NRC employees, 14 Richard H. Perkins and Larry Criscione, that is spelled 15 C-R-I-S-C-I-O-N-E, had recently publicly accused the NRC 16 of being both disconcertingly sluggish and 17 inappropriately secretive about severe and potentially 18 catastrophic flood risks at nuclear plants built 19 downstream from large dams. Perkins and Criscione are 20 risk analysts with the NRC who have stated that the NRC 21 is not leveling with the public.
22 At this time, I will now address in 23 specifics the Petitioners' Enforcement Petition.
24 Petitioners have an open and ongoing investigation 25 surrounding the specifics described in the Enforcement 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 1 Petition and I have requested that the NRC Region II 2 Office of Investigation conduct an investigation of the 3 licensee with respect to apparent retaliation taken 4 against the former licensee employee Mark Hicks, 5 H-I-C-K-S. To date, the NRC Region II Office of 6 Investigations have failed to contact Petitioners.
7 Mr. Hicks was employed by FP&L in January 8 2009 in the position of Operations Manager at the Saint 9 Lucie Nuclear Plant. It was responsible to protect the 10 health and safety of the public with respect to licensed 11 operations at that nuclear facility.
12 During his employment at FP&L, Hicks 13 excelled in his position and received high marks in his 14 performance reviews. Prior to his employment at FP&L, 15 Hicks completed a 20-year career in the U.S. Navy, 16 serving on a nuclear warship in nuclear Navy program.
17 While in his service with the Navy, Hicks also held the 18 position of Operations Director at the Wolf Creek Nuclear 19 Plant.
20 In approximately late 2009, Hicks observed 21 that a code safety relief valve had resulted in reactor 22 coolant leakage. Hicks was on-duty at the Saint Lucie 23 Nuclear Plant during that event and ordered the immediate 24 shutdown of the nuclear reactor, as required under 10 CFR 25 Part 50 of the NRC's regulations. Hicks was concerned 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 1 that leakage of reactor coolant created a great potential 2 of causing core damage, which could result in a core 3 meltdown endangering the public at large.
4 Notably but similar, reactor coolant leak 5 resulted in the Three-Mile Island accident several years 6 ago where radioactive particles were released into the 7 environment. More recently, the Fukushima Nuclear 8 Plant in Japan had reactors actually melt down after 9 losing reactor coolant following an earthquake event.
10 At the time of the event involving Hicks at 11 the Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant, the nuclear reactor was 12 being ramped up from a cold shutdown mode of operation 13 and Hicks ordered the immediate shutdown of the reactor 14 so that repair activities could take place following a 15 cool-down period.
16 NRC regulations and requirements under 10 17 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as incorporated in the 18 licensee's technical specifications at Section 6.8, as 19 well as other NRC authorities specified under 10 CFR 20 50.54(a)(1), 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii) require Hicks and 21 the licensee to immediately shut down the nuclear 22 reactor, do complete repairs to the reactor coolant 23 system prior to taking the nuclear reactor to power. At 24 the time of this event, Hicks reported to the FPL 25 Executive Vice President Manoochehr Nazar -- I will spell 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 1 that, M-A-N-O-O-C-H-E-H-R, Nazar, N-A-Z-A-R.
2 Incredibly, upon learning that Hicks 3 ordered the immediate shutdown of the nuclear reactor, 4 Nazar used his position of authority to insist that Hicks 5 start up and bring the reactor to power, without first 6 repairing the valve associated with the reactor coolant 7 leak. Notably at all times relevant to this event, Nazar 8 and other senior licensee management were made fully 9 aware of the safety concern in bringing the reactor to 10 power with a leak in the reactor coolant system.
11 Nonetheless, high-level licensee management were 12 apparently more focused on its revenues rather than 13 public health and safety, insisting that the nuclear 14 reactor be taken to power in those circumstances.
15 However, Hicks maintained his order that the reactor 16 remain in its shutdown mode of operation until repairs 17 could be completed.
18 At some point, Hicks left the plant to rest 19 at home. Shortly thereafter, FPL employee Weller 20 contacted Hicks by phone, who informed Hicks that FPL 21 management was attempting to circumvent his order to keep 22 the reactor shutdown for repairs. Hicks then directed 23 Weller to assure that the reactor was not restarted.
24 Notably, it was later determined that Hicks' assessment 25 was correct and that a valve was incorrectly installed 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 1 and associated piping was not properly aligned on the 2 stresses and the reactor coolant leakage. Moreover, two 3 other valves and piping were discovered with similar 4 damage, requiring the licensee to cut and re-weld the 5 affected systems.
6 In all, the licensee is believed to have 7 expended approximately $6 million during the duration of 8 this event before returning the reactor to power.
9 Petitioners note here that although the 10 safety concern raised by Hicks was proved to be true and 11 correct, employees are, nonetheless, protected from 12 retaliation by the licensee under NRC regulations and 13 requirements, even if the employee's perceived nuclear 14 safety concern is eventually determined to be invalid.
15 It is the act of raising that safety concern to the 16 licensee management or to the NRC that is protected under 17 NRC regulations and requirements.
18 Hicks thereafter was the recipient of 19 numerous retaliatory actions taken against him by 20 licensee management, which is believed to have fostered 21 a very hostile work environment at the Saint Lucie 22 Nuclear Plant dissuading other employees from raising 23 nuclear safety concerns to licensee management.
24 Licensee management placed Hicks on a 25 performance plan or probation following Hicks' challenge 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 1 to the will of Nazar during the event.
2 Nazar and other high-level licensee 3 management acted to lower Hicks' compensation by 4 conspiring to have Hicks' immediate supervisor, Richard 5 Anderson, decrease Hicks' performance rating in 6 assessment reviews. Notably, Hicks' performance 7 ratings were downgraded, despite higher peer review.
8 It is apparent that Hicks' performance was 9 lowered as a direct result from his challenge to the 10 authority of Nazar at the time of the event. The lower 11 performance rating had a direct role in decreasing the 12 amount of bonus pay which Hicks was entitled to receive.
13 Following a subsequent complaint filed by 14 Hicks to the NRC, which could result in enforcement 15 action taken against the licensee, Nazar and other 16 high-level licensee management, the licensee offered a 17 settlement to Hicks, which will place Hicks in the 18 position of Excellence Plan Director, a promotion 19 according to the licensee. Hicks accepted the 20 settlement from the licensee. However, it appears that 21 the licensee, Nazar, and other high-level licensee 22 management who were directly or indirectly involved in 23 the settlement with Hicks, knowingly made false 24 statements of fact in that they offered a real position, 25 concealing the fact that they were determined to 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 1 terminate that position and remove Hicks from the nuclear 2 division with either a demotion or termination of 3 employment.
4 Notably, it is a violation of NRC 5 regulations and requirements for high-level licensee 6 management to engage in wrongdoing by knowingly making 7 false and misleading statements to the NRC. To the 8 extent that the licensee appears to have engaged in 9 wrongdoing in these circumstances, where the NRC was 10 actively involved in a settlement process, the licensee 11 appears to have violated regulations and requirements as 12 a matter of law. Here, the licensee apparently 13 solicited Hicks to accept a settlement to preclude an NRC 14 investigation of wrongdoing in the part of the licensee.
15 Subsequent to signing the settlement, the 16 licensee apparently removed the performance plan from 17 Hicks' personnel file, giving the appearance that the 18 licensee was complying with the settlement. Hicks 19 excelled in his new position of Excellence Plan Director 20 and significantly reduced the number of outstanding 21 backlogged work orders at the plant.
22 Nonetheless, another high-level licensee 23 manager, a corporate outage vice president, screamed 24 loudly at Hicks in front of his fears that Hicks was a 25 "fucking embarrassment to the company for losing several 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 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in a planned outage." Moreover, the licensee 2 management repeatedly cursed at Hicks with such 3 outbursts as "goddamn you," knowing that Hicks was a 4 devout Christian and intending to cause harm to Hicks and 5 intending to dissuade other employees from raising 6 nuclear safety concerns to anyone.
7 These retaliatory actions on the part of the 8 licensee clearly fostered a hostile work environment for 9 Hicks and for other licensee employees, contrary to NRC 10 regulations and requirements. Retaliation continued 11 and intensified over time with Nazar requiring Hicks to 12 meet with him biweekly, at which time Nazar would 13 ridicule and embarrass Hicks by screaming questions and 14 accusations at Hicks related to many of Hicks' job 15 aspects and responsibilities.
16 Notably, Nazar routinely cursed at Hicks by 17 screaming "goddamn you" during the biweekly meetings and 18 pounding his fist on the table at times for 30 minutes.
19 These meetings were very demeaning toward Hicks and many 20 took place in front of other licensee employees. This 21 type of conduct by high-level licensee management serves 22 to create a severe chilling effect on other licensee 23 employees, dissuading them from freely raising nuclear 24 safety concerns. This appears to have been the motive 25 of Nazar and other high-level licensee management in 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 1 publicly retaliating against Hicks to foster a hostile 2 work environment at the Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant to 3 discourage other employees from raising nuclear safety 4 concerns to anyone.
5 After weeks of this type of abuse, Nazar 6 decided to terminate the position created for Hicks, 7 calling it a temporary position. Licensee management 8 then increased retaliation against Hicks by skewing 9 Hicks' performance rating. Notably, Hicks' peers rate 10 his performance at a level 5 but Hicks' immediate 11 supervisor was required to rate Hicks at level 2, thereby 12 reducing Hicks' overall performance rating to a level 3.
13 The lower rating ultimately resulted in a lower bonus pay 14 for Hicks. Incredibly, the licensee's rating 15 guidelines required an explanation as to how the lower 16 rating was determined. But the licensee still hasn't 17 provided any examples of incident reports to justify or 18 to explain the lower performance ratings for Hicks.
19 Here, the licensee apparently and 20 intentionally made a false misleading record of poor 21 performance and a pretext for the retaliatory actions 22 taken against Hicks, simply because Hicks engaged in 23 protected activity by ordering the immediate shutdown of 24 the nuclear reactor earlier.
25 Notably, prior to Hicks' ordering the 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 1 reactor to be shut down and Hicks' challenging the 2 authority of Nazar who wanted to restart the reactor, 3 Hicks had enjoyed a very professional relationship with 4 Nazar. In fact, Hicks had flown with Nazar on the 5 corporate jet to visit other nuclear plants in the 6 licensee's fleet. Moreover, Hicks had previously acted 7 as a site Vice President in the [absence] of Richard 8 Anderson.
9 In 2012, the licensee scheduled a 10 leadership summit to discuss the next step in the 11 excellence plan for the nuclear plant in fleet. At the 12 time, Hicks was the Excellence Plan Director for the 13 Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant and his input was critical to 14 that plant. However, the licensee excluded Hicks from 15 the meeting and it was a very public humiliation for 16 Hicks. The licensee's actions in further retaliating 17 against Hicks by omitting Hicks from participating in the 18 leadership summit is additional evidence that the 19 licensee intended to foster a hostile work environment 20 at the Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant in direct violation of 21 NRC regulations and requirements.
22 As I explained earlier, the NRC did not 23 conduct any investigation into the circumstances of the 24 alleged retaliation taken against Hicks by the licensee 25 due to the settlement reached between Hicks and the 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 1 licensee for which the NRC was fully aware of at the time.
2 The licensee remained fearless of NRC enforcement action 3 in continuing to retaliate against Hicks and they did so 4 at will.
5 The licensee eliminated the new position 6 given to Hicks with the pretext that the project had been 7 completed. However, as described in the settlement, 8 Hicks was given a new position not assigned to a project 9 and the work related to the position continued. Indeed, 10 there were three active capital projects, each budgeted 11 in the amount of $5 million and ongoing.
12 Again, Hicks complained to the NRC about the 13 licensee's retaliatory employment action taken against 14 him stemming from the event described earlier, involving 15 Hicks' challenge to Nazar related to the power up of a 16 nuclear reactor which was found to have a reactor coolant 17 leak.
18 Hicks made his complaint to the NRC on or 19 about February 17, 2012. Following Hicks' further 10 20 CFR 50.7 protected activity and reporting the licensee's 21 retaliatory conduct taken against him to the NRC, the 22 licensee subsequently terminated Hicks' employment on or 23 about June 25, 2012. The licensee subsequently notified 24 Hicks that he could apply for a non-nuclear position with 25 the company within 45 days. This was apparently another 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 1 pretextual settlement offer by the licensee to again 2 deter the NRC from investigating the circumstances 3 surrounding the retaliation complained about by Hicks to 4 the Agency. The licensee settlement offer is pretextual 5 on the mere basis that Hicks' entire career path stemming 6 from his service to the United States military all 7 involve nuclear power. Clearly, the licensee had no 8 expectation that Hicks would accept a demotion offered 9 in the settlement.
10 The licensee continued, in violation of NRC 11 regulation and requirements in further retaliatory 12 conduct directed at Hicks. The licensee caused its 13 employees to shun Hicks, a community of people which 14 Hicks had become accustom to working with on a 15 professional basis. Notably, the licensee went so far 16 as to isolate Hicks from his coworkers to the extent that 17 the licensee specifically briefed Hicks' co-workers and 18 prohibited them from returning phone calls to Hicks or 19 otherwise communicating with Hicks, despite the fact 20 that some of those employees were personal friends of 21 Hicks.
22 The licensee's conduct in causing the 23 co-workers of Hicks to shun Hicks is paramount to 24 creating a hostile work environment, as further 25 retaliation for Hicks' engaging in 10 CFR 50.7 protected 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 1 activities related to the ordering the immediate 2 shutdown of the nuclear reactor and related to Hicks' 3 contacting the NRC on more than one occasion to complain 4 about the licensee's retaliatory action taken against 5 him.
6 The licensee's extreme retaliation taken 7 against Hicks as described above resulted in Hicks' 8 suffering, mental anguish, physical pain, suffering, 9 injuries, fear, humiliation, emotional trauma, loss of 10 earnings, loss of earnings capacity, and loss of 11 enjoyment of life in general.
12 The retaliatory actions on the part of the 13 licensee taken against Hicks stem from a pattern of 14 practice by the licensee spanning years and years in 15 retaliating against employees who raised perceived 16 nuclear safety concerns. The NRC has failed in its 17 mission to protect public health and safety in these 18 circumstances where the agency has turned a blind eye and 19 a deaf ear to the complaints of Hicks and other licensee 20 employees who simply did their job in reporting nuclear 21 safety concerns as required under the Agency's 22 regulations, requirements, standards, expectations, and 23 under the licensee's operational licenses issued by the 24 NRC under 10 CFR Part 50, authorizing licensed activity 25 at the Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant.
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 1 Incredibly, the Agency's own records show 2 that the licensee rates second in the nation for having 3 the most nuclear safety complaints sent secretly by 4 employees directly to the NRC because the employees are 5 too afraid to put those safety concerns to licensee 6 management.
7 Notably from January 2008 to October 2012, 8 the NRC received 154 nuclear safety concerns from FPL 9 employees and second only to the San Onofre Nuclear Plant 10 of 167 nuclear safety concerns received by or sent to the 11 Agency by employees of that nuclear facility.
12 Moreover, Petitioners have made a written 13 request via electronic mail to the NRC Chairman 14 requesting that the NRC Region II Office of Investigation 15 open an investigation into the circumstances of his 16 termination from the Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant by the 17 licensee.
18 Petitioners further requested that NRC 19 Office of Investigations arrange for a meeting wherein 20 the Petitioners could provide the Agency with additional 21 information to assist the Agency's investigation to 22 protect public health and safety. To date, the NRC 23 Region II Office of Investigation has not contacted 24 Petitioners.
25 At this time, Petitioners will elaborate on 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 1 the basis stated in their 2.206 Enforcement Petition, 2 requesting that the NRC take escalated enforcement 3 action against the licensee, FP&L and NextEra Energy, 4 Inc. in these circumstances.
5 Under 10 CFR 50.7, employee protection, it 6 is stated that discrimination by a Commission licensee, 7 an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor 8 or subcontractor of a Commission license or applicant 9 against an employee for engaging in certain protected 10 activities is prohibited. Discrimination includes 11 discharge and other action that relate to compensation, 12 terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The 13 protected activities are established in Section 211 of 14 the Energy Organization Act of 1974, as amended, and in 15 general are related to the administration or enforcement 16 of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or 17 the Energy Organization Act.
18 "The protected activities include but are 19 not limited to: providing the Commission or his or her 20 employer information about alleged violations of either 21 of the statutes named in the prior paragraph, 22 introductory text of this section, or possible 23 violations of requirements imposed under either of those 24 statutes; refusing to engage in any practice made 25 unlawful under either of the statutes named in the 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 1 paragraph (a) introductory text or under these 2 requirements if the employee has identified the alleged 3 illegality to the employer."
4 And just to elaborate on this particular 5 paragraph, you know Hicks' ordering the shutdown of the 6 nuclear reactor and his subsequent challenge to Nazar's 7 authority and position in refusing that reactor to 8 restart complies with the meaning of this paragraph 9 because Hicks' actions were legal and in accordance with 10 NRC regulations and requirements and in accordance with 11 the licensee's technical specifications that required 12 that the reactor coolant leak needs to be repaired prior 13 to that reactor being powered up. And that is where that 14 applies.
15 It is unlawful for Nazar or any manager at 16 the licensee to otherwise interfere with Hicks in the 17 performance of his duties under NRC's authority.
18 Next, "requesting the Commission to 19 institute action against his or employee for the 20 administration or enforcement of these requirements."
21 Again, here Hicks on more than one occasion contacted the 22 NRC asking them to investigate retaliation taken --
23 ongoing retaliation taken against him by the licensee.
24 "Testifying in any Commission proceeding, 25 or before Congress, or at any Federal or State proceeding 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 1 regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of 2 either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) 3 introductory text."
4 "Assisting or participating in, or is about 5 to assist or participate in, these activities."
6 "These activities are protected even if no 7 formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of 8 the employee assistance or participation."
9 A violation of a paragraph of this section 10 by a Commission licensee, which Florida Power and Light 11 Company and NextEra Energy, Inc. are a Commission 12 licensee, an applicant for the Commission license, or 13 a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee 14 or applicant may be grounds for: 1) denial, revocation, 15 or suspension of the license; 2) imposition of a civil 16 penalty on the licensee, applicant, or a contractor or 17 subcontractor of the licensee or applicant; and 3) other 18 enforcement actions.
19 And I am going to pause and put an additional 20 comment here that Petitioners were going to orally modify 21 their 2.206 Petition in these circumstances. We are 22 going to request not only that the NRC take enforcement 23 action against the Florida Power and Light Company and 24 NextEra Energy, Inc. but also against Mr. Nazar, who at 25 that time was the Vice President for FP&L and any other 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 1 manager who is named in the Petition or through any 2 subsequent investigation which the NRC may perform finds 3 that they participated in any type of retaliation 4 directed towards Mr. Hicks in these circumstances.
5 A summary of retaliatory actions taken 6 against Hicks by the licensee were in direct violation 7 of NRC regulations, requirements, and standards. First 8 I am going to identify the specifics of the protected 9 activity.
10 Hicks engaged in 10 CFR 50.7 protected 11 activity as follows: 1) Hicks confronted and challenged 12 Nazar's authority as the licensee's vice president in 13 Hicks ordering the immediate shutdown of the Saint Lucie 14 Nuclear Plant reactor upon learning that a reactor 15 coolant leak had occurred; 16 2) Hicks subsequently directed another 17 employee to ensure that the nuclear reactor would not be 18 restarted, despite attempts by the licensee to 19 circumvent Hicks' prior order to shut down the reactor; 20 3) Hicks complained to the NRC that the 21 licensee was retaliating against him as a direct result 22 from the order he gave to shut down the reactor and a 23 subsequent direction he gave to another employee to keep 24 the reactor shut down; 25 4) Hicks made a second complaint to the NRC 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 1 that the licensee continued to retaliate against him, 2 stemming from his order to shut down the nuclear reactor 3 and stemming from his complaint filed with the NRC; 4 5) Hicks publicly announced to the media 5 that the licensee had retaliated against him, fired him, 6 because he raised nuclear safety concerns at the Saint 7 Lucie Nuclear Plant; and 8 6) Hicks filed a legal action against the 9 licensee seeking a jury trial and a make whole remedy and 10 publicly announced that action to the media.
11 Now I'm going to specifically identify how 12 the licensee retaliated against Hicks. The licensee 13 retaliated against Hicks in direct violation of NRC 14 regulations, requirements, and standards as follows:
15 1) Nazar used his position of authority to 16 insist that Hicks start up and bring the nuclear reactor 17 to power.
18 2) The licensee subsequently attempted to 19 circumvent Hicks' order in directing other employees to 20 restart the reactor after Hicks had left the plant for 21 home.
22 3) The licensee created and fostered a 23 hostile work environment by publicly retaliating against 24 Hicks in front of other employees.
25 4) The licensee placed Hicks on a 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 1 performance plan or probation.
2 5) Nazar and other high-level licensee 3 management acted to lower Hicks' compensation by 4 conspiring to have Hicks' immediate supervisor Richard 5 Anderson decrease Hicks' performance rating in 6 assessment reviews, despite higher peer review.
7 6) The licensee's lowering of Hicks' 8 performance rating resulted in Hicks receiving less 9 bonus pay than he was otherwise entitled.
10 7) The licensee induced Hicks to sign a 11 pretextual settlement placing Hicks in the position of 12 Excellence Plan Director.
13 8) The licensee offered Hicks a settlement 14 to dissuade NRC from investigating wrongdoing 15 allegations filed by Hicks with the Agency.
16 9) The licensee knowingly made false and 17 misleading statements and representations to the NRC in 18 offering a settlement to Hicks which was subsequently 19 violated by the licensee.
20 10) Subsequent to placing Hicks in the 21 position of Excellence Plan Director, the Corporate 22 Outage Vice President screamed loudly at Hicks in front 23 of his peers, shouting that Hicks was a "fucking 24 embarrassment to the company".
25 11) Licensee management repeatedly cursed 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 1 at Hicks with bursts of "goddamn you," knowing that such 2 terminology was harmful to Hicks due to his religious 3 beliefs.
4 12) Nazar required Hicks to meet with him 5 on a biweekly basis where Nazar further ridiculed and 6 embarrassed Hicks by screaming questions and accusations 7 at Hicks related to many of Hicks' job aspects and 8 responsibilities.
9 13) During the biweekly meetings with 10 Hicks, Nazar would pound his fists on the table, at times 11 for 30 minutes.
12 14) The biweekly meetings were intended by 13 the licensee to be very demeaning towards Hicks and many 14 took place in front of other employees of an example of 15 what happens to employees who raise nuclear safety 16 concerns.
17 15) The licensee's actions in retaliating 18 against Hicks created a chilling effect at the Saint 19 Lucie Nuclear Plant, serving to silence other employees 20 for raising nuclear safety concerns to anyone.
21 16) Nazar ultimately terminated the 22 position created for Hicks by pretextually claiming it 23 was a temporary position.
24 17) -- well let me go back up to 16.
25 Nazar may have also claimed it was a 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 1 project. I mean not a temporary position but a temporary 2 project. I think that may be more accurate, so let me 3 put that in there.
4 17) The licensee then intentionally skewed 5 Hicks' performance rating, taking them from a level 5 to 6 a level 3, which resulted in a decreased bonus pay for 7 Hicks. The licensee failed to provide any explanation 8 for the lower performance ratings.
9 18) In 2012, the licensee scheduled a 10 leadership summit to discuss the next steps in the 11 Excellence Plan during the time that Hicks held the 12 position of Excellence Plan Director. Yet, the licensee 13 excluded Hicks from the meeting and caused further public 14 humiliation for Hicks.
15 19) The licensee deliberately engaged in 16 wrongdoing under the nose of the NRC by inducing Hicks 17 to sign one or more settlements so that the NRC would not 18 conduct a 10 CFR 50.7 investigation, which could have 19 resulted in the Agency taking enforcement action against 20 the licensee.
21 20) Following a second complaint of 22 retaliation filed with the NRC by Hicks on February 17, 23 2012, the licensee subsequently terminated Hicks' 24 employment on June 25, 2012.
25 21) The licensee engaged in further 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 1 wrongdoing by later notifying Hicks that he could apply 2 for a non-nuclear position with the company within 45 3 days where the notice was pretextual and intended to once 4 again prevent the NRC from conducting a 10 CFR 50.7 5 investigation. Moreover, the licensee was well aware of 6 Hicks' 20-year career in the Navy's nuclear program and 7 his employment at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant and that 8 Hicks would never accept such a demotional position.
9 22) The licensee, nonetheless, continued 10 to retaliate against Hicks by causing employees at the 11 Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant to shun Hicks. Incredibly, 12 the licensee isolated Hicks from his coworkers by 13 specifically prohibiting other employees from returning 14 some calls to Hicks or otherwise communicating with 15 Hicks.
16 23) The licensee's conduct in causing the 17 coworkers of Hicks to shun Hicks is paramount to creating 18 a hostile work environment at the Saint Lucie Nuclear 19 Plant where employees are chilled from raising nuclear 20 safety concerns to anyone.
21
Conclusion:
In accordance with the NRC 22 Safety Conscious Work Environment Policy, the 23 Commission's policy statement, "Freedom of Employees in 24 the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without 25 Fear of Retaliation" dated May 14, 1996, describes the 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 1 Safety Conscious Work Environment as "a work environment 2 where employees are encouraged to raise safety concerns 3 and where concerns are promptly previewed, given the 4 proper priority based on their potential safety 5 significance, and appropriately resolve with timely 6 feedback to the originator of the concerns to other 7 employees." Safety Conscious Work Environment is 8 described as an attribute of the safety culture in 9 SECY-04-0111, which is the "Recommended Staff Actions 10 Regarding Agency Guidance in the Areas of Safety 11 Conscious Work Environment and Safety Culture" dated 12 August 30, 2004.
13 The NRC has developed guidance for 14 establishing and maintaining a Safety Conscious Work 15 Environment.
16 In this instance, meaning the entirety of 17 this, October 1, 2012 petition, and incorporating the 18 record transcripts of this meeting, I will state on this 19 record that the ongoing nuclear disaster at the Fukushima 20 Nuclear Plant is illustrative of the need for the NRC to 21 take meaningful enforcement action against its licensees 22 like the Florida Power and Light Company and NextEra 23 Energy, Inc. to ensure that employees at the Saint Lucie 24 Nuclear Plant and employees at all NRC-licensed 25 facilities are free and feel free to raise perceived 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 1 nuclear safety concerns to anyone to protect public 2 health and safety.
3 And with that, I will stay on the line to 4 answer any questions that the committee may have or the 5 public may have.
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you Mr.
7 Saporito for your presentation and the information you 8 provided in the context of your position. At this time, 9 I would like to offer the opportunity for the NRC Staff 10 to see if there are any questions they have of you to 11 further clarify the information you presented. Why 12 don't we start here in the Headquarters Building?
13 MR. ORF: This is Trace Orf, the Petition 14 Manager. Mr. Saporito, do you have specific examples 15 chilled environments at the Saint Lucie Plant, either 16 information or a specific example?
17 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, I think the most 18 startling and outrageous example of that is the NRC's own 19 records and they are documented at Reactor Allegations 20 by CY received January 2008 to October 2012. This is a 21 table of allegations sourced by the NRC representing the 22 104 nuclear reactors currently licensed for operation in 23 the United States.
24 And this particular document which can be 25 found at the NRC's own website, it clearly shows that the 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 1 Florida Power and Light Company or the South 2 Florida-based nuclear plant have reported a total of 154 3 nuclear safety concerns secretly, anonymously, without 4 the knowledge of licensee management at FP&L directly to 5 the NRC. They are second to none except to the San 6 Onofre, which holds the first place in that category.
7 This is paramount to evidence demonstrating 8 that there is a severe problem at the Florida Power and 9 Light Company Florida-based nuclear plants which 10 encompass two reactors at the Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant 11 located near Fort Pierce, Florida, and two reactors 12 located in South Miami called the Turkey Point Nuclear 13 Plant.
14 This conduct, these safety concerns being 15 reported over the course of four years holding second 16 place across the nation, is indicative of a failed safety 17 culture at those nuclear plants. And I have attended 18 many meetings that the NRC hosted with Florida Power and 19 Light Company in Florida, where the specific meetings 20 were addressed why people were going secretly to the NRC 21 to get their concerns resolved. And FPL continues to 22 respond to the NRC to the extent that well you know we 23 changed the managers for the employee concerns program.
24 Well you know, we enhanced the employee concerns program.
25 We made it better. And we changed the plant managers and 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 1 we did this and we did that. But yet, the nuclear safety 2 concerns continue secretly to be channeled to the NRC 3 rather than to licensee management.
4 And that more than demonstrates that there 5 is a chilling effect at the nuclear plants operated by 6 Florida Power and Light in the State of Florida and it 7 shows that there is not a healthy work environment and 8 in fact, it is a hostile work environment, actually where 9 the licensee takes retaliatory actions as described in 10 the Petition and as described in this record transcript 11 today against an employee who has engaged in 10 CFR 50.7 12 protected activity. And you take those retaliatory 13 actions in front of other employees and that serves to 14 keep them from coming forward with nuclear safety 15 concerns.
16 And in that regard, I have got to say on this 17 record that I am shocked that the NRC Petition Review 18 Board initially determined that there was no need to take 19 any type of enforcement-related action against the 20 licensees because of the detail that was contained in the 21 October 1, 2012 Petition. Because clearly, if you have 22 that many employees second in the nation streaming 23 nuclear safety concerns directly to the NRC secretly, 24 then you have to wonder are there safety issues, 25 unresolved safety issues at Florida Power and Light 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 1 Company's Florida-based nuclear plants which the NRC is 2 not aware of or the FPL licensee management is not aware 3 of. Because for those people that were bold enough to 4 even contact the NRC in these dire circumstances, there 5 are many, I can tell you from my own personal experience 6 that there are many who would not have come forward under 7 any circumstances because they have families and 8 mortgages, and they need their job and cannot afford to 9 be out of work like Mr. Hicks is now doing.
10 I hope that answers your question.
11 MR. ORF: Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Thank you, Mr. Saporito.
13 At this point, I would like to see if there are any NRC 14 Staff on the phone line out in the regions that have any 15 questions for Mr. Saporito.
16 I'm not hearing any.
17 MR. RZEPKA: We don't have any questions.
18 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you.
19 At this point does any licensee 20 representatives on the phone have any particular 21 questions for Mr. Saporito?
22 MR. BLAIR: We have no questions for Mr.
23 Saporito.
24 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you very much.
25 I just did have one question and I wanted to just make 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 1 sure I understood the question that Trace asked. And if 2 I understood it correctly, I think you were asking 3 whether or not there were any examples of a chilled work 4 environment that perhaps were not described in the 5 presentation that he gave before in the filing that was 6 attached to his petition. Is that correct?
7 MR. ORF: That is correct.
8 CHAIRMAN NIEH: So I guess maybe let me just 9 rephrase that question just a little bit differently.
10 Mr. Saporito, are you aware of any current issues that 11 could be indicative of a chilled work environment at any 12 of these licensed facilities today?
13 MR. SAPORITO: Well, yes. This is an 14 ongoing problem and I will just give you a very brief 15 history lesson. There was two other employees that 16 worked with Florida Power and Light Nuclear facilities.
17 One's name was Thomas King. He was a contractor at the 18 same power plant, the Saint Lucie Nuclear Plant.
19 Another was Dave Hoffman was a Senior Reactor Operation, 20 a high-level manager at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant.
21 In the case of King, he engaged in protected 22 activity under 10 CFR 50.7 by raising issues related to 23 the documentation of training, that the contractors 24 weren't properly trained. There was some falsification 25 issues identified with the paperwork over there. And I 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 1 brought this to the attention of the NRC and I even spoke 2 with the NRC Region II Office of Investigation. And the 3 Agency being the NRC, they just do not have the requisite 4 understanding of just what protected activity is under 5 10 CFR 50.7. And on that basis, they never were able to 6 cite the licensee with a violation.
7 Specifically, with the King issue although 8 his termination resulted from an action outside of his 9 employment, he was definitely retaliated against when he 10 brought these safety -- at one point the security 11 personnel wanted to revoke his unescorted access just 12 because he brought this safety issue to their attention.
13 Just on that one issue alone, NRC should have taken 14 enforcement action and they didn't. So that is very 15 troubling.
16 With respect to Hoffman, his issues it is 17 so well documented. You have got the NRC -- none of the 18 retaliation taken against Hoffman did the NRC find them 19 with a violation of NRC requirements. The problem is 20 here that the Agency wants to sit and wait and do 21 nothing. They want to wait for the Department of Labor 22 to make a decision if there is a whistleblower complaint 23 filed under the Energy Reorganization Act. And so when 24 the Agency does that, it allows the utility, the licensee 25 to continue to retaliate against other employees. And 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 1 when the Agency relies solely upon the determination by 2 its sister agency, the Department of Labor, the NRC errs 3 as a matter of law because even though -- the Department 4 of Labor can only -- their job is to give the employee 5 a makeover. Get him back to work, get him benefits, get 6 him pay or whatever. But the NRC's responsibility is to 7 protect public health and safety by making sure that no 8 employee is retaliated against if they raise safety 9 concerns.
10 In both of those situations, the employees 11 raised safety concerns and they were retaliated against 12 in many ways. And the NRC waits until there is a 13 determination to make by the Department of Labor with 14 respect to something that is not even in the NRC's 15 purview, an economic make over.
16 The NRC needs to be proactive, not reactive.
17 They need to be proactive. When there is a documented 18 violation of NRC requirements and regulations, the NRC 19 needs to take enforcement action right then and there.
20 You don't need to be waiting on your sister agency.
21 So I think that is a problem here at the 22 Agency that perhaps their Office of Investigation, those 23 people, maybe they need some more training because my 24 experience was that they are just knowledgeable enough 25 to understand what protected activity is and how to 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 1 investigate it. And if they don't have just the basics 2 in those areas, how can they even perform the job? And 3 you know what? Public health and safety is hanging in 4 the balance because we don't know how many employees out 5 there might to this day right now have nuclear safety 6 concerns at FPL's Nuclear Power Plant and nobody knows 7 about them because those people are too scared to speak 8 up.
9 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay. Thank you very 10 much, Mr. Saporito.
11 I'll just do a second call for any further 12 questions here at Headquarters. Any questions out in 13 the regions?
14 MR. RZEPKA: No questions.
15 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, licensee, any 16 further questions before we conclude?
17 MR. BLAIR: No questions.
18 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you very much.
19 Mr. Hicks, are you still on the bridge?
20 MR. HICKS: Yes, I am.
21 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Mr. Hicks, at this time, do 22 you have any questions about the Petition request?
23 MR. HICKS: Repeat that question. Do I 24 have any comments? Is that what you said?
25 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Do you have any questions 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 1 --
2 MR. TICKTIN: This is Peter Ticktin. May 3 I just comment at this point that really Mr. Hicks and 4 we are only here for purposes of observation.
5 CHAIRMAN NIEH: I understand that.
6 MR. HICKS: Yes, I agree with that. So I 7 really have no questions.
8 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, I just wanted to 9 offer that opportunity just to be --
10 MR. HICKS: I appreciate that.
11 CHAIRMAN NIEH: I guess for any of the 12 public participants on the bridge, are there any 13 questions for the NRC Staff here with respect to how the 14 2.206 process works?
15 Okay.
16 MR. SAPORITO: Mr. Chairman, this is Thomas 17 Saporito. I just wanted to point out to the Petition 18 Review Board I think the public should be given an 19 opportunity to ask questions of any party in this 20 proceeding, either the Petition Review Board or myself 21 about any aspect of the Petition, not necessarily 22 restrict public to only engaging the NRC Petition Review 23 Board with respect to the process. I mean, everybody can 24 read the process for themselves. There is a public 25 document to tell you how the process works and you very 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 1 adequately described it at the beginning of the meeting.
2 So I think it would be more appropriate for 3 the NRC to give the public an opportunity to ask any 4 questions that they -- or concerns they might have about 5 the Petition itself to the NRC and myself. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Thank you for that comment, 7 Mr. Saporito. Thank you very much.
8 Okay, I don't think there are any further 9 questions here for you. I do appreciate you taking the 10 time to provide this additional information with respect 11 to the Petition you submitted on October first.
12 Before we conclude the meeting, I would like 13 to ask if the court reporter that is on the line requires 14 any additional information for the meeting.
15 COURT REPORTER: Nothing further.
16 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you.
17 Well with that, I would like to conclude 18 this meeting and I appreciate everyone taking the time 19 and we will be terminating the phone connection. Thank 20 you.
21 (Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the foregoing conference call 22 was concluded.)
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
48 1
2 3
4 5
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com