ML13044A123
| ML13044A123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/2013 |
| From: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Orf, T J | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13043A462 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20120748, LTR-12-0554, NRC-3040 | |
| Download: ML13044A123 (65) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Corrections to this transcript are shown in [ ]
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
(teleconference)
Date:
Monday, January 14, 2013 Work Order No.:
NRC-3040 Pages 1-65 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 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
RE 6
ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 7
+ + + + +
8 MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2013 9
+ + + + +
10 The conference call was held, Ho Nieh, Chair 11 of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
12 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 13 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
14 HO NIEH, Director, Division of Inspection and 15 Regional Support, PRB Chair 16 ANDREA RUSSELL, Petition [Coordinator] for 2.206 17 Petition 18 TRACE ORF, St. Lucie and Turkey Point Plant 19 Licensing Branch II-2, DORL 20 MOLLY BARKMAN MARSH, OGC 21 ALEJANDRO ECHAVARRIA, [Region II, OI]
22 RAJU PATEL, NRO 23 SHANE SANDAL, Region II 24 DAVID VITO, OE 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
ALSO PRESENT:
1 ALEXANDRA LARSON 2
SUSAN SALISBURY, Palm Beach Post 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 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
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(12:05 A.M.)
2 MR. ORF: This is Trace Orf with the NRC 3
again. Has the court reporter joined us yet?
4 (No response.)
5 MR. ORF: Apparently not. This call is 6
going through our Ops Center. It will be recorded 7
anyway, and we can always get the recording to the court 8
reporter to transcribe for us.
9 So with that, we'll go ahead and get 10 started.
11 First of all, my name is Trace Orf, and I'm 12 the project manager for St. Lucie and Turkey Point with 13 the NRC, and I'd like to thank everyone for attending this 14 meeting. We are here today to allow the petitioner, Mr.
15 Thomas Saporito, Senior Consultant for Saprodani 16 Associates, to address the Petition Review Board, also 17 referred to as the PRB, for the 2.206 Petition dated 18 October 1st, 2012.
19 The petition requests that the NRC take 20 enforcement-related action against the Licensees, 21 Florida Power and Light Company, or FP&L, and NextEra 22 Energy, as a result of information provided on a CBS 23 television broadcast that described lawsuits filed by 24 Mark Hicks alleging whistleblower discrimination by 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
FP&L.
1 I am the petition manager for the petition, 2
and Mr. Ho Nieh is the PRB Chairman. As part of the PRB's 3
review of the petition, the Petitioner was informed of 4
the PRB's initial recommendation and was offered a second 5
opportunity to address the PRB to provide any relevant, 6
additional explanation in support for the petition.
7 At the request of Mr. Thomas Saporito, he 8
requested this opportunity to discuss the PRB's initial 9
recommendation. This meeting is scheduled for one and 10 a half hours, from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m., Eastern Standard 11 Time.
12 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 13 Operations Center. Prior to placing the transcript of 14 this meeting in ADAMS, the PRB will review it to ensure 15 that it does not contain any sensitive information.
16 I'd like to open this meeting with 17 introductions of the NRC meeting participants. I ask 18 that all the participants clearly state for the record 19 your name, your position, and your organization. For 20 those here in the room, please speak up so that those on 21 the phone can hear clearly, and so that the court reporter 22 can accurately record your name.
23 I will start with myself and the other NRC 24 participants here in the room.
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
My name is Trace Orf. I'm the project 1
manager for St. Lucie and Turkey Point.
2 MS. RUSSELL: Andrea Russell, 2.206 3
coordinator.
4 MR. NIEH: Ho Nieh, I'm the director of the 5
Division of Inspection and Regional Support in NRR.
6 MS. MARSH: Molly Marsh. I'm an attorney 7
in the Office of the General Counsel.
8 MR. PATEL: Raju Patel, Office of 9
Enforcement.
10 MR. VITO: Dave Vito. I'm an allegation 11 specialist in the Office of Enforcement.
12 MR. ORF: Do we have anyone from Region II 13 of the NRC on the line?
14 MR. SANDAL: Yes, Shane Sandal, acting 15 branch chief, Region II, Atlanta.
16 SPECIAL AGENT ECHAVARRIA:
Alex 17 Echavarria, Office of Investigations, Region II.
18 MR. ORF: Do we have others from 19 Headquarters on the line?
20 (No response.)
21 MR. ORF: Okay. Mr. Saporito, would you 22 please introduce yourself for the record?
23 MR. SAPORITO: My name's Thomas Saporito.
24 I am the senior consultant for Saprodani Associates, 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 6
I'd also like to make a quick note on the record that I 1
fully expect that the NRC transcribes this voice record 2
into a written record so I can have a copy of that when 3
it's completed.
4 MR. ORF: Yes, thanks. Okay, let's see.
5 Is there anyone from the Licensee on the line?
6 (No response.)
7 MR. ORF: Okay. This is Trace Orf. I gave 8
them kind of a late notice, so they may not have been able 9
to join. Is anyone else who I have missed on the line?
10 MS. SALISBURY: This is Susan Salisbury 11 with the Palm Beach Post.
12 MS. LARSON: I'm Alexandria Larson, no 13 affiliation.
14 MR. ORF: Okay. I'd like to emphasize that 15 we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that 16 the court reporter can accurately transcribe this 17 meeting. If you do have something that you would like 18 to say, please first state your name for the record.
19 For those dialing into the meeting, please 20 remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 21 noise or distractions. If you do not have a mute button, 22 this can be done by pressing the keys star and six. To 23 unmute, press the star and six keys again. Please note 24 that the Operations Center has already muted the phones 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
of people who are not addressing the PRB. Those lines 1
will be unmuted during the public comment portion of this 2
meeting. Thank you.
3 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 4
Chairman, Mr. Ho Nieh.
5 MR. NIEH: Thank you, Trace. Good 6
afternoon, and thank you for participating on the call 7
today. Again, the purpose of this, today's call, is to 8
provide the petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, an 9
additional opportunity to provide additional support for 10 his petition that he'd submitted to the NRC pursuant to 11 2.206 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.
12 Let me just provide some brief background 13 on the 2.206 process for those on the line who may not 14 be familiar with it. The 2.206 process is in Title X of 15 the Code of Federal Regulations, and it describes a 16 process which provides for a mechanism for any member of 17 the public to request an enforcement-related action by 18 the NRC.
19 The process allows a petitioner to submit 20 a request for an enforcement action and provide a basis 21 for that, and the NRC typically reviews the petitions 22 and, depending on the results of the NRC's evaluation, 23 the NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC license, 24 or take any other appropriate enforcement action 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 8
resolve the matter. And the NRC staff's guidance for 1
the 2.206 petition process is provided in Management 2
Directive 8.11, which is a publicly available document.
3 Following this meeting, the PRB will 4
conduct its internal deliberations, and the outcome of 5
this internal meeting will be, again, discussed with the 6
petitioner. I will emphasize that this teleconference 7
-- it's not a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the 8
petitioner to question or examine the Petition Review 9
Board on the merits of the issue associated with the 10 request, and the Petition Review Board will not be making 11 any decisions on the merits of the petition during this 12 telephone call.
13 As Trace mentioned, I am the Petition Review 14 Board Chair, and each Petition Review Board is chaired 15 by a senior manager at the Agency. The Petition Review 16 Board is also staffed based on the content of the petition 17 request, and I will just state for the record those 18 members of the Petition Review Board today.
19 We have Ms. Andrea Russell, from the Office 20 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mr. Shane Sandal from 21 NRC's Region II Office. We also have Mr. Oscar Demiranda 22 from the NRC's Region II Office. He is not on the call.
23 And that constitutes the Petition Review Board.
24 The Board obtains advice from our Office 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 9
General Counsel, who is represented by Ms. Molly Marsh 1
today, as well as the Office of Investigations, 2
represented in Region II. And we also have support from 3
our two colleagues here from the Office of Enforcement.
4 As described in our process, during this 5
call the NRC staff may ask clarifying questions in order 6
to better understand the petitioner's presentation, in 7
order to facilitate our decisionmaking on whether to 8
accept or reject the petitioner's request.
9 As also described in our process, the 10 Licensees have been invited to participate in today's 11 meeting to ensure that they understand the issues about 12 their facilities or activities. Again, if the Licensee 13 does join us later on in the call, I do want to emphasize 14 that they may ask questions to clarify the issues, but 15 the Licensees are not part of the Petition Review Board's 16 decisionmaking process.
17 Let me briefly summarize the Petition 18 Review Board's understanding of the petition that was 19 submitted by Mr. Saporito on October 1st, 2012. The 20 Petitioner requests that the NRC take escalated 21 enforcement actions against the Licensees and suspend or 22 revoke the NRC licenses granted to the Licensees for 23 operation of any nuclear reactor or facility. That was 24 the first request.
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 The second request was that the NRC issue 1
a notice of violation with a proposed civil penalty 2
against the Licensees in the total amount of one million 3
dollars.
4 And the third request was that the NRC issue 5
a confirmatory order to the Licensees, requiring the 6
Licensees to take their nuclear facilities to cold 7
shutdown until specific actions, described fully in the 8
petition, have been completed, including the completion 9
of a number of independent assessments and comprehensive 10 evaluations.
11 That petition, as I mentioned, was 12 submitted on October 1st, 2012. The NRC has taken a 13 number of steps since that time, and I will summarize 14 those briefly.
15 On October 12th, the petition manager, Mr.
16 Trace Orf, contacted Mr. Saporito to inform him of the 17 receipt of the petition. On November 5th, 2012, the 18 Petition Review Board and its advisors met to discuss the 19 petitioner's request for immediate action, which would 20 require that the Licensees take their facilities to a 21 cold shutdown condtion, as described in the petition.
22 In an email dated November 28th, 2012, the 23 petition manager informed Mr. Saporito of the Petition 24 Review Board's decision to deny the request for immediate 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 action. In accordance with our Management Directive 1
8.11, the Petition Review Board determined that no 2
information was provided regarding the existence of a 3
safety issue at the facility that would justify an 4
immediate shutdown order from the NRC.
5 On December 11, 2012, the Petitioner, Mr.
6 Saporito, met with the Petition Review Board over the 7
telephone to provide additional information regarding 8
the petition.
9 On December 19, 2012, the Petition Review 10 Board met to discuss the petition, as supplemented by the 11 Petitioner's information on December 11th that I just 12 mentioned. And the Petition Review Board's initial 13 recommendation was that the petition did not meet the 14 criteria for review under 2.206, because the petition did 15 not provide sufficient facts regarding the existence of 16 a chilled work environment at the site.
17 THE COURT REPORTER: This is the Court 18 Reporter. I'm on the line.
19 CHAIR NIEH: Okay, great. Thank you very 20 much for joining us. I think we got started before you 21 joined.
22 This meeting -- this teleconference is 23 being transcribed via our Operations Center, so we will 24 conduct what is necessary to make sure you have access 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 to those tapes, so you can do a complete transcription.
1 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you so much.
2 CHAIR NIEH: You bet.
3 This is Ho Nieh. I'm the Petition Review 4
Board Chair.
5 Getting back to the NRC activities to date, 6
the last item here is on October -- or, I'm sorry, on 7
December 27, 2012, the Petition Manager had contacted the 8
Petitioner to deliver the NRC's initial recommendation 9
and to see if the Petitioner would want another 10 opportunity to address the Board. And Mr. Saporito did 11 indeed request this opportunity, which is the purpose of 12 today's teleconference.
13 So before we get into the Petitioner's 14 presentation to the Board, I just want to remind the 15 meeting participants that I'd like you to please identify 16 yourself before your remarks. Again, this will help the 17 Court Reporter develop a transcript that we will make 18 publicly available after this call.
19 With that introduction, Mr. Saporito, I 20 would like to turn it over to you to provide any 21 information that you feel the Petition Review Board 22 should consider as part of the petition.
23 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Now I heard some 24 beep in here. Can you all hear me?
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 MR. ORF: Yes, we can hear you.
1 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, Mr.
2 Chairman. For the record, my name is Thomas Saporito and 3
I'm the Petitioner in this matter, having filed an 4
enforcement petition with the NRC under 10 CFR 2.206.
5 In accordance with NRC Management Directive 6
8.11, the agency held a meeting with me on December 11, 7
2012, regarding the particulars of that petition.
8 Subsequently, I received an email communication from NRC 9
employee Tracy Orf in which Mr. Orf stated in relevant 10 part that "You met with our Petition Review Board on 11 December 11, 2012, to discuss your petition.
12 "The results of that discussion have been 13 considered in the NRC PRB's determination regarding your 14 request for immediate action and whether or not the 15 petition meets the criteria for consideration under 10 16 CFR 2.206. The staff has concluded that your submittal 17 does not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 18 2.206, because you failed to provide sufficient facts 19 regarding the existence of a chilled work environment at 20 the plant site following the termination of Mr. Mark 21 Hicks to justify taking enforcement action against the 22 licensee."
23 Now, for the record, I vigorously disagree 24 with the NRC PRB's determination related to the petition 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 as of this date. And I am gravely concerned that the NRC 1
PRB and the NRC Region II personnel have been engaged in 2
apparent wrongdoing and misconduct in failing to protect 3
public health and safety in these circumstances.
4 Therefore, I request that a copy of any and 5
all NRC records and documents, which the agency has in 6
its custody, possession and/or control be provided to the 7
NRC's Office of the Inspector General and to the 8
President's Office of Professional Responsibility and to 9
The Honorable Edward Markey, to enable those entities the 10 ability to make an informed decision as to whether to 11 conduct an investigation of the NRC in these 12 circumstances to protect public health and safety.
13 At this time, I am going to address the NRC 14 PRB's false assertion that the petition does not meet the 15 criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206, as stated 16 in Mr. Orf's email communication.
17 And before I get into that, for the record 18 I just want to really clarify this point. In his email 19 Mr. Orf stated, "The staff has concluded that your 20 submittal does not meet the criteria for consideration 21 under 10 CFR 2.206, because you failed to provide 22 sufficient facts regarding the existence of a chilled 23 work environment at the plant site." And the key word 24 here is "following the termination of Mark Hicks 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 15 justify taking enforcement action against the licensee."
1 That statement, in its
- entirety, 2
mischaracterizes the entirety of the petition and the 3
supplemental record created on December 11, 2012, by 4
myself in a telecommunication with this agency. That's 5
outrageous. It's just outrageous.
6 Nowhere in the petition will you find the 7
allegation that there is a complaint of a chilled work 8
environment following the termination of Mr. Hicks.
9 Specifically, following the termination of Mr. Hicks.
10 And I'm going to get into the more broad aspects of that.
11 So here we go. At this time, I'm going to 12 address the NRC PRB's false assertion that the petition 13 does not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 14 2.206 as stated in Mr. Orf's email communication.
15 First, the standard of review for petitions filed under 16 10 CFR 2.206 states as follows.
17 Paragraph A, "Criteria for review of 18 petitions under 10 CFR 2.206. The staff will review a 19 petition under the requirements of 10 CFR 2.206 if the 20 request meets all of the following criteria: the 21 petition contains a request for enforcement-related 22 action, such as issuing an order modifying, suspending, 23 or revoking a license; issuing a notice of violation with 24 or without a proposed civil penalty, et cetera."
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 In meeting this requirement, the petition 1
states as follows. "Petitioner respectfully requests 2
that the NRC, number one, take escalated enforcement 3
action against the above-captioned licensees and suspend 4
or revoke the NRC licenses granted to the licensees for 5
operation of any nuclear reactor or facility. Number 6
two, that the NRC issue a notice of violation with a 7
proposed civil penalty against the licensees in the total 8
amount of $1 million. And, three, that the NRC issue a 9
confirmatory order to licensees, requiring the licensees 10 to take their nuclear reactors and/or nuclear facilities 11 to a cold shutdown mode of operation until such time as, 12 number one, the licensee completes an independent 13 assessment to fully understand and correct the potential 14 and/or realized threat posed by licensee's management in 15 taking deliberate retaliation, harassment, and 16 discriminatory actions against Mark Hicks, a former 17 operations manager at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant; and, 18 two, the licensee completes an independent safety 19 culture assessment through a third party contractor to 20 determine whether employees at all of the licensee's 21 nuclear facilities feel free and are free to raise 22 nuclear safety concerns to FP&L management and to the NRC 23 without fear of retaliation; and, three, the licensee 24 completes an independent safety assessment through 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 17 third party contractor to review all plant nuclear 1
safety-related equipment and/or components at all of the 2
licensee's nuclear facilities to ensure that such 3
nuclear safety-related systems and/or components are 4
capable to perform their intended and designed safety 5
function under 10 CFR Part 50."
6 And you can see the reference is made to 7
October 1, 2012, petition at page 3.
8 The second part of that is, "The facts that 9
constitute the basis for taking particular action are as 10 specified. The Petitioner must provide some element of 11 support beyond the bare assertion. The supporting facts 12 must be credible and sufficient to warrant further 13 inquiry."
14 In meeting this requirement, the petition 15 states as follows. "On September 20, 2012, CBS TV12 news 16 reported an interview with a former FP&L operations 17 manager, Mark Hicks, who was fired from his position at 18 the licensee's St. Lucie Nuclear Plant after Hicks fully 19 complied with NRC regulations in refusing to continue the 20 restart of a nuclear reactor after notice that a safety 21 valve associated with the reactor coolant system was 22 leaking.
23 "Hicks has retained legal counsel and has 24 filed whistleblower legal action against the licensee in 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 these circumstances." And they note here in the record 1
that the NRC was provided a CD containing the news 2
broadcast, so they could review it in its entirety.
3 It continues. "This is not the first 4
instance where the licensee has fired or otherwise 5
retaliated against one or more of its in-house or 6
contractor employees after reporting perceived nuclear 7
safety concerns to FP&L management. Notably, the NRC 8
has been impotent over the years to reduce the number of 9
anonymous nuclear safety complaints raised by FP&L 10 employees secretly to the NRC because the employees fear 11 retaliation by FP&L management.
12 "The failure of the NRC and FP&L in these 13 circumstances jeopardized public health and safety." And 14 a reference is made to the petition at pages 3 and 4.
15 And, lastly, the third requirement of the 16 Management Directive 8.11 is that "There is no NRC 17 proceeding available in which the Petitioner is, or could 18 be, a party and through which Petitioner's concerns could 19 be addressed. If there is a proceeding available, for 20 example, if a Petitioner raises an issue that he or she 21 has raised, or could raise in an ongoing licensing 22 proceeding, staff will inform the Petitioner of the 23 ongoing proceeding and will not treat the request under 24 10 CFR 2.206."
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 In meeting the requirement, the petition 1
states as follows, "Petitioner notes here that there is 2
no NRC proceeding available in which the Petitioner is, 3
or could be, a party and through which Petitioner's 4
concerns could be addressed." And, again, reference is 5
made to the petition at page 4.
6 And, notably, on the record the NRC has 7
already accepted this petition filed on October 2012, 8
under 10 CFR 2.206.
9 So here the record in this matter clearly 10 demonstrates that the enforcement petition was properly 11 filed and meets all of the NRC's criteria for reviewing 12 petitions under 10 CFR 2.206 as filed on October 1, 2012.
13 To the extent that the NRC has notified me 14 that the agency has determined otherwise, I have 15 initiated an investigation of the NRC PRB and the NRC 16 Region II headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, in these 17 circumstances to protect public health and safety.
18 It appears that the congressional oversight 19 panel must convene hearings with the NRC Commission to 20 fully understand and to correct the apparent misconduct 21 and wrongdoing on the part of the NRC before the United 22 States experiences a Fukushima nuclear disaster here.
23
- Notably, on December 11,
- 2012, I
24 participated by telephone in a teleconference call with 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 the NRC to further discuss the particulars of the 2.206 1
enforcement petition. At that time, I provided explicit 2
details in support of the petition as follows. "Hicks 3
engaged in 10 CFR 50.7 protected activity as follows.
4 Number one, Hicks confronted and challenged Nazar's 5
authority as the licensee's vice president in Hicks 6
ordering the immediate shutdown of a St. Lucie Nuclear 7
Plant reactor upon learning that the reactor coolant leak 8
had occurred.
9 "Two, Hicks subsequently directed another 10 employee to ensure that the nuclear reactor would not be 11 restarted, despite attempts by the licensee to 12 circumvent Hicks' prior order to shutdown the reactor.
13 "Three, Hicks complained to the NRC that the 14 licensee was retaliating against him as a direct result 15 from the order he gave to shut down the reactor, and the 16 subsequent direction he gave to another employee to keep 17 the reactor shutdown.
18 "Four, Hicks made a second complaint to the 19 NRC that the licensee continued to retaliate against him, 20 stemming from his order to shutdown the nuclear reactor 21 and stemming from his complaint filed with the NRC.
22 "Five, Hicks publicly announced to the 23 media that the licensee had retaliated against him, fired 24 him, because he raised nuclear safety concerns at the St.
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 Lucie Nuclear Plant.
1 "And, six, Hicks filed a legal action 2
against the licensee seeking a jury trial and a 3
make-whole remedy and publicly announced that action to 4
the media."
5 Following that protected activity, under 6
NRC regulations, the licensee retaliated against Hicks 7
in direct violation of NRC regulations, requirements, 8
and standards as follows. "One, Nazar used his position 9
of authority to insist that Hicks start up and bring the 10 nuclear reactor to power.
11 "Two, the licensee subsequently attempted 12 to circumvent Hicks' order in directing other employees 13 to restart the reactor after Hicks had left the plant for 14 home.
15 "Three, the licensees created and fostered 16 a hostile work environment by publicly retaliating 17 against Hicks in front of other employees.
18 "Four, the licensee placed Hicks on a 19 performance plan or probation.
20 "Five, Nazar and other high-level licensee 21 management acted to lower Hicks' compensation by 22 conspiring to have Hicks' immediate supervisor, Richard 23 Anderson, decrease Hicks' performance rating in 24 assessment reviews, despite higher peer review.
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 "Six, the licensee's lowering of Hicks' 1
performance rating resulted in Hicks receiving less 2
bonus pay than he was otherwise entitled.
3 "Seven, the licensee induced Hicks to sign 4
a pretextual settlement placing Hicks in the position of 5
excellence plan director.
6 "Eight, the licensee offered Hicks a 7
settlement to dissuade NRC from investigating wrongdoing 8
allegations filed by Hicks with the agency.
9 "Nine, the licensee knowingly made false 10 and misleading statements and representations to the NRC 11 in offering a settlement to Hicks which was subsequently 12 violated by the licensee.
13 "Ten, subsequent to placing Hicks in the 14 position of excellence plan director, the corporate 15 outage vice president screamed loudly at Hicks in front 16 of his peers that Hicks was a 'fucking embarrassment to 17 the company.'
18 "Eleven, licensee management repeatedly 19 cursed at Hicks with bursts of 'God damn you,' knowing 20 that such terminology was harmful to Hicks due to his 21 religious beliefs.
22 "Twelve, Nazar required Hicks to meet with 23 him on a biweekly basis where Nazar further ridiculed and 24 embarrassed Hicks by screaming questions and accusations 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 at Hicks pertaining to many of Hicks' job aspects and 1
responsibilities.
2 "Thirteen, during the biweekly meetings 3
with Hicks, Nazar would pound his fist on the table at 4
times for 30 minutes.
5 "Fourteen, the biweekly meetings were 6
intended by the licensee to be very demeaning towards 7
Hicks, and many took place in front of other employees 8
as an example of what happens to employees who raise 9
nuclear safety concerns.
10 "Fifteen, the licensee's actions in 11 retaliating against Hicks created a chilling effect at 12 the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, serving to silence other 13 employees from raising nuclear safety concerns to 14 anyone.
15 "Sixteen, Nazar ultimately terminated the 16 position created for Hicks, pretextually claiming that 17 it was a temporary project.
18 "Seventeen, the licensee then 19 intentionally skewed Hicks' performance ratings, taking 20 them from a Level 5 to a Level 3, which resulted in 21 decreased bonus pay for Hicks. Notably, the licensee 22 failed to provide any explanation for the lowered 23 performance rating.
24 "Eighteen, in 2012, the licensee scheduled 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 a leadership meeting to discuss the next steps in the 1
excellence plans during the time that Hicks held the 2
position of excellence plan director. But the licensee 3
excluded Hicks from the meeting, causing further public 4
humiliation for Hicks.
5 "Nineteen, the licensee deliberately 6
engaged in wrongdoing under the nose of the NRC by 7
inducing Hicks to sign one or more settlements, so that 8
the NRC would not conduct a 10 CFR 50.7 investigation 9
which could have resulted in the agency taking 10 enforcement action against the licensee.
11 "Twenty, following a second complaint of 12 retaliation filed with the NRC by Hicks on February 17, 13 2012, the licensee subsequently terminated Hicks' 14 employment on June 25, 2012."
15 The licensee engaged in -- this is 21, "The 16 licensee engaged in further wrongdoing by later 17 notifying Hicks that he could apply for a non-nuclear 18 position with the company within 45 days, where the 19 notice was pretextual and intended to once again prevent 20 the NRC from conducting a 10 CFR 50.7 investigation.
21 "Moreover, the licensee was well aware of 22 Hicks' 20-year career in the United States Nuclear Navy's 23 program -- in the United States Navy's nuclear program, 24 and his employment at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant, 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 25 that Hicks would never accept such a demotion of 1
position.
2 "Twenty-two, the licensee, nonetheless, 3
continued to retaliate against Hicks by causing 4
employees at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant to [shun] Hicks.
5 Incredibly, the licensee isolated Hicks from his 6
co-workers by specifically prohibiting other employees 7
from returning phone calls to Hicks or otherwise 8
communicating with Hicks.
9 "And, 23, the licensee's conduct in causing 10 the co-workers of Hicks to shun him is paramount to 11 creating a hostile work environment at the St. Lucie 12 Nuclear Plant where employees are chilled for raising 13 nuclear safety concerns to anyone."
14 So clearly the petition, as filed on October 15 1, 2012, standing alone, meets all of the NRC's criteria 16 for review of petitions under 10 CFR 2.206. To the 17 extent that the petition was further supplemented during 18 the December 11, 2012, teleconference call between 19 myself and the NRC Petition Review Board, further 20 demonstrates that the petition meets all of the NRC's 21 criteria for reviewing petitions under 10 CFR 2.206, with 22 respect to retaliation taken by the licensee against 23 Hicks in direct violation of 10 CFR 50 and 50.7 and under 24 other NRC authority.
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 In addition, the petition, as supplemented 1
on December 11, 2012, and by today's meeting, amply 2
demonstrates that a chilling effect and hostile work 3
environment existed at the time of Hicks' employment at 4
the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, and that the chilling effect 5
and hostile work environment continues at the St. Lucie 6
Nuclear Plant and at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 7
unabated to date.
8 So just from the discussion to this point 9
demonstrates, by way of evidence to the Petition Review 10 Board, that the petition is claiming two points, two 11 major violations.
12 The first violation is retaliation for 13 Hicks for engaging in 10 CFR 50.7 protected activity in 14 raising nuclear safety complaints regarding licensed 15 activities at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, and all of the 16 other points of retaliation that I have itemized here on 17 the record to date.
18 Point number two is that a -- there was a 19 chilled work environment and a hostile work environment 20 fostered by the licensee during the employment period 21 that Mark Hicks was employed at the St. Lucie Nuclear 22 Plant. The petition specifically addresses that time 23 period, and there is no reference to -- that there is only 24 a -- that the petition only is complaining with an event 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 of a chilled work environment subsequent to Mr. Hicks' 1
employment period at Florida Power & Light Company.
2 So Mr. Orf's email incorrectly and falsely 3
represents what the petition states factually and on the 4
record. And Mr. Orf's email represents the opinion and 5
the review of the Petition Review Board to date, and on 6
that basis it causes me grave concern about the 7
independence of the NRC as an agency whose congressional 8
mandate is to protect public health and safety and the 9
environment in these circumstances.
10 And I guarantee you that I am going to follow 11 up with congressional leadership, the Office of the 12 President of the United States, and other entities to 13 investigate the NRC in these circumstances.
14 I now want to talk about the chilling effect 15 and the hostile work environment. First of all -- and 16 I noted on the record on December 11, 2012, NRC has a 17 website, and from that website I recovered a document.
18 It's entitled "Reactor Allegations Received by CY 19 Received." It is dated -- for the period of January 2008 20 to October 2012.
21 What this document is is a two-page 22 document, and it describes and lists all of the nuclear 23 power plants in the United States where employees have 24 communicated secretly to the NRC to raise nuclear safety 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 concerns because they fear retaliation by their 1
managers. And this period of January 2008 to October 2
2012 wholly encompasses the employment period for which 3
Mr. Mark Hicks was employed with Florida Power & Light 4
Company. Okay?
5 So this document demonstrates and is 6
probative evidence showing that in that time period of 7
January 2008 to October 2012 Florida Power & Light had 8
154 nuclear safety complaints communicated to the NRC by 9
employees at Florida Power & Light's nuclear plants here 10 in South Florida secretly, and that number -- 154 -- is 11 second highest in the nation. The only one higher is the 12 San Onofre plant with 167. So 154, the second highest 13 in the nation.
14 And it happened that reporting period 15 encompasses the employment period of Mark Hicks and 16 demonstrates that the employees at Florida Power & Light 17 fear retaliation from FP&L management in raising nuclear 18 safety complaints. And that is why they go secretly to 19 the agency. There is no other reason.
20 If there was a safety-conscious work 21 environment, a healthy work environment, at Florida 22 Power & Light's nuclear plants in Florida, these 23 employees would contact their managers to get their 24 concerns resolved, and they would expect a pat on 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 29 back, a bonus, an accommodation in their performance 1
review, something.
2 But no, what they get, they get retaliation, 3
they get discrimination, they get cursed at, and they get 4
fired and demoted. That's what happened. It happened 5
to Mark Hicks from January 2008 until October 2012. And 6
there are many other employees, former employees from the 7
Florida Power & Light Company, who have endured the same 8
type of retaliatory actions by FP&L management. I'm not 9
going to go through those cases here today.
10 Now, the NRC publicly publicized on the U.S.
11 NRC blog on December 26, 2012 -- and I'm not going to read 12 the whole thing -- but the relevant part of this posting 13 was by Maria E. Schwartz, an NRC employee, who stated that 14 "Recognizing that licensees have the first 15 responsibility for safety, and are in the best position 16 to respond promptly to a safety matter, the NRC 17 encourages workers to first raise safety concerns with 18 their management."
19 For this to happen, workers must feel free 20 to raise potential safety issues directly to their 21 management. The NRC recognizes that if workers are 22 subject to harassment, intimidation, retaliation, 23 discrimination, or otherwise discouraging behaviors by 24 management for reporting safety concerns, a "chilled" 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 work environment may be created that could inhibit 1
workers from reporting additional safety concerns.
2 If this happens, a [valuable] source of 3
information for maintaining and improving safety is 4
lost. In its simplest sense, it is a major red flag if 5
a worker at a facility the NRC regulates (or who work in 6
connection with licensed materials) chooses to submit an 7
allegation to the NRC rather than with their employer, 8
or has raised the issue with their management but was 9
unsatisfied with its outcome.
10 For this reason, the trending of allegation 11 information can provide NRC with insights into the work 12 environment of our licensees, including whether they are 13 providing a safety-conscious work environment as 14 required by our regulations.
15 And I'd just reference in the record the 16 NRC's trending report "Reactor Allegations Received by 17 CY Received," and it's for the period January 2008 to 18 October 2012. And on the bottom of this document it 19 says -- has an asterisk that says, "This table refers to 20 allegations from all sources external to the NRC,"
21 meaning these are the nuclear power plants that the NRC 22 regulates in the United States, and St. Lucie/Turkey 23 Point nuclear plants are listed here. And their sum 24 total of allegations are 154, the second highest licensee 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 who has employees reporting secretly to the NRC about 1
safety concerns.
2 So according to Maria E. Schwartz and the 3
NRC, this should be a red flag, a major red flag. She 4
is quoted as saying "a major red flag." Okay? And, 5
again, this report encompasses the entire employment 6
period for Mr. Mark Hicks with FP&L at the St. Lucie 7
Nuclear Plant.
8 Now, the NRC -- this policy of the NRC of 9
establishing -- of requiring its licensees, which 10 Florida Power & Light and NextEra Energy, who operates 11 numerous nuclear facilities across the United States, 12 they are required to establish and maintain a 13 safety-conscious work environment at their nuclear power 14 plants.
15 So NRC met over the years -- and I'm not 16 going to go through the whole of this -- but they came 17 out with final consensus and policy statement, and the 18 relevant parts of that are this, and this is 19 document -- let me see what this is. It says -- the title 20 of this document -- it's a six-page document. It's 21 Attachment RIS 2005-18. It's entitled "Establishing 22 and Maintaining a Safety-Conscious Work Environment."
23 It's a lengthy document, but I'm just going 24 to have -- there are a couple of parts here I want to put 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 on the record, and it says here under Paragraph A, 1
"Employees are encouraged to raise safety concerns."
2 Safety-conscious work environment policy, 3
here is what it is. A safety-conscious work environment 4
policy statement, which is -- which, A, is applicable to 5
employees and contractors; B, asserts that it is 6
everyone's responsibility to promptly raise concerns; 7
and, C, makes clear that retaliation for doing so will 8
not be tolerated, may help establish a safety-conscious 9
work environment and communicate senior management's 10 expectations for maintaining it.
11 In addition, the policy may include a 12 statement to, to the extent appropriate, employees are 13 allowed and encouraged to use work hours to report 14 concerns; that sanctions for retaliation by supervisors, 15 management, or peers; that expectation for management 16 behavior that fosters employees' confidence in raising 17 concerns; that information on the various avenues 18 available for raising concerns; that the right of 19 employees to raise concerns externally; and that a 20 commitment to provide safety-conscious work environment 21 training.
22 And under the training aspect of this, 23 safety-conscious work environment training for 24 managers, supervisors, and employees helps reinforce 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 33 principles of the licensee's safety-conscious work 1
environment policy. The primary topics to consider 2
including in this training are applicable laws, 3
regulations, and policies underlying safety-conscious 4
work environment expectations.
5 To effectively communicate 6
safety-conscious work environment concepts to the 7
workforce, licensees, and their contractors, may 8
consider including the following definitions in 9
training. The first definition they talk about is 10 protected activity, which I talk about with respect to 11 Mr. Hicks.
12 And it states here, "It is important that 13 managers and employees know what protected activities 14 are besides raising safety concerns." The term 15 "protected activity" has been broadly interpreted by the 16 Department of Labor and the United States courts.
17 Protected activity, as defined by NRC regulations, are 18 related to the administration or enforcement of a 19 requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the 20 Energy Reorganization Act, and include, but are not 21 limited to -- the first one, providing the Commission or 22 employer information about alleged or possible 23 violations of the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy 24 Reorganization
- Act, or possible violations 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 requirements imposed under either statute.
1 Also, refusing to engage in the practice 2
made unlawful under either statute or the requirements, 3
if the employee has identified alleged illegality to the 4
employer. Also, requesting the Commission to institute 5
action against the employer for the administration or 6
enforcement of these requirements.
7
- Also, testifying in any Commission 8
proceeding or before Congress or at any federal or state 9
proceeding regarding provision of either statute. And, 10 also, assisting or participating in, or being about to 11 assist or participate in, these activities.
12 And Mr. Hicks -- the petition identified 13 specifically and in great detail all of these violations, 14 a violation of all of these requirements.
15 Adverse action -- the NRC policy talks about 16 adverse action and states that "Understanding what an 17 adverse action is can also be important." An adverse 18 action is an adverse change to the compensation, terms, 19 condition, or privilege of employment.
20 Well, gee whiz, didn't I just talk about Mr.
21 Hicks and how his compensation was affected adversely 22 because of retaliation he suffered at the hands of 23 Florida Power & Light management? In fact, he lost his 24 job. He was fired after being demoted and losing pay 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 several times.
1 And then, the NRC policy goes on to talk 2
about retaliation. It may be appropriate to explore the 3
meaning of retaliation. Under the NRC's regulations, 4
the management can continue to effectively manage 5
employees while remaining cognizant of the NRC's 6
employee protection regulations.
7 Actions taken by an employer or others which 8
adversely affect an employee may be based on 9
non-discriminatory grounds. An adverse action is 10 deemed retaliatory only if it is taken, at least in part, 11 because the individual was engaged in a protected 12 activity.
13 And, again, I delineated with great detail 14 and specificity the protected activity Mr. Hicks engaged 15 in while he was employed at Florida Power & Light and the 16 retaliation that closely followed and was in tandem with 17 that protected activity was taken against him by FP&L 18 management.
19 And so other things to consider in 20 discussing training include appropriate gateways for 21 employees and contractors to identify concerns, manager 22 quality assurance programs, corrective actions and field 23 processes, alternative process for raising concerns, 24 such as licensee Employee Concerns Program or an 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 Ombudsman Program.
1 And FP&L has had all of these programs 2
throughout the years, and they have consistently failed 3
in the efforts for the licensees to comply with the NRC's 4
policy and expectations that they maintain a
5 safety-conscious work environment at all of their 6
nuclear power plants across the United States.
7 It states here in the latter part of this 8
NRC policy statement that one factor that can 9
significantly impact a
safety-conscious work 10 environment is management behavior. Therefore, 11 employers may consider including this topic in training.
12 The following behaviors may be effective in 13 establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work 14 environment at licensee and contractor facilities. It 15 states here that managers have an open door policy in the 16 office and make themselves available in the field.
17 Also, that managers are aware of employees' potential 18 reluctance to raise concerns. Also, that managers 19 understand the importance of identity protection. And, 20 also, managers have good basic listening skills, can 21 critique input and express appreciation of employees who 22 raise concerns.
23 Mr. Nazar, the Vice President of Florida 24 Power & Light Operations at the time of Mr. Hicks' 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 employment, he certainly wasn't appreciative of Mr.
1 Hicks who raised a serious nuclear safety concern about 2
reactor coolant leaking at a nuclear reactor at the St.
3 Lucie Nuclear Power Plant that was underway to be brought 4
up to full power.
5 That same safety device was the -- was 6
instrumental and led to the meltdown at the Three Mile 7
Island nuclear reactor years back.
8 And he wasn't given a pat on the back, he 9
wasn't given a raise, a promotion, a commendation, a 10 thank you in front of his peers. Instead, he was 11 berated, humiliated, retaliated against, and ultimately 12 fired by an executive-level manager.
13 The NRC policy goes on to say, "Managers can 14 use various media instruments to communicate their 15 safety-conscious work environment principles.
16 Managers should consider establishing timeliness goals 17 for responding to concerns commensurable with their 18 safety significance, and should consider providing 19 periodic updates to the individuals who identify the 20 concerns."
21 In some circumstances, it may be necessary 22 to evaluate the effectiveness of responses to 23 individuals' concerns to determine whether responses 24 adequately address the concerns.
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 Well, in Mr. Hicks' case, they isolated him.
1 They told employees not to communicate with him. No one 2
got back with Mr. Hicks and said, "Oh, you know, it was 3
a good concern. These are the steps we took to fix it, 4
and, you know, thank you for raising these concerns."
5 No, none of that was done. Just the opposite. Just the 6
opposite. The guy was retaliated and fired.
7 The policy statement of the NRC goes on to 8
say another way to enhance the safety-conscious work 9
environment is to train managers to, number one -- to 10 identify, number one, situations that make them less 11 receptive to safety concerns, such as operational or 12 maintenance goal pressures; and, two, signs of a chilled 13 environment -- that is, an environment in which employees 14 are afraid to raise safety concerns for fear of 15 retaliations.
16 Well, you know, again, Mr. Hicks was 17 bringing these concerns up at the time that FP&L was 18 struggling for economic desires to get these nuclear 19 plants back online. And he was raising these concerns 20 in front of other employees, and management reacted in 21 front of other employees, and retaliated against him in 22 the many, many ways I described earlier in this 23 discussion.
24 They certainly were taking the opposite 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 approach. They were --
1 (Whereupon, the proceedings in the foregoing matter went 2
off the record at 12:59 p.m. due to 3
technical difficulties and went back on the 4
record at 2:48 p.m.)
5 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Hi, Mr. Saporito.
6 This is Ho at the NRR, the PRB Chair. Are you back on 7
the line?
8 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. I am waiting 9
for -- someone there in your meeting said they were going 10 to go through their notes, so they --
11 CHAIR NIEH: Yes.
12 MR. SAPORITO: -- they can tell me where I 13 left off at, because the Court Reporter was trying to play 14 back the tape. I can't hear anything on this end. He 15 apparently can't hear me when he is playing the tape.
16 CHAIR NIEH: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
17 What I had in my notes was that you were really wrapping 18 up your discussion on the Regulatory Issue Summary 19 2005-18. You had gone through the main points about the 20 RIS.
21 The last point you were mentioning was the 22 guidance for, you know, trainers and managers onsite 23 related to that. At least that was the last comment we 24 could hear, so it sounded like you were getting toward 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 the end. You were kind of summarizing the RIS.
1 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. So I discussed the 2
safety-conscious work environment training aspects?
3 CHAIR NIEH: Yes.
4 MR. SAPORITO: And that's the last that he 5
recorded, right?
6 CHAIR NIEH: Thereabouts. Yeah.
7 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. That's good. I can 8
pick up from there.
9 CHAIR NIEH: All right. Is the Court 10 Reporter on? Hello?
11 THE COURT REPORTER: I am here, sir.
12 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Great.
13 All right. Mr. Saporito, well, you have 14 the floor. I think we were I guess on the -- I think this 15 would probably carry us until about 3:15, just to give 16 you a sense of where we are on time.
17 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. Thank you. All 18 right. For the record, this is Thomas Saporito. It is 19 about 11 minutes to three. I am going to try to wind up 20 this presentation. I was earlier disconnected 21 inadvertently by the NRC, so I am going to pick this up.
22 I was talking about the NRC document 23 identified as RIS 2005-18, and I was referencing page 4 24 and 5 of that document. I think I left off with the part 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 with safety-conscious work environment training.
1 And so the document goes on to talk about 2
and describe adverse action, and it states there that 3
understanding what an adverse action is can also be 4
important. An adverse action is an adverse change in the 5
compensation terms, conditions, or privileges of 6
employment. And so the actions I described earlier to 7
this panel with respect to Mark Hicks, those actions of 8
retaliation that I describe certainly meet and exceed the 9
definition of adverse action as reflected in the NRC 10 policy document.
11 Retaliation, as described as policy 12 documentation -- it may be appropriate to explore the 13 meaning of retaliation under the NRC's regulation, so 14 that management can continue to effectively manage 15 employees while remaining cognizant of the NRC's 16 employee protection regulations. Actions taken by an 17 employer or others which adversely affect an employee may 18 be based on non-discriminatory grounds. An adverse 19 action is deemed retaliatory only if it is taken, at least 20 in part, because the individual was engaged in protected 21 activity.
22 Well, in the case of Mr. Hicks, all of the 23 adverse actions that I described earlier were taken after 24 he raised the safety complaints regarding reactor 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 coolant system and after he engaged in other protected 1
activity, like ordering its immediate shutdown, and for 2
it to remain in shutdown, and all of the other 10 CFR 50.7 3
protected activity I describe there. So that all of the 4
retaliation took place after that in protected activity.
5 The problem with these -- the NRC in 6
regulating its licensees like Florida Power & Light 7
Company and NextEra Energy, Inc. are broad and pervasive, 8
because the NRC has failed over the years to comply with 9
its own mandate to protect public health and safety and 10 the environment with respect to its licensees by 11 maintaining a safety-conscious work environment at their 12 nuclear facilities.
13 Here in Florida we have four reactors 14 operated by Florida Power & Light Company, two at the St.
15 Lucie Nuclear Plant and two at the Turkey Point Nuclear 16 Plant. And then, Florida Power & Light's parent 17 company, NextEra Energy, operates reactors across the 18 United States.
19 The NRC has an inspection
- manual, 20 Inspection Procedure 23100. It describes the procedure 21 for NRC inspectors to go onsite at these different 22 facilities and how they are to interview people and what 23 documents they need to be looking at and to inspect, so 24 that they can make an informed decision as to whether 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 43 environment is one that encourages employees to raise 1
safety concerns.
2 So all of the written procedures and 3
policies are in place at the agency. They are just not 4
carried out. A representative example of that is -- in 5
the summer, approximately July of 2012, the NRC did an 6
onsite inspection, and two personnel from Region II were 7
there, and the senior resident inspector Tim Hoeg was 8
there, and there was multiple reactor trips at the St.
9 Lucie plant. That was the highlight of the inspection, 10 although there was other safety issues which were the 11 subject of that inspection.
12 The NRC publicly held a public meeting, 13 which I attended, with respect to that inspection. And 14 throughout the entirety of that presentation the NRC 15 never addressed safety-conscious work environment. They 16 talk about it in general terms, the reactor oversight 17 process, and how the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant operations 18 had flipped because of these reactor trips within 19 that -- the parameters of that process.
20 And then, the licensee was given the 21 opportunity to explain what they did to correct these 22 problems. The plant manager, whom I have a great deal 23 of respect for, addressed what they believed to be the 24 root cause and the resolution.
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 And then, I -- the public had an opportunity 1
to speak, so I was one of those members of the public who 2
spoke. I took issue with the NRC's inspection 3
activities, because there was no enforcement action 4
taken. And so the NRC Region II personnel responded, but 5
where is the violations for us to take enforcement 6
action?
7 Well, number one, licensee never identified 8
the root cause. If the violation -- the root cause was 9
not relevant to the events that took place which caused 10 the reactor to trip offline. The reason the reactor 11 tripped offline was because the employees at the St.
12 Lucie plant violated station procedures in their 13 technical specifications. They didn't properly monitor 14 the temperature of one or more pumps that they were 15 supposed to. That caused the reactor to trip.
16 So the licensee never identified that as the 17 root cause. Therefore, they never resolved it. But you 18 people, your inspectors did identify that, and I showed 19 them their own reports, where it was documented, but the 20 NRC didn't take any enforcement action.
21 What really concerns me is, in its entirety, 22 this report -- the NRC did any evaluation of the work 23 environment. I brought up the issue of Mr. Hicks and 24 that he was retaliated for bringing up these serious 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 safety concerns I have already talked about. But there 1
is no inspection activities. There is not one word in 2
your report, your July 2012 report, or the report that 3
followed that inspection period, with respect to the work 4
environment.
5 So the agency knows this problem has been 6
ongoing. It has been ongoing for years and years and 7
years. And I have been participating in public meeting 8
after public meeting after public meeting that was either 9
hosted by the NRC or by the licensee, specifically 10 regarding the work environment at FP&L's nuclear plant 11 in South Florida.
12 And every time the licensee gets up there 13 and makes a presentation, "Yeah, we acknowledge that 14 there is a problem. But, look, we [improved] the 15 Employee Concerns Program, we got new plant managers, you 16 know, and everything is fine now." And then a year or 17 so later, same problem, another public meeting, and the 18 licensee gets up there again and says, "Oh, but we could 19 replace the plant managers, we've got new Employee 20 Concerns people heading up that program, we increased our 21 training, and we've got better procedures."
22 And it goes on and on, year after year.
23 It's like the groundhog movie that was out a few years 24 back. Same repetition, the same problems, same 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 recurrence. No violation cited by the NRC, though.
1 This problem has gone on year after year after year, and 2
now it has escalated to the critical issue where we are 3
second in the nation now, second in the nation with the 4
most employees going to the NRC secretly to raise safety 5
complaints because they fear retaliation by the licensee 6
management.
7 Now, this has to stop. I mean, the NRC 8
needs to enforce its own regulations. And here is where, 9
you know, we are going to have -- there is going to be 10 a
congressional oversight panel formed.
The 11 Commissioners themselves, including the new Chairman, 12 need to be held accountable and brought before the panel, 13 because the NRC's mission is to protect public health and 14 safety.
15 And the mission of the Department of Labor 16 is to provide a make-whole remedy for an employee who is 17 fired for whistleblower actions against a licensee. In 18 this case, Mr. Hicks, throughout the employment period 19 at Florida Power & Light, when he lost his position as 20 operations manager there was these agreements made, and 21 he was in -- you know, he was solicited to sign onto a 22 settlement agreement which was supposed to resolve all 23 of the issues and make him -- give him an economic 24 settlement, a so-called make-whole remedy.
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 And, you know, that's an economic solution.
1 It doesn't resolve the issue of whether or not the 2
licensee violated NRC regulations and requirements under 3
their licenses. And the NRC didn't investigate that 4
because there was a settlement agreement. So right 5
there the NRC violated its own mandate.
6 You know, it's fine and well that a licensee 7
makes a settlement with any employee to resolve an 8
economic situation, but that doesn't relieve the NRC as 9
a separate, independent government agency to do its job 10 to protect public health and safety, to go onsite and do 11 an investigation, whether or not there's a settlement, 12 to find out, "Hey, did this -- did they raise these safety 13 concerns? And did this retaliation occur after these 14 safety concerns were raised? Did you tell employees not 15 to contact this individual? You know, was he trying to 16 keep the reactor -- did he order the reactor be shutdown 17 under the parameters of his own NRC license? And did 18 you, as the licensee, try to circumvent that and order 19 employees to restart that reactor?"
20 These are all violations of NRC 21 requirements and regulations and policy, which need to 22 be investigated. My investigation shows the NRC never 23 investigated these issues. And the NRC needs to make a 24 separate determination, separate and apart from any 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 pretextual settlement agreement you all may have coerced 1
Mr. Hicks into agreeing to, and separate and apart from 2
any subsequent litigation that Mr. Hicks may or may not 3
be involved in with respect to his termination of 4
employment from Florida Power & Light Company.
5 It is the NRC's job job and 6
responsibility and congressional mandate to ensure that 7
the work environment at Florida Power & Light Nuclear 8
Plant, and that NextEra Energy, Incorporated nuclear 9
plants across the United States maintain a work 10 environment that encourages employees to raise nuclear 11 safety concerns to licensee management and to anyone else 12 that they so desire.
13 The NRC's own documents from January 2008 14 to October 2012 clearly demonstrate that Florida Power &
15 Light, four nuclear reactors, and two power plant 16 entities, the same as the nuclear power plant -- the 17 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, maintain and foster 18 work environments which do not encourage employees to 19 raise safety concerns to Florida Power & Light 20 management.
21 And the evidence is that they would rather 22 go to the NRC, so much so that they hold second place in 23 the nation as far as the number of employees raising 24 safety complaints to the 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 49 And like I say, the inspection criteria is 1
laid out. You know, the inspectors -- the NRC inspector 2
is supposed to go onsite, supposed to look at the backlog 3
of how many work orders are backlogged, you know, talk 4
to employees who were named in the complaints. Mr. Hicks 5
made two specific written complaints to the NRC. He 6
filed a lawsuit. There's plenty of evidence out there, 7
and there are names, there are dates, there is a 8
chronology.
9 The NRC has more than enough to go on to 10 conduct an investigation. I even offered to assist the 11 agency. I asked, through the Commissioner herself, to 12 order the NRC Region II Office of Investigations to 13 conduct an investigation, and I wanted to participate.
14 I wanted to be interviewed by the agency to assist them.
15 I had no contact from Region II whatsoever.
16 Now, these power plants in South Florida, 17 it's where I live, it's where my family and friends are, 18 and they are at risk. They are jeopardizing public 19 health and safety as they are being operated outside of 20 NRC regulation, under -- outside of the licenses granted 21 to Florida Power & Light Company under 10 CFR Part 50.
22 And the responsibility/accountability, 23 while it's not only on the licensee, but also on NRC 24 Region II personnel who have failed -- failed miserably 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 over the years to do their job and to take meaningful 1
enforcement action against Florida Power & Light in 2
these types of circumstances. And their own records, 3
the NRC's own records show a lack of enforcement action 4
over the years at both Turkey Point and St. Lucie nuclear 5
power plants.
6 And it points to pervasive and widespread 7
problems within the NRC itself. Apparently, there are 8
other regions in the NRC who do conduct adequate and 9
sufficient and aggressive enforcement action, the very 10 same type of circumstances as at other facilities within 11 their jurisdictions.
12 Region II has failed miserably over the 13 years to enforce their own regulations with respect to 14 the four nuclear plants operating in Florida, and also 15 the fifth one over there at Crystal River.
16 So, in my opinion -- and I'm going to pursue 17 this with Congress no matter what the NRC decides to do 18 with respect to this enforcement petition -- but with 19 respect to this enforcement petition, the enforcement 20 petition clearly meets all of the criteria under 21 Management Directive 8.11, and requires the NRC to accept 22 the petition under 10 CFR 2.206. And that was the 23 October 1, 2012, petition.
24
- Now, considering the fact that I
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 supplemented that on December 11, 2012, and gave more 1
elaboration on the details and the particulars, and 2
specifically outlined in a very accurate chronology the 3
dates that Mr. Hicks engaged in 10 CFR 50.7 protected 4
activity, and the retaliation that followed and is 5
connected through a nexus to that protected activity, 6
clearly qualifies the petition to be accepted by the NRC 7
Petition Review Board and for the NRC to act on that 8
petition and consider taking the enforcement action 9
requested in that petition.
10 Now, that is one issue. The second issue 11 is the petition qualified as a matter of law, because it 12 sets out and specifically detailed what the 13 particular -- a chilled work environment and a hostile 14 work environment are being maintained not only at Florida 15 Power & Light Company's two nuclear reactors in Fort 16 Pierce at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, but also at the 17 Turkey Point twin nuclear reactors down there in 18 Homestead, Florida.
19 That hostile work environment, that chilled 20 work environment, it should be of major and paramount 21 concern to the NRC, because although there have been 154 22 secret complaints -- well, more than 154 complaints, but 23 154 employees at Florida Power & Light secretly conveying 24 nuclear safety complaints to the NRC over the period 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 52 January 2008 to October 2012.
1 Who knows how many other complaints were not 2
raised to anybody, because the employees are so scared 3
to talk about nuclear safety concerns, because they have 4
seen what happened to Mr. Hicks and others that came and 5
went before Mr. Hicks. There is quite a trail.
6 So if -- you know, I cannot stress enough 7
that NRC Region II has not done their job, and someone 8
needs to light a fire under them.
9 With respect to this petition, the petition 10 qualifies as a matter of law on those two points -- the 11 point that Mr. Hicks was retaliated against in violation 12 of NRC regulations and authority, and that FP&L has 13 failed to foster a work environment that encourages 14 employees to raise nuclear safety concerns without fear 15 of retaliation at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant 16 and at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant.
17 And with that, I will stay on the line to 18 answer any questions and provide any clarification that 19 may be requested.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
22 Saporito. Appreciate you taking the time to provide 23 further emphasis on the petition that you submitted.
24 I would like to make a couple of general 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 comments before I open it up to the other NRC staff here 1
that are -- may wish to ask some questions for further 2
clarification.
3 You know, you noted toward the end of the 4
discussion here that, you know, there were some 5
assertions of failures by the NRC Region II office to, 6
you know, enforce its regulations and follow up on issues 7
where there are potential violations of our employee 8
protection provisions.
9 I will say, along those lines, I will 10 ensure -- I will work with my colleagues here in the 11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make sure that 12 those concerns are sent to the right part of the NRC 13 organization for further review.
14 I believe you raised that in the previous 15 meeting we had back in December, and I note that you have 16 raised it again. And, again, I will continue to ensure 17 that those assertions are sent to the right part of the 18 NRC organization for followup.
19 Along those lines, it has been my experience 20 in the NRC that the agency treats very seriously its 21 employee protection regulations in, you know, 50.7. And 22 I am not in the position to confirm or deny any 23 investigative activity in relationship to the issue that 24 you have described with the employee at the Florida Power 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
& Light facility, but it has been my experience that the 1
NRC takes these things seriously. I am just not in a 2
position to discuss any investigative activity, to 3
either confirm or deny any investigative activity by 4
Office of Investigations.
5 With respect to the chilled work 6
environment, I know you had earlier on focused on the word 7
"following action taken against Mark Hicks" in the email 8
from Trace Orf. But I guess I would like to just ask 9
again, with respect to chilled work environment, whether 10 it was before or after.
11 Mr. Saporito, are you able -- can you 12 provide the Board with any specific information related 13 to any other individuals that you have discussed 14 or -- discussed with or been made aware of that have been 15 concerned about providing safety issues to either the NRC 16 or the licensee for fear of retaliation?
17 MR. SAPORITO: Well, yes, I can. But I 18 wanted to make perfectly clear that the NRC records, as 19 we have already talked about, it's the table of 20 allegations from all of the sources external to the NRC, 21 which is -- encompasses the period January 2008 until 22 October 2012.
23 That entire period -- Mr. Hicks was employed 24 within that period at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power 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 55 and that is when he suffered retaliation after raising 1
safety concerns. And that is the same period of time 2
where the retaliation -- a lot of it -- was directed at 3
Mr. Hicks in front of other employees, which would have 4
chilled the work environment, because the action -- the 5
retaliation was taken against him in front of other 6
co-workers, and specifically talked about that they were 7
given direction not to contact him at all.
8 And, you know, when you do that, when 9
licensee management retaliates in front of other 10 employees, it automatically creates a chilled work 11 environment. Any reasonable-minded co-worker of Mr.
12 Hicks would never raise a safety complaint to FP&L 13 management after that. They just wouldn't do it.
14 CHAIR NIEH: Okay.
15 MR. SAPORITO: And during that same period 16 of time, though, there have been -- you know, there have 17 been other employees -- I talked about -- I think last 18 time we had talked about Thomas King. He was a 19 contractor, and he eventually lost his employment at the 20 St. Lucie plant following some safety complaints he 21 raised, but they were -- in my view, his employment was 22 terminated because of some incident he got involved in 23 outside of work hours.
24 But, nonetheless, the actions that FP&L 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 took against him, they were going to pull his security 1
badge at one point, his security access, before the 2
incident outside of the plant took place. They were 3
going to -- he was onsite, he had raised safety complaints 4
about document falsification, about not -- about 5
co-workers not being qualified to do safety-related work 6
that they were already doing, and these were serious 7
safety complaints that he had raised, and he wasn't given 8
any feedback by the Employee Concerns Program employee.
9 And one of the supervisors/managers at the 10 plant came in and took his security badge and left, called 11 the corporate office in Juno Beach, tried to get his 12 security access revoked after he learned about these 13 safety complaints.
14 And they refused, and then he came back, 15 gave him his badge back, but all of these types of actions 16 were retaliation under NRC regulations, you know. Even 17 though they gave him his badge back, just threatening to 18 take his badge back like that causes an employee, causes 19 a chilling effect at that plant, where employees like Mr.
20 King raise safety issues in good faith about the -- his 21 belief that documents are being falsified and that people 22 were working on safety-related equipment that weren't 23 qualified to do that, their training records had been 24 duped to qualify them.
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 You know, he should have gotten feedback by 1
Employee Concerns Department or somebody in FP&L. He 2
didn't. Instead, he was -- and he was -- there was 3
retaliation taken against him, including the retaliation 4
I just talked about.
5 There was another incident involving a 6
senior reactor operator at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant.
7 Dave Hoffman was his name. You know, he raised 8
significant nuclear safety concerns. They involved a 9
reactor that tripped offline as the result of a 10 substation. An explosion and a fire in a remote 11 substation caused a variance in the transmission lines 12 which caused a shutdown at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, 13 two twin reactors.
14 He was on duty at one of those, and then, 15 you know -- and he didn't want that reactor restarted 16 within 10 or 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, but management insisted, and it 17 was a scenario similar to Mr. Hicks. And so eventually, 18 you know, the retaliation became so severe that Hoffman 19 ended up quitting, and he filed a whistleblower 20 complaint.
21 But that's a make-whole remedy. You know, 22 the NRC -- they took no enforcement action with respect 23 to retaliation that Mr. Hoffman and Mr. King raised 24 directly with the NRC. NRC -- you know, they wait until 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 they get a determination from the Department of Labor, 1
and then they act on that as to whether or not they are 2
going to take enforcement action. That's the wrong 3
path.
4 It is not -- you know, the Department of 5
Labor determination is important to the employee with 6
respect to their economic well-being in a make-whole 7
remedy. But the public needed the NRC to take 8
enforcement action as to whether NRC rules, regulations, 9
and requirements, and policy were violated. In both of 10 those instances, there were clearly 10 CFR 50.7 11 violations, in both of those instances where no 12 enforcement action was taken.
13 And as a matter of fact, I can -- and I don't 14 have time to do this now, but the record -- the NRC records 15 will show that NRC has never, in my investigative 16 research, taken -- from Region II, that is -- taken any 17 meaningful enforcement action with respect to any of 18 Florida Power & Light's nuclear operations over the 19 years. And there have been many instances where Region 20 II was involved.
21 And I personally -- I have had a lot of 22 contact with individuals out in Region II, and I think 23 a lot of -- it is my opinion that a lot of these safety 24 complaints that are being received by Region II are being 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 watered down, taken very lightly, with a grain of salt, 1
in many instances, and are not being investigated.
2 And whether there is a collaboration 3
between the licensee, the Florida Power & Light Company, 4
and Region II personnel, my investigation is still 5
ongoing. And there is a very significant problem with 6
Region II, and that needs to be addressed. I know the 7
PRC can't address that issue, but OIG can, and the 8
President's Office of Professional Responsibility and 9
Congress can.
10 So I am going to go forward in those areas 11 later on. I bring that to the attention of PRB to gain 12 a more broad understanding of why Florida Power & Light 13 employees would rather go to the NRC than to FP&L 14 management. And these are some of the reasons why.
15 And, you know, you don't have to have -- what 16 do they call it? You don't have to have a smoking gun 17 in your hand to understand that there is a very 18 significant, pervasive chilling effect at Florida Power 19
& Light's Turkey Point Nuclear Plant and St. Lucie 20 Nuclear Plant, and that there is a hostile work 21 environment there because, like the NRC employee Maria 22 E. Schwartz has stated, it's -- in the simplest sense it's 23 a major red flag if a worker at a facility the NRC 24 regulates, or who works in connection with the licensed 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 material, chooses to submit an allegation to NC rather 1
than with their employer. Okay?
2 So the red flag has already been raised. It 3
has been raised from January 2008 through October 2012, 4
and it continues to this date.
5 Now, my petition talks about retaliation 6
about Mr. Hicks specifically, and it talks about a 7
chilled work environment and a hostile work environment 8
in the time period of Mr. Hicks' employment at the St.
9 Lucie Nuclear Plant.
10 But the petition goes beyond that through 11 my own teleconferences with this panel on December 11, 12 2012, and my discussion today, insofar as the hostile 13 work environment and chilled work environment continue, 14 because Mr. -- because the problem has never been 15 resolved at either St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant or 16 Turkey Plant Nuclear
- Plant, where those work 17 environments are not safety-conscious work 18 environments.
19 And there has been, you know -- the 20 employees there don't see the NRC Office of 21 Investigations coming onsite with subpoenas, putting 22 people under oath, taking testimony, making a timely, 23 accurate, meaningful, investigatory record. You don't 24 see it. It doesn't exist because Region II doesn't do 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 that.
1 And all they see is an employee, a very 2
talented employee with expertise in the nuclear 3
industry, he came from the United States Nuclear 4
Navy -- nuclear program, for goodness sake, he carries 5
an NRC license. They see this highly qualified manager 6
terminated because he raised safety complaints.
7 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Mr. Saporito, I think 8
some of the stuff you are -- the information you gave in 9
response to my question is repeating some of the 10 information you provided earlier.
11 I am mindful of our time this afternoon, and 12 I want to ask, are there any folks here in the room that 13 have any further questions for Mr. Saporito?
14 (No response.)
15 Region II, are you on the line?
16 MR. SANDAL: Yes, I am.
17 CHAIR NIEH: Do you have any questions for 18 Mr. Saporito?
19 MR. SANDAL: No, I have no questions.
20 CHAIR NIEH: Well, is there anybody else on 21 the line? Did the licensee join us back at this time?
22 (No response.)
23 All right. Well, Mr. Saporito, I do want 24 to appreciate you taking the time to provide further 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 clarification and emphasis on the issues you raise in 1
your petition.
2 Again, I do apologize for the technical 3
interruption we had earlier today with the phone lines.
4 I got a call from the operations center. They don't know 5
what the problem was, but we didn't seem to have any 6
problems here.
7 But I just want to, again, take the time to 8
let you know that we will review the information you 9
provided today in consideration of the petition you 10 submitted back in October.
11 And let me -- before we close, let me ask 12 the Court Reporter, is there any information you need 13 from any of the participants as far as names, titles, and 14 things like that? Charles?
15 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. I need only know 16 the speaker from Region II who just said that he had no 17 questions.
18 MR. SANDAL: Yes. My name is Shane Sandal, 19 S-A-N-D-A-L. I am the Acting Branch Chief, Region II, 20 Atlanta, U.S. NRC.
21 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you very much, 22 sir. That's all I have.
23 CHAIR NIEH: Are there any members of the 24 public on the line? Are there any members of the public 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 on the line with general questions about the NRC's 2.206 1
process?
2 (No response.)
3 Hearing none, Mr. Saporito, again, thank 4
you very much for your time this afternoon, and we will 5
consider the information that you gave us today.
6 MR. SAPORITO: All right. And if you would 7
be sure to email me a copy of the record when it gets 8
transcribed, I would certainly appreciate it.
9 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Will do. Okay.
10 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you.
11 CHAIR NIEH: Take care.
12 (Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the proceedings in the 13 foregoing matter were concluded.)
14