Text

Ack Receipt of 930512 Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206, Requesting That NRC Institute Proceeding Per 10CFR2.202 to Modify,Suspend or Revoke Plant Licenses
	ML17310A431
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	07/09/1993
From:	Murley T; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Saporito T; SAPORITO, T.J.
Shared Package
ML17310A432	List: ML17310A431; ML17310A434;
References
	2.206, NUDOCS 9307190186
	Download: ML17310A431 (5)
	v • d • e

~p,S AF,~~y Cy pp I

IA p

Cy 0

)0 y*y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 9, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.

Post Office Box 3082 Boynton Beach, Florida 33424-3082

Dear Mr. Saporito:

I am acknowledging receipt of your petition of May 12,

1993, as supplemented May 28, 1992, that you filed pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code FFF 1~21 I

22 262221162.

I 6

Ftt1,d 6

tt 2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (1) institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station operating licenses; (2) initiate actions to immediately shut down the three nuclear reactors at Palo Verde; (3) take escalated enforcement action against the licensee and/or the licensee management personnel; (4) take immediate actions to cause an exhaustive survey of licensee employees at the Palo Verde nuclear station to ascertain the scope and breadth of any chilling effect that may exist at the nuclear station and to discover if licensee management actions, if any, were effective in limiting any chilling effect at the nuclear station.

The Petition seeks relief based on the asserted violation by the licensee of 10 CFR 50.7, "Employee Protection";

the U.S. Department of Labor Recommended Decision and Order

("RD&0") of May 10, 1993, finding for Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.; the asserted questionable statements by licensee management personnel to the NRC concerning the emergency lighting system and the licensee's request to change the technical specifications regarding the set points on certain safety valves at Palo Verde; the asserted licensee reputation of leading the nation in whistleblower complaints; the Department of Labor discrimination cases involving licensee employees Linda E. Mitchell and Sarah C.

Thomas and the resulting issuance by the NRC of a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties on September 20, 1992, in the amount of $ 130,000 against the licensee; and the asserted continuing discrimination by the licensee against the petitioner in denying him employment at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

In your supplement of May 28,

1992, you enclosed an article from New Times (May 26 - June 1, 1993), which contains accounts of whistleblower retaliation by the licensee against plant workers at Palo Verde.

The main thrust of the petition concerns an RD&0 dated May 10,

1993, issued by an Administrative Law Judge in the U.S. Department of Labor who ruled in your favor and found that you were discriminated against in violation of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as

amended, by not being rehired by the licensee in retaliation for raising safety concerns at Palo Verde.

The NRC will be reviewing this RD&0 to determine whether enforcement action will be taken.

930719018b 930709 PDR ADQCK 0500052S PDR gE gal; IIIILII:C~>+~

Hr. Thomas J. Sapor',

Jr.

July 9, 1993 The NRC conducted a special inspection in September 1992 to gain a sense of the perceptions and attitudes of workers at Palo Verde with regard to their ability to raise significant safety issues.

The results of this special inspection are contained in NRC Inspection Report No. 92-33 dated October 8, 1992.

Based on unannounced interviews with 314 plant workers, most (92 percent) of the employees interviewed felt free to raise significant safety issues with their supervisors, higher levels of Arizona Public Service Company management, the APS Employee Concerns

Program, and the NRC.

Of the remainder, six percent felt free to raise significant safety issues with their immediate supervisors, but felt some reluctance to raise issues above their supervisors.

The remaining two percent felt some reluctance to raise significant safety concerns to their immediate supervisor.

The results were not indicative of a widespread problem nor does the petition present any new information that would warrant the NRC taking immediate action to "cause an exhaustive survey of licensee employees" to ascertain the extent of any "chilling" effect which may exist at Palo Verde.

The other items raised in the petition consist principally of issues of which the NRC is already aware and for which it has already taken action.

The NRC has resolved the emergency lighting issues and has taken escalated enforcement action in the form of a civil penalty of $ 125,000.

The discrimination cases cited by the petitioner have also resulted in proposed civil penalties.

Since none of the items raised in the petition are of such a nature as to warrant the immediate shutdown of the three Palo Verde units or the conduct of an immediate survey of employee attitudes, the petitioner's request for immediate action is denied.

The NRC staff will review your petition in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.

I will issue a final decision with regard to your petition within a reasonable time.

A copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication is enclosed for your information.

Sincerely Orlgi'aal a4nod by gtjgoss.'ZaiMUx.'><X Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Federal Register Notice DISTRIBUTION:

See next page OFC cc w/enclosure:

See next page LA PDV See revious concurrence PH PDV*

TECH EDITOR*

OGC*

D/PDV*

NAME DATE OFC DFoste

~ LTran:lh 93 06 25 93 A

DRPW ammell Ass AB R

HMajac 06/17 93 D

NR JGoldber 07/Ol/93 D/N TQuay 07 01/93 NAME EAde sam JR JP

. lo)

H rley DATE

'7/ Z/93 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

'l/ ~/93

//'7/93

/

93 DOCUMENT NAME'T8923 /

93

Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.

The NRC conducted a special inspection in September 1992 to gain a sense of the perceptions and attitudes of workers at Palo Verde with regard to their ability to raise significant safety issues.