ML17310B279
| ML17310B279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1993 |
| From: | Saporito T SAPORITO, T.J. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17310B280 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9405180310 | |
| Download: ML17310B279 (16) | |
Text
DOC.DATE: 93/10/26 NOTARIZED: NO ACCESSION NBR:9405180310 FACIL:
AUTH.NAME SAPORITOFT.J.
RECIP.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION AffiliationNot Assigned RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Ofc of the Executive Director for Operations FORD 2 REGULATO Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
DOCKET
SUBJECT:
Discusses petitioner amend to petition filed w/NRC on 930512,as supplemented on 930528.Petitioner seeks to amend petition to include encl 931023 discrimination complaint filed under Section 211.
D DISTRIBUTION CODE:
DF03D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR I ENCL I
SIZE:
+ J TITLE: Direct Flow Distribution: Subject Files a 40,70,71 Dkts w out LPDRs
/
F RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME INTERNAL: NUDOCS-ABSTRACT EXTERNAL: NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME REG FIL 01 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 p~~
L i ~H
<Av NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK.
ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 504-2065) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 3
ENCL 3
THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
POST'OFFICE BOX 30S2 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33424-30S2 October 26, 1993 Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D.C. 20500 Re:
Amended Petition Under 10 C.F.R. 52.206
Dear Sir:
COMES NON, Petitioner Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.,
and hereby files this amendment to his petition filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
( "NRC" ) on May 12, 1993, as supplemented on May 28, 1993..
See Recei t of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 C.F.R. 52.206, dated on July 9, 1993.
Petitioner seeks to amend his May 12, 1993 petition as supplemented on May 28, 1993 to include an October 23, 1993 discrimination complaint filed under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
55851 ("Act"), alleging violations of the Act pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 24 and directed against NRC licensee Arizona Public Service Company, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, and contractor The Atlantic Group for a continuing violation of Section 211 in refusing to rehire the petitioner.
See co of De artment of Labor com laint dated October 23 1993 and attached hereto.
S ecific Re uest:
Petitioner requests that the NRC take the following action:
(1) institute a
show cause proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke the Palo Verde Nuclear. Generating Station operating licenses; (2) initiate actions to immediately cause the shut down of the 3-reactor cores at Palo Verde; (3) take escalated enforcement action against the licensee Arizona Public Service Company, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, The Atlantic Group, and those individuals found to have committed wrongdoing by the NRC, DOL, or DOJ; (4) take other such actions against Arizona public Service Company, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, The Atlantic Group, and those employees of said companies to insure that retaliation against employees who identify nuclear safety concerns does not continue and does not chill the remainder of the work force at the Palo Verde nuclear station.
9405180310 931026 PDR ADOCK- 05000528 PDR
ll i
$)~'l
~
5'
Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 26, 1993 Page No.
2 Basis and Justification:
This petition seeks relief based upon the allegations of discrimination asserted in the attached October 23, 1993 DOL complaint, the DOL RD&0 dated May 10,
- 1993, and the recent ruling favorable to Ms. Sarah C. Thomas and against Arizona Public Service Co. by the U.S. Secretary of Labor.
Moreover, petitioner cites NRC authority under regulation 10 C.F.R. 550.7, "Employee Protection" provisions of the code which prohibits licensee retaliatory actions to be taken against employees who identify nuclear safety concerns.
Finally, petitioner points towards testimony of Mr. William Engleking in transcripts of DOL Case No. 92-ERA-30 which contradicts his testimony under oath during the taking of his deposition in the same matter.
This information is relevant to this petition and is evidence of wrongdoing on the part of The Atlantic Group.
At this time, petitioner does not have custody or control of these documents, however, petitioner's attorney, Mr. David K. Colapinto, located at 517 Florida Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, 202-234-4663, may be contacted by the NRC to obtain a copy of these materials.
WHEREFORE, the reasons stated above, petitioner requests that the NRC staff review this petition amendment in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 52.206 and issue a final decision within a reasonable time.
Petitioner's engagement in protected activities under Section 211 have left him destitute,
- homeless, and unemployed.
Therefore, should the NRC have any questions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to contact petitioner's attorney, Mr. Colapinto, at the address and/or telephone number described above.
For the Environment, Petitioner pro se Thomas J. Sapor' Jr.
cc:
Oscar DeMiranda, NRC SAC RII Philup Joukoff, NRC Senior Investigator
-David K. Colapinto, Esq.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR Complainant, 5
THOMAS J.
SAPORITO, JR.,
5 5
5 5
v 5
5 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO./
5 ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT, 5
5
- and, 5
5 THE ATLANTIC GROUP, 5
5 Respondents.
5 5
DATE: October 23, 1993 COMPLAINT COMES
- NOW, Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr.,
Complainant pro se, in Department of Labor
("DOL") has jurisdiction to consider and investigate the allegations contained in this complaint.
2.
Complainant Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. is a former employee of The Atlantic Group ("TAG") employed at the Arizona Public Service Company/Arizona Nuclear Power Prospect
("APS/ANPP')
nuclear station near
- Phoenix, Arizona during the time period of 1.
September 29, 1991 to December 31, 1991 as an Instrument Control Palo Verde Technician at Unit-2.
accordance with Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization
- Act, 42 U.S.C.
55851
("Act"), and hereby files this complaint alleging violations of the Act pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 24.
JURISDICTION 1.
Under 42 U.S.C.
55851 and 29 C.F.R.
Part 24, the U.S.
II l
t I
3.
Respondents APS, ANPP, and TAG are complainant's employer under the Act.
TAG is a nuclear contractor to APS and provides contract labor to APS.
APS is one of several point'owners of the Palo Verde nuclear station.
APS is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC" ) licensee and manages the operation of Palo Verde on behalf of the joint owners who are also NRC licensees of Palo Verde.
4.
Respondent ANPP is an unincorporated association of the joint owners of Palo Verde whose members are NRC'licensees of Palo Verde.
ANPP oversees control of Palo Verde via budget and operation aspects.
- Thus, ANPP is an employer under the Act ~
FACTS 5.
During complainant's employment period at Palo Verde from September 29, 1991 to December 31, 1991 and subsequent to this time period, complainant has identified numerous nuclear safety concerns regarding operations of the Palo Verde nuclear station to APS and TAG management, the Palo Verde Employee Concerns
- Program, the NRC, and the media.
6.
On December 31,
- 1991, complainant's employment at Palo Verde was terminated while the employment of his coworkers continued at Unit-l.
7.
Complainant filed a discrimination complaint with the DOL and a
10 C.F.R.550.7 complainant with the NRC concerning his termination from Palo Verde.
8.
A DOL finding favorable to APS and TAG was appealed by the complainant and a 9-day hearing was held in Phoenix, Arizona before the Honorable Michael P. Lesniak. The hearing commenced on September 28, 1992 and concluded on October 6,
1992 during which time the
1
parties presented witness testimony and submitted documentary evidence into the record.
9.
On May 10,
- 1993, Judge Lesniak issued his Recommended Decision and Order
("RDO") holding that on the issue of liability only, I find for the Complainant, -Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. and against the Respondent, APS.
In the. case of Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. v. TAG, I find for the Respondent,
- TAG, and against the Complainant.
Subsequent to Judge Lesniak's May 10, 1993 RDO, the damages portion of the case was set for axial on January 24,.1994.
10.
Subsequent to Judge Lesniak's May 10, 1993
- RDO, complainant filed another complaint against APS/ANPP and TAG for a continuing violation of the Act in refusing to rehire complainant.
The case has been codified as 93-ERA-26 before the Honorable Clement J.
Kichuk and is awaiting a ruling on complainant's Motion for Appointment of Judge Lesniak by the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
11.
The NRC Office of Investigations
("OI") and the NRC Inspector General
("IG") have ongoing investigations regarding complainant's safety concerns at Palo Verde which include two petitions filed under 10 C.F.R. 52.206.
See Exhibit-1 attached hereto.
12.
On August 10, 1993, APS Executive Vice President Nuclear, I
Mr.
William F.
- Conway, constructed a letter to NRC Regional Administrator, Region V, Mr. Bobby H. Faulkenberry stating, in part, that:
"...On August 6, 1993, Kz. Warr1maz admitted to APS legal counsel that his testimony regarding his awareness of Mr.
Saporito's past activities and.
the reasons for not selecting Mr. Saporito were untruthful.
Mr. Warriner had
<<3 <<
previously stated that at the time of the employment
- decision, he had no knowledge that Mr. Saporito had raised safety concerns at either Palo Verde or other nuclear facilities.
He indicated that the basis for the employment decision related to certain gob requirements which Mr. Saporito did not fulfill.
Mr. Warriner now indicates that he learned of Mr. Saporito's protected activity from the Unit 2 IGC Supervisor, and that this was the motivating reason for Mr. Warriner's decision not to select Mr. Saporito...See Exhibit 2 attached hereto.
13.
On August 24, 1993, Judge Lesniak sent a letter to United States Attorney, the Honorable Janet Napolitano, stating, in part, that
"...I have reason to believe that two employees of Arizona Public Service Co. (APS), Steven Grove and Frank Warriner, may have committed per5ury in my courtroom on September 30, 1992 and October 5, 1992 respectively.
The proceeding was brought under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 by Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. and the liabilityportion of the trial was tried from September 28 - October 7,
1992 in Phoenix, Arizona..."See Exhibits 3 6 4 attached hereto.
14.
On August 31,
- 1993, U.S. Attorney for the District of
- Arizona, the Honorable Janet Napolitano, responded to Judge Lesniak's August 31, 1993 letter.
See Exhibits 5
& 6 attached hereto.
15.
Complainant's raising of nuclear safety allegations with APS, ANPP, TAG, NRC and the news media inclusive of his filingSection 210 and Section 211 complaints with the DOL is protected activity.
16.
At all times relevant hereto, respondents were fullyaware of complainant's protected activities.
17.
Complainant requested employment at the Palo Verde Unit-1 refueling outage in September of 1993 and was not hired by APS or TAG.
p V
Complainant believes that the APS Board of Directors, including the former NRC Chairman, Mr. Kenneth Carr along with APS President and Chief Operating Officer, O.
Mark DeMichele, APS Executive Vice President, Jaron Norberg, APS Executive Vice President, William F.
- Conway, APS Vice President of Nuclear Operations, James Levine, and other APS and TAG employees have previously and are now currently conspiring to discriminate against the complainant by refusing to rehire complainant at Palo Verde.
- Moreover, TAG has refused to rehire complainant at any of its client's facilities be it nuclear or non-nuclear since complainant's termination from Palo Verde on December 31, 1991 despite TAG's rehire comments on TAG's employee Change of -Status form on complainant.
See Exhibit 7.
18.
Complainant asserts that the above-described conduct and actions by respondents is in violation of Section 211 and severely chills complainant's
- right, and the rights of other Palo Verde employees, to identify nuclear safety concerns, to freely contact the NRC without fear of retaliation, and to engage in other activities protected by Section 211 and NRC regulations including 10 C.F.R. 550.7.
19.
Finally, complainant asserts that respondents'onduct is pervasive and an ongoing pattern and practice of a continuing retaliation by respondents against complainant in violation of Section 211 constituting a hostile work environment in violation of Section 211 at the Palo Verde nuclear station.
I l
l II II
~
~
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Complainant prays for the Secretary of Labor ("SOL") to provide him relief by ordering the following:
1.
that complainant be granted appropriate affirmative relief, including the ordering of respondents to post orders in the work place where employees gather informing them of their freedom to contact the NRC and prohibiting retaliation against employees for reporting safety concerns; 2.
that complainant be awarded attorneys fees and costs should he retain the services of an attorney in this matter; and 3.
that complainant be granted such further relief as the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate to obviate the pervasive chilling effect instilled at the Palo Verde nuclear station.
Respectfully submitted, Complainant pro se WA ~
Thomas J.
aport o, Jr Post Office Bo 3082 Boynton Beach, Florida 33424-3082 Please take notice that complainant is currently unemployed, homeless and destitute.
Therefore, complainant does not maintain a telephone machine or residential mailing address at this time.
cc:
Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.'C. 20500 David K. Colapinto, Esq.
Kohn. Kohn and Colapinto Attorneys at Law 517 Florida Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-1850
It Ij