ML17354A561

Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

ML17354A561
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point
Issue date:	05/11/1997
From:	Saporito T SAPORITO, T.J.
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML17354A562	List: ML17354A561 ML17354A563 ML17354A565
References
2.206, DD-97-20, NUDOCS 9707070336
Download: ML17354A561 (11)

Text

CATEGORY 2 REGULAT INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO ZSTEM (RIDS)

~ ~,

ACCEQSfdk NBR:9707070336 DOC.DATE: 97/05/ll NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:5b-'250 Turkey Point Plant, Unit 3, Florida Power and Light C 05000250 50-251 Turkey Point Plant, Unit 4, Florida Power and Light C 05000251 50-335 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, Florida Power & Light Co. 05000335 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, Florida Power 6 Light Co. 05000389 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION

~

SAPORITO,T.J. Saporito, T.J.

RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION THE CHAIRMAN Commissioners (Post 750119)

JACKSON,S.A Commissioners (Post 750119)

SUBJECT:

Informs that on 970423 petitioners submitted request for action by NRC against licensee "FPL" operators of St Lucie, units 1 2 & Turkey Point, units 3 a 4.

( +~A S

DISTRIBUTION CODE:'POZD COPIES RECEIVED:LTR i ENCL I SIZE:

TITLE: Direct Flow Distribution: 50 Docket (PDR Avail)

NOTES:

0 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL R INTERNA ILE CENTER -0 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1 EXTERNAL: NOAC 1 1 NRC PDR 1 1 D

0 E

N NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DZSTRIBUTZON LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEZVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 4 ENCL 4

yV' ~ ~

'I Fronr ll;.~ma d.crdrorco,>. Haaonal Ustgagon c tdaarsta Faut 4)41) 422 1241 vo)ea: l641) 422 1447 To: Hon.gNrteydadsaon acus. Ntdeaar RegtcasorF cornrrdaalon pago 4 or 4 gtrndarr tdrrtr11,1ggr 11 41 0 . ~ e>)

Al~o& ' NucEdur lfMlldblo~SPcelnlhar 6QO.West Irsdicgtovra Road, Sg) tc M$$ . JgPI ter. F)dtrtdg $ 34$ 8 VtdCC: ($ 6 I) 611 I667 Fgtldalg: ($6 I) 611.I14l OC I$6l) 744dlr6ls Igtgratt E44ll Rccctvcd at TS4$ 74BKLLSOI nIAK?

May 11, 1997 Hon. Shirley Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission White Flint Building Washington, D.C. 2055 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R2.206 REQUEST FOR AGENCY ACTION

Dear Chairman Jackson:

On April 23, 1997, National Litigation Consultants and Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.,

(hereinafter "Petitioners",) submitted a request for action by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") against its licensee Florida Power 8h Light Company ("FPL") operators of the St. Lucie nuclear station Units 1 and 2 ard the Turkey Point nuclear station Units 3 and 4.

Petitioners further support their April 23, 1997 petition seeking agency action with this supplemental petition which provides additional requests and grounds for agency action as stated below:

that the agency take enforcement action against the licensee's former Executive Vice President, Mr. Bill Conway, by imposition of a monitory civil penalty in the amount of $ 100,000 (Onc Hundred Thousand Dollars); and that the agency take enforcement action against the licensee's former Site Vice President at the Turkey Point nuclear station, Mr. John Odom, by imposition of a monitory civil penalty in the amount of $ 100,000 (One Hunched Thousand Dollars); and

3. that the agency take enforcement action agaitmt the licensee's former Maintenance Superindentcnt, Mr. Joseph Kappes, by imposition of a monitory civil penalty in the amount of 4100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars); and 97o707o>>~ 970~~go AOOCX aMo<~DR 0 Iflllllllllllillllflllllfllllllllllflll,'

toO)I- AW~

0 ~

1 lh

Fgon:. Thicoaa J. saoonco, Jc. Havana) IJ54adon consusancs Fax: 4)41) 422 12l1 Vo)cs: 5)41) 422 1447 To: How s)dnsy Jackson &LLs. Huksar su)acocy Can)ss)on F ass 4 ay 4 sunday, Hay 11,1447 11:2.

0 0 Hon. Shirley Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission Supplemental Petition 2.206 May 11. 1997 Page 2of5 that the agency refer thc subject matter and discriminatory conduct of Mr. Bill Conway, Mr. John Odom and Mr. Joseph Kappcs to the U.S Department of Justice ("DOJ") for consideration of invoking criminal'roceedings under the criminal penal code for violation of federal discrimination laws.

On May 9, 1997. thc complainant in an action filed under thc Energy Reorganization Act

("ERA") in a Department of Labor ("DOL") case codified 89-ERA47 and 17 (consolidated) submitted complainant's demand and itemization for damages, ("Damages Brief'=) to the DOL for consideration of a make whole remedy. Complaints filed under thc ERA statutes are compatible with NRC regulations found at 10 C.F34 S0.7 and constructed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended, 42 U.S.C: ss.201 1, ct. seq. ("Act").

The Damages Brief established the uiidcniablc fact that a "hostile work environment" existed at thc licensee's Turkey Point Nuclear Plant in 1988 and that thc complainant was subjected to retaliatory harassment, discrimuiation and discharge as a dimwit result of his having raised safety concerns to the licensee, to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators ("INPO") and to NRC regarding operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant at that time, ggDamages Brief at p.13-25.

The Damages Briefalso established that the licensee and its managers and supervisors arc liable for creating a hostile work environment and that the licensee and its managers failed to take gay actions to stop the retaliatory harassment and discrimination which culminated in the complainant's discharge from FPL in December of 1988 for raising safety concerns.

Damages Briefat p.25-29.

~

The record in that case is replete with evidence showing direct participation of FPL supervisory and managerial ofticials including thc site vice president of Turkey Point involved in incidents which form the basis of complainant's hostile work environment claim. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Mr. Conway was advised by Mr. Odom that complainant was going to be discharged in December of 1988. Further, complainant'e entire chain of command, (e.g. Mr.

Odom. Mr. Bladow, Mr. Kappes, Mr. Tonuiszewski, Mr. Harley, Mr. Willis, Mr. Koran and Mr.

0 Fmno Thotaoo J. SoPEN1o Jr, IIoSorgl USSoSoo CooouSomo Foo: S)61) 622 1261 Vo)oo: F)41) 622 1667 To: Hat ShIIoy Jockootl Q: US. Nu)os IIoouioOuy Comm)oo)oo Pooo 6 oI 6 Suoooy Iloy 11, 1QSy 11+,

Hon. Shirley Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supplemental Petition 2,206 May 11. 1997 Page 3 of 5 Boger) had some participation and involvement in the retaliatory actions taken against the complainant for his raising safety'oncerns.

The licensee was put on notice that the complainant felt hanissed and discriminated against by his maru)gers and supervisors at thc Turkey Point Nuclear Station because he raised safety concerns at that plant. However, the licensee failed to take any action tohalt the retaliatory harassment and discrimination taken against the complainant. In this particular case, it is extremely aigniTicant that liccnsec ofBcials responsible for. taking action to abate the discrimination actually participated in the harassment and discrimination. Mr. Odom in fact, hired three attorneys to interrogate the complainant about the substance of his DOL complaint and about his safety concerns. Mr. Kappes approached Mr. Odom in June 1988 in an attempt to have complainant fired for raising safety concerns. Numerous retaliatory actions taken against the complainant by his nun)agers and supervisors is fully detailed in the Damages Brief and need not be restated here.

NRC requirements under 10 C.F.R. 50.7 and the Employee Protection Provision of the Act provide that:

... no cmploycr subject to thc provision of the [the Act]... may discharge any employee .

or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee,...

engaged in any of the activities specified in subsection (b) below:

(b) Any person is dccmcd to have violated the particular federal law and these regulations if such person intimidates, threatens, restrains, cockles, blacklists.

discharges, or in any other manner discrimit)ates against any employee who has (l) commenced, or caused to bc commenced a proceeding under I the Act]

or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under such federal statute; (2) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding; or

From: ~omac g~,~. ccccron¹ Uroaaron cenaaaraa Fax: u 522 12c1 v¹co: IQlul22 1aFT To: Hare 214rloy Jackaon ac: Us. Nurcoor Roerrracly comr¹c¹on parr ~ 2 of 2 Srrnrray, icay11,1QQ7 11~

Hon. Shirley Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supplemental Petition 2206

'ay 11. 1997 Page 4 of 5 (3) assisted or participated, or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to cany out the puq2ose of [the Act].>

The Employee Protection Amendment to the Act is ranedial in nature and should bc broadly construed by the Secretary of Labor (SOL) and the courts.

Lghoz, 700 F.2d 281, 286 (6th Cir. 1983), The amendment was passed in order to help enforce

~

the ERA and protect public health and safety.

In passing the ERA, Congress intended on employees in the nuclear industry to assist in the enforcement of regulations to protect public health and safety. Sec.

~Sar, 800 F.2d 562, 565 (6th Cir. 1986) (J. Edwards concurring). In that matter, Justice Edwards expressed that Congress'ntent in passing the nuclear whistleblower protection provision, 42 U.S.C. 5851, was to "encourage employees" to report "unsafe practices in one of the most dangerous technologies majakiad has invented." Justice Edwards identified the broad remedial purpose behind the whistleblower protection provisions as follows:

... If employees are coerced and intimidated into remaining silent when they should speak out, the results can be catastrophic. Recent events here and around the world underscore the realization that such complicated and dangerous technology can never be safe without constant human vigihnce. The employee protection provision involved in this case thus serves the dual function of protecting both employees and the public &om dangerous radioactive substances....

i 800 F.2d at 565.

tThe relevant federal statute to this case is the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ss,2011, et. seq.

2Sac.. Congressional History of the Act at l 978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 7303.)

Fror.:21uunaa J sagorko Jr NasonalLNgasonconaukanta Fax $ 41)s221211 voko f41)s221557 To Non.shay Jackaon atUA NukaarRagurarorycommlaslon pagosots sururay Nay11 1SSF 11~

Hon. Shirley Jackson, Chairman

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supplemental Petition 2206 May l 1, 1997 Page 4 of 5 (3) assisted or participated, or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to cany out the purpose of [the Act].t The Employee Protection Amendmcnt to the Act is remedial in nature and should be

, broadly construed by the Secretary of Labor (SOL) and the courts. Sec.

45', 700 F.2d 281, 286 (6th Cir. 1983). The amendment was passed in order to help enforce the ERA and protect public health and safety.~

In passing the ERA, Congress intended on employees in the nuclear industry to assist in the enforcement of regulations to protect public health and safety. Su, afJ.abnz, 800 F.2d 562, 565 (6th Cir. 1986) (J. Edwards concurring). In that matter, Justice Edwards expressed that Congress'ntent in passing the nuclear whistleblower protection provision, 42 U.S.C. 5851, was to "encourage employees" to rcport "unsafe practices in one of the most dangerous technologies nuudcind has invented." Justice Edwards identified the broad remedial purpose behind the whistlcblower protection provisions as follows:

... If employees are coerced and intimidated into remaining silent when they should speak out, the results can be catastrophic.'ecent events herc and around the world underscore the realization that such complicated and dangerous technology can never be safe without constant human vigilance. The employee protection provision involved in this case thus serves the dual function of protecting both employees and the public from dangerous radioactive substances....

800 F.2d at 565.

'The relevant federal statute to this case is the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ss,2011, et. seq.

~~. Congressional History of the Act at 1978 U.S. Code Cong. Bc Ad. News 7303.)

0 ~'I Frona T)rerass*ssoorso Jr. Ns5onslLwssSonconsussrss Fax /01) s22 12a1 Y¹ce S)41) s221ssT To Hen shkfey Jargon m lls Nukesr &yxcofyconsssson Fsse2 ofs sunosy Ilsy11 Issl 11M

~

~

~

0 .. 0 Hon. Shirley Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supplemental Petition 2206 May 11, 1997 Page 5 of 5 WHEREFORE, Petitioners have estabhshed a basis for requesting agency action.

Petitioners hereby request that the NRC grant the requests delineated in their April 23, 1997 petition as supplemented in this supplemental petition under 10 C.F.R. 2206.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT'KD,this 11th day of May, 1997.

NATIONALLITIGATIONCONSULTANTS Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.

Executive Director cc: w/o attachment Hon. Bill Clinton, President Oscar DeMiranda, SAC United States of America U.S.N.R.C. Region Il The White House 101 Marietta St, NW, Suite 2900 1600 Pennsylvania AveNW Atlanta, GA 30323 Washington, D.C. 20500 Louis Reyes, Administrator cc: attachment U.S. N.R.C. Region 0 Camlyn Evans, Esq.

101 Marietta StNW, Suite 2900 U.S.N.R.C. Region 11 Atlanta, GA 30323 101 Marietta St., NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 General Media Distribution List (NLC)