ML17354B114
| ML17354B114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1998 |
| From: | Saporito T SAPORITO, T.J. |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17354B105 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9809290214 | |
| Download: ML17354B114 (7) | |
Text
National Litigation Consultants
~
~
Nuclear VYhistleblower Specialists 6230 W. Indiantown Rd., Ste. 7-355, Jupiter, FL 33458 Voice(561) 622-1667 Facsimile: (561) 7444615 Internet Email saporito@cmpnetmail.corn
@larch '29, 1998 Hon,.Shirley.Jackson, Chairman..
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission White Flint Building Washington, D.C.
20555 RE:
PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 REQUEST FOR AGENCY ACTION
Dear Chairman Jackson:
National Litigation Consultants
("NLC")., and its Executive
- Director, Thomas J.
- Saporito, Jr.,
(hereinafter "Petitioners" )
submit this petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 and in accordance with NRC regulations found at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations seeking certain and specific action by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC")
with respect to its licensee Florida Power
& Light Company
("FPL")
as described below:
that the NRC initiate actions to c'ause an investigation under 10 C.F.R.. 50.7 and 10 C.F.R. 50 and 42 U.S.C. to determine if a violation of NRC requirements occurred with respect to FPL employees John Giles; Jim Murphy; Charles Bogacki; seven instrument control specialists including one supervisor; and Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr.;
and 2.
that the NRC's investigation consider whether or not a
pervasive "hostile work environment" exists at the St.
This provision is contained in Subpart B, Section 2.206 of the NRC's regulations.
98092902i4 980914 PDR ADOCK 05000250 G
- << 'DR
Lucie and Turkey Point Nuclear Stations which dissuades employees from freely raising safety concerns to the NRC without fear of retaliation by FPL; and 3.
that the NRC's investigation consider whether or not FPL's settlement of John Giles'ection 211 complaint which apparently contains a confidentiality provision may directly or indirectly "chill" the licensee's work force by preventing licensee employees from gaining sufficient knowledge about the settlement agreement to determine if Section 211 can provide them with a
make-whole remedy if they elect to engage their rights Cinder thneigy 'Reorgani;zation Act ("ERA"); and that the NRC's investigation determine what, if any, actions by the NRC provided any measure of protection to licensee employees who felt that they were retaliated against by FPL for engaging in protected activities at the St.
Lucie or Turkey Point Nuclear Stations; and 5.
that the NRC's investigation determine whether the licensee'mployee concerns program is effective in encouraging employees to freely raise concerns without fear of discrimination or reprisal by the licensee; and 6.
that the NRC take immediate actions and initiatives to protect licensee employees from licensee reprisals for the employees having engaged in protected activities; and 7.
that the NRC conduct a
public hearing granting Petitioners leave to intervene for the purpose of assisting the NRC on behalf of the public in determining if a
violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7 has occurred at the licensee's nuclear stations.
Pursuant to Section
- 103, 161(i),
161(o) and 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of
- 1954, as
- amended, and the Commission' regulations in 10 C.F.R. 2.204 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, the NRC has authority to take the actions requested above.
The NRC has a duty under 10 C.F.R. 50 mandated by the United States Congress to insure public health and safety by keeping channels of communication open to allow employees to freely and CONFXDENTZALLY contact the agency with safety concerns without
fear of retaliation by the licensee.
In keeping with its duty, the NRC is required to provide licensee employees with protection from retaliation for. their engagement in protected activities.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 19.16 (1992),
(The name of any worker who requests an inspection "shall not appear in [the] copy fof the request provided to the licensee]
or on any record published, released or made available by the
[NRC]..
. ").
Therefore employees have a right to communicate confidentially with the NRC about their safety concerns.
There appears to be a
wide spread and pervasive "hostile work environment" at the St.
Lucie Nuclear Station as evidenced by complaints of retaliation from licensee employees in the operations department; the mechanical maintenance department; the instrument control department; and the health physics department.
Such a
cancer if left unchecked will engulf the entire nuclear station with a
severe chilling effect which significantly decreases the safety margins in the daily operation of the nuclear plant with adverse consequences to public health and safety.
Although Section 211 settlement agreements may provide the aggrieved employee with a compromised economic solution to his or her discrimination or retaliation, such agreements because of their confidentiality provisions, may necessarily "chill" the workforce.
Indeed, if employees were privy to the terms of such settlement agreements via plant posting requirements, then the employees would be encouraged to raise safety concerns believing that Section 211 would provide them protection from discrimination and retaliation by the licensee.
The uncertain circumstances and the secret nature of sealed settlement agreements undermines the effectiveness of Section 211 and 10 C.F.R. 50.7 in providing a free and open work environment which encourages employees to raise safety concerns.
On April 25,
- 1997, the DOL issued a
Recommended Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Cases with respect to Case Nos.
92-ERA-38 and 45 and 93-ERA-28 involving NRC licensee Houston Lighting and-Power Company.
Although the NRC was advised that discrimination and retaliation under 10 C.F.R. 50.7 occurred in early 1992,. the NRC failed to take any enforcement action; and instead engaged a "wait and see" posture until the DOL rendered a
decision in that case.
Since the case settled without a
- decision, the NRC apparently did not take any enforcement action against the licensee even though an NRC OI investigation determined that a violation of NRC requirements
- did, in fact, occur.
3
0 In Dec.
- 1988, the undersigned informed the NRC that he was being retaliated against by FPL an'd, in fact, discharged because he raised safety concerns to the NRC.
The NRC failed to conduct an investigation under 10 C.F.R. 50.7 insisting that they would wait for the DOL to issue a decision. It is now 10 years later and the case is still before the DOL and the NRC has yet to conduct an investigation! ~,
89-ERA-07 and 17 (consolidated).
On September 19,
- 1996, the NRC issued Houston Lighting and Power Company a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties
$200,000 with respect to DOL cases 93-ERA-016 and 95-ERA-004.
Here aga'in the NRC waited for the* DOL to make a
dec'sion before the agency took enforcement action.
- 5ep, EA 96-133 and 136.
On March 7,
- 1996, the NRC issued Arizona Public Service Company a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty
$ 100,000 (NRC Office of Investigations Report 5-93-023R)
EA 93-159.
That case involved discrimination against the undersigned for raising safety concerns at the Palo Verde Nuclear Station.
Although the violation occurred in late
- 1992, the NRC waited 4 years until the DOL made a decision to take any enforcement action against the licensee.
- Notably, the NRC stated to the licensee
- that, "Zn making this decision, the NRC is not disagreeing with the factual information APS provided nor with APS's statements about the effectiveness of the actions it has since taken to improve the environment at Palo Verde for employees to raise concerns.
- However, the violation is significant because it went undiscovered and uncorrected for more than 19 months, during which time the overall environment at Palo Verde for raising safety concerns was in need of substantial attention."
It doesn't take a rocket, scientist to figure out that the government being the
- NRC, failed to conduct an immediate 10 C.F.R. 50.7 investigation and failed to take swift enforcement action against APS. Instead, the NRC waited 19 months for the DOL to issue a decision before the NRC acted; and then the agency shifted the blame to the licensee APS for not reporting the violation for 19 months. It is simply incredible that the NRC violates its own Congressionally mandated duty to protect public health and safety by not conducting 10 C.F.R. 50.7 investigations and by not taking swift enforcement action against its licensees for violation of NRC requirements.
- Indeed, in this DOL Case No.
92-ERA-30, the NRC significantly contributed to the overall "hostile work environment" at the Palo Verde Nuclear Station by
not performing its duty. to protect licensee employees engaged in protected activities.
1996).
The purpose of the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of -1974, as amended
("ERA"),
42 U.S.C.A.
5851 (1981) and 10 C.F.R. 50.7 is to keep channels of communication
. open to the NRC to protect public health and safety.
Among other things, an employee is protected under the ERA and 10 C.F.R. 50.7 when he is "about to" report safety concerns to a government agency or another level of management.
Sto make complaints to the NRC protected activity).
The NRC has authority under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 and 10 C.F.R. 2.202 to grant Petitioners a public hearing with respect to the issues delineated in this petition.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 29th day of March, 1998 NATIONAL LITIGATION CONSULTANTS Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
Executive Director Hon. Bill Clinton, President United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW Washington, DC 20500 Inspector General Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20500 Hon.
Bob Graham United States Senator Post Office Box 3050 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
Clifford, Lyons
& Garde 1620 L. Street, NW, Suite 625 Washington, D.C. 20036-5631 Media David K. Colapinto, Esq.
- Kohn, Kohn
& Colapinto 3233 P Street, NW
. Washington, D.C.
20007 Hon. Connie Mack United States Senator Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.
20500
EDO FROM:
DUE: 05/07/98 EDO CONTROL: G980204 DOC DT: 03/30/98 FINAL REPLY:
DATE: 04/07/98 ASSIGNED TO:
NRR CONTACT:
Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
.National.Litigation'onsul'tants TO Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF
- Collins, NRR DESC:1 06 -- FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANYi LUCIE AND TURKEY POINT CRC NO: 98-0293 ROUTING:
Callan Thadani Thompson Norry Blaha Burns
- Reyes, RZZ Lieberman, OE
- Cyr, OGC
- Goldberg, OGC
- Gleaves, NRR NRR ACTION:
DRPE:Zwolinski NRR RECEIVED:
April 7, 1998 NRR ROUTING:
Collins/Hiraglia Boger Sheron Travers Roe Zimmerman NRR Mai lroom ACTION
'DUE TO ERR OIREC juR'S OFFlCF
~ ~
APER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
AUTHOR:
AFFILIATION:
ADDRESSEE:
LETTER DATE:
SUBJECT:
EDO THOMAS SAPORITO FLORIDA CHAIRMAN JACKSON Mar 30 98 FILE CODE:
PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 REQUEST FOR AGENCY ACTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET CRC-98-0293 LOGGING DATE: Apr 3
98 ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
Appropriate CHAIRMAN SPECIAL HANDLING: 2.206 CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
DATE DUE:
IGNATURE:
AFFILIATION:
DATE SIGNED:
EDO -- G980204