ML20087G579
| ML20087G579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, Vogtle, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1992 |
| From: | Saporito T SAPORITO, T.J. |
| To: | Pierce F LABOR, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087G564 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-94-380 NUDOCS 9508170116 | |
| Download: ML20087G579 (100) | |
Text
.
- p$ v y
May 8, 1992 t'TA' #3 -
&&4 y ara =
Mr. Franklin E. Pierce, Investigator gL4 '
United States Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division 1375 Peachtree Street, N.E. ,
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of 05-04-92, I am providing materials to your office for consideration insofaras they are relevant to my complaint against the Georgia Power Company (GPC),
Nuclear Support Services, Inc. (NSS), and Houston Lighting & Power (HLP).
I recently sent your office a copy of my amended complaint regarding the above to officially include HLP as party to this proceeding. In light of the amended complaint, HLP should be served notice of the complaint in accordance with DOL. regulations.
Although we briefly discussed the merits of the complaint over the telephone on 05-04-92, I would like to take this opportunity to address the critical issues in greater detail.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
- 1. On or about February 10, 1992. Complainant engaged in
" protected activities" by contacting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), regarding apparent violations of NRC requirements at the HLP South Texas Project (STP). HLP was well aware of Complainant's engagement in protected activities because Complainant provided HLP a copy of the petition..See enclosed to C.F.R.2.206 Detition.
- 2. On or about February 12, 1992, Complainant had further contact with the NRC and a meeting was arranged for February 18, 1992 in Arlington, TX. HLP was well aware of Complainant's engagement in protected activities because Mr. Gary Sanborne, NRC Enforcement Officer stated to Complainant that he would ask Mr.
D.P. Hall to attend the meeting. See enclosed complaint at once
- 3. Daraaraoh 2.
- 3. On or about February 21, 1992, Complainant's unescorted eccess to STP was revoked and HLP officials refused toSee state the enclosed reason for revoking Complainant's unescorted access.
comolaint at Dace 7. Daranraoh 2.
- 4. On or about February 28, 1992, Complainant accepted a position as'a Senior IAC technician with NSS at the GPC Vogtle 9508170116 950329 PDR FOIA SAPORIT94-3OO PDR d
n .-
l l
station. See enclosed amended complaint at oaae 2. Daraaraoh 2: 1 NSS emoloyment confirmation letter dated 02-28-92. j
- 5. On or about March 2, 1992, Complainant's employment at l the Yogtle station was terminated because of adverse comments made by a HLP manager against Complainant. See enclosed amended comolaint at osae 2. Daraaraohs 3.4: cane 3. 4. l
- 6. HLP proffers the business reason for revoking Complainant's unescorted access was ... the ommission of material l information from the forms submitted by you in support of your I request for unescorted access... See enclosed HLP letters of l March 4 8 26. 1992: Comolainant's ADoeal dated March 12. 1992.
- 7. A reasonable person need not expend a great deal of time ,
considering HLP's argument to reach a conclusion that HLP's l business reason is pretextual based on consideration of the !
following:
(a) HLP could have maintained Complainant's unescorted access because:
(i) Complainant voluntarily submitted additional information to HLP regarding the ommissions; (ii) Any information ommitted is not found to be adverse to Complainant's unescorted access; j l
(iii) HLP officials were already aware of the ommitted information; .
(iv) Complainant did Dat willfully a knowingly ommit any information which upon discovery could have adversely affected his unescorted access; (v) Complainant hurriedly completed the security documents which resulted in some ommissions, however, Complainant was new to the nuclear industry as a contractor employee and had no trouble obtaining unescorted access to the Palo Verde station by completing security forms with similar work history information. See security enclosures for HLP and Arizona Public j Service. l (vi) Of all the hundreds of other contractors at STP, was anyone else's unescorted access revoked for the same .
reasons cited for the Complainant? If so, did they engage in protected activities?
(vii) Has HLP been previously charged with other 42 U.S.C. 5851 violations?
(b) HLP could have continued Complainant's employment as an escorted contractor at STP.
(2)
2
'. ". HLP could have continue Complainant's employment in (c) a position outside the STP protected area. Thus, no unescorted access would be required.
- 8. HLP engaged in continuing discrimination and/or violation of 42 U.S.C. 5851 by blacklisting Complainant. A HLP manager provided NSS with adverse comments stating that Complainant was a security risk and a poor worker. These comments by HLP resulted in Complainant's employment termination at the Vogtle station.
- 9. NSS refused to continue Complainant's background investigation because of the adverse comments made by HLP and because HLP refused to provide NSS with the reason that HLP revoked Complainant's unescorted access at STP.
- 10. Georgia Power Company refused to employ Complainant, according to NNS manager Mr. Frank Koller, because of the HLP action of revoking Complainant's unescorted access and not providing a reason.
In light of the fact that Complainant is a nuclear whistleblower, ,
all three. Respondents have taken actions and measures to insure '
that Complainant is prevented a career in the nuclear industry to protect Respondents' financial interests from risk of civil penalties which might be levied by the NRC.
In the interest of public hes.lth & safety and as a matter of law, I request a favorable Wage & Hour Determination in this matter.
Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully, Th'om'as J. ,f cc: U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standard Administration 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room S-3502 Washington, D.C. 20210 Mr. Sam Perez, Investigator .
i U.S. Department of Labor l Wage and Hour Division 1 Post Office Box 809 Galveston, Texas 77553 l
1 1
(3) l
- . ~ . - . .
\
, Q:m '
&) y .l d
2320 Imaranch, naam 2100 - P'C gA -oW i
^
Houston, Tx. 77004 .j b : June 30, 1992 i
Houston Lighting & Omrtified No.: P 663 272155 -
Peer Otmpany South Texas Project Jtt'Dt: Betty Brown, N5070 i
P.O. Best 289 thosworth, Tx. 77483 -l Case No. 92 615 12203 l t
Dear Ms. Brown:
1 RE: Thcmas J. Saporito, Jr. vs. Houston Lighting & Power Campany j 1his letter is to notify you of tne results of our ocupliance actions in the atxwe case. As you know, Thcmas J. Saporito, Jr. filed a M = int with the 1
l j
Sacretary of Imbor under the Enugy Reorganizaiton Act on March 11,.1992._
A copy of the 7 =i*; 1 a copy of the Regulations, 29 GR Part 24; and a copy j of the pertinent section of the statuta' were furnished to you in a previous i lottar from this office. ,
our initial efforts to conciliate the matter did not result in a amitually . !
agraaahia settlanuwit. A fact-finding investigation was then ocnineted. This investigation involved two allegations: 3
- 1) That Mr. Saporito's wiescorted amaan was revoked har anea of , ,_ n.
in a pr* = +=d activity. _ ,
- 2) That k. Saporito was "blacklistad" for future employment because of <
statements made by Houston Lighting and Power Q:npany representative Rich . l DeLong. ;
i on allegation number 2, blacklisting, it is our conclusion that the allegations '
)
cannot be substantiated because Mr. Datong said only _that he would not rehire W. Sapacito.
On allegation number 1, revocation of unescorted amaan, . the weight of evidence to data indicates that Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. was a grotacted employee engaging in a protected activity within the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprise his conplaint. The following information wtad this determination.
Nr. Saporito's uriammrted amana was revoked soon after he contacted the Nuclear Regulatory hiamion =11 aging violations of NRC requirements.
In order to determine if Mr. Saporito was treato the same as others who had failed to diarinaa information, thirteen adjudicated onees were reviewed. Nina of the thirteen cases were for failure to disclose information. In only one case was amaan denied or revoked for failure T/T
/
- to dielr=a information on the Data Form. A review of the cases shows' a clear pattern of granting arv=am in almost every case den an 8=p1rvyee '
failed to dine 1naa information on the Data Form and the Screening Affidsvit.
his letter is rotification to you that the following actions are required to remedy the violation:
- 2) payment of interest on the atove.
- 3) the emniaMant's personnel resads to be expunged incitding any reference to the revocation of complainant's unescorted access.
I
- 4) the respondent to post copies of this order in its entirety throughout the respondent's South Texas Project Electric Generating Station to incitde but not be limited to: (a) all NRC bulletin boards, (b) all tulletin boards Ecsted with the NRC form 3, .(c) all enployee bulletin boards, (d) all bulletin toards in the Nuclear Supprt Center and (e) all bulletin boards throughout all the ntznerous trainire facilities and M1ritrgs around the station.
his letter is also notification to you that, if you wish to appeal the above firdings and remedy, you have a right to a formal hearing on the record. To exercise this right you must, within five (5) calmdar days of reipt of this l letter, file your request for a hearire by telegram to:
'Ihe Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of rahv 800 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-8002 Unless a 61agr== is received by the clief Adninistrative Iaw Jtdge within the five-day period, this notification of findings and r=adial action will becane the Final Order of the Secretary of Labor which must be i=n1-tad within 30 days. By copy of this letter, M2nas J. Saporito, Jr. is being advised of the determination arw! the right to a hearing. A copy of this letter ard emniaint have also been sent to the Otief A&ninistrative Law Jtdge. If you decide to request a hearing, it will be r-ory for you to send copies of the blagram to hann J. Sapacito, Jr. and to me at 2320 IaBranch, Room 2100, Ibustcn, Tr. 77004, (713) 750-1685. After I receive the copy of your request, appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made. If you have any questions, cb not hesitate to call me.
It should be mde clear to all parties that the U.S. Department of Labor does not represent any of the parties in a hearirg. We hearirg is an adversarial proceedire in which the parties will be allowed an cwx-tunity to present their evidence for the record. We Adninistrative Law Jtdge who conducts the hearire will issue a re.x.m=ww$ed decisicn to the Secretary based on the evidence, w
testimmy, and atWts presented by the parties at the hearing. 'Ihe Final On$er of the Secretary of Tahnr will then be issued after consideration of the Administrative Law Judge's rg.--+eM decision and the record developed at the hearing and will either provide for appropriate relief or dismiss the azrplaint.
Sincerely, Daniel K. Brown District Director oc: J. , Jr. Russell Wise, Allegations Omrdinator Enforosnent and Investigation Staff Nuclear Regulatory Otanission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Tx. 76011 Bill A. Belt, James C. White, Esq.
i Regional Adninistrator U.S. Department of raw ;
U.S. Department of Iator Regional Solicitor's Office s
Wage 1 bur Division Federal Bldg., Rocza 501 Federal Bldg., Roan 800 525 Griffin St.
525 Griffin St. Dallas, Tx. 75202 Dallas, Tx. 75202
'Ihe Chief Administrative law Judge U.S. Depart 2nent of rah,r 800 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-8002 -
l i
i
)
l l
l l
i l
s
n a
~ - - .
4 e UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
. OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION EMPLOYMENT STANDARD ADNINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ROOM S3502 200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.W.
. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210
)
In the Matter of: )
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1992
)
Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., )
Complainant, )
)
- v. ) <
) CASE NO.: 92-ERA- 45 Houston Lighting & Power, )
Respondent. )
)
QQNPLAINT Complainant, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., hereby submits his complaint of violations of the Employee Protection Provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
5851 (The Act).
Complainant was employed by the Respondent on January 13, 1992 through the contract services of SUN Technical Services located at 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 280, Mission Viejo, CA 92961 to work as an Instrument Control Technician at the Respondent's South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STPEGS),
located near Wadsworth, Texas.
. . , ]
, . ./ .
^
i l
Complainant was escorted as a visitor and worked as an ))
. Instrument Control Technician at STPEGS from January 13, 1992 to ,
l February 13, 1992. On February 14, 1992, the complainant was ]
granted unescorted access to STPEGS and issued a RED Picture Badge #1397 which allowed the Complainant to enter, work and ;
exit STPEGS. unescorted. On February 14, 1992, Complainant l
worked the day shift (08:00-16:30) as a RED badged and i
unescorted Instrument Control Technician at STPEGS. l On February 10, 1992, the Complainant contacted the Nuclear i Regulatory Commission (NRC) by submitting a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 which identified various violations of NRC requirements at STPEGS. A complete and accurate copy of the February 10, 1992, 10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition was mailed to Mr.
D.P. Hall, Group Vice President Nuclear at Houston Lighting and Power, STPEGS, Post Office Box 289, Wadsworth, Texas 77483. l Clearly, the Respondent was cognizant that the Complainant was engaged in a " Protected Activity"'. I On or about February 12, 1992, the Complainant was contacted by telephone at his residence located at M I
by'Mr. Gary F. Sanborn, Enforcement Officer with the NRC Region IV office. Mr. Sanborn arranged for the Complainant to meet with the NRC Region IV staff on February 18, 1992 at the NRC Region IV office in Arlington, Texas to enable positive recovery of investigative material and specific details of violations at STPEGS.
l l
l l
l
je ' - ..
,. i, I
i- '
j J !
1 . l t
Nr. Sanborn stated that he would contact Nr. D.p. Hall and i provide him an opportunity to attend this meeting.
Clearly the f Respondent was cognizant that Complainant was engaged in a
" Protected Activity".- {
On February 18, 1992, Complainant attended the NRC meeting i and identified various violations'of NRC requirements to the NRC- j staff. Mr. D.P. Hall did not attend the meeting of February 18, 1992 at the NRC Region IV office.
On February 20, 1992, only TWO DAYS after Complainant's meeting with the NRC, Complainant was told by Instrument Control Foreman, Chilis, that Complainant was required to meet with Mr. l Rick Cink at 12:30 pm in the Nuclear Support Center (NSC) building. I asked Mr. Chilis to identify Mr. Cink.- Mr. Chilis replied that Nr. Cink was with Speakout. ,
1 Complainant visited the NRC site resident's office and requested that the NRC Senior resident inspector, Mr. Joe Tapai, attend this meeting. Complainant informed the NRC that he felt threatened and intimidated by being forced to attend this meeting with Mr. Cink. The NRC initially agreed to attend the I
meeting but later refused to attend the meeting. Mr. Tapal contacted the NRC Region IV office to enable Complainar.t to clarify this issue.
While waiting for the NRC Region IV to return the call, a STpEGS employee entered the NRC office. Mr. Tapal looked at Complainant and asked if Complainant wanted to move to another
.', o t
.) .
. a r
room. Complainant replied _no, I don't care if we have this :
v
' discussion on si a in the Instrument Control shop because an
- employee has the right to speak ~ with the NRC. The STPEGS_ f employee had a short discussion with Mr. Tapia, looked at-the Complainant and left the office. ]
At this ' time, Complainant identified -to the NRC a willfull ,
falsification of safety related documents, failure'to follow :
procedures, and improper and inaccurate calibration of a safety j i related system, (boric acid level), at STpEGS.
Complainant attended the meeting with Mr. Cink, and was -j asked to disclose everything that Complainant had revealed to the NRC at the February 18, 1992 NRC meeting. Complainant put i l
Mr. Cink on notice that he was engaged in a " protected Activity" and that Mr. Cink was interfering in an active NRC investigation that the Complainant was participating in.
Complainant told Mr. Cink that because Mr. Hall did not accept the NRC's request to attend the meeting and since investigative material was provided to the NRC at the meeting, that specific investigative inforpation would not be provided.
1 Complainant offered to discuss with Mr. Hall, Mr. Cink and the-Director of Quality Assurance at STPEGS, numerous other issues which did not disclose NRC investigative material and which were discussed at the February 18, 1992 NRC meeting.
Mr. Cink stated that was fine and that he would try to arrange the meeting. Mr. Cink showed the Complainant a copy of 'l 1
4 i
l
c.
.)
l the February 10, 1992, 10 C.F.R. 2.206 stamped and dated as 1 l
received by the Respondent. . Hr. Cink stated that upper j
i
. management had dumped the~ document on his. desk. Mr. Cink asked if some.of the issues in the 10 C.F.R. 2.206 could be discussed l 1
.at the meeting. Complainant stated yes and Mr..Cink agreed to
. arrange for a meeting of Complainant, Mr. Hall, the Director of '
Quality Assurance and himself.
Complainant then informed Mr. Cink that Complainant had l Just informed the NRC of a Technical Specification violation at STPEGS concerning the safety related boric acid system.
Complainant informed Mr. Cink that the Foreman, Mr. . Springfield and the Craftsman, Mr. Duran, were both made aware of this concern.
Complainant returned to the Instrument Control shop at about 16:15 hours and was immediately informed by Mr.
Springfield that Complainant-must immediately report to Mr. Watt l l
Hinson of the Nuclear Security Department. ' Complainant asked
.Nr. Spring *1 eld who Mr. Hinson was and what the meeting was i about. Mr. Springfield replied that he didn't know.
I complainant notified Mr. Springfield that it was 15 min, from quitting time but Mr. Springfield stated that Complainant i must attend the meeting. Complainant stated that the meeting would require overtime payment. Mr. Springfield stated that he would not authorized any overtime payment but that Complainant must attend the meeting.
i
n, .s, ,
,$? : s .
?
i,'
U
' Complainant exited STpEGS and entered'the NSC'and met ~with Mr. Cink and Mr. Hinson. Mr. Hinson stated that he was now required to' conduct an interview with Complainant regarding his.
unescorted access to STpEGS. Mr. Hinson refused to state why the interview was required or who reques ed it, or if any STpEGS procedure required the interview.
' Complainant asked if the meeting was being video recorded ,
and Mr. Hinson stated "yes" it was. Complainant asked why Mr.
Hinson didn't reveal'.this fact at the onset of the meeting. Mr.
Hinson replied that he was eventually planning to mention it.
Complainant requested that the video recorder be turned off.
Mr. Hinson stated that he would have to check with his boss. ,
Mr. Hinson left and returned and stated that his boss had left
" for the day but that he (Mr. Hinson) turned the video recorder l l
off.
Mr. Hinson then insisted and required that Complainant sign and date a meeting / interview cons'ent form. Complainant was forced to comply and then the form was witnessed by Mr. Cink. .
Complainant then put Mr. Hinson on notice that Complainant was I
participating in an active investigation with the NRC concerning violations of NRC requirements at STpEGS. Complainant informed Mr. Hinson that his interview with Complainant was an attempt by Mr. Hinson to intimidate and threaten Complainant because of his participation in the active NRC investigation.
Complainant stated to Mr. Hinson that it was incredible !
l
'I i
l l
t
k we r[
f that this interview was required so very shortly af ter the i
Complainant met with the NRC in Arlington, Texas and immediately [
i after Complainant informed the NRC of yet another violation of
./ -
NRC requirements at STPEGS which. occurred a few hcurs ago i indicating willfull falsification of safety related documents. i Mr. Hinson smiled and said "what n'eeting" and then conducted the interview. The interview was very extensive and exceptionally i detailed lasting for at least 1 1/2 hours during which time the ;
i Complainant was not offered a break, food or drink. At the end f of the meeting, Mr. Hinson told the Complainant to report to work the next day at STPEGS as usual. ,
On February 21, 1992, Complainant reported to the STPEGS East Security Gate and was denied access to the station.
Complainant then entered the NRC resident inspector's office in the NSC. All of the NRC inspectors were out of town, therefore, ;
the Complainant notified the NRC Executive Director for l 1
Operation in Washington, D.C. tha't the Respondent had taken l discriminatory action against the Complainant who was actively engaged in " protected Activity".
I Complainant then called !!r. Frank Reed an Instrument Control manager, and informed Mr. Reed that Complainant's access to STPEGS had been denied and that Complainant was waiting further direction !n the NRC resident inspector's office. A couple of hours later, Complainant was called to a meeting with Mr. Sanchez, acting maintenance manager, Mr. Cirk of Speakout
.... . . - _ - . - . .- . . = .
... t j <
and Mr. D.W. Bohner of Speakout. l t
Mr. Sanches informed Complainant that his. unescorted access j
, to STPEGS had been revoked. Complainant asked why his access j.
had been revoked. Mr. Sanches stated that he didn't'know and- ;
that "...He didn't understand why the Complainant's access had ;
been revoked because he had security documents with him that !
i authorized and approved the Complainant's unescorted access to.
STpEGS..." Mr. Sanches stated that the matter could be appealed !
within 15 days and provided a form (STp 255 (01/90)) (Request For Appeal) to Complainant.
Complainant asked for a copy of the Administrative Procedure IP7.02Q Revision 10 dated 10-09-91 which provided I
instructions and explanations ~for utilizing the (STp 255) form. !
i Mr. Sanches refused to provide Complainant with a copy of the '
procedure. Complainant asked Mr. Sanches for a written statement explaining the specific reason (s)-that Complainant's access to STpEGS was revoked. Complainant explained that this inforsation was critical to enable Complainant the ability to Request an Appeal. Mr. Sanches refused to provide a' written I
statement specifing the reason (s) for denying the Complainant access to STpEGS.
Complainant informed Mr. Sanches, Mr. Cink and Mr. Bohner that Complainant was engaged in a " protected Activity" and that employment discrimination of revoking complainant's access'to STpEGS was illegal. Complainant then informed Mr. Sanchez that j
. . - . - - . , . - . . - . . . . - . . . - . - . - - , , , - _ . ~ ,,,,.,,-.,...-~.n . . .
. ./
the NRC was notified of a violation of NRC requirements at STpEGS. Mr. Sanches was notified of work performed on the boric acid level system which was safety related equipment and that a 7,
document was willfully falsified, procedures were not followed, and that the transmitter in the system was not accurately calibrated.
Mr. Sanchez was informed that the Foreman, Mr. Springfield, was apprized of this occurrence and that a brief discussion was held between the Complainant and Mr. Duran, the craftsman involved. Complainant requested that Mr. Sanchez arrange a meeting with the Quality Assurance Director, Mr. Hall, Mr. Cink, Mr. Springfield and Mr. Duran and that the original work package be provided at the meeting along with the implementing procedures.
Complainant explained that the meeting would provide everyone with an open and free discussion of the violations, why they occurred and how to prevent 'them from re-occurring by recognizing what occurred and by scheduling enhanced training.
Mr. Sanches refused to comply with the request.
I Complainant requested that Mr. Sanches arrange for the I
Complainant to obtain a whole body count and permit the Cosplainant to return his Security I.D. badge and parking permit to the Security Department. Mr. Sanches refused stating that Complainant was not authorized secess to STpEGS and would not be escorted on site ma a visitor.
_9
1
.j I
L -
j
- - .[ c .
j j
Complainant then went to the site cafeteria with Mr. Cink for lunch to provide Mr. Sanches another opportunity to allow
. Complainant access to STpEGS for a whole body count and to return a security badge and a parking permit. Mr. Sanches j failed to arranged for the whole body count, therefore, j
. I complainant left the site for home. !
Mr. Cink followed Complainant to Complainant's car in the l l
parking lot. Complainant told Mr. Cink that the falsification !
of the safety related work needed immediate attention. Mr Cink l replied, yes, I'd better hurry over there and get those work documents before Sanches does. j Complainant asserts that his denied ar, cess to STPEGS and i therefore his employment discrimination vs.s improper and illegal because it was motivated by and could not have happened but for l his open and notorious engagement in activities protected by the Act. 1 Complainant requests that the Department of Labor (DOL) j investigate the complaint pursuant to its authority as described !
in 29 C.F.R. part 24. FOR ALL THE REASONS CLAINED HEREIN AND ON !
i THE BASIS OF THE FULL EVIDENTIARY RECORD developed by the DOL f
. investigator, Complainant seeks a decision and order awarding him full back pay to include payment of the remaining balance of ]
1 a 1 year service agreement that SUN Technical Services has with- l the Respondent and other damages to which he is entitled, as. !
~
well as equitabic relief to insure that the actions of the I l
1 l
I J
.e .
9 Respondent are not deemed acceptable conduct by employers governed by the Act.
i I
Respectfully submitted, !
!f ~%
Tliona's g/ Spritopr. '
l I
l i
cc: James Taylor, Executive Director for Operation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Billie P. Garde, Esq. !
Hardy, Milutin & Johns )
Attorneys at Law I
500 Two Houston Center 900 Fannin at McKinney Houston, Texas 77010 I
l l
y el; +,
,. . (~ ,a
. Q t
,. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION ,
EMPLOYMENT STANDARD ADMINISTRATION ROOM S-3502, 200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.W. j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 [
)
In the Matter of: ) .
)
Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. ) DATE: MARCH 05, 1992 Complainant, )
- v. ) CASE NO.: 92-ERA- 4$I
)
Houston Lighting & Power Co., )
Respondent )
I ?
AMENDED COMPLAINT Complainant, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., hereby submits his L amended complaint of violations of the Employee Protection Provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended,-
42 U.S.C. 5851 (The Act).
Complainant was employed by the Respondent on January 13 1992 through the contract services of SUN Technical Services located at 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 280, Mission Viejo, CA 92961 to work as an Instrument Control Technician at the Respondent's South Texas Pr.-oject Electric Generating Station (STPEGS),
located near Wadsworth, Texas. j On February 18, 1992, the Complainant met with officials of ;
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region IV office in Arlington, Texas to discuss apparent violations of NRC TM ,
I
i sk -
l
.. )
/
- requirements at the STPEGS. Shortly thereafter, on February 21, 1992, the Respondent terminated the Complainant's employment by revoking the Complainant's unescorted access to STPEGS. Egg !
Complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Labor on February ~
- 24. 1992. ,
On February 28, 1992, the Complainant accepted a position ,
as a Senior I&C Technician with Nuclear Support Services. Inc.
(NSS), at the A.W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant I near Waynesboro, ,
Georgia. See attached NSS confirmation letter. j On 03-02-92, the Complainant reported for work at 06:30 hrs. at the Vogtle nuclear station. Complainant submitted to a t i
Fitness for Duty examination which consisted of drug screening I t
and alcohol testing. Complainant then completed a psychological ;
examination and was sent to Augusta, Georgia for a physical ,
examination. I During the physical examination, the Complainant was !
summoned to the telephone. The Complainant was informed by a NSS manager, Robert Goodwin, that there was a glitch in the i
Complainant's background investigation. The Complainant asked Mr. Goodwin what the glitch was about. Mr. Goodwin stated that he would have the NSS project Manager, Art Rutherford, call the !
Complainant right back. Note: Telephone number for Art i
Rutherford is 1-205-899-5156. ext. 2419.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Rutherford called the Complainant at'the doctor's office. Mr. Rutherford told the Complainant l
that there was a glitch in the Complainant's background l investigation and that he (Rutherford), informed the doctor to discontinue the Complainant's physical examination. Mr.
i
~ , . -.-. . .. - --- - - , ._ - - _ - ~ .
- i s
4 -}L.
g' :/ t
_- 1 '
-i
~
. Rutherford told Complainant that NSS was releasing the !
E i
complainant effective-immediately. .j The. Complainant asked Mr. Rutherford what the glitch in the l background investigation was.about. Mr.~ Rutherford told the ;
Complainant that a manager at the STpEGS said that the [
Complainant was a security risk. The Complainant asked Mr. {
Rutherford for the name of the STpEGS Manager who made the j i
comment. Mr. Rutherford told the Complainant.that the !
Complainant would have to speak with a NSS manager, Frank l
)
Koller, to recover the STpEGS. manager's name. l
/
The Complainant returned to his -hotel room and received _a ' !
telephone call from Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin told the l Complainant that the glitch in the background investigation had i been resolved'and that the Complainant should return to the doctor's office to complete the physical examination. The j Complainant told Mr. Goodwin that the Complainant would un-pack and return to the doctor's office. '.;
Shortly thereafter, Nr. Goodwin again called the ;
Complainant and told the Complainant that there was-another j glitch in the background investigation and not to return to the doctor's office. The Complainant asked Mr. Goodwin what the glitch in the background investigation was about. Mr. Goodwin told the Complainant to contact Mr. Koller for that information.
The Complainant contacted Mr. Koller and asked about the glitch in the background investigation. Mr. Koller told the-Complainant that NSS halted the background investigation because a developed reference, a supervisor at STpEGS, told Mr. Koller that the Complainant was a security risk. Mr. Koller told the
-s- l l
NL. ' ,i f '
f Complainant that the STPEGS supervisor told Mr. Koller that the Complainant's work performance was poor. t The Complainant asked Mr. Koller for the name of the STPEGS ,
supervisor who made the comments. Mr. Koller refused to release the name of the supervisor because the NSS Human Resources Manager, Brenda Acker, would not allow the release of the STpEGS supervisor's name to the Complainant.
The Complainant informed Mr. Koller that it appeared that the STPEGS, NSS and the Vogtle nuclear station were blacklisting the Complainant from working in the nuclear industry through- ,
illegal conduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. 5851. Complainant !
asked Mr. Koller why NSS halted the background investigation without even contacting any of the references and other ;
i employers that Complainant had provided to NSS.
Mr. Koller told the Complainant that NSS halted the j background investigation because of the comments received from the STpEGS supervisor. The Complainant informed Mr. Koller that i the Complainant had been granted unescorted access at the Palo i Verde nuclear station working as an I&C Technician during the Unit 2 refueling outage. ;
The complainant told Mr. Koller that the Complainant's work i performance at the Palo Verde nuclear station was excellent and, in fact, Mr. Isador Chavez, a palo Verde supervisor, specifically requested a copy of the Complainant's resume. Mr.
Chavez told the Complainant that he (Chaves), would personally bring the Complainant back to work the next Unit 2 refueling outage at Palo Verde.
The Complainant informed Mr. Koller that the Complainant
_4 I
%s . ;' ' ,
contacted the NRC to request an investigation of the blacklisting conduct by ATPEGS, NSS and the Vogtle nuclear station. The Complainant told Mr. Koller that the Complainant intended to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor.
(DOL), to initiate an investigation into the blacklisting Conduct.
Mr. Koller became very excited and told the Complainant that NSS would continue the background investigation by contacting the references which the Complainant listed on the NSS application. Mr. Koller told the Complainant to return home to Florida and to call him (Koller) in a couple of days.
On March 05, 1992, the Complainant contacted Mr. Koller at 1-800-338-7333. Mr. Koller told the Complainant that NSS had contacted the Vogtle nuclear station and that Vogtle's only concern was that the Complainant's unescorted access had been revoked at the STPEGS. Mr. Koller told the Complainant that NSS had sent a letter to STpEGS asking for the specific reason (s) for revoking the Complainant *s unescorted access at STpEGS.
Mr. Koller told the Complainant that a SUN Technical Services representative, Amy Sabatino, informed NSS that the Complainant had voluntarily quit the position at the STPEGS.
Mr. Koller told the Complainant that he (Koller), would contact the Complainant on 03-06-92 af ter further background checks were completed.
On 03-05-92, the Complainant contacted Ms. Sabatino at 1-714-582-1223 and asked Ms. Sabatino why she told NSS that the Complainant had voluntarily quit his position at the STPEGS ?
Ms. Sabatino told the Complainant that the SUN Technical
- l
- i l -
computer had that information keyed into its data base. Ms.
Sabatino would not released the name of the SUN Technical ;
employee who was responsible for updating the computer data base.
The Complainant informed Ms. Sabatino that his position at STPEGS was terminated by STPEGS when STPEGS officials revoked the Complainant's unescorted access to STPEGS shortly after the r Complainant met with NRC officials in Arlington, Texas concerning apparent violations of NRC requirements at the '
I Ns. Sabatino told the Complainant that she would correct the information in the SUN Technical computer data base, contact ;
Mr. Koller of NSS and advise him (Koller), of the error and follow-up this discussion with a written letter to the ,
Complainant from SUN Technical Services.
Complainant asserts that the Respondent's conduct of blacklisting the Complainant was improper and illegal because it was motivated by and could not have happened but for his open and notorious engagement in activities protected by the Act.
Complainant requests that the DOL investigate the amended complaint pursuant to its authority as described in 29 C.F.R. ,
Part 24. POR ALL THE REASONS CLAIMED HEREIN AND ON THE BASIS OF ,
THE FULL EVIDENTIARY RECORD developed by the DOL investigator, c Complainant seeks a decision and order awarding him full back ,
pay and reinstatement to his position as Senior I&C Technician I at the Vogtle nuclear station and other damages to which he is entitled, as well as equitable relief to insure that the actions of the Respondent are not deemed acceptable conduct by employers ;
i
~ __ _ _ _ _
~. Q t governed by the Act.
Respectfully submitted.
l J
l AA
~
Tho' mas J. A L= to. T_. J' I
cc: James Taylor, Executive Director for Operation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Billie P. Garde. Esq.
Hardy, Hilutin & Johns Attorneys at Law 500 Two Houston Center 909 Fannin at McKinney Houston, Texas 77010 l
)
i i
- f. N 7&:.;->,&m L-T
- * ~
~
,,s ,. ;.
.g - -
2320 Tanrarch, kxza 2100 Bauston, Tx. -77004 - - - - - - - -
'~ '
- - e gentch 11, -1992. ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . . . . . _ , _
... m:, -; -
- 1
' thomas J r. CerHfied No. P 663 272 539 Case No.: 92 615 12203 Dear Pk. aant'=ito -- - -- -- - - - - -
^
==
'this will acknowledge z==44 of your mel= ink against Booston f 4 and stasac Aompany, South 9mman Project =11-1narwininHmm of-theM '
-_3 - 1=i* ---- tammived in this nerieur-en . ~
- W',=*4m March 11 1992. Act (ERA). .Ecur - ~
L.:+
'h Act @ b Sun mmag Of IakI3r b w'siff -O== a'==' N """I S18~b - - ' - l r-.a1=i* abcart tha filina af tha ==1-4* and to.conrkr* an i
' :-f :--- )
-dnto-tha =1 hy=9-v4=1=Ha== #-- ;= '1y,..we are ymetabtag1emmatima-Inghting and Power Wny with a copy of your m=1=4nE and inf-*4rwt ------ "na !
the Mage and Bour Divimirri's I -- =4hilitias under this .Lar. We have e arr-in==ri a copy of the perHnant =+i" of the Act and a copy of W1=&i - '
29 CPR Part E4 for your infmam& inn- -
^
wii1
'ntis case has been assigned to San Perez idw== first =+4= In
-- and-h- m='==Mr -;- 'l * *1""anF #-- =?- - -
"1'*" 'J;eis is Int ===ih1a a factr 74 Ming inves*17&im util be err *v ted as iso 6m as "
- M maaihla. -If you have tw.-Umez evidama, plasse give it to our - .-
iho will em&a* you on tria saattar. If you have any goesHnne do not .
hanitate to call se at (713) 750-1682 or our retive at (409) 7554504.
Sincerely, .
Daniel K. Brown - - - ~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
District h -=
vnein e n e cc: Julio R. Agnilar, Dn--11 Wise, Alla=Fima Mnatrw-Supervising h enit=nt Enf w mh and InvegH7Hm Staff m,ustra LighHrrr & Power Cb. Pv'1an" Regniafary nr"4==i m ,
1 P.O. Bar 1545 611 Ryan Plaza Dr.,-skritm-1000 - ----- - - -
Ikauston, Tr. 77251 Arlington, Tr. 76011 James C. White, Esq. Bill A.. Belt, nary 4 mal M*ini*tratne U.S. Departwnt of T.= hew- U.S. Lagu J of T.nbrw-g naaimal An14r-4tnr*s Office Wage and Scazr Divinim 525 nriffin, Suite 501 525 nr-iffin, Rocxa 800 ral l ==, Tr. 75202 ralla=, et. 75202
.s e
.m..,gg g ._ ._ . ._..
- - e , esp.Q p e yn g%J&am 4 apsb e s e e ssapuheau.ame g e _ _ - - - __
_ _ - - - - - - - _ . _ . - . _ _ . - - - - - - _ . . _ . - . - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . - - _ _ . - . - - . - . . - , -- e -
.,y-'
~. - , .7, .
f6..
r ,. -
p.hg--v
,9 .- .
g - . . - -
2320 r Mr Room 2100
% g . 77004 ..- - ,. - -- - --
'~
. -m.cn n,-m2 - - '..---- _ _ _ _ - . .
- +, t .._ .
=
.. =y, -; *
'2homas J. ===rito, Jr. Omrtified Ib. P 663 272 539 4901 Misty Ians #402
. may City, m 77414 .
Case Eb.: 92 615 12203 4
l
Dear sk 4 Supori6:
. . 1
'this dll =+=r=1=Ap= roomipt of your 7 =i*1 mgmin=> Eamston Light:ing and EmmerAugusqr, sonth samms AM allegingda1=H- of the meegy I marmynnin=Han Act (MA). 1kmar _
1=4* zoomised in this attimmren~ ' ' -
m uch 11, 1992. ,
L. .:' . .. , .
e
~5be Act myr*== the W af Leber to =' Uf C. h sa m ma i n .4 h m .. . .
an=plai* about ths *i14== ate the aa-a =4* asalto. pmmkm* .
-^^t-an-i====Hg=Han
-^b
-into-tha = Hay =d-wi=1=H=== .
^ ty, .ee aun '
' and Pouer company dth a copy of your m aid and'4 Man ==ia==vd-y the unge and Bour Division's - ; -- N14tias under this laar, We huse
==-1==d a copy of the par *4==* section of the Act and a copy of n=g=1=H,mm, -
29 CFR Part 24 for your 4 ' "- .
'this conse bras been --i,- " to San Pemas duose first action dkI' $ b
~and asidsve-m'=='==n y " 5 p=*i 1===a6 themugh-
"N"- 'wm '
is not pn==ih1= a fachri=*ina i .J, ' '= dll be martw*=d'as isoin as pn==4h1=. -If you have further evidar==, plamme gise it.to == ===pn====+=Hmm idio wi.11 rr=*=+ you on this matter. If you have any er==Han= do act
^
hesitate to en11 ma at (713) 750-1682 cc our m-z - -tive at (409) ..*v" 7W3D4.
E ""'B1 Y, ~.
Danial E. Brown - - - - - - - - - --- ---
District Director- - ---
mw1 news cc: Julio R. R='41=v , Russell Wisa,111==*4== nnrdenntnr <
Supervising nw=iltant mfarmmer* and L.l_ 4a=Han Staff Baustonr ifHna & Pouar 00. Nuclear Bay 11=tary n==i== inn P.O. Best 1545 611 Ryan Plaza Dr.,-Smitur1000 - --- -
nr==Fe=r E 77251 Arlington, 'Dt. 76011 James C. ittite, Esq. Bill A.. Belt, Regional khainistrater U.S. Deparh==* of T.nhnr U.S. E-;--
- of Labor g nary 4=al Salie 4 tor's office Wage and Bour Division !
525 mmn, Suita 501 525 nriffin: Rocza 800 l nal 1 ==, 'Dc. 75202 nallan, % 75202 4
.....~.,.om.....-. , , _ _
s, *
- i. L -
it-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. )
Complainant, )
)
- v. 9 92'ggh',3)) ) CASE NO.: 92-ERA-GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Respondent, )
)
and . )
NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
Respondent,
' ))
)
and
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY )
Re s pondent,.,.
- )
)
AMENDED COMPLAINT Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 18.5 (e), Complainant, Pro Se, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr . -hereby submits his Amended Complaint of violations of the Employee Protection Provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C 5851 (The Act).
On or about March 03, 1992,, Respondent (HLP), Houston Lighting & Power Company, stated to Mr. Art Rutherford, Project Manager for Respondent (NSS), Nuclear Support Services, Inc., that Complainant was a security risk.
On or about March 03, 1992, Respondent (HLP), stated to Mr.
Frank Koller, Manager for Respondent (NSS), that Complainant was a security risk and that Complainant's work performance was poor.
On or about March 05, 1992, Mr. Koller told Complainant that NSS had contacted the Votgle nuclear station and that Vogtle's only concern was that Complainant's unescorted access at h
i l
Respondent's (HLP). South Texas Project (STP), had been revoked.
On or about April 03, 1992, Respondent (NSS), representative Mr. Frank Koller sent a letter to Complainant stating, in part, j that: ;
l
"...We were unable to get any information at all l from South Texas Project in reguard to your access revocation or denial. Without that information available a determination was made not to grant access to you at this time..." (sic)
Complainant asserts that the discriminatory conduct by all three (3), Respondents (GPC, NSS & HLP), of blacklisting the j complainant was improper and illegal because it was motivated by and could not have happened but for the Complainant's history of
,~ ;
open and notorious engagement in activities protected by the Act.
Complainant requests that the Department of Labor investigate the Amended Complaint pursuant to its authority as described in 29 C.F.R. 24 in the interest for the health and safety of the general public. j Respectfully submitted,
, [- - > m t/-- - - ~
_;m 4
Thomas J. Sap to, Jr.
lainan ro Se Dated this day of May, 1992 at Lake Worth, Florida.
cc: See Service eet (2) l l
-^
, ~. c h 7l:,,1 ' >. '< :i-i
. SERVICE SHEET i CASE NAME: THOHAS J. SAPORITO, JR. V. GEORGIA POWER !
p COMPANY AND NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. AND t
HOUSTON LIGHTING a POWER COMPANY ,
i CASE NO.: 92-ERA-l TITLE OF DOCUMENT: AMENDED COMPLAINT I hereby certify that a copy of.the foregoing document was sent to I the followin their last known addresses by methods indicated .
below on the ay of May, 1992. '
. P -
d - = -l Thomas J.(AIa g ito, M l Complainant,Wro Se REGULAR MAIL , REGULAR MAIL' .l Billie P. Garde. Esq. James Taylor, EDO Hardy, Milutin & Johns U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. .
500 Two Houston Center Washington, D.C. 20555 J 909 Fannin at McKinney Robert D. Martin, Administrator l Houston, Texas 77010 l Stewart Ebneter, Administrator Frank Pierce, Investigator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. U.S. Department of. Labor Region II Wage and Hour Division 101 Marietta St., N.W. #2900 1371 Peachtree St. , N.E. # 105 Atlanta, GA 30323 Atlanta,. Georgia 30367 .
Robert D. Martin, Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, #400 Arlington, Texas 76011 l
, l I
l
.y 9 m
Houston Lighting &_ Power Company _
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station W FM S21 g3 $ $ 0 $ @ N Wadsworth, TX $ a N I k l992 &I i L
NARRATIVE o ORA-REGION 'N o
Part 1 -
- Complainant Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., was employed by SUN Technical Services, a subcontractor of Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P)' at the South Texas Project - ;
Electric Generating Plant (STPEGS). South Texas Project is a nuclear powered electricity generating station and as such is subject to the Energy Reorganization
- Act (ERA)
The complainant was employed as an Instrument Control Technician from 01/13/92 until 02/20/92. While performing in this position he engaged in protected activities by contacting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by petition identifying various violations of NRC requirements; by meeting with NRC officials at NRC i Region IV offices to offer information/ details of violations; by identifying ,
a number of safety related items to an on-site NRC Inspector. l Mr. Saporito began employment at STP on 01/13/92 and was escorted as a visitor for approximately one month. The Data Form submitted by Mr. Saporito (See Exhibit C-29 through C-33) was reviewed by. Andrew Woods, Security Sr. Coordinator, who submitted a Request for Ad.judication on 02/03/92 based on information related to Mr. Saporito's credit / criminal / employment history (See Exhibit C-15 & D-7). Issues raised at this time were Mr. Saporito's suitability and trustworthiness. The data was reviewed by R.L. Balcomb, Mgr., Nuclear Security, and the' decision to grant unescorted access made on '02/11/92 (See Exhibit C-16 and C-17)
On 02/10/92 Mr. Saporito contacted the NRC by submitting a petition which identified violations of NRC requirements. A copy of said petition was mailed to Mr. D.P. Hall, Group Vice President Nuclear, at STPEGS, Wadsworth, Texas. On or about 02/12/92 Mr. Saporito was contacted by telephone at his residence by Gary Sanborn, NRC Enforcement Officer, who arranged a meeting with NRC Region IV staff on 02/18/92 at the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. Mr. Saporito attended the meeting and identified various viclations of NRC requirements.
W.J. Jump, Mgr., Nuclear Lice.w ing, requested assistance from legal counsel in providing examples of responses to the Petition filed by Mr. Saporito. Counsel provided Department of Labor documentation of litigation against Florida Power & -l Light and ATI (a Florida trade school) on 02/17/92 or 02/18/92. While reviewing-this data Mr. Jump noticed that Mr. Saporito was identified in the Department of Labor document provided by Counsel. He felt it was his responsibility to refer this information for evaluation and contacted Mr. W. Hinson, Mgr., Access Author-ization, on 02/20/92
{f
e
}
m Houston Lighting & Power Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station FM S21 Wadsworth, TX
?
Mr. Hinson conducted an interview with Mr. Saporito on 02/20/92. R.W. Cink, Sr.
Investigator / SPEAK 0UT, was also present. A Preliminary Interview Form was read and signed by Mr. Saporito. He was provided the Data Form and Screening Affidavit from his file and asked to verify they were the same forms initially submitted for unescorted access. He reviewed them and stated they were the same forms. He was asked to review the forms and determine if any requested information had not been answered Completely. He did so and provided Mr. Hinson with additional information (See Exhibit B-6, C-24).
Mr. Hinson then proceeded to interview Mr. Saporito over each area of the two forms.
As a result, he provided additional information in the employment and the litigation /
legal disputes and other areas (See Exhibits B-6, C-25). Upon completion of the interview he was advised the information provided would be made available to the Access Program Director (APD) who would make a decision on the continuation of his unescorted access.
Mr. R.L. Balcom, Mgr., Nuclear Security, made the determination to revoke Mr. Saporito's i unescorted access on 02/20/92 (See Exhibit C-22), l Mr. Saporito amended his complaint to include SUN Technical Services, Inc. on 04/24/92.
Mr. Saporito accepted a position as a Senior I&C Technician with Nuclear Support Services (NSS) at the Georgia Power Company Vogtle Station on or about 02/28/92. ;
In an attempt to conduct a background investigation NSS contacted Mr. Rich Delong, l Saporito's supervisor at STPEGS. Mr. DeLong made some unfavorable comments about him which cause Mr. Saporito to again amend his complaint on 05/04/92 alleging
" blacklisting" (See Exhibits B-3 E-2, E-3. E-7 & E-8).
Part 2-There were two issues being investigated: (1) Did HL&P discriminate against Mr. Saporito l by denying him unescorted access as a result of his engagement in protective activities, ,
and (2) Did a comment made by Mr. Rich DeLong to NSS constitute " blacklisting". l ITEM (1): AT issue is the firm's Nuclear Plant Access Authorization System (Inter- !
departmental Procedures IP-7.02Q Rev. No.10). Was Mr. Saporito treated the same as others who had failed to disclose information on the Data Form and the Screening ;
w 2
y l 4 l l
l Houston Lighting & Power Company j South Texas Project Electric Generating Station .
FM 521 Wadsworth, TX The Access Authorization System (See Exhibit F) was reviewed and the followirrg ,
should be noted: Under Title 8.0 Approval and Maintenance of Unescorted Access I it states that willful omission or falsification of material information !
submitted in support of employment s_ hall be considered in determining suitability i for unescorted access. Under Title 11.6 Contractor / Vendor / Utility Data Form, it I states "I certify that all information provided on this data form is correct and (
l understand any misstatement, misrepresentation or omission may constitute cause l for access denial. The Screening Affidavit contains the following statement "I understand that any misstatement, misrepresentation or omission on any documentation used to process unescorted access will_ constitute cause for denial of access at any time.
In order to determine if Mr. Saporito was treates the same as others who had failed to disclose information, thirteen (13) Njudicated cases were reviewed.
Of the thirteen, nine were for failure to di,close infonnation (See Exhibits G through 0).:The following information was ob'.ained from these adjudicated cases.
IL should be noted that cases can be adjudictted more than once based on new information received. Access is revoked when a person quits or is laid off.
Exhibit G- Question of character and reputation. Opened 08/28/89. Closed 08/29/89. i Decision: Continue access (See Exhibits G-1, G-3, G-20 G-24) j l
I Opened 10/30/897 Closed 11/ 9.
Decision: Access orize , individual to be interviewed on next visit (See Exhibits G-8, G-26, G-27) Employee's access was revoked on 05/14/91 due to bis death. (See Exhibit G-32) )
Exhibit H- Employee begins employment on 02/08/89 and is authorized access on 04/06/89.
Failed to disclose cha s on Data Form.
Opened 05/31/89. Closed 1/89.
ecision: Employee t site 06/19/89, employment terminated. Access revoked.
(See Exhibits H-5, H-29. H-30 H-33, H-35)
Employee back on site 01/08/90. Reinstated and authorized access on 01/31/90 Employee leaves site and access revoked on 09/07/90. (See Exhibit H-62)
Exhibit I- Employee begins employment on 03/22/84; request access on 01/09/89 and is granted access on 01/31/89. (See Exhibit 1-1)
Failed to disclose charges on Data Form.
Opened 05/31/89. Closed 06/07/89 Decision: Review after 1988 DW1 disposition s (See Exhibits I-7, 1-20, 1-22, 1-23, 1-32, 1-33)
Employee is part of R0F. Acess is revoked on 10/10/89 (See Exhibit I-34, 1-35) 3
}
n llouston Li hting 9 & Power Company South lexas Project Electric Generating Station FM b21 Wadsworth, TX Exhibit J- Employee begins employment and is authorized a'ccess on 03/17/89. .
(See Exhibit J-1) to disclose charges on Data Form.
Opened 05/31/89 Decision: on inue access until request is complete made on 06/30/89. Closed 08/16/89 Decision: Continue access. (See Exhibits J-4, J-20. J-21. J-22, J-25)
Employee terminated his employment on 10/20/89; access revoked on 10/20/89. '
(See Exhibit J-35)
Exhibit K- Failed to disclose discharged for cause on Data Fonn. Opened 08/08/89 Closed 08/16/89. Decision: Access Approved (See Exhibits K-1, K-2, K-3, )
K-5, K-6, K-10, K-21)
Employee terminated his employment on 10/16/89; access revoked on 10/16/89.
(See Exhibit K-29)
~x hibit L- Employee is granted access on 03/01/89. (See Exhibit L-1)
Failed to disclose charge on Data Form. FBI Rap Sheet disclosed one M 0pened 05/31/89 Closed 06/07/89.
Decision: Continued access (See Exhibit L-5, L-20, L-22, L-23, L-24)
Employee part of RQF and acess revoked on 09/11/89. (See Exhibit L-31) l Exhibit M- Employee begins employment on 02/14/89. Access 9 ranted on 03/20/891 (See Exhibit M-1)
Failed to disclose charges on Data Form opened 05/30/89. Closed 06/19/89. Decision: Continue access (See Exhibits M-5, M-18, M-19, M-20, M-21)
Employee part of ROF and access revoked on 02/14/92. (See Exhibit M-32)
Employee reapplies and is scheduled to start on'03/24/92 and a request for unescorted access is made on 03/20/92. Decision: Access denied on 04/20/92. (See Exhibits M-5, M-33, M-35 M-37, M-38, M-39, M-40, M-44) m.
4 l
i
i 3:r
.~
llouston Lighting & Power Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Hwy Sc1 Wadsworth, TX txhibit N- Employee is granted access on 02/27/89. (See Exhibit N-1)
- F iled to disclose charge on Data Form.
Opened 05/31/89. Closed 06/07/89. Decision: Continue access (See Exnibit N-5, n~20 N-28, N-29, N-35) tmployee part of R0F and access revoked on 08/12/89.
Exhibit 0- Employee began employment 02/07/89. Access granted on 04/06/89 (See Exhibit U-1)
Failed to disclose charge on Data Form. ,
Opened 05/31/89. Closed 06/30/89. Decision: Continue access. '
(See Exhibits 0-5,0-30,0-31,0-32,0-33,0-39,0-43)
Employee terminated his employment and access was revoked on 09/15/89. )
(See Exhibit 0-44)
Out of nine cases reviewed, only in one chse was the access denied / revoked due to i an employee's failure to disclose information on the Data Form. This af ter the employee had already worked for over three years and had been granted access on 03/20/89. In the rest of the cases, the access was granted or continued. In none of the cases was the access revoked within twenty-four hours of opening the case and af ter the employee was interviewed. These cases were selected at random and !
clearly shows a pattern of granting access in almost every case when an employee '
failed to disclose information on the vata Form and the Screening Affidavit. It can also be said that the pattern of granting access also demonstrates consideration in determining suitability for unescorted access is less than strict and relies more on the reviewer's subjectivity rather than objectivity.
HL&P officials were well aware of Mr. Saporito's protected activity prior to the adjudication of his file. Tne timeliness of the adjudication, the practice of l granting access to employees who failed to disclose infonnation coupled with the !
knowledge of his protected activity leads one to question the revoking of his access.
It is well documented that files are adjudicated periodically as new infonnation is received; however, the Access Authorization System is too vague when addressing the issues of denial / revocation of unescorted access. Cases are adjudicated without any ,
clear basis for the decisions rendered. As such the Investigator can only look at i patterns that develop as a result of the decisions rendered. it is the determination '
of the Investigator that the revocation of Mr. Saporito's unescorted access was a result of his engaging in a protected activity. 'lhe facts are clear the engagement in the protective activity was a factor in the adjudication of his file by HIAP i With resulted in the denial / revocation of his unescorted access. )
l 5
l j
w ,
- v
.i ;
Houston Lighting & Power Company 4
South Texas Project Generating Station Fm 521 Wadsworth, TX j ITEM (2): Mr. Saporito claims statements made by Mr. Rich DeLong constituted f ;
" blacklisting". l Mr. DeLong was interviewed and although he did say he would not rehire v ;
him, he stated no other derogatory infonnation was said about Mr. Saporito. l He stated he was briefed by Counsel and was well aware of Mr. Saporito's claim with the NRC. He stated the information given to Mr. Troy Conner of NSS was standard. He did say he told Mr. Conner it was his understanding l that the reason for Mr. Saporito being denied unescorted access was due !
to omission of information and referred Mr. Conner to Nuclear Security.
Mr. DeLong is no longer working at STPEGS. He left on or about 04/15/92 l and is presently employed at the Caroling ~ Power & Light Brunswick Plant. ,
It is the Investigator's detennination that the comments made by Mr. DeLong '
did not constitute " blacklisting". l The Investigator attempted to conciliate the matter but was not successful in doing.go. :
It is the Investigator's recommendation that Mr. Saporito be awarded the terms of f his request made in a letter dated 03/26/92. (See Exhibit A) !
i 06/25/92 -
,' l ;
?hh1&blf i Samuel D. Perez i investigator i
l i
i 4
I T =- - m_.---_a m-__- m
r-r-- ,'
s : ,
7/1&hz -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. I Claimant, CASE NO.: 92-ERj-00038 6c M,
- v. 9A CASE NO.: 92 615 12203 Georgia Power Company, Houston Lighting & Power Company, Nuclear Support Services, Inc.,
Respondents.
/
MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF HEARINGS COMES NOW, Thomas J. Saporito, Claimant pro se, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 18.11, 24.5(b), and Federal Rules for Civil- Procedure 42(a) and hereby submits a Motion for Consolidation of-Hearings in the above-styled case and states grounds in support of said motion that:
- 1. The same or %'ost,antia11y the same evidence is relevant and material to t.he issues in each case.
- 2. Claimant's o*iginal complaint filed on April 1, 1992, was amended en May 4, 1992, as a matter of right and as a matter of law pursuant to 29 C.F.P. 18.5(e) to include and capture Houston Lighting & Power Company. See wnclosed copy of Claimant's May 4, 1992, Amended Complaint.
- 3. The U.S. Department of Labor, Wage'and Hour Division Investigator, Mr. Franklin E. Pierce, was officially notified of discriminatory blacklisting conduct by Houston Lighting & Power Company and Claimant's request for DOL investigation along with a copy of Claimant's May 4, 1992, Amended Complaint. See enclosed copy of Claimant's May 4, 1992, Amended Complaint and May 8, 1992 letter to DOL Investigator, Mr. Franklin E. Pierce.
k..
- 4. DOL Investigator, Mr. Franklin E. Pierce, did, in fact, investigate and include Houston Lighting & Power Company in his investigation of Claimant's April 1, 1992, Complaint and May .
4, 1992, Amended Complaint. See enclosed' copy of Mr. Franklin E. ,
Pierce's June 4, 1992, investigative report.
- 5. Representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), initiated actions to review the facts and circumstances involving alleged " blacklisting" practices oy Houston Lighting &
Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and Nuclear Support Services, Inc. See enclosed copy of NRC March 11, 1992 letter to Claimant and Claimant's March 4, 1992 and March 14, 1992 letters to the NRC Region II. i
- 6. It is in the interests of .the public to consolidate these proceedings.
- 7. The issues, relevant evidence, and material facts involved in these proceedings cannot realistically be divorced i from the context of Claimant's engagement in protected activities -
and the " blacklisting" conduct of the Respondents'. See enclosed j copy of DOL Wage and Hour Determination Dated June 30, 1992, and referred to as Case No. 92 615 12203.
- 8. Claimant's case against Respondents' would be l
adversely affected if these proceeding are not consolidated.
- 9. Claimant is a pro se litigant in these matters now before the DOL and Claimant continues his search for counsel, however, Claimant is currently unemployed and in severe financial straits. Consolidation of these proceedings would somewhat ease the financial burden of Claimant.
i i
4 q -
I 10.
Failure to consolidate these proceedings would be prejudicial to Claimant giving Respondents' "two bites at the appls".
WHEREFORE, the " good cause" reasons stated herein, Claimant seeks relief from the court and prays for the court to grant Claimant's Motion for Consolidation of Hearings.
DATED this 16th day of July, 1992.
Respectfully submitted, y
Tho'ss~J. m po %o, Jef
- Claimant r I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent to the following at their last known addresses by means indicated below. ,
Reoular Mail:
Exoress Mai_l: -
Jesse P. Schaudies, Esq.
TROUTHAN SANDERS Honorable Clement J. Kichuk 600 Peachtree St., N.E. #5200 Administrative Law Judge Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 Office of Adm. Law Judges 101 N.E. Third Ave. , #500 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301 Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr.
KEEFER, WOOD, ALLEN & RAHAL The Chief Administrative 210 Walnut Street Law Judge Post Office Box 11963 U.S. Department of Labor Harrisburg, PA 17108 Tech World Building, #4148 800 K Street, N.W.
D. P. Hall, Group Vice Pres. Nuclear Washington, D.C. 20001 Houston Lighting & Power Company Post Office Box 408 Wadsworth, Texas 77483-0408 George Jenkins, Director
! Enforcement & Investigations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l U.S.N.R.C. Region II 101 Marietta St., N.W. #2900 _
, Atlanta, GA 30323 h
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - -
.; f' a :
U;O. Department of Labor 4thlor f Office of Administrative Law Judges f 'q.q?
3g % ,ci Iw]
..V Heritage Plaza. Suite 530 5 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metalrie, LA 70005 LD Jry [qi
- e (504) 589-6201 Date: August 7, 1992 ggg AUG y CASE NO. 92-ERA-45 #
ORA-REGION y IN THE MATTER OF .
i THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
Complainant J
-l
- v. ;
I HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Respondent ORDER CANCELLING HEARING Both complainant and respondent have filed motions to continue the hearing scheduled in this matter for August 12, 1992.
Complainant in his motion, expressly waives the time requirements for the issuance of a final order imposed by statute'and, for a variety of reasons, requests a continuance until January 1, 1993.
Inasmuch as both parties have shown good cause for a continuance, the hearing in this matter set for August 12, 1992, is cancelled. The parties shall, by motion filed on or before October 1, 1992, specify their respective preference as to the date and place of hearing together with the grounds ' in support thereof.
Each party shall also estimate the number of hours required to present his or its evidence at the hearing.
Oel k M -
QUENTIN P. MCCOLGIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated:
Metairie, A+0Y (/VfAs ouisiana QPMC:dqc i
Shi . -
. .. . . .r.. . , . < . . . .. . . . , ,,
r, .j~ >>
[ .; p , .
-:4 ' ..
' [-
W- ' AW576N BAKER & BOTTS -
ONE SMELL PLAZA t- - D A LLA S 940 LOutSIANA TELCPMONC:s7t3s 229-6234 NEWYOma. FACSINILC:lF134 229-1522 WASHf NGTON, O C HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-4995 tcLem fe-277e c
.m H 18,680 August 8,1992 (Saporito) o ?
Hon. Clement J. Kichuk
- Administrative Law Judge
- Office of Administrative Law Judges 101 N.E. Third Ave., #500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Case Nos. 92-ERA-00038 and 92-ERA 00045 ~
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed Opposition to Motion for Consolidation along with proposed Order in connection with the above-captioned cases.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours, Sm. \
L Chapman Smith LCS:93 Enclosure ec: . Hon. Quentin P. McCoglin Mr. Daniel K. Brown Mr. Thomas J. Saporito. Jr.
Mr. Bill A. Belt Mr. Russell Wise Mr. James White Administrator. DOL v Environmental Protection Agency ,
Deputy Associate Solicitor '
l
V., ,
' " 4 ;'
.' ,a .,.:_.
I l
TCAKER G' COTTS ;
n ,
I t !
y
~
p ..
' Hon. Clement J. Kichuk August 8.1992 l r
I.
i Deputy Associate Solicitor !
Mr. A. William Dahlberg -
Mr. Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr. !
L '
Mr. Bobbye Spears [
Regional Administration. EPA l Ms. Billie P. Garde - ,
l Director. Enforcement and Investigation :
Dftector. Office of Enforcement i Mr. Daniel W. Bremer !
Mr. Frank Koller ,
Mr. D. P. Hall l
l 1
l c
l I
i i
I LO361/0093/07QPO1 l
l l
I
t I
^
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ,
IN THE MATTER OF:
THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. S s !
Complainant S [
r S
V. 5 CASE NO. 92-ERA-00038 5 and NO. 92-ERA-00045 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S i 5
Respondent s
- OPPOSITION 10 MOTTON FOR CONSOLIDATION Respondent Housten Ilghting & Power Company ("HIAP") opposes the Motion for Consolidation filed by Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. in 92-ERA-00038. HIAP had no i
notice of any 210 complaint filed against it by Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. in connection with 92- ,
ERA-00038. HIAP was not permitted to participate in any investigation of such complaint l l
and received no notice of the Department of Labor determination of the complaint. HIAP is not properly a party to Case No. 92-ERA-00038 and consolidation with Case No. ,
92-ERA-00045 would be improper and highly prejudicial to HIAP.
l i
i I
i i
g tE361/0093/07P1101 !
l l
l l
- l
r, 3
- a. ;
r
, a .. J iD s s.
E
- Respectfully submitted, BAKER & BOTTS d
Ah-L Chapman Sinith L '
R -
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 (713) 229-1546 FAX: (713} 229-1522 Attorney for Housten Lighting .
& Power Company i l
i
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following people this m day of August,1992. ]
i Hon. Clement J. Kichuk Administrative law Judge Office of Administrative Law Judges 101 N.E. 'Iliird Ave., #500 Ft.12uderdale, FL 33301
_Mr. Quentin P. McColgin Adminie-:tive law Judge U.S. Departnent of I. abor Office of Administrative law Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metairie,IA 70005 Mr. Daniel K. Brown District Director j 2320 LaBranch, Room 2100 Houston, TX 77004 LD361/0093/07PB01 .
Mr. Thomas J. Sa orito, Jr.
Mr. Bill A. Belt U.S. Dept. of Labor Wage and Hour Division Federal Building, Room 800 525 Griffin St.
Dallas, TX 75202 P
Mr. Russell Wise Allegations Coordinator Enforcement and Investigation Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Mr. James White Regional Solicitor 525 Griffin St.
Suite 501 Dallas, TX 75202 Administrator Employment Standards Admin.
U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Room S-3502-FPB 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20210 Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20405 Deputy Associate Solicitor Division of Fair I2bor Stds.
Office of the Solicitor Room N-2716 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460 s
LD361/0093/07PB01 .
)
I h.,*' l l Mr. A. William Dahlberg l.
- President & CEO !
Georgia Power Compady 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308 i Mr. Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr. l Troutman Sanders 'l
'Nationsbank Plaza Suite 5200 600 Peachtreet Street, NE I
Atlanta, GA 30308 i
Mr. Bobbye Spears j
Regional Solicitor !
U.S. Department of I2bor }
1371 Peachtree Street !
Room 339 l Atlanta, GA 30367 :
Regional Administrator !
U.S. Environmental ;
Protection Agency 345 Courtland Street, NE -i Atlanta, GA 30365 Ms. Billie P. Garde Hardy, Milutin & Johns ,
500 Two Houston Center 909 Fannin at McKinney Houston, TX 77010 i
Director !
Enforcement and Investigation i Coordination Staff '
Region Il U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. ,
101 Marietta Street, NW ,
Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 IA361/0093/07PB01 .
+
=
l L. s. l
- - -' ' Director I
Office of Enforcement j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Washington, DC . 20555 Mr. Daniel W. Bremer i District Director Employment Standards Adm. ;
Wage and Hour Division '
1375 Peachtree Street, NE l
Suite 668 :
Atlanta, GA - 30367 j Mr. Frank Koller, Manager - i Nuclear Support Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 3120 Hershey, PA 17033 Mr. D. P. Hall i Group Vice President South Texas Project' l P. O.- Box 408 !
Wadsworth, TX 77483 @ 08 ;
1 4 L Chapman Sdlith 4
4 IA361/0093/07Pfl01 .
^
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR i
IN THE MATTER OF:
THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. S l s
Complainant s s ,
V. s CASE NO. 92-ERA-00045 !
S AND NO. 92-ERA-00038 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S S
Respondent S ORDER Respondent's Opposition to Motion for Consolidation having been considered, ;
i it is ordered that the Motion for Consolidation is hereby denied .
1 k
CLEMENT J. KICHUK Administrative Law Judge l
i i
J p.. ,. _. y e
- w. . ,
n, b
~
d .
o U.S. Department of Labor tNr gy Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza Suite 530 X kd 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metalrie, LA 70005 g h8 473 p.
(504)589-6201 Date: August 28, 1992 CASE NO. 92-ERA-38 92* ERA-45 W (Consolidated)
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
Complainant v.
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Respondent
- v. l l
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ,
Respondent l v.
NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
Respondent ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES FOR HEARING Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., who is the complainant in both the cases identified above moves to consolidate the cases for hearing which motion is opposed by the three named respondents. Stripped l of its procedural complications which are not relevant to the disposition of this motion, the two cases involve two causes of j action arising.out of two forms of alleged discriminatory conduct i each of which are alleged to violate 42 U.S.C. 55851(a). This l employee protection statute provides:
No employer, including a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or a subcontractor of a commission licensee or applicant, may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to l
J]/3-
4 j
>a .
I I
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee-(1) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; (2) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or; (3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended....
The first cause of action is the subject of complainant's first complaint which names Houston Lighting and Power Company (Houston Lighting) as the respondent. The allegation here is that complainant tras employed at Houston Lighting's facility located in i Texas Gnd that between February 10 and February 18, 1992, he '
brought various safety matters to the attention of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that as a result thereof, Houston Lighting terminated his employment. Complainant alleges that his acts of reporting safety matters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission constituted protected activity and that his discharge by Houston Lighting constituted discriminatory conduct in violation of the employee protection statute cited above. Complainant's three other complaints all go to a second cause of action alleging that Houston Lighting, Georgia Power Company and Nuclear Support Services, Inc., blacklisted complainant and that as a result of such blacklisting, complainant was denied a job which had been offered to him at Georgia Power's nuclear facility located in Georgia. This blacklisting by the named respondents is alleged to have been the result of complainant's protected activity and is also alleged to have violated the above quoted employee protection statute.
The procedural rules applicable to these proceedings contain specific provisions for consolidating hearings. The rule specifies:
When two are more hearings are to be held, and the same or substantially similar evidence is relevant and material to the matters at issue at each hearing, the Chief Adlainistrative Law Judge may, upon motion by any party or on his own or her own motion order that a consolidated hearing be conducted....
+
e w .
29 C.F.R. 524. 5 (b) ,
It is evident that in each of these cases, the same evidence will be presented to prove that complainant was engaged in protected activity. Thus, the consolidation of these cases for hearing is appropriate based on the rule criteria alone. Moreover, -
there is an additional basis for consolidating these hearings. If complainant prevails in both of these causes of action, the remedy granted in one will likely be a consideration in fashioning a ,
remedy in the other. Thus, the potential remedies may be ,
interdependent. For these combined reasons, the motion to consolidate is granted and the two cases identified hereinabove are ,
hereby consolidated for hearing.
G r u P.'f.MCCOLGIN QUENTIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated: a f~ 2S, /9 TL Metairie, Louisiana !
QPMC:dqc i
i i
)
9 t
x .
SERVICE SHEET Case Name: THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
Case No.: 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 Title of Document: ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES FOR HEARING A copy of the above document was sent to the following:
Thomas J. Sa r to, Jr. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 A. William Dahlberg President & CEO Georgia Power Company Regional Administrator 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. U.S. Environmental Protection Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Agency 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr., Esq. Deputy Associate Solicitor Troutman Sanders Division of Fair Labor Nationsbank Plaza Standards suite 5200 U. S. Depart. of Labor 600 Peachtree Street, NE Room N-2716 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210 Billie P. Garde, Esq.
Bobbye Spears Hardy, Milutin & Johns Regional Solicitor 500 Two Houston Center U. S. Depart. of Labor 909 Fannin at McKinney 1371 Peachtree Street Houston, TX 77010 Room 339 Atlanta, Georgia 30367 Director Region II Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Enployment Stan'dards Adm. Commission Wage and Hour Division 101 Marietta Street, NW U.S. Dept. of Labor Suite 2900 Room S-3502, FPB Atlanta, GA 30323 200 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, DC 20210
7 ~
2 DOT , [
1 Director Russell Wise I Office of Enforcement Allegations Coordinator - ,
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Enforcement & Investigation Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 760111 Daniel W. Bremer District Director Employment Standards Adm. James White, Esq. .
Wage & Hour Division Regional Solicitor !
1375 Peachtree Street, NE 525 Griffin St. t Suite 668 Suite 501
- Atlanta, GA 30367 Dallas, TX 75202 Frank Koller, Manager Reporting Service !
Nuclear Support Services, Inc.
- Post Office Box 3120 j Hershey, PA 17033 ;
4d h.[24Ag h DEBORAH Q. CUREAU D.P. Hall, Group Vice Pres.
Dated: Q44 r 1 f, / 9 9 'k ,
Nuclear Houston Lighting and !'
Power Company P. O. Box 408 Wadsworth, TX 77483-0408 l i
L. Chapman Smith, Esq. l Baker & Botts 910 Louisiana l Houston, TX 77002-4995 i
Daniel K. Brown District Director 2320 LaBranch '
Room 2100 Houston, TX 77004 Bill A. Belt U. S. Dept. of Labor Wage and Hour Division Federal Bldg., Room 800 525 Griffin St.
Dallas, TX 75202 i
, ,_.m. - -- . - . - . _ . _ .- . _ . - - _ . . . - _ - . _ . . . . _ . . . ..
- J.
..e
,, J.S. Department of Labor 4tnog . .
Office of Administrative I.aw Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 l@ 3 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. 35gf Metalrie, LA 70005 (504) 589-6201
-)k 4rnst '
i Date: September 8, 1992 ,
CASE NO. 93-ERA-38 922 ERA-45 (Consolidated)
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
Complainant v.
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Respondent v.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Respondent v.
NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
Respondent ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENA The Regional Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Region IV, has moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued upon him by ,
claimant. The asserted basis for this motion is that the subpoena j was not issued under lawful authority and that except for 1 information called for in the subpoena which has already been furnished to claimant, the documents called for are privileged.
l I
l b i
I
- 5/
..c?[ {
- c :
{
j
.There being.no response'to the motion filed and good cause i having been shown, the motion is granted and the subpoena is hereby j quashed. '
i W ~
~
QUENTIN P. RCCDLGIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 't Dated: nLlLM { l'Yf2J ,
Metairie, Louisiana j i
QPMC:dqc .
1 l
1 I
t l
f 9
4 r
i i
- - - - ~
-e .
SERVICE SHEET Case Name: THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
Case No.: 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 Title of Document: ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENA A copy of the above document was sent to the following:
to, Jr. Office of Enforcement and Corir11ance Monitoring Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 A. William Dahlberg President & CEO Georgia Power Company Regional Administrator 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. U.S. Environmental Protection Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Agency 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr., Esq. Deputy Associate Solicitor Troutman Sanders Division of Fair Labor Nationsbank Plaza Standards '
Suite 5200 U. S. Depart, of Labor 600 Peachtree Street, NE Room N-2716 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210 j Billie P. Garde, Esq.
Bobbye Spears Hardy, Milutin & Johns Regional Solicitor 500 Two Houston Center ,
U. S. Depart. of Labor 909 Fannin at McKinney 1 1371 Peachtree Street Houston, TX 77010 Room 339 Atlanta, Georgia 30367 l 1
Director l Region II Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Employment Standards Adm. Cormission Wage and Hour Division 101 Marietta Street, NW U.S. Dept. of Labor Suite 2900 Room S-3502, FPB Atlanta, GA 30323 200 Constitution Ave, NW l Washington, DC 20210 l I
e Director Russell Wise Office of Enforcement Allegations Coordinator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Enforcement & Investigation Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 760111 Daniel W. Bremer District Director Employment Standards Adm. James White, Esq.
Wage & Hour Division Regional Solicitor 1375 Peachtree Street, NE 525 Griffin St.
Suite 668 Suite 501 Atlanta, GA 30367 Dallas, TX 75202 Frank Koller, Manager Reporting Service Nuclear Support Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 3120 Hershey, PA 17033 hlACAYk W UEBORAH Q. CUREAU Dated:} Q g, /%g 1 D.P. Hall, Group Vice Pres. /
Nuclear Houston Lighting and l Power Company 1 P. O. Box 408 i Wadsworth, TX 77483-0408 l L. Chapman Smith, Esq.
Baker & Botts j 910 Louisiana l
)
Houston, TX 77002-4995 l
Daniel K. Brown District Director 2320 LaBranch Room 2100 Houston, TX 77004 l
Bill A, Belt U. S. Dept. of Labor Wage and Hour Division Federal Bldg., Room 800 525 Griffin St.
Dallas, TX 75202
~
j .
4 f
BAKER & BOTTS -
-AustlN ONE SHELL PLAZA DALLAS 980 LOulSsANA TELEPHONCf7:31 2 29-12 3 A New v0Rn FAcstMILE (713 329-1522
- ASM NotON,o c HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-4995 ftLEx re-277s i
H-18,680 September 11,1992 l
Hon. Quentin P. McColgin '
Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of Labor --
Office of Administrative Law Judges ;
Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 ,
111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. -
MAairie, LA 70005 Re: Thomas J. ' o, Jr. . Houston Lighting & Power Company Case . 92-ERA-45 Encl d ple ouston Ughting & Power Company's Responses to Claimant's Request for terrogatories and Production of Documents and Responses to ,
Claimant's Request for Admissions in connection with the above-captioned matter.
Appropriate service has been made on all parties.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Very truly yours, fr Ross E. Cockburn REC:93 Enclosures cc: Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. (Cert. RRR - 797 679 018)
Mr. Russell Wise Mr. Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr.
Mr. Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr.
LD361/0093/07AZ01 d l/f
4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN THE MATTER OF:
THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. S S
Complainant S S
V. S CASE NO. 92-ERA-45 S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S 9
Respondent s HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO CLAIMANT'S REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS e
TO: Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., pro se, COMES NOW Houston Ughting & Power Company and responds to C1mimant's (sic) Request for Admiuions as follows on the attached pages.
Rep # illy submitted, BAKER & BOTIS L Chapman Smith Ross E. Cockburn !
l 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 (713) 229-1546 ,
FAX: (713) 229-1522 l 1
Attorneys for Houston Ughting l
& Power Company Lt075/WP2/03VBC ,
CERTIFICA'm OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed ,
to the following people this day of September,1992.
Mr. Quentin P. McColgin Administrative law Judge U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70005
~ y gg g ~.
' Allegations Coordinator Enforcement and Investigation
' Staff 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000
_ _ _,J Mr. Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr. .
Troutman Sanders Nationsbank Plaza v Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308 i 2
Mr. Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr.
Reefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal !
210 Walnut Street l P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 I
L Chapman Smith Lton/wr22/03 vat 2 1
~
e y
as oONSES TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS :
i
~
General Obiections ,
Houston Ilghting & Power Company-objects ~ to naimant's Request for Admissions to the extent that this request seeks documents which are subject to.the-l attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege, or were prepared in anticipation of this '
D ese action by or for HLAP's representatives (including counsel and consultants).
privileges are claimed as to the followmg classes of documents: .
all personal notes, memoranda, or other documents generated by - _
a.
Respondent's counsel, or their representatives, in anticipation of this l litigation and/or in the prosecution, investigation or trial preparation of this action; .
j
- b. 'any written communications between Respondent and its current or '
8 previous counsel, concerning the subject of said counsel's -
representation;
- c. all documents prepared by Respondent at the request of its counsel or representatives of its counsel for the. purpose of facilitating the rendering of legal service in the litigation of this action;
- d. all documents prepared by Respondent, its attorneys, or attorneys' representatives, agents, or other agents after the events which form the basis of this action, for the use of Respondents counsel concerning the subject matter of this action.
Without waiving these objections, and subject to further objections as stated in the response to each item, Respondent Houston IJghting & Power C~'===y responds to risimant's Request for Ahnimaions. Because many of the requests are in the past tense but do not specify a particular time period, HL&P admits or denies these requests based on the state of facts existing at the time Cimimant's access to STP was denied, unless otherwise indim*ad later time periods are irrelevant to the single issue in this case -
HL&P's motivation for its revocation of Complainant's access.
- 1. Respondent is an employer defined within the meaning of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as Amended 42 U.S.C. 5851 (the Act).
Rassesse: Admit L1075/wr22/mys12 . .
i l
- 2. Gaimant was an employee defined within the meaning of the Energy '
Reorganization Act of 1974 as Amended 42 U.S.C. 5851 (the Act). l i
Resnonse: Admit
- 3. Claimant was discharged or otherwise disenminated against with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. l I
Response: Denied )
j
- 4. Claimant engaged in " protected activity" prior to his employment with Respondent in any capacity. !
Response: Respondent never employed Complainant. Subject to this clarification, HLAP ,,
admits that Complainant engaged in " protected activity" prior to his ,
employment with SUN Technical. ;
Oniment engaged in " protected activity" during his employment with l 8 5. !
Respondent in any capacity.
Response: Respondent never employed Complainant. "
Subject to this clanfication, HLAP )
admits that Complainant engaged in , protected activity" during his employment with SUN Technical.
j
- 6. Respondent knew, had knowledge or became aware that Onimant j
engaged in protected activity prior to his employment with Respondent in any capacity. i HLAP objects to this request as vague and ambiguous. HIAP further objects l Rasmonse: ,
that Complainant was never employed with Respondent. Subject to these j objections, HLAP admits that certain HLAP personnel had knowledge of I Complainant's involvement in an NRC investigation regarding Turkey Point when HL&P initially granted Compiminant's umted acmss. HIAP I
l
} personnel initially obtained such knowledge from a documents prepared by Complainant.
- 7. Respondent knew, had knowledge or became aware that Onimant engaged in protected activity during his employment with Respondent in any capac Rasnonse:
HLAP objects that Complainant was never employed with Respondent.
Subject to this objection, HLAP admits that certain HIAP personnel were j aware that Complainant had filed a 10 CFR S 2.206 petition. \
l L1075/WP22/03VB12 I
_l
i 1
1 r
),
Gaimant suffered retaliation and was, in fact, denied access to the .!
- 8. I South Texas Nuclear Generating Station (STP). as a contract I&C te^aM== and that the retaliation and plant access denial was. motivated, at least in nart. by the Gaimant's engaging in protected activity prior to his employment with Respondent in any capacity. l l
Response: Denied l
- 9. Onimant suffered retaliation and was, in fact, denied access to the '
South Texas Nuclear Generating Station (STP), as a contract I&C technician and that the '
retaliation and plant access denial was motivated, at least in part. by the Onimant's ,
engaging in protected activity dang, his employment with Respondent in any capacity.
Response: Denied
~~
- 10. Onimant was quahfied to work at the STP nuclear station as a contract I&C technician. t Rafnense: Denied in that Complainant was not "quali6ed" by reason of his inability to j
retain unescorted access and his omission of material information on his clearance documents. I
- 11. Omi==nt possessed 6 eld experience in the nuclear industry qualifying him as an I&C technician.
1 Response: Admit that a review of Complainant's resumd indicates he possessed 6 eld l experience in the nuclear industry as an I&C technician.
- 12. Oniment possessed bench testing experience in the nuclear industry qualifying him as an I&C technician.
Rasponse: Admit that a review of Comp 1minant's resumd indicates he possessed bench testing experience in the nuclear industry.
- 13. Maimant possessed pneumatic experience in the nuclear industry qualifying him as an I&C technician.
Basponse: Aamit that a review of Complainant's resumd indicates he possessed pneumatic experience in the nuclear industry.
- 14. Onimant possessed the job requirements, education, training, and l
experience specifications and requirements to obtain the position of contract I&C technic in accordance with the labor contract that Respondent had with SUN Technical Services.
l L1075/WP22/03VB12
l i
i i
)
-. 1 Resnonse: Denied as to Complainant's ability to meet the job requirement of obtaining ;
and retaining unescorted access necessary for the performance of the job, l otherwise admit based on information in Complainant's resumd. ~
1
.j
- 15. Claimant possessed the requirements of the STP nuclear station's FSAR and/or contractual terms of Respondent's Labor Agreement with SUN Technical Services, l i
for a contract I&C technician position.
i Response: Denied as to Complainant's ability to obtain and retain the unescorted access ;
necessary to perform the duties of an I&C Technician. A review of Complainant's resumd indicates he could satisfy other requirements.
- 16. Claimant possessed the requirements for a qualiS*d contract I&C -
technician per the STP nuclear station's technical specifications, UPFSAR's and/or station _
trainmg requirements.
Response: Denied as to Complainant's ability to obtain and retain the v=mrted access 8 necessary to perform the duties of a IAC Technician. HLkP denies that Complamant obtained any certification speci5c to STP.-
- 17. Mai==nt met the requirements of ANSI-ANS 3.1 - 1978 Paragraph 4.5.2, Ievel II, IAC technician.
Response: Admit that a review of Complainant's resumd indicates he could meet these requirements.
- 10. Respondent's labor contract with SUN Technical Services, sets forth, establishes, and describes in detail the job requirements for the position of contract I&C-technician at the STP nuclear station.
Response: HLAP admits that the contract provides general descriptions of job categories as well as requirements that contractor personnel possess the ability to obtain unescorted access and meet trustworthiness standards. Additionally, the contract, by reference, requires compliance with the STP access authorization Program.
- 19. Claimant was at some time during his employment at Respondent's STP nuclear station granted " unescorted access" to the STP nuclear station.
Response: Admit that Complainant was initially granted unescotted access based on paperwork he provided which contained omissions /falsi6 cations.
1.1075/wr22/03vst2
+
- . - - - - - - - -- - . - - -_ ~-
. i s s l
1
/ !
l.i
- 20. Gaimant's access to the STP nuclear station was revoked shortly after Onimant contacted Nuclear Regulatory Comminion (NRC), officials regarding concerns at the STP nuclear station. f Rasponna: Admit that after discovery of, and investigation into, Naal=ia=~'s omissions ;
of material information in his access daaimants, STP revoked his unesconed access on or about February 20,1992.
j
- 21. Senior HIAP executive management were made aware or became i
aware that Onimant contacted NRC officials concerning operations at the STP nuclear station.
Rasmonse: Object to this request t.s vague as to " Senior." For further answer to this -
i request, Respondent directs Complainant to the daa==ar produced in answer _,
i to Interrogatory No. 8 which provides information as to the identities and !
extent of knowledge sought in this request. HIAP executive management was
" aware of the 10 CFR 2.206 petition filed by Complainant, but not of any other l 8 contacts Complainant may have had with NRC personnel
- 22. On or about June 1,1992, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50498/92 07; 50 499/92 07), to the STP nuclear station for violatio q of NRC requirements at the STP nuclear station. ,
L Rassonne: HLkP objects to this request as irrelevant. The events relevant to this action occurred many months prior to June 1,1992, and thus any events on or after this'date are irrelevant and immaterial. Subject to this objection, admitted.
- 23. 'Ibe violations issued to the STP nuclear station were security violations previously identified to the NRC by the Onimant.
Rasmonse: HLkP objects to this request as irrelevant. 'Ihe events relevant to this action occurred many months prior to June 1,1992, and thus any events on or after this date are irrelevant and immaterial. Subject to this objection, HIAP can neither admit nor deny this allegation because it was not a party to discussions between Complainant and the NRC, and as of the time CWaia=at's access to STP was , denied, was unaware that Complainant had mmmunicated any safety concerns with the NRC other than those in the 2.206 petition. HIAP denies that the subsequent violations were identi6ed in the 2.206 petition.
- 24. The violations issued to the STP nuclear station were security violations previously identified to STP management by the Onimant.
Basmonse: Denied
-7 L1075/wr22/asvan
- -- . . , - . - ~ . - + n , . ~- .. .. - -- ..- - ..
h f
- t J
(
~
- 25. On June 30,1992, the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, issued a determination favorable to Claimant stating, in part, that:". Mr. Saporito's ,
unescorted access was revoked because of engagement in a protected activity..".
Rasponse: Admit that the Department of Labor issued the finding as ' quoted above, STP's appeal of which forms the basis for this action. The Wage and Hour l Division also detertnined that HIAP had not " blacklisted" Mr. Saporito. j
~ i'
- 26. Respondent by and through counsel of BAKER & BOTIS, filed a
- timely appeal within (5) Sve days of receipt of the DOL's June 30,1992, determination seeking a hearmg in the matter. l Admit that Baker & Botts filed an appeal to that portion of the Director's ' I Response: ~
decision that was not in HIAP's favor. l i
l'
- 27. Respondent agreed to a one year contract with Claimant through the naimant to cgtract labor agreement Respondent had with SUN Technical Services for t work at the STP nuclear station as a contract I&C technician. .. ;
Rannonse: Denied i
- 28. Claimant was employed at the STP nuclear station as a contact I&C y technician with " escorted" access to the STP facility during the time period of January 13, 1992, to about February 13, 1992.
Response: Admit :
n,imant was given " unescorted" access to the STP facility on or 29.
about February 14, 1992.
I Basponse: Admit that CWaiamat was granted unescorted access during this general I time frame based on de-nts he provided that contained omissions and/or falainentians.
- 30. Claimant identi6ed concerns relevant to the STP facility to the NRC on or about February 10,1992, by submitting a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
j Response- Admit !
j
- 31. neimant mailed a complete and accurate copy of the February 10, 1992,10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition to Mr. D.P. Hall, Group Vice President Nuclear, at the i
Houston Lighting & Power Company.
I. urn /wr22/mys12 +
1 l Response: Admit that Mr. Hall was aware of the 2.206 petition.
L . 32. Mr. D.P. Hall, became aware of Onim=nt's " protected activity" prior to Claimant's unescorted access to the STP facility being revoked.
Response: Admit
- 33. - Claimant met with NRC officials in Arlington, TX on or about February 18,1992, concerning matters relevant to the STP facility.
Rasnonse: HIAP personnel were not present at any meeting matching that described in this request, and HIAP was not notified that such meeting was scheduled.
HIAP admits that Complainant subsequently alleged that he attended such ~'
a meeting. HIAP has no direct knowledge of this meeting.
- 34. On February 20,1992, only two (2) days after Onimant met with NRC offis' ials, O=imant was required to meet with Mr. Rick Cink, an HLAP employee concendng his 10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition.
Response: STP admits that as part of its investigation of Complainant's concerns in bis 10 CFR 2.206 petition, a meeting was scheduled between Mr. Cink, a .
SPEAKOUT employee, and Complainent. Complainant was requested, not required, to attend the meeting. Neither Mr. Cink nor other HIAP personnel - ;
were aware that Complainant had met with NRC officials.
- 35. On or about February 20, 1992, Mr. Cink was put on notice by q Claimant that the Onimant was a " protected employee" because he was engaged in
" protected activity".
STP admits that on or about February 20, 1992, Complainant alleged to i Response: l Mr. Cink that he was engaged in protected activity, but provided no specifics q
as to the nature of any concerns.
- 36. On or about February 20,1992, Mr. Cink showed Maimant a copy of Claimant's 10 CF.R. 2.206 petition.
Basponse: Admit that Mr. Cink had a copy of the 2.206 petition (with the Complainant's name deleted) with him at the time he met with Complainant.
- 37. On or about February 20, 1992, naimant informed Mr. Cink that naimant had just informed the NRC of a Technical Specification violation at STP concerning the boric acid system, a safety related system. )
1.1075/wr22/03 vat 2
+
3:~
i-l Response: Denied
- 38. On or about February 20, 1992, Gaimant informed Mr. Cink that 4 Gaimant informed Mr. Springfield and Mr. Duran of a concern about the boric acid system at STP.
Resnonse: Denied
- 39. Mr. Cink, Mr. Springfield and Mr. Duran were all employees of HLAP on or about February,1992. !
Response: Admit
- 40. Onimant was told to meet with Mr. Hinson of the Nuclear Security .
Department on or about February 20,1992 at approximately 4:15 pm. i Ramposse: Admit I
- 41. Onimant was told by Mr. Springfield that he must attend this meeting even though it was but 15 minutes before Gaimant's quitting time for the day.
Response: Admit, although Mr. Springfield does not recall how long it was until quitting time.
- 42. Mr. Springfield stated to nairnant that he would not authorize any payment of overtime pay for the meeting Onimant was required to attend with Mr. H ,
Response
Admit that Mr. Springfield was not authorized to approve overtime.
However, Complainant received overtime pay for the meeting. , i 43.
On or about February 20, 1992, Mr. Hinson required and, in fact, conducted an interview with Onimant concerning his previously filed employment !
documents and/or security documents. :
Response
Admit that on or rMut February 20, 1992, Mr. Hinson interviewed l Complainant regard % cissions and untruths in the documents Comp 1minanj submitted in order m ;ndn access to STP. l
- 44. On or about f ebruary 20,1992, Onimant was forced and/or required to sign a meeting / interview consent form by Mr. Hinson.
Admit that pursuant to STFs standard personnel interview procedures, Mr. l
Response
Hinson asked Complainant to sign a Preliminary Interview Form informing
(
1.1075/wr22/03vs12 l
t
p
?
l' him of company -policies involving investigatory interviews and his responsibility to provide complete and truthful information. Complainant did not object to this request and voluntarily signed the form.
- 45. On or about February 20,1992, Onimant informed Mr. Hinson that his :
interview with Onimant was an attempt by Mr. Hinson to intimidate and threaten O=imant because of his participation in the active NRC investigation.
Rasannae Denied
- 46. On or about February 20,1992, Onimant stated to Mr. Hinson that it was incredible that this interview was required so very shortly after the Onimant met with the NRC in Arlington, TX and immediately after Onimant informed the NRC of yet '~
another violation of NRC requirements at STP. A violation occurring a few hours ago indicating wdiful falsi5 cation of safety related documents.
Egonaae: Denied
- 47. On or about February 21,1992, Onimant's unescorted access to the STP facility was revoked.
Raspenas Admit that after inquiry and adjudication as to CWaiamat's material '
omissions and untruths in documents Complainant submitted in order to obtain n=rs,ed access, HLAP revoked his unescorted access on or about February 20,1992.
i
- 48. On or about February 21, 1992, daimant met with Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Cink and Mr. Bohner concerning the revocation of Maimant's "W scoess to STP. .
Respoman: Admit that Complainant met with Mr. harha, Mr. Cink, and Mr. Bohner for !
a standard exit interview. During this meeting, CWaia=at brought up the issue of the revocation of his unescorted access.
- 49. On or about February 21,1992, Mr. hachn refused to tell O=i==nt why his unemanrted access as revoked.
1 Basponse: Admit to the extent that on Fei,ruary 21, 1992, Mr. Sancha truthfully informed Complainant that Mr. Sanchez did not know why Complainant's access had been revoked. Complainant was Whny informed of the basis for the revocation of his acesss by letter of March 4,1992.
1.1075/wr22/myB12
. _ _ _ _ y 1
I f
l i
i.
- 50. On or about February 21,1992, naimmat informed Mr. Sanchez, Mr. l Cink and Mr. Bohner that Onimant was engaged in a " protected acuvity" and that ;
t employment discrimination of revoking Gaimant's access to STP was illegal.
Response: HIAP objects to the form of this request because each matter to which an adminion is requested is not separately set forth. HIAP denies that S17's i I
revocation of Complainant's access. was dMmination, but admits that j
Complainant has made such allegations. t L 51. On or about February 20,1992, Onimant was denied an opportunity to take a whole body count at the STP facility. l i
Denied. Complamant left STP abrupdy on February 21,1992, before out- - :
Rasmanna:
processing, includmg a whole body count, could be completed. HIAP had ., l made arrangements for Complainant to receive a whole body count. On February 27, 1992, while visiting at STP, Compiminant completed out- i processing inchadian a whole body count.
Gaimant's employment at S17 could have been continued as j 52.
an escorted contract IAC technician.
Respomaa: Denied ,
- 53. During Onimant's meeting with Mr. Hinson, naimant voluntanly submitted additional information regarding apparent omissions on employment and/or security documents.
Banpoman: Admit that during Complainent's meeting with Mr. Hinson, Complainant identi6ed additional omissions and untruths on his access documents, but only after repeated close questioning by Mr. Hinson.
- 54. Any information apparently omitted by Maimmat on employment and/or security damments at the STP facility was not found to be adverse to Onimant's ability to retain 2=N+Ged access to the STP facility.
Basponse: Danied
- 55. HIAP ofEcials were already aware of apparent omissions on Onimant's employment and/or security documents before Onimant was challenged by Mr. Hinson regarding the same.
Ramanaam: HIAP admits that certain personnel were aware of some apparent omissions on Complainant's security damments prior to his interview with Mr. Hinson.
1.lon/wr22/covs12 i
, 1 l
~
s i
This caused, pursuant to standard procedure, a request for Mr. Hinson to-investigate. However, HLAP was not' aware of severst of the onussions l Complainant' admitted to upoa questioning from Mr. Hirson. ]
j
- 56. HIAP has been previously charged with violations of 42 U.S.C. 5851 t
relevant to the STP facility by Administrative Law Judges and/or higher authority. !
'I
.j Banpomme: Object to this request as it seeks a response that is irrelevant and immaterial i to the issue in this action. i HIAP could have continued Claimant's employment outside- the j 57.
protected area at the STP facility.
Response: Denied 1
- 58. HLAP engaged in a continuing violation of 42 U.S.C 5851 by 1
blacklisting Cimimant while Onimant was seeking employment at the Vogtle nuclear station. . 1 e
Response: Object to this request as seeking a response irrelevant and immaterial to this issue in this action. Complainant's blacklisting allegation is not a viable issue :
in this action due to Complainant's failure to appeal the Department of ;
Labor's findings on that issue. Subject to the above objections, denied. !
i
- 59. Mr. DeLong gave negative comments and/or references regarding nai==at to representatives of Nuclear Support Services, Inc., and/or their mNiliates l
Response: H1AP objects to this request as vague in its use of the phrase " negative comments and/or references." HIAP objects to this request as seeking a i l
response that is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue in this action.
Complainant's allegation of blacklisting is not a viable issue in this action due 1
to Complainant's failure to appeal the Department of Labor's finding on this issue. Subject to these objections, HlAP's understanding is that Mr. Delong j
simply told the truth regarding Complainant, when asked questions by an NSS representative whom Complainant had authorized to call Mr. Delong. This we4 after Mr. Saporito's access to S17 was denied. Mr. Delang did not _
i initiate this contact, and HLAP did not authorize Mr. DeLong to provide l
information concerning Complainant.
}
t l
L1075/WP22/03VB12 '
4 F
- 60. Mr. Delong was termmated from HLAP. 1 1
Response: Denied !
- 61. Mr. Migel gave negative comments and/or references regarding l
naimant to representatives of Nuclear Support Services, Inc., and/or their affiliates. l Response: Mr. Migel recalls one conversation with an individual be believes to have been from Nuclear Support Services, Inc. Mr. Migel does not recall the particulars of the conversation, except that he referred the caller to the '
Human Resources Department. Mr. Migel did not initiate the call HLAP i
did not authorize or direct Mr. Migel to provide any information concerning -- ,
Complainant. ~ntis occurred after Mr. Saporito's access to II7 was denied.
- 62. Mr. Migel was terminated from HLAP. l g Denied l 1
- 63. C1mimant signed a waive (sic) and/or consent form allowing HLAP officials and/or their representatives to obtain required employment and other background information from naimant's previous employers.
Admit Response: )
- 64. HLAP officials and/or their representatives contacted other utilities regarding Claimant. !
HLAP admits that as a part of its normal pre-e-/.cyment and access l Rannonse: j processing, an HLAP contractor contacted Complainant's former employers, ;
some of whom were utilities, prior to the time CWaia-at was granted access to STP.
- 65. HLAP officials and/or their representatives contacted officials and/or their representadves at the Georgia Power Company regarding Claimant.
j Response: Denied as to any contacts prior to the time Complainant filed his employment i
discrimination case against Georgia Power Company. HL&P objects to this I
request to the extent it seeks information on subsequent contacts because they . l are irrelevant and immaterial to this case. l l
HLAP officials and/or their representatives contacted officials and/or :
- 66. t their representatives at the Arizona Public Service Company regarding Meimant. !
i 1.1075/WP22/GWB12 I
?
k~ ._ - _- . -_ ~. __.__ _ __ _ _ _ _
7 i
i i
- 1 4
i Response: With respect to any contact after the time Complainant filed his complaint in this action with the DOL, HL&P objects to this request as it seeks material !
protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work product privileges [
~
and which is irrelevant and immaterial because it relates to time periods after i the events at issue in this preda occurred. HL&P further objects that
% request seeks material prepared in anticipation of this litigation by or for
' HIAP's representatives. Subject to these objections, admitted only.to the extent that as part of its normal access processing, an HIAP contractor i contacted APS as one of Complainant's former employers. Records of that - d contact have been produced in response to other requests. l
- 67. HIAP officials and/or their representatives contacted officials and/or their representatives at the Florida Power & Light Company regarding maimant. j
~
Rasnonna: HL&P objects to this request as it seeks materials protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work product privileges. HIAF further objects that l this request seeks materials prepared in anticipation of this litigation by or fori l 8 HLAP's representatives. ' Subject to these abj%ns, denied. l t
- 68. HLAP and the Florida Power & Light Company both utilize the law l firm of Newman, Holtzinger and associates based in Washington, D.C. {
j aanpoman: HLAP objects to this request to seeking a' response that is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this action.
- 69. Cleimant was required to interview with a HLAP retained psychologist as part of his MMPI testing.
Rassonse: Admit that Complainant underwent psychological screening and testing with psychologists under contract to HIAP.
- 70. Claimmat met with Dr. Higgins, a HL&P retained psychologist in January,1992.
Response: After reasonable inquiry, HIAP can neither admit nor deny that Complainant -
met with a Dr. Higgins." HLAP's contract service reports that they do not employ a "Dr. Higgms." HL&P does not retain a psychologist known as-
"Dr. Higgins."
i 71. Maimant informed Dr. Higgins that he was previously employed at the Florida Power & Light Company and that he was a nuclear whistleblower at the FPL Turkey Point nuclear facility.
1.lo75/wr22/03va12
_ _ ____ j
I i ?
?
~i I-Responny Upon reasonable inquiry, HIAP has no knowledge regarding the substance l of any conversations between Complamant and any psychologists with whom -
i he interviewed, and had no such knowledge at the time of the events at issue in this proceeding. Upon reasonable inquiry, HIAP can neither admit nor l deny this request and does not know who the "Dr. Higgins" referred to in the j request is. l
- 72. Claimant informed Mr. (sic) Higgins that the FPL Vice President l Nuclear, Mr. John Odum fired Claimant from the Turkey Point nuclear facility after Claimant' engaged in protected activity at that station. j Upon reasonable inquiry, HIAP has no ki iQp regarding the substance !
Response
of any conversations between Complainant and any psychologists with whom l he interviewed, and had no such knowledge at the time of the events at issue ' l' in this pro ~~ ding Upon reasonable inquiry, HIAP can neither admit nor deny this request.
- 73. Dr. Higgins stated to Oai==nt that Mr. Odum was employed at HLkP i
as tb personnel director. ;
Respomme: Upon reasonable inquiry, HIAP has no knowledge regarding the substance of any conversations between Complainant and any psychologists with whom he interviewed, and had no such knowledge at the time of the events at issue !
in this prWine- Upon reasonable inquiry, HIAP can neither admit nor deny this request. )
i
- 74. Dr. Higgins' interview with Onimant recovered a majority, if not all, l the information which was apparently omitted from Onimant's employment and/or security I hments.
Response: Upon reasonable inquiry, HIAP has no knowledge regarding the substance j of any conversations between Complainant and any psychologists with whom l he interviewed, and had no such knowledge at the time of the events at issue in this pr.=s4 =g= Upon reasonable inquiry, HLAP can neither admit nor deny this request.
1.1M5/wr:2/03vs12
4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN THE MATTER OF:
THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. S 5
l Complainant S S
V. S CASE NO. 92-ERA-45 5
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER s 5
Respondent S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANTS ~
RESPONSES TO CLAIMANTS REQUEST FOR INTFBROGA'IORIFJi AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 0
TO: Complainant, pro se, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.,7881 Piper Ime, Lake Worth, Florida 33463.
COMES NOW Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HI.AP") and responds to Cinimant's (sic) Request for Interrogatories and Production of Documents r.s follows on the attached pages. All documents to be produced will be made available to Complainant for inspection and copying at the offices of HIAP's counsel, Baker & Botts.
R6:paM submitted, BAKER & BOTTS
)
- 4hk U.hapmad Smith Rcss E. Cockburn 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston,TX 77002 (713) 229 1546 FAX: (713) 229-1522 l Attorneys for Houston fighting j & Power Company l
L1075/0093/05AB08
~
?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following people this day of September,1992.
Mr. Quentin P. McColgin Adnumstrative I2w Judge U.S. Deputment of I. abor Office of Admmistrative law Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70005 l Mr. Russell Wise f Allegations Coordinator l Enforcement and Investigation i
Staff .. I i
Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion l
611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 ~
Arlington, TX 76011 0
Mr. Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr.
Troutman Sanders '
Nationsbank Plaza Suite 5200 .
600 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308 Mr. Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr.
Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17106-1963 Mr. 'Ihomas J. Saporito, Jr.
Ross E. Cockburn L1075/co93/osAsm
2 e
i t
g RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR INTERROGA10 RIES i AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS f f
f General Objections Houston Lighting & Power Company objects to Onimant's (sic) Request for ~ j Interrogatories and Production of Documents to the extent that this request seeks i documents which are subject to the attorney-client privilege, or the work product privilege. 1 Work product and/or attorney-client privilege is Animad as to the following classes of j documents. f
- a. all personal notes, memoranda, or other documents generated by i
Respondent's counsel, or their representatives, in anticipation of this
- litigation and/or in the prosecution, investigation or trial preparation . .
of this action; ~
l
- b. any written communications between Respondent and its current or l
previous counsel, concerning the subject of said counsel's I
e representation;
- c. all d=mants prepared by Respondent at the request of its counsel or representatives of its counsel for the purpose of facilitating the rendering of advice in the litigation of this action;
- d. all documents prepared by Respondent, its attorneys, or attorneys' representatives, agents, or other agents after the events which form the basis of this action, for the use of Respondents counsel concerning the subject matter of this action.
Without waiving these objection, and subject to further objections as stated in the response to each item, Respondent Houston Lighting & Power C~'==ay responds to Claimant's (sic) Request for Interrogatories and Production of Documents. hean=>
many of the requests are in the past tense but do not specify a particular time period, HLAP responds based on the state of facts existing at the time Complainant's access to STP was denied, unless otherwise ladicated. Later time periods are irrelevant to the single issue 1
in this case - HLAP's motivation for its revocation of Complainant's access.
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
- 1. Did Respondent have a labor agreement and/or contract with SUN Technical Services to supply I&C technicians for work at the South Texas Project Electric Generation Station (STP),7 If so, please state and/or comply with the following:
(a) 'Ibe duration of the contract for I&C technicians; L1075/co93/05Anos
+
Response: See response to 1(c).
(b) Identify the labor agreement and/or contract number; Response: See response to 1(c).
(c) Produce to Complainant a copy of the labor agreement and/or contract.
Response: HLAP will produce a copy of the relevant agreements between SUN Technical Services and Houston Lighting & Power Company.
- 2. What is the estimated total amount of wages that O=im=nt would have '
been entitled to, including estimated overtime wages, had Claimant's unescorted access not
~
been revoked at STP' Response: Respondent cannot calculate the figures asked for in this interrogatory because no period of time is speci5ed. Also, HLAP does not know how much overtime, if any, Complainant would have worked nor how long Compiminant would have continued in SUN Technical's employment at STP. Complainant's wages and employment were under the control of SUN Technical Services and not HLAP.
- 3. State whether any employee of Respondent, job applicant, contractor or other person has ever filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor charging the Respondent with violations of 42 U.S.C. 5851 within the last Sve (5) years. If so, for each such complaint please state:
Response: Respondent objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant, immaterial and overly broad and burdensome. Whether or not any other person has ever filed a complaint with the Department of Labor charging HLAP with violations of 42 U.S.C. 5851 is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this action - STP's motivation in denying Complainant's access. HLAP further objects that this interrogatory seeks information inadminible under 29 C.F.R. Sections 18.402 and 18.404, and is not calculated to discover =Amissible material. HLAP also objects that information regarding the identities and circumstances of employment of persons at S'I? are confidential and it is HLAP's policy not to release them because to do so would constitute an unwarranted inv=Aon of the privacy of these individuals.
(a) The name and address of the Claimant;
Response
L1075/0093/05AB08 r
- 1
-(b) The date of the complaint;
Response
(c) The agency or department with which it was filed; Ressoase:
(d) The nature and substance of the complaint; Response- _,
8 (e) The date and substance of any action taken by the agency or department.
Resnonse:
- 4. Has Respondent within the last 36 month period prior to naimant's complaint, ever had a decision by the United States Secretary of Labor ce higher authority rule against Respondent regarding a complaint of discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C 58517 If so, please state:
i HL&P objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant and immaterial to the issue in this action. Respondent also objects that the phrase " higher authority" is unclear.
Findings and decisions by the Secretary of Labor or others in cases unrelated to Ceg'=!==*'s are irrelevant and immaterial as to the issue of Respondent's motivation in denying Complainant's access. HLAP objects that this interrogatory -
seeks information inadminible under 29 CF.R. Sections 18.402 and 18.404 and is not calculated to discover adminible material. Without waiving these objections, HLAP ,
has had no such decisions.
(a) 'Ihe date of each such occurrence;
Response
(b) The nature of the actual or alleged violation; 1.un5/co93/osAnos 0
. .y....
- .. . . - - . ~ . . . .. -- - . .
Respo.se: ;
(c) The final or current disposition of these matters; i
t Response: .
(d) Identify the case number of each such occurrence.
Response: !
- 5. Has Respondent ever termmated, laid-off or transferred any employee -
as a direct or indirect result of failing to comply with, or charge that Respondent failed to -
comply with, any federal nuclear safety law or regulation? If so, please :: ate:
Response: Respondent objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant, immaterial and overly broad and burdensome. Whether or not any other person has ever filed a complaint with the Depamnent of Labor charging HIAP with violations of 8 42 U.S.C. 5851 is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this action - STP's !
motivation in denymg Compiminant's access. HIAP further objects that this interrogatory seeks information in=dminible under 29 C.F.R. Sections 18.402 l
and 18.404 and is not calculated to discover admissible material HIAF ;
objects that the identities and circumstances.of employment of its employees ;
are confidential and it is HIAP's policy not to release them har=na* to do so would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of these individuals.
i The dates of each such termination, lay-off or transfer; ;
(a)
Response
i The nature and substance of the actual or alleged violations; (b) }
Response: .
The final or current disposition of these matters; (c)
Ras.o
)
Li(T75/0093/03AB(2
+
A
- " ^ ' - - . - . . . . , . , , . , . _
)
I l
The number of employees involved in each incident.
(d) l 1
Resnonse: l l
i j
j
- 6. Has Respondent ever terminated, laid-off, transferred or revoked the
" unescorted access" of any employee as a direct or indirect result of omissions from employment and/or security documents relative to the STP nuclear station? If so, please ;
state: ?
Response: In response to this interrogatory, HIJtP refers Complainant to the document produced in response to interrogatory 8 and speci5cally to section VI and the (
appendix thereof. HLAP objects to any further disclosure of the identities '
and circumstances of the individuals involved in these situations because th information is confidential and disclosure would constitute an unwarranted ~
invasion of the privacy of these individuals.
The dates of each such termination, lay-off, transfer and/or revocation
, (a) or unescorted access;
Response
The nature and substance of the actual or alleged omissions; (b)
Response
r The final or current disposition of these matters; (c)
Response
The number of employees involved in each incident.
(d)
Resnonse:
i L1075/0093/05AB08 1
- 7. . State whether Claimant at any time had been given notice of discharge, termination, lay-off or revocation of unescorted access to STP and, if so, the reasons for the notice and the final disposition. l Response: HLAP provided Complainant with notice of.the revocation of unescorted
- access on February 21,1992. Letters describing the basis for denial of access were provided to Complainant on March 4,1992 and March 26,1992. The l basis for the revocation is further described in the himant provided in response to interrogatory 8. l t
- 8. Describe in detail the reason for revoking Onimant's unescorted access ,
to the S'IP facility.
Response: In response to this interrogatory, Respondent produces the attached l
Circumstances Surrounding Revocation ofIndividual's Access provided to the ' '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The reason for revoking cimimant's ~
access was also described in letters provided to Complainant on March 4 and March 26,1992.
0
- 9. Describe in detail any information which you claim that c1.im nt omitted from any employment and/or security documents.
Respomas: In response to this interrogatory, Respondent directs CompIninant to the himent produced in response to interrogatory 8 and other daaimants produced in response to Complainant's discovery requests.
- 10. Name all individual (s) who questioned or challenged or caused to be questioned or challenged, Claimants employment and/or security daaiments and the dates j of each occurrence.
Respomas: In response to this interrogatory, Respondent directs Ca=alaiaant to the document produced in response to interrogatory 8.
f
- 11. State whether Respondent ever gave a written or oral referral regarding O=i==nt to anyone. If so, please state to who, when and the substance of such referral Response: Respondent objects that this question is vague as to the meaning of written or oral " referral" regarding Complainant, and that if this question refers to any allegation of blacklisting, it is irrelevant and material as that issue is not viable in this action due to Complainant's failure to appeal the DOL finding on that issue. Subject to this objection, Respondent provides the following information: the STP - Fitness for Duty OfEce responded to a written suitability inquiry from Nuclear Support Services on March 6,1992. This uan/ooP3/osAnos
p ,
request was accompanied by an authorization form signed by Complainant.
The response stated, "No record of subject at STPEGS. FFD record." No other written or oral referral authorized by Respondent was provided.
- 12. Please state the name of each person who participated in the decision m= king process to hire contract I&C technicians for the Respondent's STP facility on or about January,1992.
Response: HL&P objects to this question as irrelevant and immaterial and outside the scope of permissible discovery in this action. STP's decision to hire contract employees is not at issue in this action and has no relevance to the reasons for denial of Complainant's access.
- 13. State the 'name of each person who participated in the decision to ~~
revoke Onimant's unescorted access to the STP facility.
Responna: Mr. Richard L Balcom, Manager of Security, South Texas Project Electrical Mr. J.W. Hinson, Administrator e Generating Station.
Investigations / Compliance Division, South Texas Project Electrical Generating Station (subsequent to the events relevant to this action.
Mr. Hinson has changed positions at STP).
- 14. What persons are known to you to have personal knowledge of the' incident, as the result of which, or the reason naimant stopped working for Respondent?
Response: HIAP objects that the premise of this question is flawed in that Complainant i never worked for Respondent. HIAP also objects that the " incident" referred to in the question is undefined. The individuals having personal knowledge of the basis for revocation of Complainant's access to S'I? are identified in ,
response to interrogatory 13 above.
- 15. On what facts and evidence do you rely to prove your denial that Omi==nt's unescorted access was revoked and that naimmat stopped working for Respondent because naimant was engaged in " protected activity" at STP7 Response: HIAP objects to the form of this question as complex, and that Complainant did not work for Respondent. Subject to this objection, HLAP does not deny l that Complainant's access was revoked. Complainant's access was revoked for the reasons set out in the March 4,1992 and March 26,1992 letters to Complainant and in the h=ent produced in response to interrogatory 8.
Revocation of Complainant's unescorted access was not due to his engagement in " protected activity."
L1075/0093/05AB08
I l
l
'u
)
On what facts and evidence do y' ou rely to prove your denial that 16.
Claimant's unescorted access .was revoked and that Claimant stopped working for
.)
' j Respondent because Claimant engaged in " protected actmty" prior to his employment at' STP7 l
i Response: HLAP objects to the form of this question as complex, and that Complainant did not work for Respondent. Subject to this objection, HLAP does not deny ,
that Complainant's access was revoked. Complainant's access was revoked for 1 i
the reasons set out in the March 4,1992 and March 26,1992 letters to Complainant and in the document produced in response to interrogatory 8. ;
Revocation of Complainant's access was not due to his engagement in !
" protected activity." l
- 17. Until Claimant stopped working for you, was there ever any complaint .,
relative to Claimant's ability to do his work? If so, please provide details of each occurrence ~
l and the names of those = Wag such claims.
Response: HLAP objects that the premise of this question is flawed in that Compiminant never worked for Respondent. Subject to this objection, during his e
investigation on February 20,1992, Mr. J.W. Hinson noted discrepancies in )
i Complainant's access authorization paperwork which called Complainant's ability to perform his work into question in that such omissions and l inaccuracies could be grounds for denial of unescorted access. ,
I State whether between January,1992, to present, Respondent made any -
- 18. !
communication to any other employer and/or company regarding claimant? if so, please state:
Response: Communications regarding Complainant are reflected in the documents produced to Complainant under interrogatory 20. To the extent that Respondent has communicated with its attorneys, Respondent objects to this question as requesting information protected under the ahwj dient and attorney work product privileges. HL&P further objects that this interrogatory seeks materials prepared in anticipation of this litigation by or for HLAP's representatives. HLAP further objects that as to time periods subsequent to SIPS revocation of Complainant's access, this interrogatory seeks material that is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue in the action - STP's motivation for its revocation of Complainant's access. Respondent also objects that this interrogatory is overly broad and seeks information unrelated to Respondent's denial of access to Complainant. Subject to these objections, Respondent directs Complainant to the responses to interrogatories 35 and 36 and the communications reflected in response to this interrogatory.
The dates of all such communications; (a) t.un5/0093/05Anos l
i l
Response: See documents produced. On or around March 2,1992. 1 (b) 'Who was communicated with; Response: See documents produced. Mr. Troy Connor.
(c) The substance of the communication; i
Response: See documents produced. Mr. Connor contacted both Ms. Betty Brown and f Neither Ms. Brown ' nor j Mr. Andrew Woods regarding Complainant.
i Mr. Woods provided any information concerning Compiminant to Mr. Connor, '
See also responses to interrogatory 35 and 36. ,
(d) - Identify all documents which related, in any way, to this communication. .
Rapoonse: See documents produced. ,
?
l Produce to naimant a copy of all documents identified in suW (d) l (e) above.
Response: See d=ments prMaed i
- 19. Did Respondent hire, subcontract, comminion or in any way, directly or indirectly, investigate or cause to be investigated the substantive allegations Cimimant l
raised concerning violations of 42 U.S.C. 5851? If so, please state the following:
Response: HLAP objects to this question to the extent it seeks information protected ;
under the amwj client and/or the attorney work product privileges. HLAP i further objects that this interrogatory seeks information prepared in anticipation of this litigation, for or by HIAP's representatives. Also, certain daaimenen requested are the confidential personnel files of individuals not involved in this litigation. Disclosure of these Bles would be an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of these individuals. Subject to these objections, HIAP is providing copies of the requested reports.
'Ibe name and title of all investigatory firms and/or subcontractors; (a)
Rasponse: See d-ments proled uo75/ cop 3/05AB08
e l
The name and title of all employees engaged in the investigation; ;
(b) ;
Resnonse: See documents produced.
i l
(c) A statement of where all documents and final reports, relating directly or indirectly to the investigation are located; Resnonse: Documents will be produced. ,
(d) A list of all persons involved in the investigation and the documents reviewed in the course of the investigation; Response: See documents produced. ,
Produce to Claimant a copy of all documents identified in sub-part (d)
(e) above; e
Response: HLAP will produce all supporting documents except the personnel files reviewed. Such files are confidential and release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the employee's personal privacy.
(f) A summary of the finding /results of said investigation; Response: De investigations concluded that Complainant's access was denied because of willful omission of material facts in Complainant's access authorization paperwork and that denial was not motivated by other activities of Complainant.
(g) Produce to C1mimant a copy of all documents identified in sub-part (f) above; Rasoonse: See d-ments produced.
A statement as to why said investigation was conducted; (h)
Response: De Speakout investigation was conducted to determine whether Complainant's allegations could be substantiated. The Andrews study was performed to evaluate the adequacy of the Speakout investigations conduct in response to Complainant's allegations.
f Lt075/0093/05AB08 L
Produce to Claimant a copy of all documents identified in sub-part (h)
(i) above.
Response: See documents produced.
- 20. Does Respondent have in r possession or know of the existence of any logs, diaries, discs, records, tapes, notes, buschures, pamphlets,' agreements or other tangible documentary materials relating in any way to the facts, events, auegations, inferences, or indications involved in Claimant's complaint or your answers to any of these interrogatories or relied upon in answering any interrogatory contained in the entirety of this document? If so, as to each item, state the following:
1 Resnonse: HIAP objects to this question to the' extent that it asks for raaterials l protected under the attorney-client and work product privileges. HLAP further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information prepared in anticipation of this litigation for or by HIAP's representatives. ' ~ l Furthermore, HLAP excludes in the answer to this numbered interrogatory any documents referred to or produced under any other numbered interrogatory, request for production, or request for admiazion. HIAP objects to this interrogatory to the extent that the phrase " relating in any way to the l
, l facts, events, allegations, inferences, or indications involved in Omi==nt's complaint" has no clear meaning and appears to exceed the permissible scope of discovery relevant to the single issue viable in this action - STP's l motivation for its revocation of Complainant's access. Subject to these !
objections, HLAP will produce records relevant to the denial of access to Complainant.
l d i l di
'Ibe desenption of each item or ocument, nc u ng u no bt t limited (a) l to, date, author, each recipient; !
Respoman: See documents produced.
i (b) 'Ibe name and present or last known address of person or organization ,
now in pannemalan thereof or any copy thereof; and Rasnonse: See da==ents produced.
Produce to nai==nt a copy of each such item in your possession.
(c)
Response See documents produced. l
- 21. list the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all witnesses, including expert witnesses, who will or may be called upon to testify in support of your j utn5/0093/05AB08 4
- - + - - -, -
p-e--.r- . - - . - m,, , _-y.- ..._,c. , ._ _ , _ _ .- , - -. . _ _ - -
,-e-, r-,,--, re,-
l t
nr denial of the state (sic) violation of 42 U.S.C. 5851 in the complaint and the amended complaint.
i Ressoase: HLAP objects to providing telephone numbers for witnesses. All witnesses may be contacted through counsel for HL&P. At this time, HLAP has not ,
identified any expert witnesses.
f
- 1) Richard L Balcom: Mr. Balcom will discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding the decision to deny Mr. Saporito's access to the South Texas Project and the reasons for that docuion. He will also describe HLAP's access authorization procedures and program. .
- 2) J.W. Hinson: Mr. Hinson will discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding the decision to revoke Mr. Saporito's access to the South Texas Project and the reasons for that decision. Mr. Hinson will specifically describe the interview that he held with Mr. Saporito on ' ~
February 20,1992, sud the conclusion he reached based on the facts discovered during that interview. Mr. Hinson will also discuss the fact that the decision to deny Mr. Saporito's access was fully consistent with previous decisions in timdar cases. l Rick Cink: Mr. Cink will testify as to what he observed during the ,
3) interview of Mr. Saporito, and durmg the time when Mr. Balcom and Mr. Hinson consulted with one another during the process of deciding whether to revoke Complainant's access and his other contacts with 1
Mr. Saporito.
Mr. William Jump. Mr. Jump will descnte the STP access .
- 4) i authorization program, associated NRC requirements, and the reasons '
why the truthfulness and completeness of access authorization =*=d paperwork came into question and was required to be investi HLAP reserves the right to identify additional witnesses as discovery in this case pr M s
L
- 22. As to each witness identified in interrogatory 21 above, indicate the nature and substance of the information about which the witness will or may give testimony. l
)1 Response: See response to number 21.
- 23. List spe@ny and in detail each and every exhibit you propose to l
utilize or may utilize during the hearing in this matter and for each such exhibit indicate:
Basponse: HLAP reserves the right to utilize any of the documents produced to Complainant in these interrogatories, in response to his request for ;
1.1M5/0093/0$AB08 i
_ _ _ . . . - -. _ __ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ~ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ - ,
.y l l
i production, made a part of HLAP's responses to Complainant's request for ,
admiuions, or produced to HL&P by Complainant or other parties to this litigation. l (a) De date of each such exhibit; Response: See the documents themselves.
(b) The author of each such exhibit; i
Response: See the documents themselves.
(c) The recipient of each such exhibit; ,
Resnonse: See the documents themselves.
i
, (d) The number of pages of each such exhibit; i
Response: See the documents themselves.
(c) De subject matter of each such exhibit; Response: See the documents themselves. t l
(f) De name and address of the present custodian of each such exhibit; and See item (g) below. ;
Response
(g) Produce to Cimimant a copy of each such exhibit.
Through responses to other discovery requests in this litigation, Compiminant l
Response
will be provided copies of each such exhibit. l
- 24. State the name of each and every company or organization .
Respondent has contacted or been contacted by seeking or submitting information regarding j c'Inimant.
HLAP objects to this interrogatory because it duplicates other discovery l
Response
requests which have already been responded to. (See e.g. responses to j interrogatory 18,20,35 and 36.) To the extent that HLAP has communicated uo75/ cop 3/osAnos 1
- _ __ <.._m.,,-, .~ , _ _ . _ _,, , , , ,.
- I s i l
'with its counsel,' HLAP objects to this interrogatory to the extent that this question seeks information protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and is an attempt to discover HLAP's trial preparation strategy. HLAP objects to this question to the extent that it seeks information prepared in anticipation of this litigation by or for HLAP's representatives. j HLAP also objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks information l concerning events that occurred after the time Complainant's access was 1 denied, and which are therefore irrelevant.
'l
- 25. State . the name of each and every company or. organization Respondent's attorneys have contacted or been ' contacted by seeking or submitting y information regarding Claimant.
l Response: HLAP objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for information protected under the attorneydent and/or attorney work product pnvileges, ' l and is an attempt to discover HIAP's trial preparation strategy. The ~ .
information requested is also irrelevant to the extent it requests information regarding events that occurred after the denial of Complainant's access. !
HLAP further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls' for 7 information or material prepared in anticipation of this litigation for or by l ;
HLAP's representatives.
Did Robert Goodwin ever contact Respondent seeking or submitting q
- 26. -
information regarding Claimant?
Raspaans: HLAP objects that this interrogatory seeks information neither material nor relevant to the issue in this action - STP's motivation for its revocation of Complainant's access. Subject to this objection, Respondent has no record of any contact from " Robert Goodwin." l
- 27. Did Art Rutherford ever contact Respondent seeking or submitting information regarding claimant?
Response: HLAP objects that this interrogatory seeks information neither material nor )
1 relevant to the issue in this action - STP's motivation for its revocation of Complainant's access. Subject to this objection, Respondent has no record of j any contact from " Art Rutherford." r a
l 1
- 28. Did Frank Koller ever contact Respondent seeking or submitting information regarding clai==nt? )
Basponse: HLAP objects that this interrogatory seeksm' formation neither material nor relevant to the issue in this action - STP's motivation for its revocation of ]
l L1075/0093/05Anos
i i
Complainant's access. Subject to e objection, Respondent has no record of ^
any contact from 'Trank Koller."
j
- 29. Did Respondent contact previous employers and references which Claimant identified on Respondent's employment and/or security documents? If so, for each contact please state the date and substance of every communication and provide the names for every individual contacted and their employer.
Response: Hl.AP objects to this interrogatory as duplicative of number 18. See antwer ;
-i to number 18.
- 30. Did: Respondent ever have any conversations or contact with representatives or employees of SUN Technical Services regarding Claimant? If so, as to -
cach conversation or contact, please state the name of the employee / representative, date :
of conversation / contact, and the substance of the conversation / contact. _ !
i Rasposas: HI.AP has no record of any contact with SUN Technical Services regarding Complainant that is relevant to this action, except that HLAP believes that l i
8 Mr. Rich DeLong notified SUN Technical Services on or about February 21, 1992 that Complainant's access had been denied based on omission of l information in access authorization documents submitted by Compiminant.
SUN Technical Services was also informed that Compiminant's services were l l
no longer required at STP. ,
l l
- 31. Did Respondent ever have any conversations or contact with j
representatives or employees of Nuclear Support Services, Inc. regarding naimant? If so, as to each conversation or contact, please state the name of the employee / representative, l date of conversation / contact, and the substance of the conversation / contact.
Basponse: Object to this question as duplicative of other requests and as seeking ;
information neither relevant nor material to the single issue viable in this action-STP's motivation in its decision to deny CW-6-~'s access. Subject ,
to this objection, see the response to interrogatory 18,35, and 36.
- 32. Did Respondent ever have any conversations or contact with l
representatives or employees of Southern Nuclear Operating Company regarding naimant!
If so, as to each conversation or contact, please state the name of the employee / representative, date of conversation / contact, and the substance of the l i
.~
conversation / contact. I i
Response: Object to this question as seeking information neither relevant nor material to the single issue viable in this action-STP's motivation in its decision to i
- 17- r L1075/0093/05AB08 !
I
. _ _ . - . _ . _ _ . _ . , _ . . - . - . ,, , . _. - ,,,, -~ .,
4 4 D deny Complainant's access. Subject to this objection, HLAP. has. no information regarding any such communications or contacts.
- 33. Did Respondent ever have any conversations or contact . with .
representa*ives or employees of A.T.I. regarding Onimaat? If so, as to each conversation or ' contact, please state the name of ' the employee / representative, date of~ l conversation / contact, and the substance of the conversation / contact. l l
Response: Object to this question as seeking information neither relevant nor material to the single issue viable in this action-STP's motivation in its decision to' deny Comp 1minant's access. Subject to this objection, no. )
l
- 34. Did Responderat 'ever have any conversations or. contact with '
representatives or employees of Florida Power & Ilght Company regarding Claimant? If so, as to each conversation or contact, please state the name of the employee / representative,
'l date of conversation / contact, and the substance of the conversation / contact. l Object to this question as seeking information neither relevant nor material
@ to the single issue viable in this action-STP's motivation in its decision to deny Complainant's access. Subject to this objection, no.
r
- 35. Did Brian Migel ever m any conversation and/or contact with anyone regarding Claimant? If so, as to each conversation and/or contact, please state the name of the person contacted and the date of each conversation and/or contact and the substance of each conversation and/or contact.- ]
l Response: HLAP objects that this interrogatory seeks information neither relevant nor material to the single viable issue in this action - STP's motivation for its -
revocation of Complainant's access. Subject to this obuaa Mr. Migel recalls one conversation with someone he believes was with Nuclear Support Services, Inc. Mr. Migel does not remember the substance of this conversation but believes he referred the caller to the Human Resources i Department. Mr. Migel did not initiate this communication.' HIAP did not authorize or direct Mr. Migel to provide any information concerning [
y Complainant. !
i
- 36. Did Rich DeLong ever have any conversation and/or contact with .
anyone regarding nai==at? If so, as to each conversation and/or contact, please state the name of the person contacted and the date of each conversation and/or contact and the l i
substance of each conversation and/or contact. >
L1075/0093/05AB08
Response HL&P objects that this interrogatory seeks information neither relevant in nor material toSTP's this action -
the single viable issue motivation for its revocation of complainant's access. Subject to this objection, ML&P understands that on or about March 2, 1992 Mr.
DeLong was contacted by an individual named Troy connor from Nuclear Support Services. Mr. Connor, requested information concerning Mr. Saporito from Mr. DeLong and Mr. DeLong informed Mr. Connor that Mr. saporito's access to the South Texas Project had been denied. In response to questions from Mr.
Connor, Mr. DeLong also informed Mr. Connor that he understood that the basis for the denial of Mr.
seporito's access was omission of information on his access authorization paperwork, and that Mr. DeLong -
personally would not rehire Mr. saporito. At the -
time Mr. DeLong understood that Mr. Saporito had ..
authorized Mr. Connor to obtain the requested information. HL&P did not authorize or direct Mr.
DeLong to provide any information to Mr. Connor.
See also answer to Interrogatory No. 30.
ROUSTON LIGITING & POWER CONFANY By: i g 1 i
l 1
e _, _
i
- l VERIFICATION STATE OF TEIA8 5 5
COUNTY or manaIs s Barons ME, the undersigned Notary _ ,Publicj+on j "An t in this day--puu AN personally appeared hr1J E/Aurf for Houston Lighting & Po6er Company, known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that the same was the act of Houston Lighting & Power Company, and that he executed the same as the act and deed of such corporation in the capacity therein stated and :'
that the foregoing responses are true and correct to the best of -
him knowledge, information and belief. "
//
A naymIsso AND sucRN Toto 1992, asroRE certifyMEwhich on the witness my hand day of N/L ,
and official seal.
W Ab . b lle In and For I Wotfry The sta@te of Texas i My commission Expires:
6/3 SIS-
/ /
\
. . . - - - . - -_ . - . ~-
- i
.x .>
e nyspONEM TO arOUEST FOR DOCUMENTS t All documents produced will be made available at the offices of HIAP's ;
counsel, Baker & Botts, for inspection and copying.
- 1. All documents identified in or used for answering the above j .
numbered Interrogatories and their sub-parts. :
i Resnonne: HLkP objects to this request to the extent that it seeks materials protected ,
by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. HLkP further~
objects to this request to the extent that it seeks materials prepared in i anticipation of M litigation by or for HLAP's representadves. Subject to these objections, HLAP will produce, in response to this request or other j'
interrogatories, any documents responsive to this request. ,
- 2. All personnel records, security h= ants, training records, :
employment applications and/or other documents maintained by Respondent regarding l
O = i ==nt.
Response H1AP objects to this request to the extent that it seeks materials protected '
by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. HLAP also ,
objects to the extent that the request seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for HIAP's representatives. Subject to these objections, HIAP will produce, in response to this request or other interrogatories, all documents responsive to this request.
i 1
- 3. Any and all documents evidencing, referring to, or in any way >
relating to any and all protected activity naimant may have engaged in which is in Respondent's or Respondent's counsel's possession, custody or control Response: HIAP objects to this request to the extent that it seeks material protected by the attorney client and attorney work product privdeges. HIAF further objects'to this request to the extent that it seeks materials prepared in anticipation of this litigation by or for HIAP's iqi :ntatives. HIAP !
objects to this request as overly broad and' vague u;to "any and all protected activity Compiminant may have engaged in," the only activity relevant to this action is Comp 1minant's alleged protected activity while in the employment of SUN Technical. Subject to these objections, HIAP will ;
produce all dmments responsive to this request. !
- 4. Any and all documents evidencmg, referring to, or in any way .
relating to any and all instances or types of adverse treatment Onimant received from Houston Lighting & Power Company at any time.
i uan/0093/05AB08
. _ _ __ . . _. _. .~
l l
t.
Rasnonse: Complainant received no adverse treatment from Houston Ughting &
Power Company.
- 5. . Any and all documents evidencing . referring to, or in any way -
relating to any and all instances or types _of adverse treatment Onimant received from; Georgia Power Company at any time. .
Response: HLAP has. no knowledge of any adverse treatment Complainant received from Georgia Power Company. ,
- 6. Any and all d=ments evidencing, referring to, or in any way -
relating to any and all instances or types of adverse treatment Onimant received from ;
Arizona Public Service Company at any time. q Response: H1AP has no knowledge of any adverse treatment Cm laia==' rGd - - .
from Arizona Public Service Company.
' Any and all documents evidencing, referring to,. or in any way 7.
relating to any and all instances or types of adverse treatment claimant received from A.T.I. at any time.
Response: HIAP has no knowledge of any adverse treatment Compiminant received from ATL i
- 8. Any and all dements evidencing, referring to, or in any way i j
relating to any and all instances or types of adverse treatment nalmmat received from' SUN Technical Services at any time. J HLAP has no knowledge of any adverse treatment Complainant received j
Response
from SUN Tachnical Services. ]
1
- 9. Any and all documents evidencing, referring to, or in any way relating to any and all instances or types of adverse treatment Onimant received from -i Nuclear Support Services, Inc. at any time.
i Rasponser H1AP has no knowledge of any adverse treatment Complainant received from Nuclear Support Services, Inc. l
- 10. Any and all h=*nts evidencing, referring to, or in any way relating to any and all instances or types of adverse treatment Onimant received from The Atlantic Group at any time.
LW15/0093/05AB0s
1
,, j
- y. .
1
^
Response: HIAP possesses no knowledge of any adverse- treatment Complainant received from The Atlantic Group.
- 11. _ 'Any and all documents evidencing, referring to, or in any way ,
i relating to any and all instances or types of adverse treatment Onimmat received from Southern Nuclear Operation Company at any time. l
'I Response: HIAP possesses no knowledge of any adverse treatment Complainant received from Southern Nuclear Operation Company.
I
- 12. Any and all documents, including any complaints or amended complaints, judicial orders, or copies of depositions or deponents resulting.from any claims paviously filed by anyone against Respondent under the Energy Reorganization -'
Act, 42 U.S.C. 5851. ..
Response: HIAP objects to this request as 'eeking materials both irrelevant and ;
immaterial to the issue in this action - STP's motivation for its decision to deny Complainant's access. HIAP further objects to this request as ,
seeking materials inadmissible under 29 C.F.R. 5518.402 and 18.404 and 4 not calculated to discover admi<<ible material.
i
- 13. Any and all documents received by Respondent from Arizona Public Service Company, or Georgia Power Company, or 'Ibe Atlantic Group, or SUN Technical Services, or Nuclear Support Services, or A.T.I., or Southern Nuclear Operation Company regarding Maimant.
- tampomas
- HIAP objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, e=ede the l permissible scope of discovery in this action, is. overly broad and i burdensome. HIAF objects to this request _to the extent that.it seeks '
material protected under the attorneydent or attorney work product -
privileges. HIAP further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks !
materials prepared in anticipation of this litigation for or by HIAP's i representatives. HIAP objects to this request to seeking material irrelevant and immaterial to the issue in this action - STP's decision to deny Comp 1minant's access. Subject to these cbjections, HIAP will <
i produce all materials responsive to this request in response to interrogatory 20.
4
- 14. Any and all notes Respondent has evidencing, referring to or in any ,
i way relate to Respondent's denial / defense of claims in this matter.
HlAP objects to this request as overly broad and vague. HIAP objects to Rasponse: '
this request to the extent that it seeks materials preed under the uo75/ cop 3/asAnos l 4
e x --
, l~ -
x
. l attorney <lient and/or the attorney work product privileges. HLAP funber objects to the extent this request seeks materials prepared in anticipation of this litigation. for. or by HLAP's. representatives. Subject to these -
objections, HIAP will produce all materials responsive to this request in response to interrogatories 8 and 20 and request for production 3.
- 15. Any and all notes Respondent's counsel has evidencing, referring to -
l or in any way relate to Respondent's denial / defense of claims in this matter.
Rasammen: HIAP objects' to this request as it seeks materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege.
HLAP further objects to this request as it seeks materials prepared in anticipation of this litigation for or by HIAP's representauves.
- 16. Any and all documents evidencing that any person employed by .
Respondent had knowledge of Claimant's whistleblowing or protected activities at STP or at other nuclear stations.
Edgesag HLAP objects to this request as vague and' overly overbroad. HIAP further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents and material irrelevant to the issue in this action - STFs motivation for its decision to deny Complainant's access. Subject to these objections, HLAP -
will prdoce all material responsive to, this request in response to interrogatories 8,18,19, and 20 and request 3 above.
- 17. Any and all documents evidencing Maimant's claim that he has been " blacklisted" by Respondent or c.ny company aft!"ated with Respondent.
Bugeang Respondent has not " blacklisted" Complainant nor has any company affiliated with Respondent.
- 18. Any and-all local or national newspapers or industry publications subscribed to or in possession, custody or control of Respondent which now or previously identified Naimmat as a whistleblower or that he engaged'in ' protected activity" or otherwise raised safety concerns at other nuclear stations.
Banpenas: Respondent objects to this request as overly broad and vague. Respondent
~
further objects to this request as seeking documents irrelevant and immawrial to the issue in this action. HIAP has no materials responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control,- and the HIAP individuals involved in the events that are the subject of this p =eSag were and are unaware that any such material existed.
uo75/cor3/osAnos
L. #
-U.S. Department of Labor gn, ,
Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 T_E g 111 Veterans Memorlat Blvd. d g .3 Metalrie, LA 70005 han p, ,
(504) 589-6201 ,
4 Date: October 14, 1992 (jfG WY CASE NO. 92-ERA-38 & 92-ERA-45 IN THE MATTER OF ,
THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
Complainant v.
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPAhY GEORGIA POWER CO., AND NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.,
Respondent ORDER SCHEDULING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE I A telephone conference shall be held on October 20, 1992 at l 9:00 a.m. (CST). The purpose of this conference is to schedule dispositive motions, further discovery and the time and place of ;
hearing. It is understood that representative's of the parties i will be available at this tire at the office of claimant's counsel.
Should any party or representative who desires to participate in this conference not be available at that office, such party or party representative shall promptly notify this office specifying the place where he or she can be reached.
l lW ~
QL7ENTIN P.' MCCOLGIN C/ j ADMINISTRLTIVE LAW JUDGE i
l Metairie, Louisiana QPMC:dqc
~
a.
d
's .
SERVICE SHEET Case Name: THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.
- Case Nc.
- 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 Title of Document: ORDER SCHEDULING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE A copy of the above document was sent to the following:
David K. Colapinto, Esq. Bobbye Spears, Esq.
Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Regional Solicitor Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. U. S. Depart. of Labor 517 Florida Ave., N.W. 1371 Peachtree Street Washington, DC 20001-1850 Room 339 ]
Atlanta, Georgia 30367 !
1 L. Chapman Smith, Esq. Administrator I Ross E. Cockburn, Esq. Employment Standards Adm.
Baker & Botts Wage and Hour Division 3000 One Shell Plaza U.S. Dept. of Labor Houston, TX 77002 Room S-3502, FPB (
200 Constitution Ave, NW j Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esq. Washington, DC 20210 l 210 Walnut Street !
P. O. Box 11963 Office of Enforcement and l Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Compliance Monitoring ;
Environmental Protection i Th J. Sa ito, Jr. Agency l 401 M Street, SW )
Washington, DC 20460 A. William Dahlberg Regional Administrator President & CEO U.S. Environmental Protection l I
Georgia Power Company Agency 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr., Esq. Deputy Associate Solicitor Troutman Sanders, Esq. Division of Fair Labor Nationsbank Plaza Standards Suite 5200 U. S. Depart. of Labor 600 Peachtree Street, NE Room N-2716 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210 l
t
e t
Bill A. Belt Billie P. Garde, Esq. U. S. Dept. of Labor Hardy, Milutin & Johns Wage and Hour Division 500 Two Houston Center Federal Bldg., Room 800 909 Fannin at McKinney 525 Griffin St.
Houston, TX 77010 Dallas, TX 75202 Director Russell Wise Region II Allegations Coordinator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Enforcement & Investigation Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Suite 2900 Arlington, TX 760111 Atlar.ta, GA 30323 James White, Esq.
Regional Solicitor 525 Griffin St.
Director Suite 501 Office of Enforcement Dallas, TX 75202 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Reporting Service Daniel W. Bremer A f)bk (fff s syjp District Director DSBORAH Q. CUREAT " Employment Standards Adm. Dated: g g g g/ g Eb Wage & Hour Division 1375 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 668 Atlanta, GA 30367 Frank Koller, Manager Nuclear Support Services, Inc. Post Office Box 3120 Hershey, PA 17033 D.P. Hall, Group Vice Pres. Nuclear Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 408 Wadsworth, TX 77483-0408 Daniel K. Brown District Director 2320 LaBranch Room 2100 Houston, TX 77004
n-p . , h , E).S. Department of Leber Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 III Veterans Memorial Blvd. Ky, i4:sirle, LA 70005 ) . J Wn4 (504) 589-6201 Date: October 20, 1992 i
/[M.f,".?'fd!w WI CASE NO., -ERA-38 '
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. CGxnplainant v. HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY GEORGIA POWER CO., AND NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., Respondent ORDER A telephone conference was conducted on October 20, 1992 with counsel for the parties named herein. To confirm the orders entered during this conference it is ordered that:
- 1. Any dispositive motion which does not go to the merits ,
shall be filed by October 31, 1992;8
- 2. Claimant's deposition shall be taken by December 15, 1992;
- 3. All dispositive motions shall be filed by January 8, i 1993;2/
- 4. All discovery shall be completed by February 1, 1993;
- 5. The hearing in this matter shall commence at 9:30 a.m. on March 15, 1993 in Houston, Texas at a place to be designated )
by subsequent notice and shall continue from day to day until completed. , l 1 8
&2 Responses to these motions shall 'oe filed within fif teen days of the deadlines.
I
's The determination to hold the hearing in Houston, Texas instead of the alternative proposed place hearing of Atlanta, Georgia is based on the view that the former is more convenient for the bulk of the witnesses as well as complainant and Houston Lighting. This is demonstrated by the estimate provided by the parties of the time required to present their evidence. Thus, the time required by complainant and Houston Lighting was estimated to be an aggregate of between five and seven days in contrast to the one day estimate by Nuclear Support Services. Cun P k W QULNTIN P. MCCOLGIN F ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE l Dated:p g Metairie, Louisiana i QPMC:dqc l l 1
l 7 l SERVICE SHEET Case Name: THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. Case No.: 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 Title of Document: ORDER A copy of the above document was sent to the following: David K. Colapinto, Esq. Bobbye Spears, Esq. Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Regional Solicitor Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. U. S. Depart. of Labor 517 Florida Ave., N.W. 1371 Peachtree Street Washington, DC 20001-1850 Room 339 Atlanta, Georgia 30367 L. Chapman Smith, Esq. Administrator Ross E. Cockburn, Esq. Employment Standards Adm. Baker & Botts Wage and Hour Division 3000 One Shell Plaza U.S. Dept. of Labor Houston, TX 77002 Room S-3502, FPB 200 Constitution Ave, NW Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esq. Washington, DC 20210 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Office of Enforcement and Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Compliance Monitoring Environmental Protection Tho s J. S ito, Jr. Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 A. William Dahlberg Regional Administrator President & CEO U.S. Environmental Protection Georgia Power Company Agency 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 l Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr., Esq. Deputy Associate Solicitor Troutman Sanders, Esq. Division of Fair Labor ' Nationsbank Plaza Standards Suite 5200 U. S. Depart. of Labor 600 Peachtree Street, NE Room N-2716 i Atlanta, Georgia 30308 200 Constitution Ave., NW l Washington, DC 20210 l l
g._ . - - - - -_ - . _ _ . L Si , ,
'c y -
Bill A. Belt Billie P. Garde, Esq. U. S. Dept. of Labor Hardy, Milutin & Johns Wage and Hour Division 500 Two Houston Center Federal Bldg.,-Room 800 , 909 Fannin at McKinney 525 Griffin St. Houston, TX 77010 Dallas, TX 75202 , Director . Russell Wise , Region II Allegations Coordinator > Enforcement & Investigation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory ; commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 101 Marietta Street, NW 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 .i Suite 2900 Arlington, TX 760111-Atlanta, GA 30323 James White, Esq. Regional Solicitor ; 525 Griffin St. Director Suite 501 Office of Enforcement Dallas, TX 75202 . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, DC 20555 Reporting Service , Daniel W. Bremer //4//JE ' District Director 'DEBORAH Q. CUREAU Employment Standards Adm. Dated: Wage & Hour Division 2/ g7 ' 1375 Peachtree Street, NE . Suite 668 Atlanta, GA 30367 Frank Koller, Manager Nuclear Support Services, Inc. , Post Office Box 3120 L Hershey, PA 17033 D.P. Hall, Group Vice Pres. Nuclear Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 408 Wadsworth, TX 77483-0408 , l Daniel K. Brown l District Director 2320 LaBranch Room 2100 Houston, TX 77004 ; r
kle'!, I
.~. ' O. 4. Departsstent of Labor pirar i Office of Administrative Law Judges -
Herhage Plaza, Suite 530 Y 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Metairie, t.A 70005 y $m~ (504)589-6201 Date: November 24, 1992 Q L,+T 6rfC-CASE NO. 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 (Consolidated) IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. Complainant v. HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY GEORGIA POWER CO., AND NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., Respondent RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL Up6n consideration of Complainant's Notice of Dismissal of Respondent Georgia Power Company, all papers filed in response thereto and the record herein, it be and hereby is Ordered that Complainant's complaint against Respondent Georgia Power Company is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) (1) (1) . M " QUINTIN P. FCCOLGIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated: g 74 g Metairie, Louisiana QPMC:dqc
i i l l SERVICE SHEET Case Name: THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. Case No.: 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 Title of Document: RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL l l l l A copy of the above document was sent to the following: l l l l David K. Colapinto, Esq. Bobbye Spears, Esq. l Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Regional Solicitor j Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. U. S. Depart. of Labor 517 Florida Ave., N.W. 1371 Peachtree Street Washington, DC 20001-1850 Room 339 Atlanta, Georgia 30367 L. Chapman Smith, Esq. Administrator l Ross E. Cockburn, Esq. Employment Standards Adm. f Baker & Botts Wage and Hour Division 3000 One Shell Plaza U.S. Dept. of Labor Houston, TX 77002 Room S-3502, FPB 200 Constitution Ave, NW Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esq. Washington, DC 20210 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Office of Enforcement and Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Compliance Monitoring Environmental Protection omas J ito, Jr. Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 l A. William Dahlberg Regional Administrator President & CEO U.S. Environmental Protection Georgia Power Company Agency 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Jesse P. Schaudies Jr., Esq. Deputy Associate Solicitor Troutman Sanders, Esq. Division of Fair Labor Nationsbank Plaza Standards Suite 5200 U. S. Depart. of Labor 600 Peachtree Street, NE Room N-2716 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210
" . I' r 9'E ,
[ Billie P. Garde, Esq. [ Hardy, Milutin & Johns Bill A. Belt' i L U. S. Dept. of Labor ' m 500 Two Houston Center Wage and Hour Division ( 909 Fannin at McKinney Federal Bldg., Room 800 i n Mc.uston,,TX 77010 6 525 Griffin St. l Dallas, TX 75202' , Director , Region II- Russell Wise o U.-S. Nuclear Regulatory Allegations Coordinator : i Commission Enforcement & Investigation ! 101 Marietta_ Street, NW Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Suite 2900 Arlington, TX i Atlanta, GA 30323 760111 ! l i Director Office of Enforcement James White, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Regional Solicitor Commission 525 Griffin St. . Washington, DC 20555 Suite 501 ; Dallas, TX 75202 , Daniel W. Bremer Reporting Service District Director i Employment Standards Adm. Wage & Hour Division 1375 Peachtree Street, NE ./ i Suite 668 4//b)d O. h3d//24 , l Atlanta, GA 30367 DEBORAH Q. CUREAU i Dated:[ g /ffy j Frank Koller, Manager Nuclear Support Services, Inc. Secretary of Labor Post Office Box 3120 Hershey, PA 17033 W.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Room S-2018 D.P. Hall, Group Vice Pres. 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210 Nuclear Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 408 Wadsworth, TX 77483-0408 Daniel K. Brown District Director 1 2320 LaBranch Room 2100 Houston, TX 77004 i i
53 13.S. Department of Labor
!et t es,%
/
Office of Administrative Law Judges * ' Heritage Plars, Suite 530 7 L~= I 5
%, h 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70005 ' Arn e '[ (504) 589-6201
/yIdc Date: February 1, 1993 W (-
h}o p l C g i
'[1 @
CASE NO. 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 (Consolidated) IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS J. .SAPORITO, JR. Complainant v. HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COV.PANY GEORGIA POWER CO., AND NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., Respondent ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY'S NOTION TO DISNI88 COMPLAINANT'S BLACKLISTING CLAIN Pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the authority granted to the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to 29 C.F.R. S 18.29 (a) (8) , Houston Lighting and Power Company i (hereinafter "HL&P") moves to dismiss Complainant's blacklisting claims against it, in the consolidated cases 92-ERA-38 and 92-ERA-45. j In support of this motion, HL&P has filed a memorandum, to which complainant, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., filed opposition, to I which HL&P filed a reply. ] In essence, HL&P asserts that Complainant's blacklisting case j should be dismissed because the request for hearing was untimely. j It is held that complainant is entitled to hearing on the .' blacklisting charge, for the reasons set forth below. Factual Backcround i In a complaint dated February 24, 1992, Complainant alleged l a violation of the employee protection provisions of 42 U.S.C. j
$5851 (1988). Complainant submitted an amended complaint on March 5, 1992, additionally alleging " blacklisting." l
/$
t . On June 30, 1992, the Department of Labor, Houston, Texas, office, issued an untitled document notifying a Ms. Brown of HP&L of the "res.dits of our compliance actions." On the first of complainant's allegations, discriminatory employment action based on a protected activity, the Department of Labor found for the Complainant. On the second allegation, blacklisting by HL&P representative Rich DeLong, the Department of Labor stated only: t On allegation number 2, blacklisting, it is our conclusion that the allegations cannot be substantiated because Mr. DeLong said only that he would not rehire Mr. Saporito. The letter to Ms. Brown further purported to notify the Respondent of the actions required to remedy the violation of the employee protection provisions of the ERA. Further, it stated: This letter is also notification to you that, if you wish to appeal the above findings and remedy, you have a right to a formal hearing on the record. To exercise this right you must, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by telearam to. . .The Chief Administrative Law Judge. . .Unless a telegram is received. . .this notification of findings and remedial action will become the Final Order of the Secretary of Labor which must be implemented within 30 days. The form letter continues: By copy of this letter, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. is being advised of the determination and the right to a hearing. . . .If you decide to request a hearing, it will be necessary for you to send copies of the telegram to Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. And to me. . . . Af ter I receive the copy of your request, appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made....The hearing is an adversarial proceeding in which the parties will be allowed an opportunity to present their evidence for the record. The Administrative Law Judge will issue a recommended decision to the Secretary based on the evidence, testimony, and arguments presented by the parties at the hearing. The Final Order of the Secretary of Labor will then be issued after consideration of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision and the record developed at the hearing and will either provide for appropriate relief or dismiss the complaint. Complainant's contemporaneous complaint against Georgia Power Company was investigated by the Department of Labor, Atlanta, Georgia, office. On June 3, 1992, by certified mail, the Department of Labor notified Comolainant specifically that the
9 Department of Labor did not find evidence of knowledge of protected activity or blacklisting. It specifically notified Complainant of his appeal rights. Georgia Power Company was purportedly notified by copy of the letter addressed to Complainant of the determination , and the right to a hearing. I l On June 8, 1992, Complainant timely sent a telegram to The ! Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, stating: I request a hearing regarding the wage and hour findings dated June 3,1992 concerning my discrimination complaint and filed against Georgia Power Company, Houston Lighting
& Power, and Nuclear Support Services Inc.
l It is undisputed that the Complainant did not file a telegram l requesting a hearing af ter receiving either the copy of the June 30 letter to HL&P or a copy of the hearing request of HL&P. The only hearing request submitted by Complainant on file is that quoted above. Upon Complainant's request for a hearing, the case in Georgia was docketed 92-ERA-45. Upon HL&P's request for a hearing, the case in Texas was docketed 92-ERA-38. By order of this Administrative Law Judge, these cases have been consolidated for hearing. Analysis
- 1. The Reauest for a Hearina De Novo Allows all Parties to Litiaate All Claims The allegations in Complainant's complaint and amended complaint were treated by the Department of Labor as though they were severable causes of action. Essentially, the Respondent asserts that because the Department of Labor made a determination unfavorable to Complainant on the blacklisting claim, in light of the fact that Complainant did not file his own hearing request, he waived the right to hearing on the blacklisting claim. l 1
Respondent has cited no authority directly on point. In the l l cases cited by Respondent (e.g. Ward v. Bechtel Construction. Inc. , I l 85-ERA-9 (July 11, 1986), n2 Darty requested a hearing within five days, therefore, the determination became final. In fact, the Secretary of Labor has held the opposite, in Smith v. Tennessee Vallev Authority, 87-ERA-20 (April 27, 1990). The Secretary stated: Once a hearing is requested (as was done in the present case) the determination of the Administrator never ; becomes the final order of the Secretary. 29 C.F.R. 1 S24.4(2)(1) and ( 3) (i) (case citations
rc 3 omitted)....Instead, the parties are given de novo consideration of the case before.the administrative law , judge [ case citations omitted), who issues a recommended' decision based on the record compiled at the hearing. 29 C.F.R. 524. 5 (e) (2) (citations omitted). The ALJ's recommended decision is then reviewed by the Secretary who issues the final order in the case based on the hearing record and the ALJ's recommended decision. 29 l C.F.R. 524.6 (b) (1) . There is certainly no requirement that any party appeal each and every specific issue, or that each party file an appeal or request for a hearing on each ground alleged. In fact, each party notified was told simply to request a hearing via telegram, nothing more. Thus, it is clear that once any party requests a hearing on ! the claims submitted to the agency, the Administrative Law Judge ' l becomes the fact-finder, and all claims submitted to the agency are properly preserved for a " formal hearing on the record." (Eng also, 5 U.S.C $557(b).)
- 2. The Issue of Blacklisting is Not Res Judicata As held above, the decision of the Wage and Hour Commission 1 has not become the final order of the Secretary of Labor, pending a formal hearing. It has been held that when a statute provides for da D9.Yg review, res iudicata does not apply, gag American Heritaae Life Insurance Co. v. Heritaae Life Insurance Co., 494 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1974).
In the same vein, rg iudicata will not apply when there is an facial error in the decision below.
- 3. Dismissal of Comolainant's Blacklistina claim Without Oooortunity for Hearina in the Case is Both a Statutory and Dug Process Violation.
Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their published procedures, even though the procedures may be more rigorous than the process that otherwise would be required. Barr v. U.S., 689 F.Supp. 1248 (E.D. N.Y. 1988). The time provisions for filing an appeal must be liberally construed so as not to prejudice an adversely affected party. Egg ; Rowland v. Califano, 588 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1979). 4 In the present case, Department of Labor regulations clearly l contemplate two post-investigation scenarios: (I) the complaint is found to be without merit, in which case the Comolainant is to be notified directiv of the determination, pending finality, and procedure for requesting a hearing. If a hearing is requested, a copy of the request must be sent to the Respondent (employer) by l l
l l 4 the Complainant. 29 C.F.R. 524.4 (d) (2) (i) and (ii); and (II) the administrator finds a violation did occur, in which case the Respondent is to be notified directly of the determination, pending finality, and procedure for requesting a hearing. If a hearing is requested, a copy of the request must be sent to the Complainant by the Respondent. 29 C.F.R. 524. 4 (d) (3 ) (1) and (ii). From the structure of the regulations, it is clear that these are mandatory, separate procedural sequences. The purpose of the regulations is to comport with the agency's statutory mandate and the constitutionally compelled adequate due process. Most importantly, they provide the means by which a party is notified of the outcome of the case, and the means by which that outcome may be challenged. "The due process clause requires that notice be reasonably calculated to inform parties of proceedings which may directly and adversely affect their legally protected interest." North Ala. Exoress. Inc. v. U.S., 585 (F.2d 783 (5th Cir. 1978). In the present case, the regulations require that a party aggrieved by an unfavorable decision be notified directly by certified mail of their legal recourse. In the case of the determination regarding the complaint lodged against Georgia power, the Atlanta office of the Department of Labor properly served and notified Complainant of its unfavorable decision, which he timely and properly appealed via request for a hearing. That case became 92-ERA-38. The Houston office's later determination against HL&P was both favorable in part and unfavorable in part for Complainant and Respondent. Both the regulations cited above and due process required, at a minimum, that each party be notified directly via
> certified mail of its rights.8 The Department of Labor, Houston office, followed the regulations properly as to Respondent, but not as to complainant. Each party should have been notified not only of the outcome of the investigation but also as to that party's appeal rights in accordance with the two different notification procedures prescribed by the regulation. The notification received by complainant failed to inform him of his appeal rights. Hence that notification was insufficient and cannot serve as a bar to the maintenance of his blacklisting claim against Houston Lighting and Power. ..
It is ; clear that Complainant intends to litigate his case vigorously, and would not have waived his right to a hearing on his blacklistung claim. Thus, the copy of a letter from the Houston office sent'to Respondent was insufficient notice to Complainant and is error below. Additionally, the notice, had it been sufficient to inform Complainant of his rights, did not indicate that any part of his complaint would be waived if not appealed with
'As a safeguard, each party in interest should receive direct notice of the outcome of the determination. Whether the regulations comply with due process is not, however, presently before this administrative law judge.
l l
4 f specificity. Complainant, proceeding EIS gg, albeit experienced in bringing "whistleblower" claims, had a- right to rely on Respondent's request for a hearing as sufficient to preserve his right to a trial da novo on the entire claim, and he cannot now be penalized by forfeiture of his claim by doing so.
- 4. The Facts as Presently Develooed do not Succort a Summary pecision Recardina HL&P's Recuested Dismissal of 92-ERA-45 Despite Respondent's claims to the contrary, the factual basis for Complainant's blacklisting claim is not before this administrative law judge, and the present record is insufficient to support a summary decision. In light of the fact that it has been determined that Complainant has not as yet had a trial on the merits of his blacklisting claim, and there remain both questions of fact and law, the motion to dismiss complainant's blacklisting claims in 92-ERA-45 must be denied.
ORDER It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion to Dismiss Complainant's Blacklisting Claim is in all things DENIED. Aa " h. QUENTIE P. MCCOLGIN
'W f
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated: g / jg 3 Metairie, Louisiana QPMC:dqc
'?,;
T, S Tr u i
l SERVICE SHEET l Case Name: THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. 1 Case No.: 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 j Title of Document: ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINANT'S BLACKLISTING CLAIM A copy of the above document was sent to the following: David K. Colapinto, Esq. Bobbye Spears, Esq. Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Regional Solicitor Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. U. S. Depart. of Labor 517 Florida Ave., N.W. 1371 Peachtree Street Washington, DC 20001-1850 Room 339 Atlanta, Georgia 30367 L. Chapman Smith, Esq. Administrator . Ross E. Cockburn, Esq. Employment Standards Adm. ! Baker & Botts Wage and Hour Division ; 3000 One Shell Plaza U.S. Dept. of Labor l Houston, TX 77002 Room S-3502, FPB ! 200 Constitution Ave, NW . Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esq. Washington, DC 20210 j 210 Walnut Street < P. O. Box 11963 Office of Enforcement and Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Compliance Monitoring Environmental Protection ; Thom rito, Jr. Agency j 401 M Street, SW < Washington, DC 20460 Regional Administrator A. Willi g%4CEODahlberg Presidents U.S. Environmental Protection l Georgia P$uar, Company Agency 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 1 Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr., Esq. Deputy Associate Solicitor Troutman Sanders, Esq. Division of Fair Labor l Nationsbank Plaza Standards ; Suite 5200 U. S. Depart, of Labor l 600 Peachtree Street, NE Room N-2716 j Atlanta, Georgia 30308 200 Constitution Ave., NW t Washington, DC 20210 j l i I i
n E- , . F . * ;. ;
+
' 36 - t - 1
< :i
~
s
+
-{ .
Billie'P. Garde, Esq. .! Hardy, Milutin G. Johns- ' Bill"A. Belt l 500 Two Houston Center U. S. Dept. of Labor. l
-909;Fannin at McKinney Wage and Hour Division l Houston,'TX 77010 Federal Bldg.,. Room 800 525 Griffin St.
Dallas, TX ~75202 l Director g Region II Russell-Wise . . , U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Allegations Coordinator Commission Enforcement & Investigation- -I 101 Marietta Street, NW Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite'2900 611 Ryan Plaza'Dr., Suite.1000' { Atlanta, GA 30323 Arlington, TX 760111 ) l Director Office of Enforcement- James White, Esq. . Regional: Solicitor -t U. S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 525 Griffin St. Washington, DC 20555 Suite 501-Dallas, TX 75202
-5
' Daniel W. Bremer District Director Reporting Service .
Employment Standards Adm. -l i Wage & Hour Division ~ i P htree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30367- DUBORAM Q. CUREAU ; Dated:ps/-y} ; Frank-Koller, Manager ] Nuclear Support Services, Inc. j Post Office Box 3120 Hershey, PA 17033 D.P. Hall, Group Vice Pres. Nuclear Houston Lighting and Power Company
-P. O.-Box 408 Wadsworth, TX 77483-0408 Daniel K. Brown District Director 2320 LaBranch Room 2100 Houston,'TX 77004
4 U.S. Department of Labor e o er , Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza, Suite 530 g f3I . J g 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Metalrie, LA 70005 l l
.M/
g%n ( e'
}
(504) 589-6201 Date: -Mgg gg CASE NO. 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 (Consolidated) IN THE MATTER OF ! THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. Complainant
- v. l HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY GEORGIA POWER CO., AND NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
Respondent ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Pursuant to the authority granted to the administrative law judge under 29 C.F.R. SS18.40, 18.41, Nuclear Support Services, Inc. (hereinafter "NSS") moves for summary decision on complaints of Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. (Complainant) in the consolidated cases 92-ERA-38 and 92-ERA-45. In support of this motion, NSS has filed a memorandum, to which Complainant filed opposition, to which NSS filed a reply. - In essence, NSS asserts that there is no genuine issue of material fact that it had a non-discriminatory justification for , terminating Complainant, and that he cannot prevail on his blacklisting claim because there is no genuine issue of material fact that NSS' actions rise to the level of a crima facie case of blacklisting. It is held that Complainant is entitled to hearing on his claims, for the reasons set forth below. Backaround On February 28, 1992, Complainant was hired conditionally by Respondent NSS for work as a Senior Instrument and Control technician at the Plant Vogtle nuclear power plan near Waynesboro, Georgia. Respondent NSS is a contractor at plant Vogtle for Georgia Power Company, t T/2 t'
c.
. 1 Complainant reported for duty at the plant on March 2, 1992, '
at 6:30 a.m. , and was sent for a fitness for duty and psychological examination. During his physical examination, at an as-yet undetermined time of day, Complainant was informed that the examination would cease and he was being terminated from employment. Respondent has stated that Complainant was terminated due to two negative responses to the prior employment investigation. investigation on March 3, Subsequent to the employment investigation. 1992 led to another unfavorable response March 2, Complainant claims that he was " blacklisted" by NSS because on 1992, while still employed by NSS, he stated that he had filed complaints with the NRC during prior employment, and that he would instigate investigation of NSS. NSS claims that Complainant first made NSS aware that he had engaged in prior protected activity in a letter dated March 15, 1992. Further, NSS claims , that i.e.,Complainant was terminated for legitimate business reasons, negative remarks and an unexplained prior revocation of access at other facilities. Analysis
- 1. Summary iudament is not acoropriate because cenuine issues'of motive and credibility are unresolved.
The administrative law judge may only enter summary judgment for either party if the pleadings, affidavits or materials obtained through discovery show that there is no genuine issue of material fact29and S1q that the moving party is entitled to summary decision. C.F.R. S18,40(d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. dismissalIn theare present case, the factual reasons for Complainant's in dispute. Claimant has stated that discovery is not as been taken. yet complete, and no depositions (other than his own) have It is clear from the documents submitted by both parties in support of the motions that credibility issues will be key in the ultimate decision. Thus, it would be premature to reach the merits of this case on the present documentary record. The burden of proof is upon Respondent-movant. The evidence submitted Complainant by Respondent to date is inadequate to determine whether was terminated in a discriminatory manner or
" blacklisted" by NSS.
2. Comolainant has made his crima facie case for dual-motive discharce. In order to establish a prima facie case under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), Complainant must demonstrate six factors. Sag e.g. Mackowiak v. University Nuclear Systems, Inc., 735 F.2d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1984). It is undisputed that 4 an employer / employee relationship existed, or that Complainant was
c. the subject of an adverse employment action. There is no evidence to suggest that he engaged in a protected activity while employed by NSS. However, an employee who " blows the whistle" on a third party (e.g. , another employer) is protected against discrimination. Johnson v. Old Dominion Security, 86-CAA-3,4,5 (SOL May 29, 1991). The remaining critical issues in dispute are, essentially (1) whether NSS had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's prior protected activity and (2) whether NSS had a discriminatory motive in terminating Complainant's employment. The evidence of these final two factors may be direct or circumstantial. Eq.g e.g. , Waconer v. Technical Products, Inc., 87-TSC-4 (SOL Nov. 20, 1987); Ellis Fischel State Cancer Hosoital v. Marshall, 629 F.2d 563, 566 (8th Cir. 1980), cert, denied 450 U.S. 1040 (1981); Couty v. Dole, 886 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1989). In the present case, the circumstantial evidence submitted by Complainant to date is sufficient to raise an inference of discriminatory motive. Thus, Complainant has made out his prima facie case and granting of summary judgment would be improper. Thus, as nere exist genuine, material issues of fact, including witness testimony and credibility, Responden*'s Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied, and Complainant will be given the opportunity to fully litigate his claims against Respondent. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion to for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Nuclear Support Service, Inc. is in all things DENIED. ff:T
~
QUENTIN P. McCOLGIN Administrative Law Judge Dated: [/998 Metairie, Louisiana QPMC:tdb
SERVICE SHEET Case Name: THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR. l Case No.: 92-ERA-45 & 92-ERA-38 Title of Document: ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT A copy of the above document was sent to the following: David K. Colapinto, Esq. Bobbye Spears, Esq. Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Regional Solicitor Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. U. S. Depart. of Labor 517 Florida Ave., N.W. 1371 Peachtree Street Washington, DC 20001-1850 Room 339 Atlanta, Georgia 30367 L. Chapman Smith, Esq. Administrator Ross E. Cockburn, Esq. Employment Standards Adm. Baker & Botts Wage and Hour Division 3000 One Shell Plaza U.S. Dept. of Labor Houston, TX 77002 Room S-3502, FPB 200 Constitution Ave, NW Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esq. Washington, DC 20210 ; 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Office of Enforcement and Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 Compliance Monitoring Environmental Protection Thomas J. Sa orito, Jr. Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 A. William Dahlberg Regional Administrator President & CEO U.S. Environmental Protection Georgia Power Company Agency 333 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr., Esq. Deputy Associate Solicitor Troutman Sanders, Esq. Division of Fair Labor Nationsbank Plaza Standards l Suite 5200 U. S. Depart. of Labor 600 Peachtree Street, NE Room N-2716 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 200 Constitution Ave., NW l Washington, DC 20210 I
3 .'
. .- - l 2
- . l Billie P. Gar'de, Esq. Bill'A. Belt l Hardy, Milutin & Johns U. S. Dept. of Labor 500 Two Houston Center Wage and Hour Division 'l 909 Fannin at McKinney Federal Bldg., Room 800 l Houston, TX- 77010 525 Griffin St.-
Dallas, TX 75202-Director Russell Wise 1 Region II Allegations Coordinator. l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Enforcement & Investigation , Commission ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 101 Marietta Street, NW 611 Ryan Plaza.Dr., Suite 1000 Suite 2900 Arlington, TX 760111 , Atlanta, GA 30323' t Director James White, Esq. .i Office of Enforcement Regional Solicitor l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 525 Griffin St. ; Commission Suite 501 Washington, DC 20555 Dallas, TX 75202 i Daniel W. Bremer Reporting Service i i District Director f Employment Standards Adm. Pe ch r t, NE ikha /}}{lMj ' . Suite 668 DEBORAH Q. CUREAU i Atlanta, GA 30367 Dated: gj Frank Koller, Manager ; Nuclear Support Services, Inc. i i Post Office Box 3120 Hershey, PA 17033 j I D.P. Hall, Group Vice Pres. Nuclear Houston Lighting and l Power Company ; P. O. Box 408 l' Wadsworth, TX 77483-0408 I Daniel K. Brown . j District Director 2320 LaBranch j Room 2100 Houston, TX 77004 i I I
.c. . , ,,. - , , . , _. ., _ , _ _, , . _ _ . _ - , _ . . . _ ,,c,. r
S l t) - I Nuclear Support Services Inc. W. Market St. Campbelltown, Pa. 17010 Narrative ' Coverace: The firm is engaged in cupplying contract ma.4 power to the nuclear and non-nuclear power industry and is thus covered by and subject to the provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA). See Ex. C-1 Part 1 On 1/13/92 Thomas Saporito was hired by Sun Technical Services, a subcontractor of Houston Lighting and Power, (HL&P), to work as an I & C Technician at the South Texas Project Electric Ger.erating Plant , Wadsworth. Texas. While performing in this position he engaged in protected activities by contacting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (NRC), concerning various safety concerns and identifying a number of safety related items to an on-site NRC inspector. See Ex. D-2 On 2/20/92 HL&P revoked Mr. Saporito's unescorted site access to protected areas of the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station was withdrawn. HL&P notified Mr. Saporito via letter, Ex. D-3, stating the reason for the revocation was due to "the omission of material information from the forms submitted by you in support of your request for unescorted access." As a result of the revocation of the site access Mr. Saporito was terminated from his employment. Mr. Saporito filed a whistleblower complaint for 1) illegal discharge due to his engagement in protected activities and '
- 2) blacklisting him for future employment. Wage & Hour l conducted an investigation and found in Mr. Saporito's favor I on the discharge claim and against him on the blacklisting charge. This resolution of this case is presently pending on appeal to the Secretary. A hearing has been scheduled for July, 1993.
On 3/2/92 Mr. Saporito was hired by Nuclear Support i Services, (NSS), to work as a senior I & C technician for i Georgia Power Company, (GPC), at the Votgle nuclear station, ! Waynesboro, Ga. When a backround security investigation by NSS disclosed the revocation of site access by HL&P at the South Texas plant Mr. Saporito was terminated by NSS. NSS , terminated Mr. Saporito because a revocation of site access ! at any nuclear plant in the past would disallow site access l to be granted to a prospective employee at a current nuclear j plant. Mr. Saporito filed a whistleblower complaint with j Wage & Hour against NSS and GPC. The investigation did not i support Mr. Saporito's claim of illegal discharge. Mr. l Saporito has appealed this finding and this case has been j combined w.th the HL&P case and will be resolved at the ! N / Of j
's hearing'in July, 1993. Since 3/2/92 Mr. Saporito has continually contacted NSS in an attempt to be considered for hire as an I & C technician at any available work site. He has forwarded four resumes to NSS and has called NSS's toll free number on various occasions in the past year to determine if I &C technician's were being hired. In additton, he has ,,,,, contacted NSS recruiters on 3 separate occasions and A been informed I & C technician jobs were going to be opening at differing plants in the upcoming months. See Ex. D - 1_ NSS supplied a list showing 1460 I & C technician resumes are currently listed in their database and from 3/2/92 to date 126 I &C technicians have been hired by the firm to work at 7 different nuclear plants. _See Ex D-4 Of the 126 I & C technicians hired 105 were returnees to the site and former .sSS ees; 6 were hirec at the request of the customer. The balance of 15 ees were new hires of NSS. Mr. Saporito was not hired by the firm, although his resume is on file in the firm's database. Part 2. Conclusions and recommendations: NSS is an employer subject to the whistleblower provisions of the ERA. Thomas Saporito was an employee of NSS for one day. 3/2/9" and has applied for employment with the firm during the period commencing 4/30/92 when certified receipt via mail of Saporito's resume was acknowledged by NSS. Thomas Saporito has not been hired or referred for consideration of hire by NSS for any I & C technician job cpening during the period 4/30/92 to present. NSS's Attorney, Mr. Stephen Grose, and Mrs. Brenda Acker explained Mr. Saporito was not and will not esen be considered for referral to any customer until the issue of the revocation of site access at HL&P is resolved. NSS feels Mr. Saporito is unable to gain site access according to NSS standards in light of the HL&p action. I explained Mr. Saporito had ga2ned site access to work for General Technical Services as an I & C technician at the Crystal River Nuclear Station in Florida during the period 5/18/92 until 6/25/92, however NSS explained Mr. Saporato will not be considered for referral and h2re until after the HL&P issue is resolved. Thomas Saporate has engaged in protected activities within the meaning of the ERA on a continuing basis since 1988 when he was employed at Turkey point nuclear station in Florida. Saporito was also engaged in protected activity at HL&P's South Texas nuclear station and most recently at Florida Power's Crystal River nuclear station, in May 1992. NSS is fully aware of Mr. Saporito's engagement in protected actisaty at HL&P's South Texas nuclear station.
p .
'e As a result of HL&P's revocation of Mr. Saporito's site access during his employment at the South Texas nuclear power station on 2/20/92, NSS has predisqualified Mr.
Saporito from referral for employment in the nuclear industry. NSS contends Mr. Saporito has not been referred for consideration for I & C technician jobs because of other business reasons such as improper resume format, unexplained gaps in employment history, and derogatory statements and bad recommendations in Saporito's employment history. See E_x_ D- ,7 In my opinion NSS's action to predisqualify Mr. Saporito constitutes blacklisting and thus NSS in in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the ERA. NSS has refused to conciliate the matter and all partier should be notified af the results of the investigation. gkf f " Inv. Noel F. Marks 4/5/93 l l
- b. . . . .
' q ,l;..
,.,t
} , 3,-[t ; ~ KEEFER, Wooo,~' ALLEN & RAHAL-wc47s L. AucN 'wva. Leisy" AND =cTzGtR N. DAVID RAM AL . "^**"' 210 WALNUT STREET
' wfLLIAM [. MILLER. JR.
Sauvct C. MARRY MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX t1963 "[TZ G E * " E " " E E'E "-
~
'C"","'
, tRT L w N H ARRISBURG, PA.171o8 t 963 se e.Iey EUGEPet C, PEPINSKv JR.
tRS No. 23 0716135 w#LLIAM H. wood THOMASC. WOOD OFCouNstL JOHNH.ENOSE oARvc.racNCH April-15, 1993 . r..x imi a.ss. oso DONNA S. WELDON : s SRADrORD DORRANCE TCLEPMDritif ty) a 5 5-8000 Jrrrecy s. sTonts ROSERTR. CHURCH. C/
==6f g at pintC' DA STEPMEN L. GROSE
,r N ,
JlrvRtY f SutTH DONALD . Lewis m . '7 .
*9 255-8052.
BRIDG ET M. wHITLEY ' 7; - GRETCHEN C. MANRAM AN KARCN J. SROTHERS Michael J. Corcoran, District Director ' Wage and Hour Division 3329 Penn Place t 20 North Pennsylvania Avenue Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 - Re: Saporito v. Nuclear Support Services, Inc. (Blacklistina complaint) i
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
l Enclosed please find a copy of the telegram requesting a hearing in the above matter. Please advise accordingly. - Sincerely, - KEEFER, WOOD, ALLEN & RAHAL Y
. h_-
Stephen L. Grose : SLG/sjn Enclosure cc: Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. (w/ encl.) oj- ) ,J2 ' jur.r e_ 1,,- It' p
,j . p)U n
- . ~ . . . . . . . - _ . . - . . . . .
L 8-- t 008558000766 04/13/93 HBGA
. t kEEFER WOOD ALLEN AND RAHAL SJN PO BOX 11963 HARRISBURG PA 17108-1963 THIS IS A CONFIFf1ATION COPV OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE:
7172558057 TDBN HARRISBURG PA 47 04-13 0855A EST 9310309992212292-1 CHIEF ADflINISTRATIVE LAu JUDGE, DLF CAAE U tlI T E D STATE 5 DEPT 0F L480A VANGUARD BLOG STE 700 4 , 1111 20Trt ST NORTHWEST WASHINGTON DC 20036 I AEGARDING: REQUEST F0F HEAPING I HEREBy REQUEST, ON SEHALF CF NUC'. EAR SUPDORT SERVICES, INC . A HEARING REGARDING THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION DETERHINATION CON'AINED IN ITS LETTER DATED APRIL 6. 1993 CONCERNING THE BLACKLISTING COff PL AINT FILED BY f1R THQ:t A S J SAPDFITO, JUNIOR AGAINST NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. STEPHEN L GROSE. ESCUIRE/ ATTORNEYS FOR NSSI KEEFER WOOD ALLEN AND RAHAL PO 60X 11953 _ HARRISBURG, PA 17108 15057 l 13:12 EST 1 f tGf tCOf tP l 4
-t
m g ,. . . . _. g .
~
' ~ '
ATTAcittENT 2 The Light c o mp anySouth Texas Project Electric Generanag Stano. P.O.Bos289 Wadsworth. Texas 7748 Houston Lighting & Power --- - - -- ....-- Q (n s .f. g .jhp h at's = h at- 31, 1993 ST-ML-AE-4665 l .,.D ~ ~ File No. : G03.12 10CFR50.7 , r.w - Mr. J. L. Milhoan Regional Administrator, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011 South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 STP Emolovee Concerns Procram
Dear Mr. Milhoan:
As I have discussed with you in the past, one of my highest priorities since coming to the South Texas Project has been to assure that there is an environment at South Texas which encourages employees to bring forth their concerns and that those concerns are received by management in a positive way that recognizes employees who bring forth concerns as contributors to our overall vision and mission for the station. My management team and I have sought to assure that environment through a number of methods including: video tapes provided to all employees and their families, ongoing group and one-on-one meetings with employees, sensitivity training for supervisors and enhanced training for new supervisors, employee bulletins, and climate assessments. An additional action that I took last August was to commission an independent review of our employee concerns program called Speakout. The review was completed in November and your staff has been provided with copies of the report. Specifically, I asked the independent consultants who conducted the review to compare the Speakout Program with the attributes of the best programs in the Q. 1//
f. K.* - e Page 2 ST-HL-AE-4665 ' 4 f country and to interview site personnel to gain insights into how ' the program was perceived by the workforce. The independent review provided corroboration of our earlier climate assessment that the , overwhelming majority of the workforce would raise nuclear safety i or quality concerns through one of the mechanisms available'to , them, and identified some areas where improvement could be made. These included improving workforce confidence in the program, clarifying the scope of the program, and clarifying the role of the - evaluators / investigators in the program. ; Af ter cmeful consideration of the independent review, I decided to , make a number of the recommended changes on an expedited basis..I ! felt that timely action was important in order to demonstrate j responsiveness to the feedback that we received from our employees, ' and to build on the momentum created by the intensive communications and training programs outlined above. Specifically, . I an implementing or have implemented the following actions: To address workforce confidence:
- 1) The manager of the program now reports directly to me. Additionally, r~ expect to hire, in the very i near future, a contract manager to run the program for the next 18 to 24 months to emphasize the independence of the program.
- 2) An ombudsman or employee advocate function has been added to the program to provide. the specific champion for the employees and to assure that their concerns are properly addressed. This function ;
also provides a single point of contact for the employee, should they need help in raising their concern or desire further assurance of ' confidentiality. i To address the scope of the program:
- 1) The program has been refocused on nuclear safety and quality issues while providing other functions and avenues to address employee concerns not directly related to safety or quality. To emphasize this change, the name of the program has been changed to the Nuclear Safety and Quality Concerns Progran (NSQP).
, . . . . 3 i
lW.' - - . . .. . l i T L
- t
- -
Page 3. i ST-HL-AE-4665 !
- 2) 6ther organizations, such as Human Resources and :
Industrial Safety will be responsible for handling- ! employee concerns not directly related to nuclear } safety and quality.
- l
- 3) To assure that employee concerns, of any kind, are i properly handled, an umbrella program document has been--developed to clearly define.how concerns are to be handled, the interface'between the different i functions that deal with employee concerns, and to i clearly define the employee advocate function. l To address the roles of the evaluators / investigators:
- 1) Wrongdoing and similar type investigations are now '!
!- being handled by an investigatory group outside of NSQP. i
- 2) The ecluation methodology within NSQP has been l changed to eliminate " law enforcement" type l techniques such as tape recording interviews, and r affirmation statements.
- 3) The advocate function has bean clearly separated !
from the evaluator function to assure that there is no confusion on the employees'.part as to the role of the individual they are dealing with. j l I have also instituted other changes such as enhanced training, ; development of performance measures, additional planned 4 effectiveness reviews, etc. which are designed to provide additional enhancement to the Nut' lear Safety and Quality Concerns i Program and the overall way that South Texas handles employee ! concerns. l Your staff recently inspected the ' South Texas employee concern program. At the time of the inspection, we were in the transition ! created by my decision to proceed with the implementation of the 'I changes to the program which I felt could not wait. The inspection l team found both strengths and weaknesses in the program th'ay i observed. Attached to this letter are' responses and actions we j have taken to address observations made by the inspection team. ' A separate attachment addresses the additional actions we plan to l take to enhance the program and the scheduled dates for those l actions. l We recognize, as Chairman Selin did recently in his testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee, that employee concern programs l vary widely throughout the nuclear industry, and that many plants ' operate very successfully with seve?!al different kinds of programs. 1 i
s .. 1'
. i f
Page 4 ST-HL-AE-4665 l We also recognize, as we believe you and your staff do, that the real key to success is not the form of the program, but rather the employees' confidence in the program and the overall environment in which employee concerns are addressed. In making these changes at : South Texas, we have tried to adapt what works well. at other facilities to the speciffcs of our site in order to build the : proper environment that assures that employee concerns are addressed in a manner that builds confidence in the overall process ! and in the station's management. lr As with any change, there will be a period of time before the l overall effectiveness of these changes can be properly measured and ; put into perspective. Our action plan, mentioned above, provides the time frames for those assessments. In the mean time, my ! management team and I are dedicated to continuing to provide the proper environment for the raising and addressing of employee l concerns. . i If you have any questions on this issue, please feel free to contact me or Joe Sheppard (512-972-8757) Sincerely, ! c ; ecar- " M l W. T. Cottle i Group vice President, l Nuclear ! a c: J. M. Taylor i i Attachments:
- 1. Responses to NRC Inspection Team Observations
- 2. Employee Concern Program Enhancement Schedule , ,
- 3. OPGP03-ZA-0504, Employee Concerns Program l
- 4. NGP-130, Reporting Safety-Related Concerns and Problems i
1
Houston Lighting & Power Company ST-HL-AE-4665 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station File No.: G03.12
- Page 5 c:
l Regional Administrator, Region IV Rufus S. Scott U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Associate General Counsel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Houston Lightil:1 & Power Company Arlington, TX 76011 P. O. Box 61867 Houston, TX 77208 Lawrence E. Kokajko . Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Institute of Nuclear Power Washington, DC 20555 13H15 Operations - Records Center 700 Galleria Parkway j David P. Loveless Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 1 Sr. Resident Inspector c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie P. O. Box 910 50 Bellport Lane Bay City, TX 77404-910 Bellport, NY 11713 J. R. Newman, Esquire D. K. Lacker 1 Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., STE 1000 Bureau of Radiation Control 1615 L Street, N.W. Texas Department of Health Washington, DC 20036. 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189 K. J. Fiedler/M. T. Hardt -U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. City Public Service P. O. Box 1771 ;.tt u: Document Control Desk San Antonio, TX 78296 Washington, D. C. 20555 J. C. Lanier/M. B. Lee City of Austin Electric Utility Department 721 Barton Springs Road Austin, TX 78704 l G. E. Vaughn/T. M. Puckett Central Power and Light Company P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, TX 78403
1 4 1
~
Attachment 1 RESPONSES TO NRC INSPECTION TEAM OBSERVATIONS
- 1. Additional cuidance on Drotection of concernee identity should be orovided ,
Procedures used by the employee concerns program are under- i revision to more completely describe the specific methods to ! be used to protect the identify of those who request that - i their concerns'be handled on a confidential basis. These. j revisions are scheduled to be complete by January 15, 1994. ) i Policy on raisino concerns /contactina NRC should be I 2. clarified l Nuclear Group Policy 130 has been changed to emphasize that employees with concerns are free to contact the Nuclear Safety and Quality Concerns Program-("NSQP") or the NRC at I any time. This revised policy was approved on December 23, t 1993 and is attached for your information. ;
- 3. Conclete closure of multiole concerns ahnuld be assured i
Routine tracking and coordination of concerns until the $ investigations are concluded is normally adequate. ! I Additional assurance will be provided by the assessments and the oversight group.
- 4. Interviewer trainina should be enhanced )
The 1994 Human Resources Development Plan includes > provisions and a budget for providing formal-training on l interview techniques to NSQP personnel responsible for l receiving and evaluating employee concerns. This training ! is expected to be completed during 1994. Training will focus on how to establish a good rapport with concernees,
- ensure that all pertinent information relating to a +
particular concern is elicited, and provide satisfactory , feedback to the concernee on the progress and results of ! evaluation of the concern. The investigative group outside of NSQP will complete 26 hours of fornal classroom training ; on investigative principles and techniques by January 13, ! 1994. ; i
- 5. Site exit interview process should be more effective 6
Procedural changes have been made which require an l interviewer from the Nuclear Safety and Quality Concerns ; Program to participate in the exit process for each person j concluding a term of employment at the STP site. This will l provide an opportunity for those individuals to express any concerns about nuclear safety or quality. The NSQP interviewers will utilize a structured set of questions , designed to elicit any concerns that the individual who is :
. - .. ._ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _
en . c*; . . ,
- 6. Professional ~ and orivate environment for receivina concerns-should be assured i The. location of the NSQP interview offices has been changed i to the central Processing facility so that it.is more j accessible to potential concernees and less obvious'to other :
site personnel;that the NSQP. interview offices.are being , visited. .The' layout of these. offices will assure privacy "
.l for.those who bring forward concerns. . .In. addition, NSQP- t interviewers and support staff will receive training'and' l instructions.on interfacing with concerneesLin,a :
professional, courteous and helpful: manner, as well as on- ! I the necessity to assure that concernstare being handled confidentially'and that this confidentiality is perceived'by : concernees. t Trainina on'the'P=nlovee Concerns Proaram nrocedures should~ ~
- 7. l i
be orovided to those isolementina the nrocram An overall program description and procedure for the employee concerns program has been developed and was- . . ' approved on December 31, 1993. This procedure describes the ; function of each of the subgroups within the Employee ; Concerns Program; provides guidance on how the activities of ; those groups should be coordinated; and includes specific-
~
l guidance on such matters as definitions, protection of i confidentiality,.and means for responding to concernees. 1 This procedure is attached for your information. Instructions for use by-each of"the subprograms which l comprise the Employee Concerns Program are under development l and are expected to be finalized by January 15, 1994. l Training on the overall procedure and the subgroup i instructions will be performed during the first quarter of l 1994. !
- 8. P=nlovee confidence in the concerns eroarama needs to be +
imoroved Several steps have been taken or are underway to improve l employee confidence in STD concern programs. These^ include:- j
- a. Establishment of the NSQP with an independent program manager reporting directly tc the Group Vice President, Nuclear. i
- b. Addition of the Concerns Coordinator position to act as j an advocate for concernees. l
)
- c. Establishment of a rewards program for those who bring l forward, especially significant or hard-to-detect j issues, j 4
- d. Separation of the interviewer / advocate function from the evaluation function for employee concerns.
)
l h
.m _.- _ ,____ u - . . _ . , _ _ , . _ . _ _ . _ , .,..-_,,~;
.- . - .. . - .~ . -. . -
.., -t 4'
. i i
~
e, Disecntinuance of the use of " law enforcement"- !
' investigation techniques, except in cases where those techniques are clearly warranted.
s
- f. Transfer of investigations of wrongdoing, falsifi-cation, and discrimination'to the Access' Authorization- !
Investigation Division. l
- g. Discontinuance of the use of tape recordings and -
affirmation statements, except in certain. . , investigations performed by the Access Authorization Investigation Division. a
- h. Enhanced procedures and' training for employee concerns j program personnel (see Item 4),. including training l regarding preservation of concernee confidentiality. ]
l
- i. Establishment of an oversight group to assure the adequacy of concern evaluations and response to concernees (see Item 3 and 11). l
~
HL&P will be conducting follow-up evaluations to gauge the-effectiveness of these actions. An internal evaluation will be conducted in April and May-1994; an external evaluation will occur July-August 1994. j l
- 9. Definitions of nuclear safety concerns should be nrovided This definition has.been broadened in procedures to include discrimination, harassment or intimidation because an individual has brought forward a safety concern
- 10. Definitions of Discrimination. Harassment or Inti-idation should be orovided Employee concern-program procedures have been revised to include clear definitions of discrimination, harassment, intimidation, wrongdoing, falsification and other terms used in the procedure.
- 11. Feedback letters to emolovees should be more detailed In order to assure that responses to concernees are . .
sufficiently detailed and responsive to explain the basis for the results of evaluation of concerns, an oversight panel has been established to review the evaluation of concerns and response. This should improve the quality of responses provided to concernees. i t
)
i
- 12. Responses to all concernees whose identity is known should be assured Procedures are being established to require that concernees be provided with a response unless the concernee specifically requests not to receive a response. Certified mail will be used to provide assurance that the concernee receives the feedback letter. .
Physical location of Concerns Proaram Offices should ; 13. facilitate emoloyee access , The NSQP interviewer office has been relocated to the Central Processing Facility (CPF) . Because all employees must routinely travel to the CPF for drug testing, badging, etc., this is considered a location conducive to use by employees. Also, because of the amount of employee traffic to the CPF, those who visit it in order to speak to NSQP personnel will not " stand out." This change will make visits to the NSQP office more convenient and secure.
- 14. Simole Easy methods for raisina concerns should be available A Concerns Coordinator position has been established to affirmatively assist employees in bringing forward their concerns and assure that concerns are addressed by the correct organization. The concerns coordinator will act as an advocate for the concernee to, assure that concerns are completely and fairly evaluated and appropriate feedback is provided to the concernee. The availability of the concerns Coordinator as a single point of contact is being prominently communicated to employees through training, site postings, and other means of communication. The .
availability of the Concerns Coordinator provides a simple, easy to understand avenue for raising concerns with minimal effort on the part of concernees. Attached for your information is the revised overall employee concerns program procedure, which reflects a number of these changes. 1 l
c . . ATTACHMENT 2 EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT SCHEDULE
- 1. Initial communications of program changes - Complete
- 2. Development of umbrella program description / procedure - -
Complete
- 3. Development of sub-program instructions - In-progress; Final 01/15/94
- 4. Additional communications to station personnel'- First Quarter 1994
- 5. Modify General Employee Training - First Quarter 1994
.c
- 6. Modify Supervisory Training - First Quarter 1994 l i
- 7. Implement performance measurement system - First Quarter 1994
- 8. Initial program effectiveness assessments Internal (April-May 199 )
- External (July-August 1994)
?"
)~ .e
..O. * ,,
,k .g 4,
e
-b o
- Enclosure 7 n
l I 1 I a gi l i 1 4 e _ .__ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _. __-.____.._._.m____ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ .__ _
The Light c o m p a nySouth Texas Project Electric Geocrating Station P. O. Box 289 Wadsworth. Texas 77483 Houston Lighting & Power
# February 11, 1994
' , . ~ . ST-HL-AE-4685
- File No.: G 0 3 . ~. 3 10CFR50
~~~ '
Mr. L. J. Callan Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498; STN 50-499 Status of Uoorades to STP Emolovee Concerns Procram
Reference:
Letter from W. T. Cottle (HL&P) to J. L. Milhoan (NRC) dated December 31, 1993 (ST-HL-AE-4665)
Dear Mr. Callan:
On December 31, 1993, HL&P submitted a description of the actions being taken to upgrade the Employee Concerns Program at the South Texas Project. These actions were based on recommendations made by a group of outside consultants commissioned in August 1993 to perform a detailed review of the former SPE KOUT program, as well as findings and observations made by an NRC inspection team in December 1993. These changes are designed to ensure that groups with appropriate expertise investigate various types of concerns, while at the same time pro'viding employees with a simple, easy-to-use, single point-of-contact to assist them in raising concerns and preserving confidentiality. A number of these actions were still underway at the time the December 31, 1993 letter was submitted; many of these have now been competed. Mr. Robert F. Englmeier, formerly Site Quality Manager at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant, has been retained to manage the Nuclear Safety and Quality Concerns Program ("NSOP") Mr. Englmeier arrived at STP on January 31, 1994, and reports directly to the Group Vice President, Nuclear. Precedures governing the activities of each of the subgroups nthir the Emp;: fee J:ncernr Program have been developed and Q Prme,i Manarer on Behalf of tbc Participanu in the South Te.m Proyeci J/~J-
4 Houston Lighting & Power Company South Texas Project Electric G,nerating Station ST-HL-AE-4685 File No. G03.12 Page 2 The approved, and program personnel have been trained on them.1993 status of particular items discussed in the December 31, letter includes: Item No. 1: Revisions to procedures used by the employee concerns program to more completely describe the specific , methods used to protect the identity of those who wish their concerns to be handled on a confidential basis have been completed. The specific methods describe who has responsibility for maintaining confidential files, process for assigning numbers to concern to protect identity and caution statement for ensuring an individual's identity does not get inadvertently linked with an investigation. Item No. 2: As of January 27, 1994, a program of 26 hours of formal training on investigative principles and techniques was completed by each of the four investigators within the Access Authorization Investigation Group. Five days of formal training on interview techniques is scheduled to be provided for one NSOP evaluator during February 14-18, 1994: training for the remainder of the NSOP staff is still being planned (the NSOP interviewers generally already have substantial interviewing experience). Item No. 5: An interviewer from the NSOP has participated in the exit process for each person concluding a term of 4 l employment at the South Texas Project site since November 29, 1993. Since that time, the interviewer has participated in 178 interviews, during which eight concerns have been received of which six required evaluations for nuclear safety or quality significance. This compares with one concern received during the exit interview process in the six months preceding November 29, 1993. The remaining two I l concerns, while not implicating nuclear safety or quality, are being evaluated for action by the Access Authorization Investigations Group and the Industrial Safety & Health l l Division. Item No. 6: NSQP interview and support staff have completed one hour of training and instruction on interfacing with concernees in a professional, courteous, and helpful manner. , as well as on the necessity to assure that concerns are handled confidentially and that this confidentiality is perceived by concernees. This training was completed on, January 6, 1994, and specifically covered the revised crocedures used ;r the STP empicyee concerns programs ;c assure concernee ccr::dentia..:; l
F. Houston Lighting & Power Cornpany South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ST-HL-AE-4685 File No. G03.12 Page 3 Item No. 7: Formal procedures for use by each of the subprograms which comprise the employee concerns prograin have been finalized and approved. The staff of each subprogram has completed training on the overall employee concerns program procedure and their subgroup procedures. The nuclear training department is developing modifications to General Employee Training and Supervision Skills Trainihg to cover the revised employee concerns program. These modifications are scheduled to be ready so that formal instructions can begin on the new employee concerns program during the first quarter of 1994. Item No. 14: The availability of the Employee Advocate as a single point of contact was communicated to site employees In addition, the NSOP in the "STP On Line" newsletter. manager has addressed approximately 400 site employees to date in group settings to explain the employee concerns program and introduce the Employee Advocate. InAdditional addition, meetings with employees are being planned. HL&P plans to send a videotape to the homes of site employees detailing the workings of the new employee concerns program and describing methods for raising concerns through the program. This videotape is expected to be completed and distributed by mid-March 1994. Employees have demonstrated significant confidence in the new employee concerns program. During January 1994, 27 employees raised concerns through the new program (approximately 3% of the concerns potentially relate to nuclear quality or safety). This compares with an average of approximately 14 employees per month raising concerns under the old SPEAKOUT program. HL&P is closely monitoring the effectiveness of the program and intends to conduct both internal and external evaluationsOur of its effectiveness during the next several months. management remains committed to assuring an environment which encourages employees to bring forth their concerns and in which managers and supervisors recognize those who bring forward concerns as contributors to the success of the facility. l l
i Houston Lighting & Power Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ST-HL-AE-4685 File No.: G03.12 Page 4 We will provide further reports on the status of our actions as they are completed. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to call me or Mr. Eng1rneier should you need further information. Sincerely, w r~cm < ~ W. T. Cottle Group Vice President, Nuclear JJS/eis
v , ( 4
- y. .
ST-HL-AE-4685 Houston Lighting & Power Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ~ File No.: G03.12 '
- Page 5 t,
c: Rufus S. Scott Regional Administrator, Region IV Associate General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston Lighting & Power Company 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 61867 ! Arlington, TX 76011 77208 : Houston, TX Lawrence E. Kokajko , Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Institute of Nuclear Power Washington, DC 20555 13H15 Operations - Records Center , 700 Galleria Parkway ' Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 David P. Loveless Sr. Resident Inspector Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 50 Bellport Lane ; P. O. Box 910 Bay City, TX 77404-910 Bellport, NY 11713 i J. R. Newman, Esquire D. K. Lacker Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., STE 1000 Bureau of Radiation Control 1615 L Street, N.W. Texas Department of Health Washington, DC 20036 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189 , K. J. Fiedler/M. T. Hardt U S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. City Public Service P. O. Box 1771 Attn: Document Control Desk' San Antonio, TX 78296 Washington, D. C. 20555 j l J. C. Lanier/M. B. Lee l City of Austin Electric Utility Department 721 Barton Springs Road Austin, TX 78704 G. E. Vaughn/T. M. Puckett Central Power and Light Company P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, TX 78403 I I l
'}}