ML17354B107

Requests NRC Action Per 10CFR2.206 as Listed Including Requests to Investigate Circumstances Surrounding Actions Taken Against Employee at Plant,That NRC Formulate Augmented Maint Insp Team & That NRC Place Licensee on Notice

ML17354B107
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point
Issue date:	02/27/1998
From:	Saporito T SAPORITO, T.J.
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML17354B105	List: ML17354B106 ML17354B107 ML17354B109 ML17354B112 ML17354B113 ML17354B114 ML17354B117
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9809280114
Download: ML17354B107 (14)

Text

0 National Litigation Consultants Nuclear 8'hlstleblo~er Specialists 6230 W.Indiantown Road, Ste.7-355, Jupiter, Florida 33458 Voice: (561)622-'1667 Facsimile:

(561)744-6615 Internet Email saporitoQamailexcite.corn february 27, 1998 Hon.Shirley Jacks n, Chairman U.S.Nuclear Regul tory Commission White Flint Building Washington, D.C.23555 i RE: PETITION-'UNDER 1'0 C.F.R.2.206 REQUEST FOR AGENCY ACTION I

Dear Chairman JackSon:

In a'ccordancP with U.S.Nuc]ear Regulatory Commission

("NRC")regulation's1 found at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the undersigned and National Litigation Consultants

("NLC"), (hereinafter"Petitioners")submit this request for action by'the NRC,'with respect to its licensee, Florida Power&Light Company ("FP)L")operators of the St.Lucie nuclear station Units 1 and 2 and;the Turkey Point nuc3ear station Units 3 and 4 as fully described.

'below: that the NRC initiate actions to cause an investigation into the circumstances surrounding recent actions taken with respect to licensee employee Mr.Charles Bogacki at the,St.Lucie Nuclear Station as a direct or indirecti result of the employees'ngagement in protected activities as defined under 10 C.F.R.50.7 and Tit/e 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations and under 45 U.S.C.5851;and to determine if a"hostile work environment" exists at the St.Lucie Nuclear Station;I and to determine if a"chilling effect" has been sufficiently instilled at the licensee'uclear This provision i NRC's regulations.

contained in Subpart R, Section 2.206 of the 9809280ii4 9809i4 PDR ADOCK 05000250 0 PDR'i g gogzbbll+al EDO--G980125 0 0 station.to dissuade employees from raising safety.Program xs effectively utxlxzed by the and whether the employees are comfortable or ing to utilize the program;and to determine icensee management needs further training in g employee concerns and training in developing onal skills to encourage employees to utilize ms program;and employees even wil whether addressi interper the conc concerns and to determine if the licensee'mployee Concerns'.

2.that the,-NRC initiate actions to formulate an Augmented Maintenaqce inspection Team ("AMIT")'o determine if licensee[layoffs"restructuring" has resulted in a core work forge that is not properly trained or skilled to I properly: maintain the balance of the plant;and to determin whether the licensee has an adequate number of emplo ees to safety operate and maintain the St.Lucie Nu lear Station;and 3.that the NRC initiate actions to put the licensee on notice informing the licensee that no adverse employme t actions are to be taken against Hr.Bogacki.for has engagement xn protected actzvztzes at the St.Lucie nuclear station in raising safety concerns and simp~to the NRC regarding operatio s at the station;and require the licensee to author a;written document to Mr.Bogacki and all other I plant workers at both the St.Lucre and the Turkey Point nuclear stations informing them that FPL I encourages employees to raise safety concerns disap~to the 4RC and that~retaliation will be taken against the employee for such conduct by the employee.general employment are having a"chil mandate is quite df practices Lo deLermzne whether those practices 1'ing effect" on would-'be whistleblowers.

That stinct from that of the DOL: investigatory powers and those of the 5851]neither serve the same purpose nor n the same manner.They are, rather, not duplicative

.'..Under[5851]the 1 y lacks two remedial powers--which the s--...the right to take importanL'the employer, and the...authority to ely...,.The[DOL]may order only"The[NRC'][DOL]under are invoked complementary)

[DOT]apparen[NRC]possesse action agains do so immedi t I The NRC has a;Congressional mandate to investigate licensees

reinstatement dangerous prg N.R.C.at 138 that a retal considered by a subsLantial and back pay--not correction of the ctices themselves." Union Electric, 9 cf.42 U.S.C.5851(j)(2)(a DOL finding ation claim has no merit",shall not be the[NRC]in its determination of whether safety hazard exits").SRP.e 202 (2d Cir.1996)h,.~, 1996 U.S.App.LEXIS As a.direct.t imely implement under 10 C.F.R.50 effect" was insti continued to diss Moreover, FPL cont violat ion of NRC Bogacki, a curren Station and his co for their engageme concerns to the NR Notably, FPL suspensions at th employees for wh violations..

The F document re uirin esult.of the NRC's impotence and failure to its mandate-in protecting-licensee employees.7 and other federal regulations, a"chilling Ried at FPL's nuclear facilities and has ade employees from raising safety.concerns.nues to discriminate against its employees in regulations at 10 C.F.R.50.7.Mr.Charles licensee employee at the St.Lucie Nuclear or'kers are concerned about retaliation by FPL At in protected activities in raising safety s currently engaged in a pattern of punitive St.Lucie Nuclear Station against numerous pt the licensee alleges to be procedure L Vice President, Mr.Art Stall authored a man em lo ees Lo under o more emer eric"cannot continue t are incapable of requirements of t a announced ite inte$that they might cup work force this moRt maintain employees in classifications if they fulfilling 100 percent of the essential t classification." Further, the licensee tions to layoff an additional 45 employees; 5 percenL of Lhe 850 St,.Lu<<ie plant employee h.9 g y training and threatening employees by holding that, the company Ward, a licensee employee at the St.Lucie ated,"I'e put 18 years into this company.It just trying to get the old-timers.

out." Other erned that FPL it attempting to silence the ising additional safety concerns to the NRC f intimidation.

Mr.Gary nuclear station, s looks like they'e employees are cong work force from r5 through this type Mr.Richard C Brotherhood of Ele shouldn't force o perform emergency attached hereto.vrtis, local president, of the International trical Workers ("IBEW")opinionated LhaL FPL der employees or those with disabilities to response duties.~, newspaper article

The'icensee

~policy and made n the station.Thus, to intimidate an protected activiti vowed to continue the increased discipline mention of enhancing the training program at it appears that the licensee'ntentions are silence the work force from engaging in s at the station.On May 14, 19 forth its expectat to NRC authority environments in~concerns, hoth to of retaliation." 6, the NRC i'ssued a policy statement"to set on that licensees and other employers.

subject ill establish and maintain safety-conscious hich employees.

feel free to raise safety heir management and to the NRC, withouL fear 61 Fed statement, inter management should Reg.at 24340.Reg.24336 (May 14, 1996).The policy alia, stresses, among other things, that rovide leadership in this regard...61 Fed.The NRC has au hority to penalize its licensees.

The NRC can take enforcement ction pursuant to 10 C.F.R.50.7'ased on di.scrimination by ap employer even though the Department of Labor (DOL)has not mage a prior determination that section 210 of the Energy Reorgahization Act ("ERA")was violated.Notably, the NRC and DOL ha]re complementary, yet independent, authorities and responsibilities in protecting employees from discrimination and retaliation fo Section 210/211 e employees who hav proLected activitie Atomic Energy Act t action to combat Sf 50-414, EA-84-93)(1986).raising matters bearing on nuclear safety.powers DOL to grant remedies directly to suffered discrimination for engaging in it does not limit NRC'authority under the investigate alleged discrimination and take i't~Gap g 51 Fed.Reg.25127 (Dockets: 50-413, rder imposing civil money penalty, July 10, Petitioners a conduct an investi FPL to insure th employees to the discriminatory prac d the public are entitled to have the NRC tion and to take enforcement action against t the channels of information from FPL's NRC'emains open and unfettered by ices of FPL;For all the action in this matt bove stated reasons, Petitioners seek NRC r.The ERA was amend and is now coded as d by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 section 211.

0 If RES PECT FULLY UBMITTED, this 27th day of February, 1998 NATIONAL LITIGATION CONSULTANTS

'Thomas'J.Saporito, Jr.Executive Director CC Hon.Bil1 Clinton, Uni;ted States of Ame The White House 1600'ennsylvania A Washington, DC 2050 resident rica e., NW Carolyn Evans, Esq.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal-Center 61Forsyth St.,SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia'30303 Louis Reyes, Admini Nuclear Regulatory 61 Forsyth St.,SN, Atlanta.Georgia 30 trator omm1 s sion uite 23T85 03 Executive Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20500 Hon.Bob Graham United States Senat Senate Office Build Washington, D.C.20 r ng, 00 Inspector General Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington; D.C.20500 Charles Bogacki 117 Everg)ades Blvd Stuart, FL 34994 James Scarola Plant.Manager St.L>>cie Nuclear St.ati.on 700 Universe Blvd.Juno beach,.FL 33408'ames Broadhead, CEO Florida Power 6 Li'ght Co.700 Universe Blvd.Juno Beach, FL 33408 David K.Colapinto, Esq.Kohn, Kohn 6 Colapinto 3233 P Street, NW Washington, D.'C.20007 Esq.rde uite 625 6-5631 Billie Pirner Garde, Clifford, Lyons&Ga 1620 L.Street, NW, Washington, D.C.200 General Media Distribution 0

Stuart, Florida a Friday, February 27, 1998 a Martin County Edition NRC investigating how.complaint secrecy failed ,5 Names or identifying descriptions of St.Lucie Nuclear Plant workers who filed safety complaints were released.By Andy Raid oiiha Naws siatl ST.LUCIE COINIY--Nu-clear regulators are investigating how they allowed Florida Power and Light Co.to learn the identi-ties of utility employees who filed confidential safety complaints about the St.Lucic Nuclear Phut.Some past and present FPL em-ployees said Thursday the mistake was another example of how the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion has let them down."A lot of employees would not want their names divulged to thc company.They feel St.Lucie plant management would take some action against them," said Rick Curtis, plant employee and local president of the International Brotherhood of.Electrical Work-ers."This is liable to cause people not to go to (thc NRCj.There'some people yeiy scared.'he investigation follows a 1'ed-eral Freedom of Information Act request made by 77ic Stuart Neus/Port St.Lucie¹ws for copies of'the complaints plant emnloyees filed with the NRC in 1997.Thc NRC sent the News 1,200 pages of documents.

The names of employees are supposed to bc kept confidential, but the agency released some names in the docu-ments.Please see HRC on A4 0 4l NRC~CONTINUED FROM A'I The¹ws did not include em-loyee names in stories published unday about safety complaints at the nuclear plant, but did use the names to contact several em-ployees about their safety con-cerns.After the News'equest for in-formation, the VRC placed cop-ies of some documents in its pub-lic document rooms in Washington and the Indian River Library in Fort Pierce.FPL obtained some documents, but not employee names, which were released to the¹ws and also made available in the public document room in Washington, NRC oAicials said.The documents FPL did ob-tain, however, included enough information that"a knowledge-able individual at the St.Lucie site could possibly determine (the person')identity from the specif-ics of the allegation information rovided." according to a memo rom NRC Allegation Adviser Edward T.Baker.The NRC's Inspector General oAice, as well as a task force of'gency oAicials, is reviewing the incident, NRC spokesman Ken Clark said."The agency is looking into how it handles those (informa-tion)requests," Clark said."If an individual or group feels that, for whatever reason, revealing an identity might have some adgvcrse consequences, they certainly can ask that they remain anony-mous." The NRC has since removed all documents related to thc¹ws'equest from the Fort Pierce and Washington rooms as it conducts an internal review to determine what happened and how it will handle future Freedom of In-formation Act requests.FPL officials returned or shredded the NRC documents once they realized the informa-tion should have been kept confi-dential, FPL spokesman Dale Thomas said Thursday.But the damage might already have been done, said former FPL employee Thomas Saporito, who said he was fired as an FPL in-strument control technician in'988 aher voicing safety concerns about the St.Lucie and Turkey Point nuclear plants.Saporito sent a letter this month to the U.S.OfIicc of Pro--fessional Responsibility request-ing an investigation into the NRC's actions, which he said has leA plant employees"afraid to raise safety concerns for fear of retaliation.""This represents a serious lapse in the federal safety standards that the government is required to follow to protect an employee's identity regarding conAdentiality in raismg safety concerns to the agency," said Saporito, whose let-ter led to thc NRC's internal in-vestigation.

Thomas said FPL is pleased to see employees rcport safety con-cerns, and that fear of repnsals is"absurd." FPL has been criticized lately by employees who claim manag-ers fail to respond to employee safety concerns.Plant employees had more complaints substanti-ated by federal investigators last year than any of the nation's 65 nuclear plants, according to the records obtained by the¹ws.Employees expressed concerns Thursday about St.Lucie Plant Vice President Art Stall's an-nouncement that many employees must undergo more emergency training, because the company"cannot continue to maintain em-ployees in classifications if they arc incapable of fulfilling 100 per-cent of thc i:ssential requirements of that classiTication." FPL has a nuclear safety exer-cise, which will be evaluated by the NRC, scheduled for March 18.The NRC fined FPL$50,000 in 1997 for lack of'mergency planning.Many on-shift operators at the d lant double as members of the irc brigade, first-aid and radio-logical response teams that re-spond to emergencies at the nu-clear plant before os-site help arrives.Some employees have fallen be-hind in the specialized training, such as being certified to use res-pirators, Thomas said."To remedy this, eAectivc im-mediately all personnel with emergency responder accountabil-ity will be required to maintain ualiTications,'tall wrote in a eb.23 memo to plant employ-ees.Some employees said the emer-gency response requirements could lead to more layoffs at the St.Lucie plant.FPL this month announced layoffs that could mean 45 non-u-nion employees will lose their jobs.Company oAicials have said they might cut 5 percent of the 850 St.Lucie plant employees this month."I'm a disabled Vietnam vet-eran.These new requirements could cnd my job," said Gary Ward, a mechanic at thc St.Lucie plant."I'e put 18 years into this company.It looks hke they'e just trying to get the old-timers out." Curtis said FPL shouldn't force older employees or those with dis-abilities to perform emergency re-sponse duties.Being physically fit is a require-ment for many plant jobs, Thomas said."What we'e doing is enforcing the contract," Thomas said;"They need to be qualified." News stalI'riter Eric Alan Barton contributed to this report.

0 0