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 Nuclear work environment" exists at the St. Lucie Station;I and to determine if a "chilling effect" licensee'uclear has been sufficiently instilled at the This provision i contained in Subpart R, Section 2.206 of the NRC's regulations.

9809280ii4 9809i4 PDR ADOCK 05000250 0 PDR 'i g gogzbbll+ al EDO -- G980125

0 0

station .to dissuade employees from raising safety concerns and to determine if the licensee'mployee Concerns'. . Program xs effectively utxlxzed by the employees and whether the employees are comfortable or even wil ing to utilize the program; and to determine whether icensee management needs further training in addressi g employee concerns and training in developing interper onal skills to encourage employees to utilize the conc ms program; and

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 I

informing them that FPL 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.

I The NRC has a;Congressional mandate to investigate licensees general employment practices Lo deLermzne whether those practices are having a "chil1'ing effect" on would-'be whistleblowers. That mandate is quite df stinct from that of the DOL:

"The [NRC'] investigatory powers and those of the

[DOL] under 5851] neither serve the same purpose nor are invoked n the same manner. They are, rather, complementary) not duplicative . '. . Under [5851] the

[DOT] apparen 1 y lacks two remedial powers--which the

[NRC] possesse s--. . . the right to take importanL action agains 'the employer, and the . . . authority to do so immedi t ely. . ., . The [DOL] may order only

reinstatement and back pay--not correction of the dangerous prg ctices themselves." Union Electric, 9 N.R.C. at 138 cf. 42 U.S.C. 5851(j) (2) (a DOL finding that a retal ation claim has no merit ",shall not be considered by the [NRC] in its determination of whether a subsLantial safety hazard exits").

SRP.e 202 (2d Cir. 1996) h,. ~, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS As a. direct. esult. of the NRC's impotence and failure to t imely implement its mandate -in protecting- licensee employees under 10 C.F.R. 50 .7 and other federal regulations, a "chilling effect" was insti Ried at FPL's nuclear facilities and has continued to diss ade employees from raising safety. concerns.

Moreover, FPL cont nues to discriminate against its employees in violat ion of NRC regulations at 10 C.F.R. 50.7. Mr. Charles Bogacki, a curren licensee employee at the St. Lucie Nuclear Station and his co or'kers are concerned about retaliation by FPL for their engageme At in protected activities in raising safety concerns to the NR Notably, FPL s currently engaged in a pattern of punitive suspensions at th St. Lucie Nuclear Station against numerous employees for wh pt the licensee alleges to be procedure violations.. The F L Vice President, Mr. Art Stall authored a document re uirin man em lo ees Lo under 9 o more emer g eric y training and threatening employees by holding that, the company "cannot continue t maintain employees in classifications are incapable of fulfilling 100 percent of the essential if they requirements of t a t classification." Further, the licensee announced ite inte$ tions to layoff an additional 45 employees; that they might cup 5 percenL of Lhe 850 St,. Lu<<ie plant employee work force this moRt h.

Mr. Gary Ward, a licensee employee at the St. Lucie nuclear station, s ated, "I'e put 18 years into this company. It looks like they'e just trying to get the old-timers. out." Other employees are cong erned that FPL it attempting to silence the work force from r5 ising additional safety concerns to the NRC through this type f intimidation.

Mr. Richard C vrtis, local president, of the International Brotherhood of Ele trical Workers ("IBEW") opinionated LhaL FPL shouldn't force o der employees or those with disabilities to perform emergency attached hereto.

response duties. ~, newspaper article

The'icensee vowed to continue the increased discipline policy and made n mention of enhancing the training program at

~

the station. Thus, it appears that the licensee'ntentions are to intimidate an silence the work force from engaging in protected activiti s at the station.

On May 14, 19 6, the NRC i'ssued a policy statement "to set forth its expectat on that licensees and other employers. subject to NRC authority environments in ill establish and maintain safety-conscious hich employees. feel free to raise safety

~

concerns, hoth to heir management and to the NRC, withouL fear of retaliation."

61 Fed Reg. 24336 (May 14, 1996) . The policy statement, inter alia, stresses, among other things, that management should rovide leadership in this regard . . . 61 Fed.

Reg. at 24340.

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 raising matters bearing on nuclear safety.

Section 210/211 e powers DOL to grant remedies directly to employees who hav suffered discrimination for engaging in proLected activitie it does not limit NRC' authority under the Atomic Energy Act t investigate alleged discrimination and take action to combat i 't Gap ~ g Sf 51 Fed. Reg. 25127 (Dockets: 50-413, 50-414, EA-84-93)( rder imposing civil money penalty, July 10, 1986) .

Petitioners a d the public are entitled to have the NRC conduct an investi tion and to take enforcement action against FPL to insure th t the channels of information from FPL's employees to the NRC 'emains open and unfettered by discriminatory prac ices of FPL; For all the bove stated reasons, Petitioners seek NRC action in this matt r.

The ERA was amend d by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 and is now coded as 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, resident Carolyn Evans, Esq.

Uni;ted States of Ame rica Nuclear Regulatory Commission The White House Atlanta Federal-Center 1600'ennsylvania A e., NW 61 Forsyth St.,SW, Suite 23T85 Washington, DC 2050 Atlanta, Georgia '30303 Louis Reyes, Admini trator Executive Director Nuclear Regulatory omm1 s sion Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth St.,SN, uite 23T85 Washington, D.C. 20500 Atlanta. Georgia 30 03 Hon. Bob Graham Inspector General United States Senat r Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senate Office Build ng, Washington; D.C. 20500 Washington, D.C. 20 00 Charles Bogacki Broadhead, CEO 117 Everg)ades Blvd Florida Power 6 Li'ght Co.

Stuart, FL 34994 700 Universe Blvd.

Juno Beach, FL 33408 James Scarola Plant. Manager 33408'ames St. L>>cie Nuclear St.ati.on David K. Colapinto, Esq.

Kohn, Kohn 6 Colapinto 700 Universe Blvd. 3233 P Street, NW Juno beach,. FL Washington, D.'C. 20007 Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.

Clifford, Lyons & Ga rde 1620 L. Street, NW, uite 625 Washington, D.C. 200 6-5631 General Media Distribution

0 Stuart, Florida a Friday, February 27, 1998 a Martin County Edition NRC investigating how .

complaint secrecy failed "A lot of employees would not

,5 Names or identifying want their names divulged to thc company. They feel St. Lucie descriptions of St. Lucie plant management would take Nuclear Plant workers some action against them," said Rick Curtis, plant employee and who filed safety local president of the International complaints were Brotherhood of. Electrical Work-ers. "This is liable to cause people released. not to go to (thc NRCj. There' some people yeiy scared.

By Andy Raid investigation follows a 1'ed-

'he oiiha Naws siatl eral Freedom of Information Act request made by 77ic Stuart ST. LUCIE COINIY - - Nu- Neus/Port St. Lucie ¹ws for clear regulators are investigating copies of 'the complaints plant how they allowed Florida Power emnloyees filed with the NRC in and Light Co. to learn the identi- 1997.

ties of utility employees who filed Thc NRC sent the News 1,200 confidential safety complaints pages of documents. The names about the St. Lucic Nuclear Phut. of employees are supposed to bc Some past and present FPL em- kept confidential, but the agency ployees said Thursday the mistake released some names in the docu-was another example of how the ments.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion has let them down. Please see HRC on A4

0 4l

NRC

~ CONTINUED FROM A'I whatever reason, revealing an agency," said Saporito, whose let- hind in the specialized training, identity might have some adgvcrse ter led to thc NRC's internal in- such as being certified to use res-The ¹ws did not include em- consequences, they certainly can vestigation. pirators, Thomas said.

"To remedy this, eAectivc im-loyee names in stories published ask that they remain anony- Thomas said FPL is pleased to unday about safety complaints mous." see employees rcport safety con- mediately all personnel with at the nuclear plant, but did use The NRC has since removed all cerns, and that fear of repnsals is emergency responder accountabil-the names to contact several em- documents related to thc "absurd." ity will be required to maintain ployees about their safety con- from the Fort Pierce and

¹ws'equest FPL has been criticized lately ualiTications,'tall wrote in a cerns. Washington rooms as it conducts by employees who claim manag- eb. 23 memo to plant employ-After the News'equest for in- an internal review to determine ers fail to respond to employee ees.

formation, the VRC placed cop- what happened and how it will safety concerns. Plant employees Some employees said the emer-ies of some documents in its pub- handle future Freedom of In- had more complaints substanti- gency response requirements lic document rooms in formation Act requests. ated by federal investigators last could lead to more layoffs at the Washington and the Indian River FPL officials returned or year than any of the nation's 65 St. Lucie plant.

Library in Fort Pierce. shredded the NRC documents nuclear plants, according to the FPL this month announced FPL obtained some documents, once they realized the informa- records obtained by the ¹ws. layoffs that could mean 45 non-u-but not employee names, which tion should have been kept confi- Employees expressed concerns nion employees will lose their were released to the ¹ws and dential, FPL spokesman Dale Thursday about St. Lucie Plant jobs. Company oAicials have said also made available in the public Thomas said Thursday. Vice President Art Stall's an- they might cut 5 percent of the document room in Washington, But the damage might already nouncement that many employees 850 St. Lucie plant employees this have been done, said former FPL must undergo more emergency month.

NRC oAicials said. employee Thomas Saporito, who training, because the company "I'm a disabled Vietnam vet-The documents FPL did ob- said he was fired as an FPL in- "cannot continue to maintain em- eran. These new requirements tain, however, included enough strument control technician ployees in classifications if they could cnd my job," said Gary information that "a knowledge- aher voicing safety concerns in'988 arc incapable of fulfilling100 per- Ward, a mechanic at thc St. Lucie able individual at the St. Lucie about the St. Lucie and Turkey cent of thc i:ssential requirements plant. "I'e put 18 years into this site could possibly determine (the Point nuclear plants. of that classiTication." company. It looks hke they'e just person') identity from the specif- Saporito sent a letter this FPL has a nuclear safety exer- trying to get the old-timers out."

ics of the allegation information month to the U.S. OfIicc of Pro-- cise, which will be evaluated by Curtis said FPL shouldn't force rovided." according to a memo fessional Responsibility request- the NRC, scheduled for March older employees or those with dis-rom NRC Allegation Adviser ing an investigation into the 18. The NRC fined FPL $ 50,000 abilities to perform emergency re-Edward T. Baker. NRC's actions, which he said has in 1997 for lack of'mergency sponse duties.

The NRC's Inspector General leA plant employees "afraid to planning. Being physically fit is a require-oAice, as well as a task force raise safety concerns for fear of Many on-shift operators at the ment for many plant jobs, oAicials, is reviewing the of'gency retaliation." lant double d as members of the Thomas said.

incident, NRC spokesman Ken "This represents a serious lapse irc brigade, first-aid and radio- "What we'e doing is enforcing Clark said. in the federal safety standards logical response teams that re- the contract," Thomas said; "The agency is looking into that the government is required to spond to emergencies at the nu- "They need to be qualified."

how it handles those (informa- follow to protect an employee's clear plant before os-site help tion) requests," Clark said. "Ifan identity regarding conAdentiality arrives. News stalI'riter Eric Alan individual or group feels that, for in raismg safety concerns to the Some employees have fallen be- Barton contributed to this report.

0 0