UPDATE: Suit Alleges Safety Problems; Nuclear Plant Officials Say They Take Concerns Seriously

Officials from Southern California Edison said today that management takes safety concerns of workers at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station seriously, and it has fired employees who have retaliated against workers for raising them.

The comments came in response tothat alleged safety violations and the promotion of a culture of cover-up at the plant, which SCE operates.

Paul Diaz, a former plant manager who filed the suit, told those gathered today for a news conference that his concerns about worker fatigue and excessive overtime were ignored or punished.

Diaz, speaking in front of the towering domes of the plant, said that, as a manager, workers came to him with their concerns because they felt other supervisors weren’t listening.

“If I didn’t listen to those employees … I’m their last line of defense,” Diaz said. “They’re young, smart people and they just want to be heard.”

Diaz told reporters that when he brought the concerns to his supervisor, he was told not to get involved.

“The exact words were, ‘They don’t need you to be their super hero,’ ” Diaz said, recalling the conversation. “The employees were told not to raise concerns outside of their chain of command,” Diaz said.

In the lawsuit, Diaz said there was "a culture of cover-up" at the plant. He said he went to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with his concerns in October 2010 because he felt supervisors weren’t addressing them. Hours later, Diaz said, he was fired for what managers told him were performance-related issues.

Attorneys for Diaz—Maria Severson and Chris Morris of the San Diego law firm Aguirre, Morris & Severson—pointed to a March 2010 letter from the NRC to the San Onofre plant’s management citing a “chilling effect” on the ability of plant staff to report safety concerns without retaliation.



Plant spokesman Gil Alexander said it was Southern California Edison policy not to comment on ongoing litigation, but, in speaking to reporters after Diaz's remarks,  Alexander said management at the plant was strongly in favor of employees at any level reporting safety concerns, whether through internal mechanisms at the plant or, “for whatever reason,” directly to the NRC.

“If we discover anyone in a management or supervisory role has retaliated against an employee for expressing safety concerns,” that manager or supervisor would be fired, Alexander said. In reference to the “chilling effect” letter from the NRC last year, Alexander said new policies were in place to make it easier for employees to report safety violations or concerns anonymously.

“I think, like any business, there’s room for improvement,” Alexander said. He said employees may now register concerns with management on paper forms. In the past, such issues could be submitted only by computer and not all employees use computers in their daily work.

Though he couldn’t comment on the specifics of the Diaz case, Alexander said plant officials reviewed the processes involved in his termination and found no wrongdoing.

“The concerns raised by this employee, as any concerns would be, were received with careful consideration, and we’re satisfied with how we handled our relationship with this employee,” Alexander said.

Diaz worked at the plant for about 10 years, he said. He is seeking back wages and statutory damages related to his wrongful termination, according to Morris. Diaz is also seeking punitive damages in an amount large enough to deter Southern California Edison from continuing the retaliatory environment, the suit states.

When asked if he was trying to take advantage of public concern about nuclear energy in light of the recent earthquake, tsunami and reactor breach in Japan, Morris said his client’s suit was about the merits of his individual case and the safety of the San Onofre plant.

“This is a case about the environment at San Onofre,” Morris said.

Related articles: