Public Records Office / Public Library
Research register
Diaz-Robainas: a safety dispute became an evaluation order
A Turkey Point engineer disputed safety-related equipment decisions and was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation. He refused and was fired. The Labor Secretary found the order retaliatory; no examination took place.
Read each occurrence in context. Evidence labels below are the labels recorded by the source edition; importing a row does not independently verify it.
Account 1
Contrary evidence and limits · Batch 19
- Setting
- Nuclear (Turkey Point)
- Hazard
- Technical safety issues
- Instrument (category)
- Psychological fitness order; firing for refusal (A)
- Initiator; knew of report?
- Director Hosmer; yes
- Independent assessment
- None — refused
- Finding, stage, remedy
- Secretary of Labor found retaliation (reversing ALJ), non-final; settled on remand; NRC $100,000 penalty paid 3 Dec 1996
- Fate of hazard
- Not stated
- Status
- VERIFIED (finding, penalty paid, settlement); LEAD (terms, fate of hazard)
Account 2
3.1 Diaz-Robainas v. Florida Power & Light, 92-ERA-10 — VERIFIED (primary read in full this batch) · Batch 21
- Source account
- Primary: Sec'y of Labor, Decision and Remand Order, 19 Jan 1996: https://kkc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/D-Rv.FPL_.pdf (scanned copy; verify pagination against the reporter). NRC EA 96-051: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/reactors/ea96051 1. Person/role: Regino R. Diaz-Robainas (NRC and coworkers use "Richard"). Engineer at Florida Power 1980–19 Aug 1991; Lead Engineer, Instrument & Control (1985); Senior Engineer when fired. Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. Engineering role VERIFIED from the decision's own findings. 2. Concern: disputes with supervisor Bob Wade over replacing pressure transmitters that were to sense a loss-of-cooling accident, and over the Westinghouse setpoint study and ERDADS (a post-TMI operator-information system). 3. Label: none clinical. Instrument = order to a psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation with the employer's consultant Dr. Dennis Johnson (L3). Informal characterisations in the record (L2): Hosmer saw him as "overwhelmed and stressed out"; Wade's appraisal called him not "practical at times" and unwilling to entertain others' opinions. 4. Initiator and stated grounds: John Hosmer, Director of Nuclear Engineering. Grounds shifted: stress and declining performance, then fear of "sabotage". Early July 1991 the division president asked managers about employees in performance counselling who might attract "adverse newspaper or NRC reactions" and suggested considering fitness for duty. Hosmer acted on 26–30 July after Robainas threatened to go to the Miami Herald. 5. Sequence: Mar 1990 drug-policy objection; Feb 1991 below-average appraisal and 23 Feb letter alleging retaliation; 30 Apr interim review; 2 May internal Speakout complaint; 30 Jul order; 2 Aug no-show, badge pulled; 9 Aug Hosmer learns of NRC contact; 19 Aug refusal and firing; complaint filed 29 Aug 1991. 6. Independent assessment and contrary evidence: first-line supervisor Pagnozzi saw him daily and never questioned his fitness; coworkers and the ombudsman saw no instability; Dr. Johnson never met him and had only partial documents. Contrary: the Secretary accepted that the Feb and Apr performance ratings had valid reasons and were not shown pretextual, accepted Robainas had said he was under stress, and agreed Hosmer had a duty to ensure fitness. The ALJ had treated the evaluation as non-punitive. 7. Findings: ALJ R.D.&O. 29 Oct 1993: dismissed. Secretary 19 Jan 1996: reversed on discharge; "Hosmer's explanation is a pretext"; order "based solely on retaliatory animus" (quoted by NRC from the Decision at 8). Remanded for remedy; not a final remedy decision. NRC: $100,000 civil penalty (paid 3 Dec 1996, per DD-97-20, carried). Settled before ALJ remedy ruling (carried). 8. Consequences and hazard: fired; reinstatement and back pay ordered; settled. Fate of hazard (UPGRADED from LEAD): the Secretary records that Florida Power "ultimately agreed" and replaced the transmitters, and that the plant eventually agreed with him on ERDADS. The record does not show whether he was credited. 9. Griffin test: first-line observer saw nothing; the referral decision-maker had seen him twice in 1991. Result: referral not supported by observed behaviour (Secretary's finding). 10. Remaining uncertainty: settlement terms; whether the setpoint study concern was resolved; the ALJ's full reasoning (not read). Next source: ALJ R.D.&O. 29 Oct 1993. Status: VERIFIED.
Linked patterns
The report becomes an inquiry into the reporter →An account of harm becomes a claim of group deterrence →A correction exists but the older claim still circulates →Linked corrections
No separately indexed correction linked to this key. Review the source wording and later batches before relying on an earlier assertion.
Reference and provenance
US-FL-1991-DIAZ-ROBAINAS