ML17334B736
| ML17334B736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1998 |
| From: | FITZPATRICK E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:1184D5, NUDOCS 9804230019 | |
| Download: ML17334B736 (11) | |
Text
CATEGORY1REGULATINFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO SYSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSION NBR:9804230019 DOC.DATE:
98/04/14NOTARIZED:
NOFACIL:50-315 DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit1,IndianaM59-316,Dc;nald C.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit2,IndianaMAUTH.NAME"'UTHORAFFILIATION FITZPATRICK,E.
IndianaMichiganPowerCo.RECIP.NAME
'ECIPIENT AFFILIATION DocumentControlBranch(Document ControlDesk)
SUBJECT:
Informsof980326denialofSecretary ofLabor'spetitionforrehearing byUSCourtofAppealsforSixthCircuitcaseofAmericanNuclearResources,Inc versusUSDOL.CopyofCourts'opinion, orderdenyingpetitionSjudgement, encl.DISTRIBUTION CODE:A001DCOPIESRECEIVED:LTR ENCLSIZE:TITLE:ORSubmittal:
GeneralDistribution NOTES:DOCKET0500031505000316E,INTERNARECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-3LASTANG,J01NRR/DE/EMCB NRR/DSSA/SPLB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT COPIESLTTRENCL111111111111RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-3'DNRR/DE/ECGB/A NRR/DRCH/HICB NRR/DSSA/SRXB OGC/HDS2COPIESLTTRENCL1111111110EXTERNAL:
NOACl(JNRCPDRD0NOTETOALL"RIDS"RECIPIENTS:
PLEASEHELPUSTOREDUCEWASTE.TOHAVEYOURNAMEORORGANIZATION REMOVEDFROMDISTRIBUTION LISTSORREDUCETHENUMBEROFCOPIESRECEIVEDBYYOUORYOURORGANIZATION, CONTACTTHEDOCUMENTCONTROLDESK(DCD)ONEXTENSION 415-2083)pTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:
LTTR~ENCL Cll'411flIJ1~r IndianaMichiganPowerCompany500CircleDriveBuchanan, Ml491071395 INSIAi84NICHl6ANPMfJFRAprillrI,1998AEP:NRC:1184D5 DocketNos.:50-31550-316U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission ATTN:DocumentControlDeskMailStop0-Pl-17Washington, D.C.20555-0001 Gentlemen:
DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2COMMUNICATION OFFINALJUDGMENTSPRAGUEv.AMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES, INC.(U.S.DEPARTMENT OFLABORCASENO.92-ERA-37)
ThepurposeofthisletteristoinformyouoftheMarch26,1998,denialoftheSecretary ofLabor'spetitionforrehearing bytheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit(American NuclearResources Inc.v.UnitedStates
DeartmentofLabor,
FileNo.96-3825).The,CourtdeniedtheSecretary of-Labor'spetitionforrehearing andissuedafinalmandate,reversing thepriordecisions oftheAmericanNuclearResources Inc.,CaseNo.92-ERA-37.
InitsFebruary12,1998,opinion,theCourtconcluded thatSpraguehadnotengagedinprotected
- activity, andthatevenifhehad,AmericanNuclearResources terminated himforlawfulreasons.AcopyoftheCourt'sopinion,orderdenyingthepetitionforrehearing, andjudgmentareattachedtothisletter.Sincerely, PQ+p~E.E.Fitzpatrick VicePresident Attachment
/jencA.AbramsonA.B.BeachJ.Lieberman MDEQ-DWEcRPDNRCResidentInspector R.Sampsonc'P804230019 9804i4PDRADQCK050003X5PPDRy~:x~~/~~<<08gQgcg.'Ddt.
ATTACHMENT TOAEP:NRC:1184DS COMMUNICATION OFFINALJUDGMENTSPRAGUEv.AMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES, INC.(U.S.DEPARTMENT OFLABORCASENO.92"ERA-37)
RECOMMENDED FORFULL-TEXT PUBLlCATION PursuanttoSixthCircuitRule24ELECTRONIC CITATION:
1998FEDApp.0035Pl6thCir.)FileName:98a0035p.06 UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESIXTHCERCUITAMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES, INC.,Petitioner, V.No.96-3825UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENT OFLABOR,Respondent.
OnPetitionforRevievrofanOrderoftheUnitedStatesDepartment ofLabor.No.92-ERA-37 Argued:October20,1997DecidedandFiled:January29,1998Before:SILER,BATCHELDER, andGIBSON,*CircuitJudges.*TheHonorable JohnR.Gibson,CircuitJudgeoftheVnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheEighthCircuit,sittingbydesignation.
2American1Azclearv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLaborNo.96-3825No.96-3825AmericanNuclearv.United3StatesDep'tofLaborCOUNSELARGUED:KevinM.McCarthy, MLLER,CANFIELD, PADDOCK&STONE,Kalamazoo,
- Michigan, forPetitioner.
LoisR.Zuckerman, U.S.DEPARTMENT OFLABOR,OFFICEOFTHESOLICITOR, Washington, D.C.,forRespondent.
ONBMEF:KevinM.McCarthy, MLLER,CANFIELD, PADDOCK&STONE,Kalamazoo,
- Michigan, forPetitioner.
LoisR.Zuckerman, WilliamJ.Stone,U.S.DEPARTMENT OFLABOR,OFFICEOFTHESOLICITOR, Washington, D.C.,forRespondent.
OPINIONSILER,CircuitJudge.Petitioner, AmericanNuclearResources, Inc.("ANR"),seekstoreverseaSecretary ofLabordecisionholdingitliableforbaclcpayandattorney's fees.TheSecretary heldthatANRviolatedtheEnergyReorganization Actbydischarging anemployee, GregorySprague,becausehereportedasafetyviolation.
BecausetheActdoesnotprotectSprague's conduct,weREVERSE.ANRisacontractor atanuclearpowerplantinMichigan.
OnMarchll,1992,SpraguestartedatANRasatoolaccountability technician.
Alongwithothers,hemonitored thereactorcontainment areatopreventobjectsfromfallingintothereactorcavity.Sprague,however,quicklydeveloped interpersonal problemsatANR.Hissupervisor, GeorginaEmanuel,testified thathewasrudeandabrasive.
Oneofhisco-workers foundhim"somewhat pushy"andtriedtoavoidhimwheneverpossible.
Twoincidents hastenedSprague's termination.
OnMarch19,someRadiation Protection employees (RPs)sprayedthecavity'swallstopreventairborneradiation.
Th&RPsevidently waitedtoolongtospray,however,andtheirdelaylettheparticles contaminate Sprague.Afterwards, SpragueenteredEmanuel's officeandstartedcomplaining about"thestupidRP'snotknowingwhattheyweredoing,"eventhoughtheRPsdidnotworkforANR.ANRcontendsthatSpraguewasyelling,thoughhedeniesthis.Thenextday,March20,Spragueunderwent a"fullbodycount"tomeasurehisradiation level.Whilemostteststooktwominutes,Sprague's tooktwohours.Hisresultswereabnormally high.Duringthetesting,SpraguebecameupsetattheRPs.Emanuelstatedhe"screamj'ed]"
'attheRPsforanhour,thoughSpraguecontendsthathekepthistemper.Afterthetest,Spraguerequested acopyofthebodycount,buttheRPsrefusedandinsteadgaveturnanexposurereportthatcontained thesameinformation inamorereadableformat.Laterthatsameday,stilllessthantwoweeksafterSpr~guestarted,Emanueldecidedtoterminate hisemployment.
Spraguelaterfiledacomplaint withtheDepartment ofLaborandallegedthathistermination violatedthewhistleblower provisions oftheEnergyReorganization Act("ERA"),42U.S.C.g5851.Anadmimstrative lawjudgeandtheSecretary ofLaborruledinSprague's favor.BothfoundthatANRterminated Spraguebecausehequestioned theRPsaboutsafetyand,therefore, violatedtheERA.Pursuantto421Merworkthatday,Spraguecontacted theNuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC)andrequested acopyofthehisfullbodycount.Inthelitigation below,thepartiesdisputedthetimingofEmanuel's decisiontoterminate Sprague,butonappealthegovernment concedesthatEmanueldecidedtoterminate Spraguebeforehecontacted theNRC.
4AmericanNuclearv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLaborNo.96-3825No.96-3825AmencanNuclearv.UnitedStatesDeptofLaborU.S.C.g5851(c),ANRnowappealsandcontendsthatjtfiredSpraguesolelybecauseofhisinterpersonal problems.
%ereviewtheSecretary's legalconclusions denovo,althoughwedefersomewhattotheagencybecauseitischargedwithadministering thestatute.5U.S.C.$706(2)(A);
ChevronUSA.,Inc.v.NaturalResources DefenseCouncil,Inc.,467U.S.837(1984).%ewillupholdaninterpretation if"basedonapermissible construction ofthestatute."
Chevron,467 U.S.at843.Ontheotherhand,wereviewfactfindingstoensurethatsubstantial evidencesupportsthem.Moonv.Transport Drivers,Inc.,836F.2d226,229(6thCir.1987).Substantial evidenceis"suchrelevantevidenceasareasonable mindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion."
Id.Thiscourtreviewstheapplication oflawtofactunderthesamesubstantial evidencestandard.
TurnbullConeBaking'o.
v.¹LRB.,778F.2d292,295(6thCir.1985).whistleblower statutesaffecting otherindustries, isdesignedtoprotectworkerswhoreportsafetyconcerns.andtoencourage nuclearsafetygenerally.=-
Courtsinterpret thestatutebroadlytoimplement its"broad,remedialpurpose."
Mackowiak v.University NuclearSys.,Inc.,735F.211159,1163(9thCir.1984).Thestatuteexplicitly protectsafewacts,suchastestifying inasafetyproceeding.
42U.S.C.g5851(a)(1)(E).
Thestatutealsoincludesacatch-all provision thatprotectsemployees "inanyotheraction[designed]
tocarryoutthepurposesof[thesafetystatutes]."
Id.atg5851(a)(l)(F).
TostateaclaimundertheERA,anemployeemustestablish thattheemployerretaliated becausetheemployeeengagedina~~~~~~~rotectedactivity.
Bartlikv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLabor,73.3d100,103&n.6(6thCir.1996).Ifanemployerretaliates forbothlegitimate andillegitimate reasons,courtsapplythe"dualmotive"test,underwhichtheemployermustshowthatitwouldhaveretaliated eveniftheprotected activityhadnotoccurred.
MackoMiiak, 735F.2dat1163-64.The-employer bearstheriskifthetwomotivesproveAmendedin1992theERAprotectsworkersfromretaliatory discharge.
Thestatute,patterned afterother2ANR'sPetitionforReviewnamedonlytheDepartment ofLaborasrespondent.
Partiestoanagencyproceeding suchasSpragucarenotproperrespondents, althoughtheymaymovetointervene.
Oil,Chemical&AtomicJVorkers, LocalUnionNa.6-418v.N.LRB.,694F.2d1289,1298(D.C.Cir.1982).Here,Spragucfiledaresponsive brief,buthcncvcrmovedtointervene.
Accordingly, thiscourtignoresSpraguc's brief.342U.S.C.g5851,amendedbyPub.L.No.102-486,106Stat.2776.BecauseSpragucfiledhiscomplaint beforetheamendments tookeffect,theprc-1992versionofthcBRAgovernsherc.Pub.LNo.102486g2902(i).Unlessothcrwisc noted,thisopinioncitestothecurrentversionofthestatute.Intermsofdefiningprotected activities, theamendments essentially codifyearliercourtdecisions.
SeeStone&fYebsterEnggCorp.v.Herman,115F.3d1568,1575(11thCir.1997)(notingthatCongress"ratified" courtdecisions protecting internalcomplaints).
Theamendments'egislative historystatesthattherictvstatuteamendsthelaw"toexplicitly" protectcertainactivities.
H.R.REP.No.102474(Vill)(1992).Thcamendments explicitly protecttheeactivities thatmostcourtdecisions alreadypmtcctcd.
See42U.S.Cg5851(a)(1)(A),
(B),(C).Forexample,g5851(a)(1)(A) protectsanemployeewho"notified hisemployerofanalleged[safctyjviolation."
Beforetheamendment, almosteverycircuitalsoprotected theseinternalsafetycomplaints.
SeeBechtelConslruc.
Co.v.Secretary'abor, 50F.3d926,931(11thCir.1995)(notingthatalmostallcircuitsagreed).Becausetheamendments essentially codifythelawregarding piotcctcd activities, wcbelievethatwcwouldreachthesameresultunderthecurrentstatute.TheSixthCircuitprotected internalcomplaints cvcnbeforetheamendments.
Jonesv.Tennessee ValleyAuth.,948F.2d258,264(6thCir.1991).Moreover, onecasebasedonpost-amendment law,Stone&8'ebsfer, strcsscdthatthepost-amendment ERAcontinues toprotectonlycertainactivities.
6AmericanNuclearv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLaborNo.96-3825No.96-3825AmericanNui.'lear>>.
tfslitedStatesDep'tofLaborinseparable.
Id.at1164.SeealsoPoguev.UnitedStatesDep'tofLabor,940F.2d1287(9thCir.1991)(whereemployeefiledseveninternalsafetycomplaints butoftenbehaveddisrespectfully, applyingthetestinfavoroftheemployee).
Therefore, acourtfirstmustdetermine whethertheERAprotectstheemployee's acts.BuildingontheAct'slanguage, courtshaveheldthattheERAprotectsmanytypesofactsthatimplicate safety.Forexaniple, theERAprotectsanemployeewhofilesinternalreportsconcerning regulatory violations.
Jonesv.Tennessee ValleyAuth.,948F.2tI258,264(6thCir.1991).Althoughtheoldversionofg5851failstoprotectinternalreportsexplicitly, courtsprotectinternalreportstoadvancethestatute's policygoals.E.g.,BechtelConstrue.
Co.v.Secretar'yof Labor,50F.3d926,931(11thCir.1995).Despitethisgenerally broadreading,courtslimittheERAtoyrotect onlycertaintypesofacts.Toconstitute aprotected satetyreport,anemployee's actsmustimplicate safetydefinitively andspecifically.
Id.InBechtel,acarpenter disagreed withhisforemanabouttheprocedures forprotecting radioactive tools.Thecourtprotected thecarpenter's actsbecausehe"raisedparticular, repeatedconcernsaboutsafetyprocedures,"
whichwere"tantamount toacomplaint."
Id.Thecourtalsonoted,however,that"generalinquiries regarding safetydonotconstitute protected activity."
Id.TheERAdoesnotprotecteveryincidental inquiryorsuperficial suggestion thatsomehow,insomeway,maypossiblyimplicate asafetyconcern.Stone&WebsterZng'gCorp.v.Herman,115F.3d1568,1574(11thCir.1997).InStone&Webster,acasedecidedonpost-amendment law,theemployeeheldaweeklysafetymeetingatwhichhediscussed firesafetywithhisfellowironworkers.
Thecourtnotedthat"Section5851doesnotprotecteveryact...undertheauspicesofsafety,"andthat"[w]histleblowing mustoccurthroughprescribed channels."
Id.Thecourtprotected theemployee's acts,however,becausethe"meeting...
wasincludedinaseriesofcommunications to-employer representatives...
[that]were,ynderthecircumstances, mutuallyreinforcing."
Id.at1575.Moreover, anemployermayterminate anemployeewhobehavesinappropriately, evenifthatbehaviorrelatestoalegitimate safetyconcern.Dunhamv.Brock,794F.2d1037,1041.(5thCir.1986).InDunhom,theemployeefiledasafetyreportwiththeNuclearRegulatory Commission.
Theemployersuspected asmuchhutalsothought,legitimately, thattheemployeeoftenactedinadisruptive anddominantmanner.Id.at1039.Toaddressthisproblem,theemployerheldacounseling sessionwiththeemployee.
Theemployeesworeathisemployerandrefusedtochangehisbehavior.
Hedaredtheemployertofirehim.Holdingfortheemployer, thecourtnotedthatanotherwise protected
'provoked employee's notautomatically absolvedfromabusinghisstatusandoverstepping thedefensible boundsofconduct."
Id.at1041.Theemployee's cavalierattitude, abusivelanguage, anddefiantconductjustified hisdischarge.
Id.at1040-41.SeealsoLockertv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLabor,867F.2d513,519(9thCir.1989)(employee's disobedience justified discharge, especially wherehefailedtoestablish disparate treatment orthathehadmadeanunusually largeorseriousnumberofcomplaints).
Here,thiscourtfirstmustconsiderwhethertheERAprotectsSprague's conduct.Anegativeanswerendstheanalysis, becausegenerally "anemployermayfireanemployeeforanyreasonatall,solongasthereasondoesnotviolateaCongressional statute."
Kahnv.UnitedStatesSecretary ofLabor,64F.3d271,280(7thCir.1995).ANR4SeealsoKansasGasd'cElec.Co.>>.Brack,780F.2d1505,1506(10thCir.1985)(protecting anemployee, aqualitycontrolinspector, vvhofiledreportsofcontinuous safetyproblems);
Mackowlak, 735F.2dat1162(protecting anemployeewhoRedinternalcomplaints andreportedsafetyproblemstoNRC).
8AmericanPfuclearv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLaborNo.96-3825No.96-3825AmericanNuclearv.United9'tatesDep'tofLaborarguesthatSprague's actsneveramountedtoaninternalsafetycomplaint, andthattherefore Sprague's conductshouldreceivenoprotection.
ANRassertsthattheERAprotectsonlyactsthatallegeaviolation ofnuclearregulatory laws.Thegovernment, ontheotherhand,arguesthatSprague's questions abouttheRPsexpressed a"particular safetyconcern"aboutthebodycountthatwas"tantamount toacomplaint thatthecorrectsafetyprocedure wasnotbeingobserved, andthusconstituted protected activity."
TheSecretary ofLabor,relyingonBechtel,foundthatSprague's questions "constituted protected internalactivities, sincetheRPswereresponsible forSprague's radiological safetyasanANRemployee."
Sprague's conductfallsoutsidethescopeofERAprotection.
HisconductlacksasufHcient nexustosafetyconcerns.
Spraguedidthefollowing thingsthatpossiblyimplicate safety:hecomplained about"thestupidRP'snotknowingwhattheyweredoing"aftertheywaitedtoolongtospray;hegrewangryattheRPswhiletheyadministered hisfullbodycounttest;and,afterthetest,heaskedtheRPsforacopyofthebodycount,eventhoughhereceivedamoreunderstandable exposurereport.Sprague,however,neverallegedthatANRwasviolating nuclearlawsorregulations.
HeneverallegedthatANRwasignoringsafetyprocedures orassumingunacceptable risks.Hesimplyaskedforadocument, onethathehadnorighttoreceiveandonethatcontained littleusefulinformation.
Thegovernment contendsthatSprague's generalcomplaints abouttheRPshadlargersafetyimplications, buttherecordrefutesthatposition.
WhileSprague's complaints resultedinonesetofadditional bodycountsontheRPs,thosetestsultimately revealednosafetyproblemorhealthhazard.Sprague's conductneverledanyonetochange,probe,orevenquestionANR'ssafetyprocedures.
Incaseswherecourtsprotected theemployee's acts,theemployeetypically allegedasafetyconcernthatwasbothconcreteandcontinuing.
Forexample,inStonedc8'ebster, theemployeeheldweeklymeetingsaboutfiresafety;inBechtel,theemployeecomplained abouttheprocedures forhandlingradioactive tools;andinPogue,theemployeehadpreparedseveninternalreportsidentifying specificsafetyproblems.
Incontrast, Spraguecomplained aboutanisolatedmcidentinvolving awallspraying, notaprocedural hazard.Asingleactorinquirymay,ofcourse,fallundertheERA's'cope,butthatactmustbearaclosernexustosafetythanSprague's conduct.Finally,eveniftheERAdoesprotectSprague's conduct,ANRdidnotfireSpraguebecausehecomplained aboutsafety.Emanueltestified thatshefiredSpraguebecauseofhisinterpersonal problems.
Spraguecomplained primarily abouttheRPs'ncompetence, buttheRPsdidnotworkforANR.Noonecouldattribute theRPs'rrors toANR.Therefore, Sprague's complaints allegednosafetybreachbyANR.Nothingintherecordindicates howSprague's conductcouldforceANRtochangeitsprocedures orincurextracosts.Anemployerwouldhardlyretaliate oversuchaninsignificant sleight.REVERSED.
5ANRalsocomplains thattheSecretary ofLabordenieditdueprocessandthattheSecretaiy failedtocomplywithatimeliness requirement.
Becausewereverse,weneednotaddressthoseissues.
CaseNo:96-3825UNITEDSTA'IESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESIXIHCIRCUITORDERAMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES, INC.Petitioner Flt;ESMAR26)998'EOMRO GgPEN,CleGREGORYA.SPRAGUE;UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENT OFLABORRespondents BEFORE:SILER,BATCHELDER, andGIBSON',CircuitJudges,Uponconsideration oXthepetitionforrehearing filedbytherespondent, ltisORDEREDthatthepetition%orrehearing be,anditherebyis,DENIED.EN'IEREDBYORDEROFTHECOURTLeonardGreen,CleTheHonorable JohnR.Gibson,CircuitJudgeoXtheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheEighthCircuit.sittingbydesignation.
vrar,a~aaaneaQaVVairLWACSCRIPPGR'IHESIXIHCIRCUITNo:96-3825AMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES, INC.,Petitionex, l44~JAN~-'998LEONARDOGREEN,ClerkV.UNITEDSTA'ISSDEPAR'IMENI'F LABOR,Respondents.
Befoxe:Siler,Batchelder, andGibson,CircuitJudges.THISMATTERcamebefoxethecourtuponapetitionforreviewofanorder,againstAmericanNucleaxResources, Inc.UPONFULLREVIEWoftherecordandthebriefsandarguments ofcounsel,weconcludethatbecausetheAmericanNuclearReorganization Actdoesnotprotecttheemployee's conduct,ITISORDEREDthattheorderissuedbytheAdministrative ReviewBoardinthismatterbeREvERSED.
ENHHKDBYORDGP'IHECOURTLenardGreen,ClertaauedaaHaadaae:COSTS:Attest:FilingFee...........5 PrintingTotal.........$
ATrueCopy.DeputyClerk