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
CATEGORY1REGULATINFORMATIONDISTRIBUTIOSYSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSIONNBR:9804230019DOC.DATE:98/04/14NOTARIZED:NOFACIL:50-315DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit1,IndianaM59-316,Dc;naldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit2,IndianaMAUTH.NAME"'UTHORAFFILIATIONFITZPATRICK,E.IndianaMichiganPowerCo.RECIP.NAME'ECIPIENTAFFILIATIONDocumentControlBranch(DocumentControlDesk)
SUBJECT:
Informsof980326denialofSecretaryofLabor'spetitionforrehearingbyUSCourtofAppealsforSixthCircuitcaseofAmericanNuclearResources,IncversusUSDOL.CopyofCourts'opinion,orderdenyingpetitionSjudgement,encl.DISTRIBUTIONCODE:A001DCOPIESRECEIVED:LTRENCLSIZE:TITLE:ORSubmittal:GeneralDistributionNOTES:DOCKET0500031505000316E,INTERNARECIPIENTIDCODE/NAMEPD3-3LASTANG,J01NRR/DE/EMCBNRR/DSSA/SPLBNUDOCS-ABSTRACTCOPIESLTTRENCL111111111111RECIPIENTIDCODE/NAMEPD3-3'DNRR/DE/ECGB/ANRR/DRCH/HICBNRR/DSSA/SRXBOGC/HDS2COPIESLTTRENCL1111111110EXTERNAL:NOACl(JNRCPDRD0NOTETOALL"RIDS"RECIPIENTS:PLEASEHELPUSTOREDUCEWASTE.TOHAVEYOURNAMEORORGANIZATIONREMOVEDFROMDISTRIBUTIONLISTSORREDUCETHENUMBEROFCOPIESRECEIVEDBYYOUORYOURORGANIZATION,CONTACTTHEDOCUMENTCONTROLDESK(DCD)ONEXTENSION415-2083)pTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:LTTR~ENCL Cll'411flIJ1~r IndianaMichiganPowerCompany500CircleDriveBuchanan,Ml491071395INSIAi84NICHl6ANPMfJFRAprillrI,1998AEP:NRC:1184D5DocketNos.:50-31550-316U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionATTN:DocumentControlDeskMailStop0-Pl-17Washington,D.C.20555-0001Gentlemen:DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2COMMUNICATIONOFFINALJUDGMENTSPRAGUEv.AMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES,INC.(U.S.DEPARTMENTOFLABORCASENO.92-ERA-37)ThepurposeofthisletteristoinformyouoftheMarch26,1998,denialoftheSecretaryofLabor'spetitionforrehearingbytheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit(AmericanNuclearResourcesInc.v.UnitedStates
DeartmentofLabor,
FileNo.96-3825).The,CourtdeniedtheSecretaryof-Labor'spetitionforrehearingandissuedafinalmandate,reversingthepriordecisionsoftheAmericanNuclearResourcesInc.,CaseNo.92-ERA-37.InitsFebruary12,1998,opinion,theCourtconcludedthatSpraguehadnotengagedinprotectedactivity,andthatevenifhehad,AmericanNuclearResourcesterminatedhimforlawfulreasons.AcopyoftheCourt'sopinion,orderdenyingthepetitionforrehearing,andjudgmentareattachedtothisletter.Sincerely,PQ+p~E.E.FitzpatrickVicePresidentAttachment/jencA.AbramsonA.B.BeachJ.LiebermanMDEQ-DWEcRPDNRCResidentInspectorR.Sampsonc'P8042300199804i4PDRADQCK050003X5PPDRy~:x~~/~~<<08gQgcg.'Ddt.
ATTACHMENTTOAEP:NRC:1184DSCOMMUNICATIONOFFINALJUDGMENTSPRAGUEv.AMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES,INC.(U.S.DEPARTMENTOFLABORCASENO.92"ERA-37)
RECOMMENDEDFORFULL-TEXTPUBLlCATIONPursuanttoSixthCircuitRule24ELECTRONICCITATION:1998FEDApp.0035Pl6thCir.)FileName:98a0035p.06UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESIXTHCERCUITAMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES,INC.,Petitioner,V.No.96-3825UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFLABOR,Respondent.OnPetitionforRevievrofanOrderoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofLabor.No.92-ERA-37Argued:October20,1997DecidedandFiled:January29,1998Before:SILER,BATCHELDER,andGIBSON,*CircuitJudges.*TheHonorableJohnR.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.DEPARTMENTOFLABOR,OFFICEOFTHESOLICITOR,Washington,D.C.,forRespondent.ONBMEF:KevinM.McCarthy,MLLER,CANFIELD,PADDOCK&STONE,Kalamazoo,Michigan,forPetitioner.LoisR.Zuckerman,WilliamJ.Stone,U.S.DEPARTMENTOFLABOR,OFFICEOFTHESOLICITOR,Washington,D.C.,forRespondent.OPINIONSILER,CircuitJudge.Petitioner,AmericanNuclearResources,Inc.("ANR"),seekstoreverseaSecretaryofLabordecisionholdingitliableforbaclcpayandattorney'sfees.TheSecretaryheldthatANRviolatedtheEnergyReorganizationActbydischarginganemployee,GregorySprague,becausehereportedasafetyviolation.BecausetheActdoesnotprotectSprague'sconduct,weREVERSE.ANRisacontractoratanuclearpowerplantinMichigan.OnMarchll,1992,SpraguestartedatANRasatoolaccountabilitytechnician.Alongwithothers,hemonitoredthereactorcontainmentareatopreventobjectsfromfallingintothereactorcavity.Sprague,however,quicklydevelopedinterpersonalproblemsatANR.Hissupervisor,GeorginaEmanuel,testifiedthathewasrudeandabrasive.Oneofhisco-workersfoundhim"somewhatpushy"andtriedtoavoidhimwheneverpossible.TwoincidentshastenedSprague'stermination.OnMarch19,someRadiationProtectionemployees(RPs)sprayedthecavity'swallstopreventairborneradiation.Th&RPsevidentlywaitedtoolongtospray,however,andtheirdelaylettheparticlescontaminateSprague.Afterwards,SpragueenteredEmanuel'sofficeandstartedcomplainingabout"thestupidRP'snotknowingwhattheyweredoing,"eventhoughtheRPsdidnotworkforANR.ANRcontendsthatSpraguewasyelling,thoughhedeniesthis.Thenextday,March20,Spragueunderwenta"fullbodycount"tomeasurehisradiationlevel.Whilemostteststooktwominutes,Sprague'stooktwohours.Hisresultswereabnormallyhigh.Duringthetesting,SpraguebecameupsetattheRPs.Emanuelstatedhe"screamj'ed]"'attheRPsforanhour,thoughSpraguecontendsthathekepthistemper.Afterthetest,Spraguerequestedacopyofthebodycount,buttheRPsrefusedandinsteadgaveturnanexposurereportthatcontainedthesameinformationinamorereadableformat.Laterthatsameday,stilllessthantwoweeksafterSpr~guestarted,Emanueldecidedtoterminatehisemployment.SpraguelaterfiledacomplaintwiththeDepartmentofLaborandallegedthathisterminationviolatedthewhistleblowerprovisionsoftheEnergyReorganizationAct("ERA"),42U.S.C.g5851.AnadmimstrativelawjudgeandtheSecretaryofLaborruledinSprague'sfavor.BothfoundthatANRterminatedSpraguebecausehequestionedtheRPsaboutsafetyand,therefore,violatedtheERA.Pursuantto421Merworkthatday,SpraguecontactedtheNuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC)andrequestedacopyofthehisfullbodycount.Inthelitigationbelow,thepartiesdisputedthetimingofEmanuel'sdecisiontoterminateSprague,butonappealthegovernmentconcedesthatEmanueldecidedtoterminateSpraguebeforehecontactedtheNRC.
4AmericanNuclearv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLaborNo.96-3825No.96-3825AmencanNuclearv.UnitedStatesDeptofLaborU.S.C.g5851(c),ANRnowappealsandcontendsthatjtfiredSpraguesolelybecauseofhisinterpersonalproblems.%ereviewtheSecretary'slegalconclusionsdenovo,althoughwedefersomewhattotheagencybecauseitischargedwithadministeringthestatute.5U.S.C.$706(2)(A);ChevronUSA.,Inc.v.NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil,Inc.,467U.S.837(1984).%ewillupholdaninterpretationif"basedonapermissibleconstructionofthestatute."Chevron,467U.S.at843.Ontheotherhand,wereviewfactfindingstoensurethatsubstantialevidencesupportsthem.Moonv.TransportDrivers,Inc.,836F.2d226,229(6thCir.1987).Substantialevidenceis"suchrelevantevidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion."Id.Thiscourtreviewstheapplicationoflawtofactunderthesamesubstantialevidencestandard.TurnbullConeBaking'o.v.¹LRB.,778F.2d292,295(6thCir.1985).whistleblowerstatutesaffectingotherindustries,isdesignedtoprotectworkerswhoreportsafetyconcerns.andtoencouragenuclearsafetygenerally.=-Courtsinterpretthestatutebroadlytoimplementits"broad,remedialpurpose."Mackowiakv.UniversityNuclearSys.,Inc.,735F.211159,1163(9thCir.1984).Thestatuteexplicitlyprotectsafewacts,suchastestifyinginasafetyproceeding.42U.S.C.g5851(a)(1)(E).Thestatutealsoincludesacatch-allprovisionthatprotectsemployees"inanyotheraction[designed]tocarryoutthepurposesof[thesafetystatutes]."Id.atg5851(a)(l)(F).TostateaclaimundertheERA,anemployeemustestablishthattheemployerretaliatedbecausetheemployeeengagedina~~~~~~~rotectedactivity.Bartlikv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLabor,73.3d100,103&n.6(6thCir.1996).Ifanemployerretaliatesforbothlegitimateandillegitimatereasons,courtsapplythe"dualmotive"test,underwhichtheemployermustshowthatitwouldhaveretaliatedeveniftheprotectedactivityhadnotoccurred.MackoMiiak,735F.2dat1163-64.The-employerbearstheriskifthetwomotivesproveAmendedin1992theERAprotectsworkersfromretaliatorydischarge.Thestatute,patternedafterother2ANR'sPetitionforReviewnamedonlytheDepartmentofLaborasrespondent.PartiestoanagencyproceedingsuchasSpragucarenotproperrespondents,althoughtheymaymovetointervene.Oil,Chemical&AtomicJVorkers,LocalUnionNa.6-418v.N.LRB.,694F.2d1289,1298(D.C.Cir.1982).Here,Spragucfiledaresponsivebrief,buthcncvcrmovedtointervene.Accordingly,thiscourtignoresSpraguc'sbrief.342U.S.C.g5851,amendedbyPub.L.No.102-486,106Stat.2776.BecauseSpragucfiledhiscomplaintbeforetheamendmentstookeffect,theprc-1992versionofthcBRAgovernsherc.Pub.LNo.102486g2902(i).Unlessothcrwiscnoted,thisopinioncitestothecurrentversionofthestatute.Intermsofdefiningprotectedactivities,theamendmentsessentiallycodifyearliercourtdecisions.SeeStone&fYebsterEnggCorp.v.Herman,115F.3d1568,1575(11thCir.1997)(notingthatCongress"ratified"courtdecisionsprotectinginternalcomplaints).Theamendments'egislativehistorystatesthattherictvstatuteamendsthelaw"toexplicitly"protectcertainactivities.H.R.REP.No.102474(Vill)(1992).Thcamendmentsexplicitlyprotecttheeactivitiesthatmostcourtdecisionsalreadypmtcctcd.See42U.S.Cg5851(a)(1)(A),(B),(C).Forexample,g5851(a)(1)(A)protectsanemployeewho"notifiedhisemployerofanalleged[safctyjviolation."Beforetheamendment,almosteverycircuitalsoprotectedtheseinternalsafetycomplaints.SeeBechtelConslruc.Co.v.Secretary'abor,50F.3d926,931(11thCir.1995)(notingthatalmostallcircuitsagreed).Becausetheamendmentsessentiallycodifythelawregardingpiotcctcdactivities,wcbelievethatwcwouldreachthesameresultunderthecurrentstatute.TheSixthCircuitprotectedinternalcomplaintscvcnbeforetheamendments.Jonesv.TennesseeValleyAuth.,948F.2d258,264(6thCir.1991).Moreover,onecasebasedonpost-amendmentlaw,Stone&8'ebsfer,strcsscdthatthepost-amendmentERAcontinuestoprotectonlycertainactivities.
6AmericanNuclearv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLaborNo.96-3825No.96-3825AmericanNui.'lear>>.tfslitedStatesDep'tofLaborinseparable.Id.at1164.SeealsoPoguev.UnitedStatesDep'tofLabor,940F.2d1287(9thCir.1991)(whereemployeefiledseveninternalsafetycomplaintsbutoftenbehaveddisrespectfully,applyingthetestinfavoroftheemployee).Therefore,acourtfirstmustdeterminewhethertheERAprotectstheemployee'sacts.BuildingontheAct'slanguage,courtshaveheldthattheERAprotectsmanytypesofactsthatimplicatesafety.Forexaniple,theERAprotectsanemployeewhofilesinternalreportsconcerningregulatoryviolations.Jonesv.TennesseeValleyAuth.,948F.2tI258,264(6thCir.1991).Althoughtheoldversionofg5851failstoprotectinternalreportsexplicitly,courtsprotectinternalreportstoadvancethestatute'spolicygoals.E.g.,BechtelConstrue.Co.v.Secretar'yofLabor,50F.3d926,931(11thCir.1995).Despitethisgenerallybroadreading,courtslimittheERAtoyrotectonlycertaintypesofacts.Toconstituteaprotectedsatetyreport,anemployee'sactsmustimplicatesafetydefinitivelyandspecifically.Id.InBechtel,acarpenterdisagreedwithhisforemanabouttheproceduresforprotectingradioactivetools.Thecourtprotectedthecarpenter'sactsbecausehe"raisedparticular,repeatedconcernsaboutsafetyprocedures,"whichwere"tantamounttoacomplaint."Id.Thecourtalsonoted,however,that"generalinquiriesregardingsafetydonotconstituteprotectedactivity."Id.TheERAdoesnotprotecteveryincidentalinquiryorsuperficialsuggestionthatsomehow,insomeway,maypossiblyimplicateasafetyconcern.Stone&WebsterZng'gCorp.v.Herman,115F.3d1568,1574(11thCir.1997).InStone&Webster,acasedecidedonpost-amendmentlaw,theemployeeheldaweeklysafetymeetingatwhichhediscussedfiresafetywithhisfellowironworkers.Thecourtnotedthat"Section5851doesnotprotecteveryact...undertheauspicesofsafety,"andthat"[w]histleblowingmustoccurthroughprescribedchannels."Id.Thecourtprotectedtheemployee'sacts,however,becausethe"meeting...wasincludedinaseriesofcommunicationsto-employerrepresentatives...[that]were,ynderthecircumstances,mutuallyreinforcing."Id.at1575.Moreover,anemployermayterminateanemployeewhobehavesinappropriately,evenifthatbehaviorrelatestoalegitimatesafetyconcern.Dunhamv.Brock,794F.2d1037,1041.(5thCir.1986).InDunhom,theemployeefiledasafetyreportwiththeNuclearRegulatoryCommission.Theemployersuspectedasmuchhutalsothought,legitimately,thattheemployeeoftenactedinadisruptiveanddominantmanner.Id.at1039.Toaddressthisproblem,theemployerheldacounselingsessionwiththeemployee.Theemployeesworeathisemployerandrefusedtochangehisbehavior.Hedaredtheemployertofirehim.Holdingfortheemployer,thecourtnotedthatanotherwiseprotected'provokedemployee'snotautomaticallyabsolvedfromabusinghisstatusandoversteppingthedefensibleboundsofconduct."Id.at1041.Theemployee'scavalierattitude,abusivelanguage,anddefiantconductjustifiedhisdischarge.Id.at1040-41.SeealsoLockertv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLabor,867F.2d513,519(9thCir.1989)(employee'sdisobediencejustifieddischarge,especiallywherehefailedtoestablishdisparatetreatmentorthathehadmadeanunusuallylargeorseriousnumberofcomplaints).Here,thiscourtfirstmustconsiderwhethertheERAprotectsSprague'sconduct.Anegativeanswerendstheanalysis,becausegenerally"anemployermayfireanemployeeforanyreasonatall,solongasthereasondoesnotviolateaCongressionalstatute."Kahnv.UnitedStatesSecretaryofLabor,64F.3d271,280(7thCir.1995).ANR4SeealsoKansasGasd'cElec.Co.>>.Brack,780F.2d1505,1506(10thCir.1985)(protectinganemployee,aqualitycontrolinspector,vvhofiledreportsofcontinuoussafetyproblems);Mackowlak,735F.2dat1162(protectinganemployeewhoRedinternalcomplaintsandreportedsafetyproblemstoNRC).
8AmericanPfuclearv.UnitedStatesDep'tofLaborNo.96-3825No.96-3825AmericanNuclearv.United9'tatesDep'tofLaborarguesthatSprague'sactsneveramountedtoaninternalsafetycomplaint,andthatthereforeSprague'sconductshouldreceivenoprotection.ANRassertsthattheERAprotectsonlyactsthatallegeaviolationofnuclearregulatorylaws.Thegovernment,ontheotherhand,arguesthatSprague'squestionsabouttheRPsexpresseda"particularsafetyconcern"aboutthebodycountthatwas"tantamounttoacomplaintthatthecorrectsafetyprocedurewasnotbeingobserved,andthusconstitutedprotectedactivity."TheSecretaryofLabor,relyingonBechtel,foundthatSprague'squestions"constitutedprotectedinternalactivities,sincetheRPswereresponsibleforSprague'sradiologicalsafetyasanANRemployee."Sprague'sconductfallsoutsidethescopeofERAprotection.HisconductlacksasufHcientnexustosafetyconcerns.Spraguedidthefollowingthingsthatpossiblyimplicatesafety:hecomplainedabout"thestupidRP'snotknowingwhattheyweredoing"aftertheywaitedtoolongtospray;hegrewangryattheRPswhiletheyadministeredhisfullbodycounttest;and,afterthetest,heaskedtheRPsforacopyofthebodycount,eventhoughhereceivedamoreunderstandableexposurereport.Sprague,however,neverallegedthatANRwasviolatingnuclearlawsorregulations.HeneverallegedthatANRwasignoringsafetyproceduresorassumingunacceptablerisks.Hesimplyaskedforadocument,onethathehadnorighttoreceiveandonethatcontainedlittleusefulinformation.ThegovernmentcontendsthatSprague'sgeneralcomplaintsabouttheRPshadlargersafetyimplications,buttherecordrefutesthatposition.WhileSprague'scomplaintsresultedinonesetofadditionalbodycountsontheRPs,thosetestsultimatelyrevealednosafetyproblemorhealthhazard.Sprague'sconductneverledanyonetochange,probe,orevenquestionANR'ssafetyprocedures.Incaseswherecourtsprotectedtheemployee'sacts,theemployeetypicallyallegedasafetyconcernthatwasbothconcreteandcontinuing.Forexample,inStonedc8'ebster,theemployeeheldweeklymeetingsaboutfiresafety;inBechtel,theemployeecomplainedabouttheproceduresforhandlingradioactivetools;andinPogue,theemployeehadpreparedseveninternalreportsidentifyingspecificsafetyproblems.Incontrast,Spraguecomplainedaboutanisolatedmcidentinvolvingawallspraying,notaproceduralhazard.Asingleactorinquirymay,ofcourse,fallundertheERA's'cope,butthatactmustbearaclosernexustosafetythanSprague'sconduct.Finally,eveniftheERAdoesprotectSprague'sconduct,ANRdidnotfireSpraguebecausehecomplainedaboutsafety.EmanueltestifiedthatshefiredSpraguebecauseofhisinterpersonalproblems.SpraguecomplainedprimarilyabouttheRPs'ncompetence,buttheRPsdidnotworkforANR.NoonecouldattributetheRPs'rrorstoANR.Therefore,Sprague'scomplaintsallegednosafetybreachbyANR.NothingintherecordindicateshowSprague'sconductcouldforceANRtochangeitsproceduresorincurextracosts.Anemployerwouldhardlyretaliateoversuchaninsignificantsleight.REVERSED.5ANRalsocomplainsthattheSecretaryofLabordenieditdueprocessandthattheSecretaiyfailedtocomplywithatimelinessrequirement.Becausewereverse,weneednotaddressthoseissues.
CaseNo:96-3825UNITEDSTA'IESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESIXIHCIRCUITORDERAMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES,INC.PetitionerFlt;ESMAR26)998'EOMROGgPEN,CleGREGORYA.SPRAGUE;UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFLABORRespondentsBEFORE:SILER,BATCHELDER,andGIBSON',CircuitJudges,UponconsiderationoXthepetitionforrehearingfiledbytherespondent,ltisORDEREDthatthepetition%orrehearingbe,anditherebyis,DENIED.EN'IEREDBYORDEROFTHECOURTLeonardGreen,CleTheHonorableJohnR.Gibson,CircuitJudgeoXtheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheEighthCircuit.sittingbydesignation.
vrar,a~aaaneaQaVVairLWACSCRIPPGR'IHESIXIHCIRCUITNo:96-3825AMERICANNUCLEARRESOURCES,INC.,Petitionex,l44~JAN~-'998LEONARDOGREEN,ClerkV.UNITEDSTA'ISSDEPAR'IMENI'FLABOR,Respondents.Befoxe:Siler,Batchelder,andGibson,CircuitJudges.THISMATTERcamebefoxethecourtuponapetitionforreviewofanorder,againstAmericanNucleaxResources,Inc.UPONFULLREVIEWoftherecordandthebriefsandargumentsofcounsel,weconcludethatbecausetheAmericanNuclearReorganizationActdoesnotprotecttheemployee'sconduct,ITISORDEREDthattheorderissuedbytheAdministrativeReviewBoardinthismatterbeREvERSED.ENHHKDBYORDGP'IHECOURTLenardGreen,ClertaauedaaHaadaae:COSTS:Attest:FilingFee...........5PrintingTotal.........$ATrueCopy.DeputyClerk