ML17334B719

Forwards Copy of Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Reversing Final Decision & Order of Secretary of Labor Re Case 92-ERA-37

ML17334B719
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	04/03/1998
From:	Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
AEP:NRC:1184D4, NUDOCS 9804150309
Download: ML17334B719 (27)

Text

CATEGORY REGULA Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTI SYSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9804150309 DOC.DATE: 98/04/03 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET ¹ FACIL:50-315 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana M 05000315 50-,316 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana M 05000316 AUTEKNM/ " AUTHOR AFFILIATION FITZPA=RQF~,E. Indiana Michigan Power Co.

RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)

SUBJECT:

Forwards copy of Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision reversing final decision & order of Secretary of Labor re case 92-ERA-37.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution NOTES:

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL 0 PD3-3 LA 1 1 PD3-3 PD 1 1 STANG, J 1 1 INTERNA "E CEN R 1 1 NRR/DE/ECGB/A 1 1 NRR D MCB 1 1 NRR/DRCH/HICB 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SPLB 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SRXB 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1 OGC/HDS2 1 0 EXTERNAL: NOAC NRC PDR 1 1 D

0 E

NOTE TO ALL "RZDS" RECIPZENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 41S-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 13 ENCL 12

Indiana Michigan Power Company

~

500 Circle Drive Buchanan, MI 49107 1395 INQMi8A NICNIGIiN PQWER April 3, 1998 AEP:NRC:1184D4 Docket Nos.: 50-315 50-316 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop 0-Pl-17 Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen:

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COMMUNICATION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPRAGUE v. AMERICAN NUCLEAR RESOURCES, INC.

(U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CASE NO. 92-ERA-37)

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Secretary of Labor's petition for rehearing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Ciruit, in connection with U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)

Case No. 92-ERA-37,(American Nuclear Resources Inc. v. United States De artment of Labor, File No. 96-3825).

Zn our letter of February 12, 1998, we informed you of the January 29, 1998, decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the final decision and order of the Secretary of Labor.

The Secretary of Labor has petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court to rehear the case. A copy of the petition is attached to this letter.

will forward a copy of the court's response to this petition We when it becomes available to Indiana Michigan Power Company.

Sincerely, E. E. Fitzpatrick Vice President Attachment

/jen A. Abramson A. B. Beach J. Lieberman OW il MDEQ - DW & RPD NRC Resident Inspector R. Sampson

- n

)s-<

~

9'804i50309 'F80403 PDR ADQGK 050003i5 P PDR

ATTACHMENT TO AEP:NRC:1184D4 COMMUNICATION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPRAGUE v. AMERICAN NUCLEAR RESOURCES, INC.

(U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CASE NO. 92-ERA-37)

.'>0 . 96 JB2D

.JI ED "TATES C UR: F APPEA' FOR; HE SIXTH CIRCUI AMERICAN NUCLEAR RESOURCES, :NC.,

?etner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT CF LABOR Respondent, On Petition For Review of the Final Decision and 0 der of the Sec etary of Labor PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR MARVIN KRlSLOV Deputy Solicitor of Labor

'd STEVEN ~: MANDEL Associate Solicitor WILLIAM J. STONE Counsel for Appellate Litigation LOIS ZUCKERMAN Attorney U.S. Department of Labor Washington, D.C. 202"0 (202) 2l.9-7600

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS ~ 2

1. The Whistleblower Complaint 2

2. The Administrative Proceedings 4

3. The Panel's Decision 5 ARGUMENT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases:

I 50 F.3d 926 (11th Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 5,12,13 467 U.S. 837 (1984) . . . . 11 111,F.3d .94 (11th Cir. 1997)- . .'" ,". '. . . .  ; .'2 867 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1989) ~ ~ ~ 13 735 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1984) ~ ~ ~ 11 (Dec. by ALJ, Jan. 28, 1992) 115 F.3d 1568 (11th Cir. 1997) 5,13 88-ERA-29 (Dec. by Secretary, Aug. 25, 1993) . . . 11

Page 954 F. 2d 353 (6th Cir. 1992) ~

I

~ - ~... ~... 11 Statutes and Regulations:

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5851 (1988) 1,7 42 U.S.C. 5851(a) (1988) 7 42 U.S.C. 5851(a)(1)(A) (1992). 8 Code of Federal Regulations 10 C.F.R. 19.12(a)(4) 10 10 C.F.R. 19.20 8 10 C.F.R. Part 20 9/13 10 C.F.R. 20.1101 8 10 C.F.R. 20.1701 gf . 8 10 C.F.R. 20.2106 8 10 C.F.R. 50.7 8 10 C.F.R. 50.7(a)(1)(v) 7 10 C.F.R. 50.7(A) (2) 7 10 C. F. R. 50. 48 13 Miscellaneous:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Regulatory Guide (Revision 3, June 1978) 8.8 9',10 8.8-1 8.8-6 9 8.8-9 9 8.8-14 10 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

IN THE UNITED STAT"S COUR'F APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRC":T No. 96-3825 AMERICAN NUCLEAR RESOURCES, INC.,

Peti 'one UNITED STATES DEPARTMEN OF LABOR, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of the Final Decision and Order of the Secreta v of Labor PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR Pursuant to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Secretary of Labor, through this petition to the panel that rendered the Court's opinion, respectfully requests this Court to rehear the case, vacate its opinion, and affirm the Secretary's decision in this "whistleblower" case arising under 4

the Energy Reorganizati'o'n A'ct of 1974, as amended (""ERA"), 42 U.S.C. 5851 (1988). In its opinion of January 28, 1998, the panel, in vacating the Secretary's decis'on, ruled that the actions of Gregory Sprague, a technician employed by American Nuclear Industries, Inc. ("ANR"), "lack[ed) a sufficient nexus to safety concerns" to come w'thin the ERA's "protected activities."

On this basis, the panel, in effect, held that the Secretary had

'nterpreted the ERA in manner which could not permissibly be reconciled with the language of the statute.

The Secretary respectf lly submits that the panel e red.

Mr: Sprague's ac"ivities, viewed in the context of tne spec'ic requirements of the I,

ERA, as interpreted by the P4clear Regulatory Commiss'on ("NRC"), implicate the core concerns o. the " RA, including the safetv of workers within the nuclea ndust y,

=heir protectio.". f"".- exposu"e to radiation, and =he expression of internal complaints by workers that bear upon =he statutory and regulatory rec"irements pertaining to sa ety-related practices. Through this petition, the Secretary identifies the specific NRC "equirements implicated by Mr.

Sprague's complaints; demonstrates that the panel's analysis is incongruent with the precedent upon which it relies; and explains why the panel's opinion, unless modified, will both hobble the enforcement of the ERA by the NRC and the Secretary and deter employees from exercising their rights to voice internal complaints about nuclear safety practices.

b STATEM" NT. OF THE, ,ISSUE.

f Whether an employee is not engaging in protected activities under the Energy Reorganization Act when he complains to his supervisor about the work practices that caused him to be contaminated by airborne radiation at a nuclear power station.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

1. o ANR employed Sprague as a tool accountability technician in

the reactor containment area in the D.C. Cook Power Plant.

Sprague, who had no prior work experience at a nuc'ear power plant, had been working at the facility for only'about two weeks when the events underlying h'is ERA complaint occ r"ed.

On March 19, 1992, Sprague was exposed to radioactive while recovering too: s from a wo"'.-: area .."-ollcwi:;",

tne completion of this work and upon learning that he had been contaminated, Sprague complained to h's supervisor that the ad'ation protection personnel ("RP's"), who were charged with ensuring that radiation exposures of plant personnel will be as low as reasonably achievable" ("ALARA"), did not know what thev were doing. According to his supervisor, the RP's had waited too long to spray the cavity's walls to prevent airborne radiation.

The next day, March 20th, which was to have been his last day working at the plant before a scheduled temporary layoff, Sprague underwent the standard "full body count" to measure his radiation level. Due to Sprague's abnormally, high radiat'ion levMs 'the test took two hours; the tests performed on his co-workers took two minutes. Sprague became upset with the RP's during the test, and requested a copy of the report immediately after its completion. The RP's refused to provide him with a copy of the "full body count report" and gave him an "exposure report," which contained the same informat'on in a more readable format

Later that day (b]a ch 20), Sprague's s pervisor decided to make Sprague's 'ayoff permanent, allegedly because o. h's "interpe sonal problems." That same day, Spragu4 contacted the NRC and =-

representative informed him that AVR was not requ'red to disclose the body count information in the particular form he had requ=sted. Sprague 'ater fi'ed a comp'a'..t with Departme;.t of Labor, al'eging that his term'nat'on v'o'ated the ERA's employee protection provision.

'v P Af"er a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")

determin d that Sprague's complaints about the RP's and h's request to them for the body count report was protected activity for which he was unlawfully discharged. The Administrative Review Board ("ARB"), acting for the Secretary, affirmed the ALJ's decision. The ARB held that Sprague's questions to the RP's constituted protected activity because "the RP's were responsible for Sprague's e

radiological safety as an ANR II emp1oyae." The ARB reasoned (quoting agency precedent) that "an employee's 'questioning of the safety procedure . . . used was tantamount to a complaint that the correct safety procedure was not being observed'nd thus constituted protected activity under the ERA."

3 T The panel rejected the ARB's interpretation of the scope of

~ j L "protected activities" unde "he =RA, although acknowledging ".".e ollowing, actions by Sprague -hat "poss'bly implicate safety: '.".e complained about 'the stupid RP's not knowing what they were doing'=ter thev wa'ed too 'org to spray; he grew angry at t?:e RP's wh'le they administered his full body count test; and, a==e=

test, he asked the RP's for a copy o" the body count, e;e.".

though ne received a more un"erstandable exposure report." ".c-the panel held tha" Sprague d:d not engage in protected activi= ',

re'ying on 1 n u 50 e.3d 926, 931 (11th Cir. 1995) and a W +IV Q D v 115 E'.3d 1568, 1574 (11th Cir. 1997)'or the proposition that courts have limited the ERA to "particular, repeated concerns about safety procedures" and not "general inquiries." The panel drew a distinction between the series of complaints in those cases and the complaint of Hr. Sprague abou-an "isolated incident involving a wall spraying," which was not "a procedural hazard."'lthough the panel conceded that a single safe4y-inquiry might constitute protected activity, it *held that a such a single inquiry "must bear a closer nexus to safety than Sprague's conduct." Alternatively, the panel held that ANR did not f'e Sprague because he complained about safety, conclud'g In both 3~~~~ and W , the Eleventh C'rcuit upheld the Secretary's interpretation of "protected conduct" to include the informal expression by complainants of concerns about the work procedures effecting safety in a nuclea power plant.

that Sprague's "interpersonal problems" p ovided a credible bas's for his discharge.

ARGOMENT The panel should rehear this case and issue a modi f ied opinion, re ins tat ing the Secretary ' decision, and denying ANR '

'~

petition for review. In vacating the Secretary's decision, the panel apparently failed to recognize that Sprague's protests to his superv'sor about the contamination caused by the RP's as a result of their failure to observe proper work procedures, not his intemperate remarks to the health technicians, comprised the core element of his protected activity. Viewed from this vantage, Sprague's actions readily satisfy the panel's concern that an employee's conduct must bear a close nexus to safety.

Indeed, Sprague's remarks to his supervisor constitute allegations that the work practices, which resulted in his contamination, violated express requirements of the ERA.

1. Sprague's complaint to his su"ervisor on March 19, 1992, alerted her to'he fact that he believed that his

~

f e~

con~m~ation and the contamination of other personnel had resulted from the RP's waiting too long to spray the cavity's walls to prevent airborne radiation. T:".e panel acknowledged that "Sprague's complaints resulted in one s t of additional body counts on the RP's.'" 1998 WL 29862, pa"e 3. Yet the panel, in a departure rom precedent, interpreted na rowly the scope of the statute's "protected activ'ties," ~, limiting its protection

to conduct which entails "concrete and continuing" complaints, where an employer is "ignor'ng safety procedures o assuming unnecessary risks," or conduct that is associate6 with a particu'arly egregious one-'t'ime occurrence.

Contrary to the panel's ruling, the language of 42 U.S.C.

5851(a) (1988);- which emb aces conduc that necessa i'y -"ecedes a complaint filed with the NRC,'learly protects Sprague's The governing statutory provision states:

O O n (a) Discrimination against employee No employer otherwise

~ .. may discharge any employee or discriminate against any employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee)--

(1) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a . . . proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under this chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; (2) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or; (3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any manner, in such a proceeding, or in any other'.-.. .'a'ction. to'carry out the purposes* of' ttris chapter or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 42 U.S.C. 5851 (1988).

'Section 50.7 of the NRC regulations provides explicit protection to actions antecedent to a NRC investigation or other proceeding, by including within "protected activities":

"Assist'ng or participating in, or is about to assist or participate in, these activities." (10 C.'2'.R. 50.7(a)(1) !v)).

This section continues: "These activities are protected even if no ormal p oceeding is actually initiated as a result of the

~~

employee assistance or part'cipation." (10 C.F.R. 50.7(a)(2)).

10 C.F.R. 19.20, collecting provisions regulating conduct that may be sanctioned for employer interference with 7

~ g I ) ~

protests regard'ng the competence of the RP's (as well as his su'equent demand for information re'at'."." tc he seve ity of his exposure to radiation contaminants). Moreover, kprague's conduct cert='.".' ".". " 'led his employer of an a'leged violation" of the

=or o'"-"ses of the amended ERA. ~>> l2 U.S.C.

5- r= '..} ('92} . The pane'c" ec=': he':d -.ha the amendments la-gely codified pre-existinc law regarding protected c t'es The p"otection of workers from exposure to radioactive materials 's a primary focus of the NRC's regulation of the nuclear industry. Part 20 of the NRC regulations, entitled "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," requires, in part, that licensees "shall use to the extent practicable, procedures and engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles to achieve occupational doses that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) ." 10 C. F. R. 20. 1101. Nore specifically, the 'rules direct licensees "to control the o r-

"conc neat'ion's* of radioactive material in the'air," regulating equipment and processes to be utilized (10 C.E'.R. 20.1701 ~

~o.), and also directs licensees to maintain records of worker

=adiation exposure, including records when, as here, a worker is exposed accidentally to radiation (10 C.F.R. 20.2106).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 8.8 protected activity.

(Rev. 3, June 1978, reproduced in the addendum and referred hereto as "NRC Guide")4 has for almost twenty years provided guidance to licensees on how they can meet the M,ARA requ'rements. The NRC guide'pplies to "station personnel,"

defined as "a'1 persons working at a nuclear power station, whether full-time or part-time and wnether employed by the licensee or by a contractor for the licensee." NRC Gu'de, 8.8-1, n.l. All station personnel, such as Sprague's supervisor, who direct the activities of others "should be familiar with the licensee's radiation control program and should have authority to implement the licensee' commitment to ensure the radiation exposures of station personnel will be ALARA." ~I . at 8.8-6.

The NRC Guide describes the need for design features to "provide for protection against airborne radioactive material by means of engineering controls such as process, containment, and ventilation equipment." ~. at 8.8-9. The following design control feature, described in paragraph (d)(6), is of particular ~

r'elegagce to t'e instant, case:

p

"[w) et transfer or storage of contaminated components . . . by keeping contaminated

'otentially surfaces wet, by spraying, or preferably, by keeping such surfaces under water." During operations in radiation areas, the NRC Guide recommends assigning a "health physics (ice., radiation The NRC Guide describes methods, acceptable to the NRC staff, of implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations. NRC Guide, 8.8-1.

safety or radiation protection} "ecnnician to provide radiatlc.".

protect'cn surve'llance. VRC Guide, 8.8-14, b.('). Formal o" informal postoperation debriefings "of station p'ersonnel per"orm'ng the services" are specifically identified as a means of p oviding "valuable information concerning shortcom'ngs 'n preopera"ional briefinas, planning, procedu es, special too:s, and other factors that contributed to the cause of doses rece've" during the operation." c. 1 In sum, when Sprague criticized the RP's to his supervisor because thei untimely spraying of the cavity's walls caused airborne radiation, if not also when he confronted the RP's regarding his resultant contamination levels, he unmistakably notified his supervisor of potential violations of the NRC's regulations. This serious and well-grounded complaint constituted protected activity under the ERA.

Significantly, NRC regulations make it the "responsibility" of workers "to report promptly to the licensee any condition 4

'I whiQ ~y lead to or'cause a violation of Commission regulations and licenses or unnecessary exposure to radiation and/or radiation material . . . ." 10 C.E'.R. 19.12(a)(4). Thus, the very conduct by Sprague that the panel deemed unprotected was equired by NRC regulations. Absent modification of this ruling, employees who dut'ully report exposure to radiation bear the very real risk of being fired for their efforts.

10

'I l

2. The panel's decision departs from the Court's obligation under h v on

, v. '

interpretation C'.

w "~o 1991) c't o= a statute she is charged to administer.

954 F.2d 353, 357 (6th (deferring "o Secretary's interpretation cf coverage under the Surf-ce Transportation Assistance Act ("STAA")}. As the Ninth Circuit has ..oted, "[t]he Secretary's interpretation of the scope of the Act's whistleblower protection is permissible because this statutory provision has the "broad, remedial purpose of protecting workers from retaliation based on concerns for safety and quality." w1 v ~ v

~n , 735 F.2d 1159, 1160 (9th Cir. 1984).

The ARB, like the Secretary before it, has broadly construed the scope of protected activities under the ERA and the other employee protection statutes administered by the Labor Department.'he ARB's interpretation in, this case promotes the rem~ia3. purpo'ses 'of the s'tatute by encourag'ing safety concerns to be raised and resolved promptly, at the supervisory level, and protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employer before Numerous ERA whistleblower cases involve internal complaints to manag'ement about inattention of coworkers to proper safety practices. Many involve concerns relating to worker exposure to airborne radioactive contaminants.

v. 88-ERA-29 (Dec. by Secretary, Aug.

25, 1993); v. 1 1 M O 90-ERA-43 (Dec. by ALJ, Jan. 28, 1992).

11

they have I

a chance appropriate agency. B Indeed, by distinguishing Sprague's

" 1 r

to bring the'r safety concerns before 5Q F 3d at an complaints -> which occurred 933 over a two-day period -- from continuing" complaints arguably at issue in other cases, the panel's holding would encourage employers to fire employees  !~~~ they have an oppor=un'y ma'..e repeated inquiries or file more formal complaints. There '-s simply no basis in the statu" ory text or ou "poses only to protect indiv'duals who file multiple complaints.

The narrow construction the panel gives the statute 's not supported by the case law it cites. While the decisions the panel cites may have involved more than one complaint, nothing in those decisions suggests that a particular quantity of complaints is required to trigger the Act's protections. These decisions, instead, lend support to the ARB's conclusion that Sprague's actions were protected; and other authority recognizes that actions similar to S'prague's deserve the iRA's protection.

F

~

" ~

U

v. ','11 F. 3d 94, n. 2 (11th Cir.

1997) (complainant's failure to observe proper procedure in connection with a perceived safety hazard posed by particles that the employee thought might be radioactive did not deny complainant the Act's protection); C (tool accountability technician's q est'oning of his foreman t, ~>~or about correct safety procedures for handling contaminated tools

~ ~

was "protected ac"ivity" and not a "gen="al 'qu'- y regarding safety" };-

1 rt Dao r o~". ".

b, 867 E'. 2d 513 (9th Cir. 1989) (employee's actions in seeking information relating to safe"y p"ccedures considered'o be o otec ed). Additionally, contrary -o the panel's reading of ~ne ">" the Eleventh W~

Circ opinion cannot be distinguish="'rom "he instant case There is no relevant difference between =oncerns over fire safety deemed protected in W anc =he contamination concerns expressed by Sprague here. HRC regulations treat both worker exposure to radiation and fire sa=ety as central to safety in the nuclear industry. ~ 10 C.F.R. 50.48 ( ire safety) and 10 C.F.R. Part 20 (radiation k protection).

3. The analysis in the panel's opinion not only departs from precedent, but it fails to provide any direction that would enable the Secretary and the regulated community accurately to predict the bounds of the ERA's protection in future situations an acute problem because the facts posed by the instant, case can~t~eadily be d'istinguished from recurrent s'ituations where i:

~

an employee airs a complaint informally about a co-worker's failure to follow prescribed safety procedures. At a minimum, the panel's decision will invite arguments by employers that even previous'y uncontested safety-related activities are outside the On facts strikingly similar to -he facts of the instant case, the Eleventh Circuit in Q~~h~~ he'd that the actions were protected by the ERA.

13

r ERA's protection. This ineluctably will deter some emp'oyees fr'om articulating concerns about unsafe practices in the workp'ace, a result inconsistent both with the language of the ERA (as amended in 1992 and its accepted prior interpretation),

NRC regulations, and the goal to protect the safety of workers with'n the nuclear industry and, ultimately, the safety of the public.

4. The Secreta y requests'he panel, if it modifies its opinion to hold that Sprague engaged in protected conduct, also to reexamine its alternative holding that ANR had demonstrated that it had a legitimate, non-retaliatory basis upon which to discharge Sprague. ln the Secretary's responsive brief, the Secretary demonstrated that substantial evidence supported the ARB's finding that this rationale for the firing was pretextual.

Xn addition to the arguments there presented, the Secretary submits that ANR's explanation for terminating Sprague should b reconsidered by. the panel because of the core safety concerns i'mplicated by'.Spragues complaint. Contr'ar'y to 'the panel's assumption, ANR could have reason to thwart Sprague's complaints.

ANR, like all contractors, would be concerned that production at the plant would be impeded by a worker who protests any contractor's adherence to, or the adequacy of, radiation protection design controls. Finally, Sprague's remarks, while intemperate, were not so disruptive to divest him of the Act's 14

protection. His emotive react on -- as someone newly hired to work at a nuclear facility who suffers abnormal radioactive contamination -- was not so un easonable that AN+ legitimately could terminate his employment.

CONCLUS iON For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that the Court should grant the 'motion for panel ehearing in this case, vacate the panel's opinion, and deny ANR's petition challenging the Secretary' decision that Hr. Sprague was unlawfully terminated in violation of the ERA.

Respectfully submitted, MARVIN KRISLOV Deputy Secretary for National Operations STEVEN J. MANDEL Associate Solicitor WILLIAM J. STONE Counsel for Appellate Litigation e

J LOIS R. ZUC ERMAN Attorney U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Ave., NW Room N2716 Washington, D. C. 20210 (202) 219-7600 15

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing motion of the Secretary of Labor were served this 12th day of Parch, 1998 by first-class mail upon the following:

Kevin M. McCarthy Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.

444 West Michigan Avenue Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3751 John T. Burhans, Esq.

Burhans, LaForge a Berger 505 Pleasant Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 648 St. Joseph, MI 49085 t

(

Lois R. Zuc erman

I a r