ML20198J584
| ML20198J584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1986 |
| From: | Cassel D CASSEL, D.W., ROREM, B. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-338 OL, NUDOCS 8606030157 | |
| Download: ML20198J584 (33) | |
Text
e- -vv
, C>
_o
.j-
\ \'t /Mjj \
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > 'U('
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f jg , YB BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR '%. /9 <
~
In the Matter of: ) ;
) .
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
MOTION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL LATE-FILED HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION CONTENTIONS Intervenors Rotem, et al., pursuant to 10 CFR S2.714, by their undersigned attorney, move the Board to admit the attached late-filed contentions of harassment and intimidation with respect to L.K. Comstock Braidwood site employee Ms. Bonnie Parkhurst and former L.K. Comstock Braidwood site OC Inspector M r. R.D. Hunter. In the alternative, with respect to Mr. Hunter, Intervenors move the Board to rule that his alleged retaliatory termination is within the scope of Intervenors' existing OC Inspector Harassment contention, which identified Mr. Hunter by name and which alleged continuing harassment.
THE CONTENTIONS The Parkhurst contention is based on findings by an Admin-istrative Law Judge of the United States Department of Labor that L.K. Comstock Co. was jointly responsible, together with Braidwood engineering contractor Sargent & Lundy, for a series of 1
8606030157 860527 PDR ADOCK 0D000456 Po" O gs03
e 4 i
cdverse employment actions taken in retaliation for her rais ng (Decision And Order, April 10, cafety and security concerns.
1986, pp.10-14, attached hereto as Exhibit A to Intervenors' Ms. Parkhurst was a clerk typist, Parkhurst Contention.)
and responsible for control and cmployed by L.K. Comstock Co.
filing of mylar prints of Sargent & Lundy engineering drawings The " clearly cnd engineering change notices. (Id., pp. 3-5.)
Comstock was found liable discriminatory" actions for which L.K. ram occurred af ter she complained to Edison's Quality First prog i ling of tbout document control problems, such as the comm ng (Id. , p. 4.)
outdated with revised mylars.
The discriminatory actions taken against her included a lay-reprimand, a change to a new assignment without overtime, l a re-a of f, a. failure to recall in timely fashion, and ultimate y hiring at lower pay.
(Id., pp.10,13.)
Comstock Co. by After hearing testimony on behalf of L.K.
Frank Polan, and its Braidwood its Braidwood project manager, found d
project engineer, Joe Klena, the Administrative Lawt Ju ge actions that the reasons they offered for the adverse employmen (16. , p. 12.)
were "merely pretexts for discrimination."
Hunter was terminated The Hunter contention alleges that Mr.
March 25,1986, on the asserted ground by Comstock on or about had been that he had allegedly inspected a weld or welds that but that Mr, Hunter denies so doing, painted prior to inspection, because he and contends instead that he was terminated, in part, C had alleged inadequacies in Comstock's OA/OC program to the NR and in his deposition in this case on January 28 and 2
i_
e ,
February 25, 1986.
The Hunter contention is offered in the alternative to a request for a ruling that these new facts merely constitute additional evidence in support of Intervenors' previously admitted OC Inspector Harassment Contention. In the April 5, 1985 NBC Staff memorandum which was incorporated by reference in Intervenors' contention as admitted on July 23, 1985, Mr. Hunter was identified by name as one of the Comstock OC inspectors who had complained to the NPC in March 1985, as alleged in the contention. In addition to specific past instances of barass-ment, the contention further alleged that " systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the present."
In light of this express allegation of continuing harass-ment, it is reasonable to view evidence of continued harassment af ter the date the contention was admitted as within the scope of the contention, especially when it concerns one of the very inspectors identified by name in the contention. Only if the Board were to rule that no harassment af ter July 23,1985 is within the scope of the contention, would Mr. Hunter's allegation of further harassment fall outside the scope of the contention.
Accordingly, Intervenors request the Board to rule that the new evidence concerning Mr. Hunter is within the scope of the exiting contention. However, if the Board rules that it is not, Intervenors offer it instead as a late-filed contention, in the form attached hereto.
3
THE FIVE FACTORS The two prof fered late-filed contentions satisfy the five-factor test of 10 CFR S2.714 for admission of late-filed contentions, for the following reasons:
- 1. Good cause Intervenors first learned of Ms. Parkhurst's allega-tions, and of the April 10, 1986 ruling by the Administrative Law Judge through a Board notification provided by Applicant under a cover letter dated April 28, 1986. This letter was received by Intervenors' counsel during the final week prior to the hearings which began May 6. At the time it was received, Intervenors' counsel were fully occupied by preparations for the hearing and by other pleadings due that week. The hearings themselves occu-pied Intervenors counsel through May 9.
During the subsequent two week recess in the hearings, Intervenors' counsel have been occupied by numerous matters. In addition to the preparation of this motion and the attached contention, counsel have been occupied by meetings with, and Applienat's depositions of, our three expert witnesses, by depositions of OC inspectors, by additional pleadings ( e .g . , an Answer to Applicant's pending motions to reform the Commission's March 21 Order and to preclude reference herein to Comstock's settlement of Mr. Puckett's complaint before the Department of Labor), by research in connection with a possible appeal from the commission's April 24 order dismissing our OA contention, by review of newly received discovery documents, and by preparation 4
for cross examination of witnesses when the hearings resume.
This motion is being filed the first working day following the two-week recess. Given the timing of Intervenors' receipt of the Parkhurst information on the eve of the hearings, good cause has been shown for the period of less than one month f rom receipt of that information to the filing of this motion and contention.
Intervenors first learned of the new evidence relating to Mr. Hunter at or about the beginning of April,1986, following receipt from him of the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A to Intervenors' Hunter contention. However, at that time, for the reasons set forth above, Intervenors reasonably believed that this new evidence was within the scope of Intervenors' admitted contention. Not until the hearings opened on May 6, 1986, and the Board expressed doubt about whether this belief was correct, did it become apparent to Intervenors that a new contention might be called for. Since May 6, Intervenors' counsel have been occupied by all the matters set forth above in the discussion of good cause for the Parkhurst contention.
Good cause for the late filing of the Hunter contention (if, indeed, any new contention is needed; Intervenors continue to believe that none is needed) has thus been shown by Intervenors' reasonable, good faith belief that the new evidence was within the scope of their existing contention and, since May 6, by the exigencies of the hearing and hearing preparation.
5
- 2. and 4. Other Means, Other Parties In the extensive litigation over Intervenors' late-filed OA contention and late-filed OC Inspector Harassment contention, all parties consistently recognized that factors (2) and (4) weigh in favor of the admission of Intervenors' late-filed co.ntentions. Nothing about the Parkhurst or Hunter conten-tions suggests any different conclusion with respect to these two factors.
- 3. Sound Record l Intervenors' overall contribution to a sound record on the issue of L.K. Comstock's harassment, intimidation and undue production pressure on its 00 inspectors has already been recog-nized by the Board. (Memorandum and Order, May 2, 1986, pp. 7-l 8.) Adding. evidence on the Parkhurst and Hunter contentions to the record will contribute in the following ways.
Evidence concerning the retaliatory actions taken against Ms. Parkhurst by Comstock's Braidwood site management tends to show that the evidence of harassment and undue production pressure within the OC department at Comstock reflected the attitudes of Comstock's site management generally. In this regard, it is notable that Comstock's Project Manager and Project Engineer were both implicated in the discrimination against Ms.
Parkhurst, that they both participated in the contriving of excuses for the actions against her, and that the excuses to which they testified were found by the Administrative Law Judge to be " mere pretext."
6
- i' In addition, the Parkhurst case appears to reflect either a f ailure by Comstock OA to detect the problem, or else a lack of sufficient independence of Comstock OA to challenge the actions of Comstock site management. The Parkhurst evidence will thus also contribute to the record as it relates to the testimony of Mr. Seltman, among others. */
The Hunter evidence will add to the record by " completing the story" with respect to OC Inspector Hunter's allegations of harassment and undue production pressure by his supervisors at Bra id wood. The Hunter evidence also sheds light on how site managers at Braidwood, in at least one instance, treated a QC inspector after his testimony in this proceeding - and the message that treatment may send to other inspectors. At his deposition on February 25, 1986, Mr. Hunter had testified, for example:
... At one time we were short of inspectors, and it put a heavy load .... everything we was working was backlogs .... Commonwealth Edison gives us a certain date that we must have certain areas cleaned up,.... So to me, that was saying, hey, we've got to do this in order to keep the job
.... That meant if the inspectors didn't come up with a certain number of inspections in a certain time, they could figure they'd be hitting the road.
(Tr. 117.)
And another examplet
- / Finally, the Parkhurst evidence raises additional questions concerning document control, in this instance involving Sargent & Lundy engineering drawings and engineering change notices at the Braidwood site.
7
L
- a Os ... Mr. Hunter, are you aware of any pressure ever having been placed on you to approve defi-cient work by any Comstock supervisor?
A: No. I have never had a supervisor come up and say: Hey, we've got to get this approved.
I've never had that happen to me.
0: Okay. Have you ever heard of that ever happening to anybody?
A: Well, yes, it's happened.
A: Just a moment. I wouldn' t say that they actually put it to you: Let's accept this inspection; or, let's don't accept this inspection.
l But what they do, I'll be honest with you, they will let you look at this when you review it. If you don't accept it, well maybe then they will take it down to the next inspector and let him look at it and see if he will buy it. In other words, it may take three or four stops before they either get it bought or don't get it bought.
(Tr. Jan. 28, 1986, 38-39.)
Given the fact of such testimony shortly before his 4
termination, it is highly appropriate that the Board inquire (either through admitting the new Hunter contention, or deeming the new evidence to be within the scope of the prior contention) into Mr. Hunter's belief that his termination was due in part to his deposition. In his words, "Was this not a way to get back at the people who had given a deposition to the Intervenors BPI and NRC people, as well as being a personality clash between Mr. Tony Simile and myself." (Exhibit A to the Hunter contention, attached hereto.)
8
a
- 5. Broadening and Delay Neither the Parkhurst nor the Hunter contentions would significantly broaden or delay the hearings on the existing OC Inspector Harassment contention.
In the case of the Parkhurst contention, the facts have already been investigated and assembled, and the testimony of both Ms. Parkhurst and her Comstock supervisors obtained, by the Administrative Law Judge of the U.S. Department of Labor. Under legal doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, there is no need to re-litigate the Department of Labor's findings in this case; the findings of the Administrative Law Judge can simply be admitted into the record in this case. Moreover, even in the event Applicant desires to, and were permitted to, re-litigate any issues, the time required for such re-litigation would be quite limited, in view of the small number of witnesses involved and the fact that the evidence has already been gathered and organized by the Administrative Law Judge.
In the case of the Hunter contention, the primary effect of the new evidence would merely keep Mr. Hunter and Mr. Simile -
both of whom will be witnesses anyway - on the stand a little longer. There will be no significant broadening of the case.
ALL FIVE FACTORS IN
SUMMARY
With respect to both the Parkhurst and Hunter contentions, all five factors call for admission of these late-filed ,
contentions.
9
o .
CONCLUSIONS Intervenors respectfully move the Board to admit as a late-filed contention the attached Parkhurst contention, and to rule
'that the new evidence concerning Comstock QC Inspector Hunter is within the scope of the existing OC Inspector Harassment contention. In the alternative, Intervenors move the Board also to admit the attached new Hunter contention.
DATED: May 27, 1986 Respectfully submitted,
%b b DouglaWs W. Cassel, Jr.f7 One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al.
Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 641-5570 10 t -
_ ~
e e l-INTERVENORS' PARKHURST CONTENTION Contrary to Criterion I, "O rg an iza t ion" of 10 C.F.F. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section 50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company have failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom and independence from cost and schedule as opposed to' safety considerations and correction of quality apd safety significant deficiencies. Systematic and widespread harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination has been directed against Comstock OC inspectors and other employees who express safety and quality concerns by Comstock management. Such misconduct discourages the identification and correction of defi-ciencies in safety related components and systems at the l
Braidwood Station.
The instances of such harassment, intimidation and produc-tion pressure, previously set forth in Intervenors' OC Inspector Harassment contention, reflected the attitude toward quality displayed by Comstock Braidwood site management, in a series of adverse employment actions taken against Comstock clerk-typist Ms. Bonnie Parkhurst, in retaliation for her raising safety and security concerns, as found by an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Department of labor on April 7, 1986. The complete Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated fully herein, sets forth the relevant facts and findings.
~
1
The actions taken by Comstock Braidwood site management against Ms. Parkhurst further reflect either an inadequacy in the Comstock Braidwood site OA program, in failing to detect and correct the retaliatory actions, or a lack of sufficient organ-izational independence to do so, as well as corresponding fail-ures in Applicant's Braidwood Quality Assurance program.
2
' .'
- PARKHURST EXHIBIT A O
E U.S. Department of Labor ffice of Ac%nistrative Law Judges ,.
111120tn Street. N W. ; hp -l
- Wasnington. D C. 20036 '
M
,, . . . i In the Matter of : '~3WTmhp1 run
.3 8.f, i f , . ,3 j 1 7 BONNIE J. PARKHURST, : Case No. 85-ERA-41 Claimant :
- v. : (
L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC., : II <
Employer :
g.
Thomas E. McClure, Esq. O U I8f g L.
ff
~
For the Claimant C0 Bruce E. Heary, Esq.
Glenn Smith, Esq. *ch For the Employer 4 8 9' Before: GLENN ROBERT LAWRENCE Administrative Law Judge DECISION AND ORDER r
's' Statement of the Case Claimant, Bonnie Parkhurst, initiated the above entitled proceedings by filing a letter complaint with the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor alleging discriminatory employment practices against L. K. Comstock, Inc.
in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act 42 U.S.C.
55851(a). Claimant contended that her June 14, 1985 lavoFF hy Comstock was unlawful retaliation for maFing safety and security _
charges aaaingh the p'0jec* *ngineers. Sargent & Lundy for whom she had worked.
Pursuant to 29 CFR Part 24, the Secretary of Labor con-ducted an investigation into the violation alleged.
On September 18, 1985_the Department of Labor (DOL) notified Mrs. P3rkhurst in writing that a fact-finding investigation had been conducted in accordance with 29 CFR Part 24 (ALJ Exhibit 1, in evidence) and in substance that the claim was without merit.
Mr. Parkhurst timely initiated an appeal from this ruling by telegram to this Office on September 24, 1985 (ALJ-1).
On October 4, 1985 the United States Nuclear Regulator _y Commisiiht issued a report essentially agreeina with 00L.
(ALJ-2, in evidence).
. 2 A hearinct, was held befora the undersigned on January 28, E in Chicago, Illinois, with respect to the Claimant's charge against L. K. Comstock of unlawful A
consent of counsel and leave of this retaliation. Pursuant to office, the parties proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed on March 11, 1986 with the time to issue the decision extended to April 17, 1986. The decision to follow is basna nn my obsnrue ,
_ tion of the witnesses; review of the entire record a e. weti- as the applicable law and regulations._
STIPULATED FACTS The following facts were stipulated by both counsel or by counsel for the respective party, as indicated by the specific reference to the transcript:
- 1. The following exhibits appended to the transcript were admitted into evidence:
- a. Employer Comstock's Exhibits A-1 through A-39 (TR 12, lines 21-25);
- b. Employer Comstock's Exhibits C-1 through C-5 (TR 13, lines 9-13);
- c. Employer Comstock's Exhibit B (TR 14, line 6);
- f. Claimant's exhibit 1 (TR 77)
- g. Claimant's exhibit 2 (TR 86)
- 3. For her own reasons, Claimant did not work from March 7, 1985 until June 3, 1985 (TR 19, lines 18-22);
- 4. _ Claimant worked forl omstock from June 3, 1985 to June 14, 1985 at which time she was laid off_(TR 19, lines 7-16);
- 5. _ Claimant was rehired by Comstock on September (TR 19, line 10). -
4, 1985
- 6. Claimant's hourly rates of pay were as follows:
- a. January through March, 1985 -- $5.65 hr.
- b. June 3, ' 85 through June 14, 1985 -- 55.65 hr.
- c. September 4, 1985 thrpugh December 31, 1985 -- S5.50 hr.
- d. January 1, 1986 to date -- 56.00 hr. (TR 20. lines
{
9-25)
1 3
- 7. Claimant was a Comstock employee (TR 22, line 1) 8.
paycheckThe deductions for unearned taken from vacation, Claimant's June 14, 1985 personal and sick days were proper and Claimant does not claim that these deductions are related in any way to her charge of discrimination or retalia-tion.
(TR 153, lines 5-21; TR 153, lines 1-7).
Findings of Fact -
- 1. Claimant Bonnie Parkhurst was _ hired by L. K. Comstock (the employer) on August _ 15, exercised h y. Sarcent .& .Lunoy_ 198 4 _S uoervisory c o n t r o l s W e r'd _
(S & L), a Co'mmonwealth ' Edison, subcontractor of
- d nuclear power site.the project owner, at the Braidwood Center 1). (TR 21, lines 6-10; 21-25; TR 22, line 2.
i period March Claimant was June 7 through out of2,the 1985.service of Employer during the (TR. 19.)
- 3. On June 3, to work through June 14,1985, Claimant 1985. returned to work and continued (TR 19).
4.
June 14, 1985. Claimant was laid (TR 19).
off effective immediately following (
(
- 5. Claiman_t_ returned to work 4, 1985 and continues to work for Employer.for Employer (TR 19,on20).
September
- 6. During the periods January 1 through March 7, 1985 and June (TR 20.)3 through June 14, 1985 claimant earned S5.65 per hour.
- 7. During the period September 4, 1985 through December 21, 1985 Claimant earned $5.50 per hour. (TR 20).
- 8. From January 1, a
January 28, 1986, Claimant 1986 earneduntil$6.00the perdate hour.of the hearing, (TR 20).
- 9. _ When Claimant worked for S & L, Claimant's it largely supervised day-to-day activities _ and
' activities while the Employer controlled her work her as the Employer's employee. paid (TRClaimant's 21-22). wages and viewed
- 10. Claimant was originally hired by Empicyer as a_ clerk _
t g (TR 49).
~
11.
ment from a layoff, her po,sition changed to clerk.On September.3, (TR 49, 85).
12.
for S & When L Claimant was originally hired by Employer to work catch up wo,rFshe and helped back_wntR.the leads at S & L with some of their (TR 49, 50).
l
. 4
.. 4 13.
. mylar roomt In September, (TR 49, 50).
1984, _ Claimant began working in S & L's (
In this capacity, Claimant was held \
T espor.sible for the control and filin tof approximatley 16,000 mylar prints processed sent to the Braidwood site after bring filmed and in Chicago. (TR 50, 51).
14.
The mylar were drawings usedprints for which Claimant was held responsible by engineers in the field to build the Braidwood nuclear power plant. (TR 51). ,
15.
mylars In September, 1984 when Claimant was assigned to S & L's books. along (TR 52).with a number of engineering change notice (ECN) 16.
In September 1984, the two mylar vaults'in S & L's mylar room were so full that another vault was needed (TR 52) and the ECN books in the mvlar room had an excessive amount of papers in them in light of the size of the books. (R. 52).
17.
In September 1984, the S & L mylar room was approximate-ly twenty five feet long and ten to twelve feet wide. (R. 53).
18.
S& L mylar In September room. (TR1984, there was no fire extincui*her-in the 53).
19.
by two S Claimant was advised
& L supervisors: of her assignment in the mylar room f
sor in document control, and ChuckJanes Stewart, her immediate supervi- ('
document control department. (TR 54). Reese, the supervisor 3f the
- 20. Although others worked with Claimant _in.the S rnom, no one was supervised by claimant. (Tr. 54-55). & L mvlar ~
- 21. In September 1984, the mylar room was easily accessihia to._the._
55).
engineers despite af fnrtto keep the room secure. (TR 22.
In September 1984, there were no locks on the_Jayla r ' s vaults, and thus, anyone in the mylar ro N d have access to t'h ~mylars by merely opening the drawers to the vaults. (TR 55).
- 23. In September 1984 through January 31, 1985 the standard operating the engineers. procedure was for mylars to be signed in ~~~--~~-~y and out b (TR 55-56, 57). ~
24.
used a "Because computer the sign-in procedure was not effective, claimant the engineers. kickout , sheet" to record mylars requested by (TR 56).
25.
together Inwith the the fall of 1984,mylars.'
revised Claimant discovered outdated.mylars (TR 57, 58). TWo u td a t e d' mylars were inconsistent with the revised mylar 9 (TR'59).
I
. , 4 l 5 26.
During the fall of 1984, the mylar room was so tiny and (
aisle space was so narrow that Claimant and co-workers had to (
, wait for one another the other. (TR 59). even to move from one corner of the room to by desks, mylar vaults, Claimant and her co-workers wer surrounded (TR 59). and a number of rows of book shelves.
- 27. In December 1994 or January 1985. ClaimanF problems in the mvlar rnnm En Jamas Stewart, her recor_ted floor land Yarlene Metzen, and Chuck Reese. (TR 60).
Reese resoonded thmk & hay copid n n f- do anythinoBoth Stewart and about the mvlar (qnm prob?, ems at the time . (TR'60, 65, 67). '
28.
In December 1984 or January 1985, Claimant recorted these L, problems to Ken Fuss, assi.stant field coordinator for S & _
(TR 65) and George Koladazzak (TR 66) (TR 67). She showed these men how the computer _. sheet- she was using to inventory the mylarLwas not updated __t;o reflect new revisions. (TR'66[.~
~
- 29. Ken Fu s s._ told Claimant that she "has really ch an everyone up." (TR 66).
30.
No immediate chancen took place in the mylar room after Claimant waged these complaints. (TR 66-67).
- 31. On January _14 1 1985, as part of a plant-wide program, claimant met witn Bill .Gagnon, manager of Quality- First, the Quality Control division of Commonwealth Edison. (TR 68). The interview took approximately two to two and one-half hours. (TR
('
69).
- 32. Claimant told Gagnon of all the problems she was experiencing mylars, with the mylars, her concern of having the updated potential h.er concern of havino more mylars, as well as the extinguisher. fire hazard of the mylar room which had no fire (TR 69). Claimant also mentioned to Gagnon that she had no cooperation from her superiors at S & L. (TR 69).
Gagnon advised Claimant that there would be an investigation and that he would advise her of the outcome. (TR 70).
- 33. On,Jebruary 1, 1985, S.& L supervivors, Chuck Reese_and, Ann Muzzarelli, assignment from gave claimant a reorimand and change'd her $nh 71). the mylar department to documenta~ tion._ (TR'"70,
~
- 34. The size and condition of the mylar room as well the standard operating procedures therein remained substantially the 9ame between September 1984 until February 3, 1985. (TR 70, 71).
- 35. On February 3, 1.985, the walls of the mylar room had been extend.ed to enlarge the room-(TR 73); the number
- o f3esk ~
d a"-d - f rom three to two (TR 74); another usable mylar vault ,
was in the room (TR 74); a fire extincuisher was in the room (TR v +
6 l
74); the door.to the mylar room was changed with the addition of i
a piece or glass, thereby preventing someone .outside of the roont from reaching inside the room to open the door (TR 74-76). (
/ 36. On February 17, 1985, Claimant wrcte a letter to the
. Nuclear Requ~1atory" Commission and to the Wage and Hour Division
~
ror the U.S.E Department or Labor- _ (TR 76-78; Claimant's Exhibit ~
No. 1).
- 37. Beginning on March 7, 1985, Claimant took time off from
[ workdue to her husband 's 111 ness _ af ter receiving permission
'from Ann Muzzarelli, Claimant's supervisor from S & L. (TR 79, 80).
- / 38. In __ April, Frank Rowland ,_ ,proj ect ' manager of Employer ,
' wrote Claimant and aavised her that she had exhausted her vacation days and informed her tnat she could not take off work for her husband's illness only for her own. (TR 81, 82).
- 39. _ Claimant then obtained medical leave from her physi-clan. (TR 82).
- 40. On Approximately May 31 ,1985, Claimant contacted Rowland and advised him that she would be returning to work. (TR 82).
Rowland advised Claimant to report to Joe Klena, proiect e @ , with Employer. (TR 82)~.
r
- 41. While she was working for S & L, Claimant was paid time ix and one-h W for overtime. (TR 83). ~
- 42. On June 3, 1985, when Claimant, returned to work, she was assigned ~to the _ xerox room running copies working 'directly for
_ Employer. (TR 83). She then started working a 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> work wp (TR 83).
- 43. On June 10, 1985, Joe Klena told Claimant and another employee thai.- sne was being laid off due to lack of work._ (TR 83-84).
- 44. On August 22, 1985_, Frank Rowland wrote Claimant and offered her a cosition _as a clerk at S5.50 an hour (TR 156, TR 84, lines 17-22) in the xerox room. (Joint Exhibit A-17).
- 45. Although Claimant's job responsibilities were essen- l tially the same ones she performed in June 1985, her job title
l was " clerk" rather than.". clerk / typist". (TR 84-85).
, 46. Chuck Reese and Ann Muzzarelli Jsna that Claimant spoke with Mr. Gagnon with' Quality First. (TR 94,.95).
, 47. When claimant was hired at S & L through Employer she was told to take orders from superyivor9 at S & L. (TR 100).
- 48. Claimant always received her paychecks from Employ er .
(TR 100).
\
l l
i
. \
7
- 49. When Claimant was originally hired by Employer she was given 100).
policies and practices documentation from Employer. (TR I
- 50. Claimant was docked by Employer for days of personal and vacation days she took which had been authorized by Ann Muzzarelli. (TR 107).
- 51. Claimant received $1,360.00 in unemployment compensation during the summer of 1985. (TR 109).
- 52. During the period of June 17 through September 2, 1985, Claimant lost 56 eight hour non-overtime days. (TR 115). Her non-overtime wage loss for this period is $2,531.20.
- 53. Durinn.the period September 3 through December 31, 1985, i
' when Employer was pay 4mg M aimant is cent per hour less th2n1 -
wnat she was previousiv making- _ Claimant worked 86 eight hour days. (TR 116). The difference in non-overtime pay Claimant would have earned had she continued to earn $5.65 per hour and what she actually earned during this period was S103.20. (TR 116).
- 54. When Claimant worked for S & L in the mylar room she
~
averaged 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> per week in overtime.
[N
- 55. During the period June 3 through December 31, 1985, had Claimant been working overtime 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> per week she would have worked 30 weeks of 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> overtime each plus two additional days of two hours of overtime each. . (TR 117). Had Claimant been paid at a base rate of SS.65 per hour during that period, her overtime wages would have amounted to S3,779.85. (TR 118).
- 56. The problems discover 3d in the mylar room for which Claimant was reprimanded could have been created by othar= uhe had access to the avlar vaults _. (TR 127).
- 57. When Claimant was working in the S & L mylar department i
' approximately one-third of mylars were easier to track due Fn Claimant's efforts. (TR 128) The remaining two-thirds of the mvlars became less easy to track. (TR 128).
- 58. In July of 1985, four clerk positions became available with Employer. (TR 182).
t
- 59. In July of 1985, Joseph Klena gave Claimant no consid-t 1
eration 183).
in being hired for one of the clerk positions. (TR s
! 60. On July 16, 1985 , Virginia Tharp was hired as a clerk l by Employer (TR 184). ~
l g.
h
l
- 8
~
- 61. As a clerk for Employer Virginia Tharp was a xerox (j operator, the same functional position Claimant held in June (i 1985 and from September 1985 to the date of hearing. (TR. 31, 38).
- 62. Laid off employees of Employer are ordinaril'1 called back to work when the position they left becomes available. (TR
~a t 32).
- 64. Employer through Frank Rowlan maintained that during Claimant's layoff in the summer of 1985, permanent positions in the xerox room were not filled instead only temporary summer positions were hired. (TR 37).
65.
Claimant too had taken personal days and vacation days which had not yet accrued. Frank Rowlan took the position that when could "shebalancereturned the to work she would earn them so that Employer books." (TR 4 0, 151).
- 66. Frank Rowlan_ acknowledged becomino aware of Claimant's complaint to Quality First in early March 1985. (TR 48, 147).
'~~-.........
- 67. Of the 1100 employees on the Braidwood project site approximately 50 work for S & L. (TR 143, 161). g 68.
(
Employer's responsibility at the Braidwood site is the electrical installation of the plant. (TR 143).
- 69. S & L acts as the architect / engineer at the Braidwood site. (TR 144).
- 70. _The Employer through Frank Rowlan claimed that Claimant was not offered a position in the xerox room in July 1985 because Rowlan "didn'__t_ figure she would
~that demotion."
. . . De Inte r e s tfJi.__.in-(TR 157). In August 1985, Rowlan claims that he offared har :a - positi.on_be_cau s e "Ife'Ws'- gotng-to b'e~a good ~~
guy." (TR 158). - ~ ~ - - ~
- 71. Employer through Frank Rowlan claims that Commonwealth Edison imposes requirements on Employer as to the exact number of,,, employees it_can have in each department. (TR 159).
i
- 72. _Although Emplover ha9 no _ formal policy regarding the
. recall of laid off employees, Employer through Frank Rowlan, ;
-maintained an informal practic~e of contactino laic off good employees if they are i M a r a e ari in returning to work.
150). (TR
- 73. Employer ' s employees whe work for S & L must follow Employer's personnel policy. (TR 164). ;
I Y
I
- 9 Discussion The employer's counsel presented his case skillfully.
However notwithstanding the employers protestations it seems ga carent &c *his observer that the claimant's criticism of ~
, unsafe nuclear conditions triacered the impermissible dis _
s criminary conduct on the part of the employ w (TR 179).
TClaimant is now relecated to working as a xerox operator thouch lshe appears quite bright an able to perform more challencim
'O Raised by the emolover are a number of points.
discussed in turn. Firstly it argues Citino Brown &They will be Rout, Inc.
v.
Donovan, 747 F.2d, 1020 (5th circuit 1984), tnat the February 1,
1985 reprimand and assignment were not violations of the whistle blower act as the employee had not gone outside the comoany to make an of ficial complaint _ but merely complained to a quality concrol unit within the company.
In the Brown case, the Circuit disagreed with the Labor Department that a discrimina-tory act steming from a quality control complaint was actionable under the statute. However in the 1th cirettit case of Mackowiak
- v. University Nuclear Systems, Inc. 739 F.2d 1159, decided the same year, as Brown ene Court of Appeals _ sided _with the Lahnr Department _ to inSp_entors q'Gality corLtrol the extent that it held that "e_very action of are "in affect" part of a NRC proceedings _and were covered by the act . . . "In other words, contractors regulated by 55851 may not discharge quality control (
inspectors because they do their job too well". Th e_teS t imo ny_ (
of the emoloyee here establishes that she F n n e-6 4 o n ed an a of cuality inscector. and it was this actiy_i_ty that.causpa ty6"og discriminatory acts cf_the employers. Frnm ann *her standpoi-+.,
it is concluded that her very cm:1pl.aints to the qua'4*y inspectors is comtemplated by the act e Without such " protection the tual.
nuclear whistle blower provisions would be rendered ineffec-As discussed in the findings, the att_em pt to restrict liability to Sargent & Lunay would not appear i u s t i f i ed . The indicia of control by L. K. Comstocks and Company was evident in this record and they were in fact Claimant's employer. The cite to Whiteheard v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc. 497 A.2d 803 (May 1985) is of. course noncontrolling. In any event that case focuses on a tempor ary employment situation which is not the case here. Listenino to the emoloyers witnesses, eersuades they could and most likely did assert considerable behind t E Icenes control ~over. claimant.
The employer is correct in its contention that the claim for personal and vacation days was waived (TR 153). Further the unemployment compensation, given the particular facts of this case, should be deducted from any. award.
4 10 1
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
- 1. _A prima facie case of retaliatory discharga. violative of the " whistle blower" protection zation Act of 1974 42 statute of the Energy Reorgani-U.S.C. Section 58 51_wa s establ-ished by substantial evidence.
2.
proof: A discrimination claim under Section 5851 must include (1) that the party charged with discrimination is an employer subject to the Act; that the complaining employee was discharged or otherwise discriminated against with respect to his' and compensation, (3) that the terms, conditions or privileges of employment; alleged discrimination arose employee participated because the in a Nuclear Regulatory proceeding. Mackowiak v. University Nuclear Systems,Commission Inc., 735 F.2d 1159, 1162 (9th Cir. 1984). See the aval discussed in Mt. Healy City School District v. Doyle motive test 429 U.S.
274 (1977).
3.
a An employer subject to the Act includes "a contractor or subcontractor 5851(a). of a Commission licensee." 42 U.S.C. Section The Claimant was employed by L. K. Comstock and S & L both of which licensee, were contractors Commonwealth Edison. or (TR subcontractors 21, 68).
of a Commission 4.
with respect was ThetoClaimant recrimanded chanced. (TR 70, 76).
terms ofwas by S & L discharged or discriminated against employment.
supervisors On February 1, 1985, she and her job assign ~"t- was
(
time off Beginning on March 7, 1985 Claimant took of work due to husband's illness after receiving permission from S & L (TR 79, 80), but in April the Employer informed her that she could no longer take the time-off. (TR 81, 82).
When Claimant returned to work on June 3, given a _new assionment without overtime -(TR 82). 1985 she was On June 10, 1985, she was laid off allecedly due to lack of work. (TR 83, 84). In July, 1985 four clerk positions became available.
Virginia Tharp was hired as a permanent employee. (TR 185). The Claimant was given no consideration for one of the new cosi-i tions, (TR 183), althouch_ employees are ordinarily called back to work when the position they left becomes available. (TR 32).
She was not recalled to work until September, 1985.
(TR 84).
l This courgo.of conduct was clearly discriminatory and deprived Claimant have enjoyed. of. wages and other benefits or employment she would 5.
Claimant was discriminated against because she partici-pated.in an NRC related proceeding. Only participation in such i
a proceedingnot claimant is is required required to establish a prima facie case; a to show that she disclosed unique evidence order or evidence that the employer attempted to hide in to make ' out a case of discrimination under the Act. '
.DeFord Internal
- v. Secretary of Labor, 700 F.2d 281, 286 (6th Cir. 1983).
safety and quality control complaints trigger the l protections of the " whistle blower" provision of the Act.
( - Mackowiak, 735 F.2d at 1163.
i e
, 3 4 .
l 11
)
- 6. _The presence or absence of retaliatory motive is 3rovable by circumstantial evidence even if there is bestimony
- o the contrary by witnesses who cerceive lack of such improper motive. Mackowiak, 735 F.2d at 1172.
- 7. After relating numerous safety problems to her superiors on two separate occasions (TR 60-67), and seeing no changes take place (TR 66, 67), Claimant met with Ouality F i r s t', the Quality Control division of Commonwealth Edison concerning the safety
, hazards. (TR 68, 69). ~Approximately 2 weeks later her'S K-L supervisors reprimanded her and changad har iob assignmant from '
the mylar department to documentation. (TR 70, 71). Two days later the hazards of which she had complained were corrected.
(TR 73-76). Shortly after Claimant registered her internal' complaint she was reprimanded and discriminated against based on the terms and conditions of employment.
- 8. Under Ti t1.e.,_VII interrelated operations will be held jointly liable for discriminatory treatment of an employee. In the context of Title VII liberal construction is to be given to the definition of " Employer" so as to carry out the purposes of Congress to eliminate discrimintation. Baker v. Stuart Broad-casting Co., 560 F.2d 389, important requirement under 391 (8th Cir. 1977).
42 U.S.C.
defining the term employer is that there is sufficient Section The most 2000e(b) indicia in (
of an interrelationhip between the immediate corporate employer and the affiliated corporation to justify the belief on the part of the aggrieved employee that the affiliated corporation is jointly responsible for the actions of the immediate employer.
Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332, 1337 (6th Cir. 1983). When such a dearaa ne interrelatedness is present the decarture from
_the normal separata eriaFanca between entities is adecuata reason to view the conduct of one carty as that of bneh.
Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1337.
1
- 9. For guidance in testing the degree of interrelationship, the courts will apply a igur part test formulated by the NLRB:
The degree of (1) interrelatecness of operations (2) common management ( 3 )-
centralized control of labor relations and (4) common ownership. Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1337; Baker 560 F.2d at 392. While each factor is indicative of interrelatedness and while control over the elements of labor relations is a central concern, the presence of any single factor in the Title VII context is not conclusive. Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1337. _All four criteria need not be present in all cases and even when no evidence of common control or lacor relations policy is pre-sented the circumstances may be such that the Title VII sing'le employer doctrine is applicable. Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1338.
For example, in EEOC v. McLemore Food Stores, Inc., 25 F.E.P.
1356 - ( W. D. Tenn. 1977) three corporations were neld to be a single enterprise where there was cooperative hiring of new employees and a practice of loaning and transferring employees.
Y
. e 12
- 10. The same rationale should be applied in the context of the Energy Reorganization Act. (
(-
- 11. The Employer and S & r. uhould be viewed me = i ngg_
_2_
_ Em plover . 'Ilaimant 'was hired by the Employer but worked for S &
L. (TR 21). S& L supervised Claimant's day-to-day activities and controlled her work scheduled while the Employer paid Claimant's wages. (TR 21, 22). S & L supervisors advised her of her assignment to the mylar room (TR 54), and reprimanded her and changed her job assignment from the mylar department to documentation.1 (TR 70, 71). S& L initially approved a leave of a b s e qc_e_ ( TR , . ,7 9 , 80), although the Employer subsequently
' informed 81, 82).
the-Claimant that.she could not take the time off. (TR
~
On June 3 ,' ~l 9 8 5 , when claimant returned to work she worked directly for the Employer and one week later was laid' of f
- by the Employer. (TR 83, 84).
- 12. There was obviously joint control of personnel and a
" loaning and transferring" of the employee by S & L and Comstock. In- addition, both parties retaliated against the employee af&*r her meeting with the quality control civision.-
Accordingly, Claimant has established a prima facle case against the Employer.
- 13. _The reasons offered by Employer explaining why the Claimant was disciplined, transf err ed , laid off and not recalled at the first opportunity and otherwise discriminated against in her employment are merely pretexts for the discrimination. (
- 14. Claimant was allegedly reprimanded and reassigned because of"the cuality of her work. (Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3).,
However- Pha Pfohlemi_ complained of in Dre rsritten" Ohrn'i7ig were the result o f ~1acTc ~ o f space and unlimited u ccess by other
-employees _- problems which the Claimant had repeatedly c'om'-l plain 3L of- and which were corrected after she was transferred ,
i trom the 'de'partment. " (TR 73-75 ) . _In addition, there were two l fellow 7 employees assigned to the mylar department who also would l have oeen responsible for the existing problems yet they were I got disciplined or, reassigned (TR 128) even though the efforts of ~ the Claimant improved the department while those of the
-others worsened the situation. (TR 127, 128). The imposition
.o r lesser punishment was pretextual- See McDonnell Douclas '
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804 (1973); Worthy v. United Steel Corp., 616 F.2d 698, 702 (3d Cir. 1980).
- 15. The Employer also suggested conflicting reasons why the, Claimant ~was not rehired until September, 1985. Josepn Klena
" testified that ne gave cne claimant no consideration in being hired for one of the clerk position openings in July, 1985. (TR 183). They were permanent n employee positions. (TR 185). Frank i
Rowlan stated that permanent positions in the xerox rooms were not filled in July, 1985; only temporary summer positions were
~
_______________ l 1 The employer
. / now seems to admit the validity of tha
_ reprimand is in doubt (TR 176, line '3, 177 line 8 & 41-
( .s 13
(
filled. (TR 37). Rowlan claimed that he did not of fer .the Claimant
.would a' position in July, .1985 becaus.e he did not think sh.e be -interested but that he offered her"a"positi6ri' a month later because he was being "a good guy". (TR 157, 158),
16 .- _ Inconsistencies in an employer's articulation of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions establish that those purported Kansas City Power &
reasons are pretextual. See Locke v.
. Williams v.
Licht Co., 660 F.2d 359 366 (8th Cir. 1981);
1981); Trans Herrington v. World Airlines, 660 F.2d 1267, 1272 (8th Cir.
Abington School District, 19 Fair Empi.
, Prac. Cas. 1096, 1098 (E.D. Pa. 1979).
- 17. The Employer's failure to articulate these reasons for failur= to rein-tata *h= claimant earlier until trial damnnachraham th2F the reasons were pretextual. theSee, time o f_
e.g.,
Williams v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.; Locke v.
Power & Light Co.; Herrincton v. Kansas City Abincton School Foster v. Simon, 467 F. Supp. 533, 537 (W.D. N.C. 1979);District; Johnson
- v. University of Pittsburch, 359 F.
1973).
Supp. 1002, 1010 (W.D. Pa.
- 18. Claimant is entitled to backpay as follows:
(a) A total of 56 eight hour non-over-time days during the period of June 17 through September 2, 1985, (TR 115).
$2,531.20
(
(b) A total of 86 eight hour days during 103.20 the period June 17 through September 2, 1985, (TR 116); when the employer was paying claimant 15 cent making. per hour less than she was previously l
(c) Overtime pay during the period June 3 through December 31, 1985 totaling S3,779.85 3,779.85 for 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> per week for 30 weeks plus two additional days of two hours of overtime.
(TR. 117, 118). Total 6,414.25
- 19. The Claimant's receipt of S1,360.00 - 1,360.00 in unemployment compensation during the summer of 1985 (TR 109) should be deducted from her backpay award.
Net owing 5,054.25 20.
Section The Claimant is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.
5851(e)(2) autholizes~ ~ this" office to " award- costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party." Therefore ,- plantif f's counsel should be -
granted leave to file a petition for reasonable costs, including attorney's fees.
h
. i .
14 ORDER
- 1. T'
~
. ' 5 fat L. K. Comstock and Company shall pay forthwith:te vkhe' employee the sum of SS,054.25 together with interest ah .htsbest s legal rate dating from December 31, 1985.
- 2. Claimant's attorney shall submit on notice an itemized petition for an attorneys fee within 10 days of receipt of this o r d er .
GLE ROBERT LAWRENCE
^
Adm nistrative Law Judge Dated: APR 7 1996 Washington, D.C.
i s g
3 g' .
SERVICE SHEET Case Name: Bonnie J. Parkhurst
(
Case No.: 85-ERA-41 Thomas E. McClure, Esq.
17 Briarcliff Professional Center Bourbonnais, IL 60914 Bruce G. Hearey, Esq.
Glenn Smith, Esq.
Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell 2000 Huntington Building Cleveland, Ohio 44150 L. K. Comstock & Company R.R. 1 ,.P.O. Box 8382 P.O. Box 8382 Braceville, IL 60407 Bonnie J. Parkhurst 335 North Broadway Coal City, IL 60416 Employment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division ('(
230 South Dearborn Street Room 412 Chicago, IL 60604 9
h f.
- e. .
INTERVENORS' HUNTER CONTENTION Contrary to Criterion I, "Organiza tion" of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section 50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company have failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom and independence from cost and schedule as opposed to safety considerations and correction of quality and safety significant deficiencies. Systematic and widespread harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination has been directed against Comstock OC inspectors and other employees who express safety and quality concerns by Comstock management. Such misconduct discourages the identification and correction of defi-ciencies in safety related components and systems at the Braidwood Station.
In addition to the instances previously cited in Intervenors' OC Inspector Harassment contention, admitted on July 23, 1985 and the admission of which was re-confirmed by Board Order dated May 2, 1986, L.K. Comstock OC Inspector Robert D.
Hunter was terminated on March 25, 1986. Although he was informed by Comstock that the reason had to do with his allegedly inspecting a weld or welds through paint, Mr. Hunter denies the allegation, and believes that he was terminated in part because of his testimony at a deposition in this case, given on January 28 and February 25, 1986. Mr. Hunter's views concerning his termination and the relevant circumstances, including inadequa-1
cies in Comstock's OC ' inspector training and instruction, are more fully set forth in his letter to Applicant's Quality First program, resulting from his March 25, 1986, " Exit Interview ,"
which is attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated in its entirety herein.
2
To: Quality First HUNTER EXHIBIT A 1 This letter is the result of my conversation "Dtit Interview" of March 26, 1986 at the Braidwood Construction Site.
I will try to list the areas I wish to have checked / looked into.
- 1) My Termination .
Was my termination correct by set procedure and according to all stej;s related to the termination of the work force. I was shown no letter of termination nor was. I asked to sign anything which stated that I had violated any so-called procedure.
- 2) Harassment / Intimidation Was this not a way to get back at the people who had given a deposition to the Intervenors epi and NRC people, as well as being a personallity clash between Mr. Tony Simalt and myself.
- 3) Training / Instruction at the Braidwood Site I wish to question the accepted criteria used at the Braidwood Power Flant Construction Site. Does this project accept NCIG - 01 section 2. -2.1 and 2.2 of General Inspection? This along with the training, instn:ctions ,
and supervision given in any and all areas of quality Control and quality p suranca- _
_I, in my own mind, am sure that there has never been a nuclear plant built in the United States whereby the training of inspectors is so inadeouate amL done in such a hap-ha::ard manner.
I do not blame anyone, except Comstock, for this. For the past two and a half years we (that is Comstock) has ch tng:Ld trai_ning personnel about every three months or so. _ It may be that Comstock or the nuclear field is of the opinion that knowl ate i= net me 67 +ha c-4+ vin 's needs for Quality Control inspection work.
I have always been taught that in order for one to gain knowledge and in order to have the capacity to retain this same knowledge, one must hear, see, e e
p6 2
} and do - octo of us c:ra than oth:rs. As you know Comstock r3tained tha right to train, manage, and supervise when 3ESICO took over the quality
-Control work force. This I also question.
- 4) Favoritism /3uddy'-BuddySituations I believe you will find certain people are shown favoritism - people ,
who were not in favor of organizing, drinking buddi es, and pot or drug buddies. Yes, I do believe you will find that not only some inspectors
.but also supervisors and management people have the above problems at the Braidwood Construction Site.
- 3) My Concern If my integrity is in questien, then I have but one recourse,.as I believe you will agree, first I will request - no, I will demand - a complete reinspection of all my documented inspections from the date I was first certified at Braidwood, December 22c1983 to March 26, 1986. I will require the total number of inspections, total number of welds -
total number of accepted and total number rejected. This being after Comstock and Commonwealth Diisen has declared welds sufficiently clean as not to impair visual inspection. I will send along some AVO copies in question for you to evaluate as to what is requested, with no training and very little instruction supervisien. I will also allow timo - up to 180 days for a reply _to the above request. If at the end of that time some Iarty associated with the construction of the 3raidwood Project has not answered, then I will be compelled to have the NLR3 or others look into the so called procedure violation.
- 6) A copy of this letter has been attached to my deposition to Isham, Lincoln, and Beals and to the Intervenor - 3PI along with other material N
related to my training - like training - supervision, etc.
Respec' fully,"
y 'L.
k, f 'A i.~
hobert D. Hunter p.
5/27/86 UNITED STATFS OF AMERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Intervenors' Motion To Admit Additional Late-Filed Harassment and Intimidation Contentions on each party to this proceeding as listed on the attached Service List, by having said copies placed in envelopes, ,
properly addressed and postaged (first class), and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois 60602, on this 27th day of May,1986; except that the Licensing Board, NRC Staff Counsel Mr. Treby, and Edison counsel Mr. Miller were personally served at the hearing held on May 27, 1986.
er7 [k V y
e e.
BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 Washington D.C. 20555 Docketing & Service Section Richard F. Cole Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C.
C. Allen Bock, Esq.
A. Dixon Callihan P.O. Box 342 Administrative Judge 61801 Urbana, Illinois 102 Oak Lane Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bridget Little Rorem Stuart Treby, Esq. 117 North Linden Street Essex, Illinois 60935 NBC Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Champaign, Illinois 61820 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Lorraine Creek Route 1, Box 182 Suite 1100 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Washington D.C. 20036 Begion III office of Inspection &
Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555
+