ML20195E765

Intervenors Rorem,Et Al Response to Applicant Motion in Limine - Puckett Settlement Agreement.Rule 408 Should Not Be Applied.Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20195E765
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/03/1986
From:	Wright T ROREM, B., WRIGHT, T.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#286-414 OL, NUDOCS 8606090218
Download: ML20195E765 (16)

Text

x

.g .

d '

,uu6

\ RELATED COM,.

6/3/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kh'{$3l./?)'. /,N[\

V BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B- D

&J .'

<a ff$

In the Matter of: ) ,

0,4 t .L .j QJ i' *

} .:

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

)

NO. 50-456\

50-457

.; )

,, Ls

'j (Braidwood Nuclear Station, ) i ' /, ( ,'

Units 1 and 2) ) s' INTERVENORS', BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM, ET AL., RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE - PUCKETT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Applicant's Motion in Limine asks the Licensing Board "to enter an order barring all parties, their counsel and their witnesses from making any reference to, or submitting any evidence of, a settlement agreement entered into between Mr.

Worley O. Puckett and Comstock Engineering", Edison Br. 1. That agreement was in settlement of a retaliatory firing charge brought under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 4 2 U.S.C.

5851, on September 11, 1984.

Applicant contends that such evidence should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, contending that it is not relevant to the allegations of harassment and intim'idation of Comstock Quality control ("0C") inspectors at Bra id wood , and that the public policy favoring facilitation of settlements would be undermined by permitting introduction of the settlement agreement into evidence in this proceeding.

However, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not necessarily apply to NRC Licensing Board proceedings, but are merely looked 8606090218 860603 PDR C

ADOCK 00000456- '

1-PDR - -

i to for " guidance." Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre),

ALAB-717, 17 NBC 346, 365'n. 32 (1h83). In the circumstances of this case, Pule 408 ehould not be applied.

m Rule 408, when applicable r precludes introduction' of a settlement as evidence of admission of the validity of a claim.

The policy underlying the Rule is two-fold: "(1) The evidence is irrelevant, since the of fer may be motivated by a desire for peace rather than from any concession of weakness of position.

The. validity of this position .will vary as the amount of the of fer varies in relation to the size 'of the claim and may also be influenced by other circumstances. (2) ... promotion of the public policy favoring compromise and settlement 6f disputes."

Advisory Committee's Note to Bule 408.

In this case, the first policy is not applicable, because the facts indicate that, in fact, Comstock settled Mr. Puckett's claim not becausci of a desire for peace, but rather as a

" concession of weakness of position." And the favoring settlements policy, while applicable here, is outweighed by the more important public interest in the disclosure and determina-tion of safety and quality assurance violations on a nuclear plant construction 'si te. C f. U.S. v. Gonzalez, 748 F.2d 74, 78 (1984).

9 The Facts Mr. Worley O. Pudkett, a witness for the intervenors, was hired by Comstock in May 1984 in the newly created position of Level III OC Inspectior, whose -duties included conducting a review l ,

2 - ,

, .a i l

~

l

-- i

of Comstock procedures, test requirements for the more than 50 Level II OC Inspectors, review of the Level II's inspection work, and the resolution of inspection disputes. During the course of his employment with Comstock Mr. Puckett identified numerous instances of improper construction procedures, improper qualifi-cation of welders, and material traceability deficiencies. He ultimately recommended a complete stop work order for all welding activity to permit effective corrective action.

Mr. Puckett was subjected to harassment and retaliation because he raised these safety and quality concerns and was terminated on August 27, 1984. He filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor ("DO L") , alleging violation of the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC 5851. Puckett Letter, September 5, 1984, Exhibit 1 hereto.

On October 17, 1984, a conciliation of this complaint was attempted. However, Comstock refused, " indicating that any agreement to conciliate would be viewed in the industry as an admission of guilt and negatively impact the firm's competitive s ta nd i ng ." Statement of Facts, R. Wyzguski, Compliance Officer, Exhibit 2 hereto.

Thereafter the U.S. Department of Labor Area Director sus-tained Mr. Puckett's complaint finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against Puckett and ordered relief. Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit 3 hereto.

By telegram, Comstock moved to appeal the decision by the DOL. Comstock telegram, Exhibit 4 hereto. Only after Mr.

Puckett presented his full case at an appeal hearing before an 3

Administrative Law Judge, did Comstock, before putting on its case, initiate discussions and subsequently settle Mr. Puckett's claim for a significant amount.,*/

i Argument Applicant in support of its motion relies in large part on i Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 408 of the F.R.E.

states:

i Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or of fering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not

, admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the

claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of l any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations.

This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Applicant's two fundamental arguments with respect to F.R.E.

408 are," that settlement negotiations agreements and statements made in the course of settlement negotiations, are not relevant to prove the validity of the disputed claim and that the strong public policy of encouraging settlements must be facilitated."

Edison Br. p. 5. ,

-*/ The actual amount is shown in the settlement agreement, Exhibit 5 hereto, which is filed in camera in view of Applicant's request that it be ke5 confidential.

4

i l

i Relevance Applicant's dubious point respecting the relevancy, or lack thereof, of the settlement agreement, rests upon a supposition that such an "of fer and settlement may be motivated by a desire i

for peace rather than from any concession of weakness of posi-tion." Edison Br. p. 5, citing the ".R.E. 408, Advisory Commit-1 tee note. However, the Committee note goes on to say, "The validity of this position will vary as the amount of the offer varies in relation to the size of the claim and may also be influenced by other circumstances." Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 4 08.

In the Puckett case., the facts do indeed indicate Comstock's

" concession of weakness in its position". This is evidenced by the combination of the following four facts:

r (1) Soon af ter Mr. Puckett filed a complaint with the DOL, a conciliation was attempted by the DOL Area Director. However, as i

stated earlier, Comstock refused, indicating that an agreement to conciliate would be viewed as an admission of guilt.

(2) Comstock settled only after an adverse determination by the DOL area director.

(3) Even then Comstock settled only after it had observed the presentation of Mr. Puckett's full case on appeal, and in the midst of trial.

(4) Comstock settled Mr. Puckett's claim for a significant amount.

e 5

i

> Clearly, the foregoing facts evidence a settlement by Comstock j

not because of a desire for peace, but rather as a " concession of

weakness of position."

l Public Policy i

While it is true that a fundamental principle behind F.R.E.

408 is the public policy encouraging settlements, the vital public interest in the disclosure and determination of safety and quality assurance violations on a nuclear construction site out-1 weighs the public interest in the settlement of civil disputes.

An analogous case, U.S. v. Gonzalez, 748 F.2d 74 (1984),

involved a defendant who claimed that his conviction should be

reversed because the trial court, in violation of F.P.E. 408, admitted statements the defendant made during negotiations to settle a potential civil claim that arose out of the identical

set of facts. In af firming the admission of the statements. The Court of Appeals reasoned

Rule 408 is premised on the idea that encour-aging settlement of civil claims justifies excluding other wise probative evidence from

civil lawsuits. Fed. R. Evid. 408 advisory I committee note, llowever, encouraging settlement does not justify excluding probative and other-

, wise admissible evidence .in criminal prosecu-tions. The public interest in the disclosure and prosecution of crime is surely greater than the public interest in the settlement of civil ~

disputes.

748 F.2d, at 78. ~

Similarly, . the principles of Gonzalez should apply to the ,

case at bar. The vital public interest in the disclosure and 6'

determination of safety and quality assurance violations on a nuclear construction site "is surely greater than the public interest in the settlement of civil disputes." Id.

Conclusion It is well settled that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not necessarily apply to NRC licensing Board proceedings but are merely looked to for " guidance". The facts of this case are inconsistent with the policies behind F.B.E. 408. The facts indicate that Comstock settled Mr. Puckett's claim not because of a desire for peace, but rather as " concession of weakness of 1

position". While the public policy encouraging settlement is operable here, it is outweighed by the more important public policy respecting the disclosure and determination of safety and quality assurance violations on a nuclear plant construction site. In the circumstances of this case, Rule 408 should not be applied.

For the foregoing reasons, Applicant's Motion in Limine -

Puckett Settlement Agreement should be denied.

Dated: June 3, 1986 Respectfully Submitted,

~

l

. FM"~"-

Timothy W. Wright III Q One of the Attorneys for Intervenora Rorem, et al.- - - -

Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright III 109 N. Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 7

• D 6 */ .4. Oja r .., sr ,v v .s u s .o a

. . r* ' b e r!) O!.a st.it o $

L W )

O ey,fe n ,hs ,. S, 1781/

MNNK

,% l't. a / 2a1, . e '" Exhibit 1.

._:<f,r.

. 9 w,s. e t%r b:a.

..M. tjf: b.. :d'i.,p - Rs <n

.2s.15

> .1na ma.;. ' . r.

e ;,, ,; 'f . .inaa.

D b< r OEr .

i

'.f out r B u j,j, or f .

~$ a.n w e lf .'. g n S o :ic ifal.*a n cf J.

J .ac.s ,,,,usIl y fe ..,,;.,.. h d f,.o .,,

s, :: ba ti.y t!,,,t ,,,g

,,,3  :<ws< Pia n t , B rn id.uoo d, syi:,,o ;a .

a ., a'  !!, a. .B ca ;d .,a d M e !< a ,

c.

.; ws titre.2 4p- X. /;. C0,..., lo '. E.,,yc.,,c, . ,,y ', /,, c.

o ,,

>n, y .ts, < </5 / ~

Co.,1 ,al In : occ 'c < . J was la < r. ;a, a hd so).< st ,

as a. ,;;'s.,a I a a aaI;+d. ' -

2. 'l, i'N/ -

r?- n., eIc,. < /<,du s I .- iI,e. i a a,, 4 .-

n. ~ ~) ~ h h

.p+  : a <,3.,;..a .m n I wiiI,in .4 u a .,, . J foc ua-s ., .a ,

,,,a , ,,..,,a.. d ~ ...w a.,a ,,.n 1:~ / .m .- 7, w /4. ,ao % . /r /., a.

., a 't 9 / tu . .,

, m. t .d . p a 3 c. g s c o ,.<. 5 ae.~ s vnsen *han o ., e a.

n c .' sk.t s:uaral QC t.,apular s f ailed I?.i if,r Jr :s . ., . ; a ., de 1 !.r ul . :.y 11...! J a.,,

a .- r a:!! r ~ ,, .y.i -

a ...L .

L ic. Co.,,slock . lac. a t !t,a g;,. ,1 ac !., jm io . i .. S e t r ~ .- A .!. t,y .

Jhe;< r<a s e n fae r'z ;v :.,a f.b ,, .uas .

3 ca ;cb .;al me fzz..- FL.1 < P!.: ,, t.

j, ,,, . j u + see o s - C '. 7. .

h,. ,r I:n la. b a 8 : .. ctae:l:ca.t::,, aa k u. !,, J y set isa9 J was ,, a, tf.g c r I:., <. ,( , ., gaai;f ea l:ons a ,,d ea .

i,,,,,:..c.ta.L , J :It y.,e .y _. a

. a .,

c.u.a ..,; t,: 1:t s s o. s s. O c t n ,;, e n. < .

J c. m .s ral: rad h'"3 C hic f f*g U f f ' "'~ "' ' ' h I" "' f J " '''' ,.,/

as a nuclea r c a.,,fia n j

"-c /ca n- /?cral -

yn 1

.I, +,is in ' h a. Y b .a- o

- ' . < in

.i I,as a. ht a cu :F l0.,a l y ec.r s

n he (u.e Ca.u /. uc f o<, a: a. l w e t<i . - <.y a.,J. l c.d ms<.hu n tea /

G.,a 'sf. J. h ., <.!  :. c a I:t,,. H i s .. re m a. I.up e e I a ,-

J at:c .-u.s?d. a s a. P, y t u.',ial E..g:ne c tQ f., .;,, z e h. c .

p" a.,.l.p:.: k ). ;n a II I h.s v a r l.," s J a ..,

useyl ;nfe,...:d. asj,ula ;r t, c a cts , raqu r o d. . . +;, < n. z !c. .. '. ../. f r .g - usinL , ft<0 s. lins t , s.,d C*n i

Cl..af**a.s jede. .t / Rc , !,, +;c . , :. . Jr in .,, e ,. . j,, ,, j,

. , 7,,, , ,9 _ ,

item;ne.'l:d becbass. "I w.r s f, o 9.,a./;t c onae:.o s. Jt,u p s ,a..,7,g f, 1:.% a o y;. y a puesen is ise yecd n.y d ,. ;,;., ,. .1,. g ,. ;, ,,

,,,,,,,_,,,0,,,_

ts.,g s .

J foal Il,af J wes h = '*n e;- ma '; o~r!a+.'d- l3 'd.If. C..nn ive k L.4,;,,a r, ,

l.. ., l,nI as a ,u .. f < ala nu I :n *la )*t < c 's .u. , e . .g

.. 4 f.,,, , / r.. ,j,;, ,3 ..d..s g ,j,, ,.,t y / g ,so jf,,,,e' c.y do. ,(

6 e',<. ec d,n is y6 cer... ! y ,

.o AI, ,co +44 s .. .. ' , , , sc,,

,4!,, n. , n ,'s...y g- . .. / o 6/;9., /,b n s e .. n,oniAles of a. Ac /4 u,- P.. ,4 . l'.'<. n / , //t *a /e r A.,f if w, .. n is a;o fa+;s,, ;c !!,a sa e o .h., , e b., r J n,a s i

! e;.,y p e, fe.-n,cd . da.< ?

s a /[ acf ,*, n fa

,,,aA:. co recf/a ,s o ad repc..f /l.o.s i H e ,,, e /Au/ c a n ,,< /

y ~ ^ a ! e. la e l Jh:s ;s anactl .3 -

6, e ,... ,.< c lal la ha disp e s :!;a n <d .

is s uj>fu '. 4 Is- da, ^ *' d J dd ac I.,sys.c f o r .

j,, s. .. a s l, w of ;i. it. O...ns! <h p,0cedu ce > a r..L da.c a m s e. l a f ,h n , J g,,,,,.j nam.,ous n u .s . ou np lia.ne:.s. J reforled these la 'a'h*gsnunE, n,a na a ,,) I!,alr (;r s t r eacia n was f

• I'] j'" * /' f,'f !h t m  ! b a r', -

and caerael thsm. J ft.,a tig u s ea m n< naed, '

,, , ,.;<, / a. a c '.

. a lo ids . ! .,t g w erN 0* 5l'-l' fan 1 h

• l ' r t- u 'y aclO n **5 y,,sn.a, 4ha!

y .,, , ; ,, 4 f., a.,

,, j, s e.' m a .a9 s m e ., f was v e r.y .sf

: f that A **

• C * * " " * *

• b" N f '

• l*/' ~

I Oa"4/*c/#"

l' --

,,,,,, A r ed e r E., s n /Aoug h J .* n " <g u l' e d /

• I' 5 "J an1s y J . ~~ s l e ' ~~ :.' ^ 1"'- '. ( /< r nw '.1 Il'< s I,r/'- u'e rk

(, J, .. , ! !{ 23 la I;..s s .

. ~~

C ' " 5 ' "" S ""#I'" #b""

,. , ,i r </ . <. I,, m ci .u.ye n>< . . t S ci") 'f u e .. 'il 'J ,

g.,,tyr,3 =cnec/ru .. ,.

.. s

/ ), c ., 6 /,as n c e n t.a /cd A.y /!,a M e aar S c3 ',.lo r, l e ,, m ,m ;; 3,,, ,, , , , , , , , ,

i ,fe,,)l w .

lu. a ,t s lud. m s to e .,, . I ., it a k s:u ,7 !,,,," o f f ic a. f ,, - a ,,

ri,3 i., .s s. s ll a f:e n ;s jo,oh c,..n .,y . J fy.L,J. s .,  !!,, s inferu;<  :, cu , . .aj o r t h

• h a t s l} ^ f ;*"

"' L'l

• h '

. '""t A . ' ' * . * " I g dI"y'

.f r I iia.! t h **s !t u . ' .s In 1, s iv e .

a t, e t,..! n. ve.ga;ead. ~j a lf is dm.f e < n. ;n c s! t hc.! J " as $<~g""*f'y

.s ;nca s s hept ! k.. I if y; ,s ,, 9

""'l "*";'* I p e , ,, . . n c.% d. , H,.. I J w;lt

• t> < . re ;n f a le si- in mg fsIII"*

'd'"A a ^ d incc '"e n h >'u 5-f.. 'l e c .",e'e n su l,b n for mt 4

/e 5 5 af I I, e t h e re-

• n'a lk s J wa s < n,p l..pd.

J s,cu.Il I. h<. la add. that da.. g /c or u.6:en/ [ ro ,,, w e e k J .". A e d

, , , .' , f. 's f . ... s r c.k , J wa. s v.osr la *

m. hears of s,. r /.*o. e. a n 2 ,,, .. Salu,2d.:gs.

9 a,_ o. p.sjassionsl- J hr..:.,a mylah. J w ill a p l'r ec*c fa ,n. n y a nis to nc ~ * -

y aff..d nu . Jha a 4 g 6.<-

y a-S . *,. re a e 3,pc.urs, 1

.. u .

e

. G J muummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmuna Cox. stock %girearing -

Exhibit 2 -

Srsidwood Nucitar Power Plant

't.9. #1, P.O. Box 0342 n recerille, Illinois 60407 Covars.te

• he statute at issue is the ':norr,y Reorganizatien Act. This Act authorissd nearopristions to ths Puelear Herplatory Corr.issior. for fiscal year 1970, anong other turposes. The Act, per "inc. 210, covers s tbersntors cf Comissien licensees.

Constock 3ngineering is a subcontrtetor of Comission licerses Cearon"eslth Siisen Conrany. ~he Act, in 3ec. 210(1)(1), : efers to the Aterde

'Ver.ty tc+ of 1954 and affoMs protecticn to my es'.plcyes filing a cormisint of violatien af thtt statute. *h e fore, ey viclations allegad under the %th ic

-lnergy Let 'vild be coverM by the 'r.71oye s pr' tact'on provisiens of the

%erstr boemizstien %ct. "'he axtension of the eployee prot etion provisions of the "cerser "teoreanizstion ict to sllegationscof violstion of the Atomic %erv

&ct was confimed by "rtce Mersen, Recicnal Counsel for the Puclear flegulatory Comis sion.

C"-n1 t' r t Connlei rt ' *orlev Pucket*. h e sliv.M thit he had been discharge 1 b**

Co'rstoc's a:suse he hsd disecversi constr'tetion deficiencies in the 3rsi6 cod "uclaar "a. Pucks Ph".t tai er P1 bet ed had brought tr ese disecveries to the fim's st'.ention.

_:o ciled s c~-alsirt ragsrdin.; tSis nat* er 'ith the Muclear

%:lsto- r comission.

r rot * * 'd te" -4 t

• v . Puckett a-es."ad in 1 erotectad ac'ivity as defi.aed b" Part 24s2(b)(1) in 'Nt his netifiestien to Cenetock inginearing of const:.ici*.on oroble-'.s is seen as ' % ri st ste7 in the arecesi ' hich ireludad his ribseo.uent filing of cor'pl'.irti

i' 'he "ucl*sr 'a 21ator r " tr'is sien grd 'f s.re-Four.

• % =14 - e s s "r. Puckett "s1 '.emia.s'.C t r Cor.3'ock 'rcire rins e . tu .u;t 27, 10 A!.. He filad a emisirt at the Clacinnsti, Thie, ' fag 9eur of' ice - hich c:r* lt'nt 'r13

'rit*en on 1spty-bsr 5, lo14, v.d r cei.'<cd en 3eptember 10, !?84.

Co- nl a n sn t' e Po si tina Tn sd il tion to the !nfomtinn rovidad in his cralsint, Fr. Puckett vrovided sd'i' ion.sl e*rti- ce ss notad in  :~r. Puckett's cosi tio" is tht t be h,d *be

'uslity Cont-ol !n cactor. " b 'dic'.mround andth9 sc trenes that q'slific.ticas results offor the lerel orsctical III and vrit' en ew-i aticas he tonk ' ttle s . Poweek "ere s"f"'.cientlr sucM1 r lu c

or bin te rmir a-Plw-d. I'o srms that he was conscientiously aticptir.r,

• o fiad o-chlars nna t% sol'iticas to these rroblens. Ms irc:es thst he ',fas evfmW,9 the i'tlas af bis 'vs'ition in s co-- etsnt tr er .snd th'.t his dirc%ree rar 1*ed fron 613 ~pbrting of procedursl deficitacles.

e n eilistion On Cetr5er 17,10%, s co-cilistien ia this nat'.or "as at's pted "ith "r. Glen O. ~,n* th, J r. , L@oa Ocursel for t' e fim. Also present st t's ne etic; for the fim were: Thous * . 'rurirls, Co"porste Staff 4dministrstier.;

titer ,.cCheney, Corporate 9t sff#ur.an Resource l'snager; Robert 1. l'arino, a,aneral t'snager, ^.udit~ Control kvices; Irring F. Dewald, 'hiality Centrol Psnag9r, '8rst+ oed lite; larry G. 'leese, \s d stant quality Control "sna9er, nrsit cod ' lite. < .

% concilistien was stNrtatad but the fim refused, indicating that any rPreement to conciliste v ild ha rie-ed in the irdust:mf as in sinission of milt ar.d nmt1' rely tr nset the fim's cen'cetiti're stv. ding.

41

N J _

Ccustock 'ngincering Pago 2 9eatondest's Position

%e oosition of Constock 't.gineering in this matter is represented by

• Ccanstock argues that Mr. Puckett does not have the competence

• necessary to successibily perfom at the Level III quality Control Ins)ector position.

Ocmstock said that Mr. Puckett's perfomsneo in the exarninations adninistrerad hy the conmany wascot at a sitfriciently hiah Isvel. Comstock also argues that l'r. Puckett has comitted erocadursl errors. N fim also said that Fr. Puckett uma hired to provide solutions to embles and %^, usd not done so.

C*Yar na ta b leyn int 1rvi*'s su'-Tort Mr. Puckett's contentien t51%e was ee,nnetent to perforn the duties cf the level TII Wality Control

'nstector cos*. tion. Insusetor indicated that he also had not sem s *reldgr's tstn *5t ras '.o Pa19 Nan cresent in one of t's exaninations (t're to "r. Pitekst'. ed for ' tic 5 he w.ts de'f.*rvied h9Cause hs did not locate this s t ro.

% tie.tinn o f ~ti~s n

urinr a disenssion 4th traa ?iractor t'e6s it uss d acided that 1*r. Puckett's c~ nldnt had rarit keesuss n o,f setive critaris had bean developed to detemine the W vn siteces@l scors for 117's1 III insnector in t c of the exa .ir.atinns vtich

• 5 cc nhiagnt %d hgan 9mid to f til rd baca"se t*s sr-ors or .nistakes comittac hy

.*r. Puckett -*re not of sur' icier t w nst tds to c ause his disnissal in s tch a stort certed of a-nlo-99t.

• M s-e st *i on Cn o'r9r*'er 2, inA4, . lettsr iadie.sti-- the firdings of 'nvastict-J.on in thi s .nat* er *ess % ,rlen to ths rssnor.d rt ' tith contes to iPs cornitintat, *he "uclest 9miltorv Comi s sio ., ed the misf vininistrt** rs Lvi Jue. s This letter snacifisi tbs gethri recesssrv to rks :*r. P" kst* tols.

On "ovcNri2,1984, Oe-steck ~r41nserine re,ttestyi s het-ir:g bnfors an U t* nistrs* tare Le' Jitdge.

't.'frv: ski Connliance Officer i

i

(

~

1 1

3 m-maa -mass g b Exhibit 3 U.S. Department of Labor EmpicymInt Standards Administration .,

'"'a-Wage and Hour Division 230 South

Dearborn,

Room 412

/ y 'o.

\,' tMi g

Chicago, Illinois 60604 /

bg Telephone: 312/353-8145 *""

November 6, 1984 i .

Reply to the AUontlen of:

Mr. T. Trumble Corporate Administrator Comstock Engineering, Inc. ~!

912 Fort Duquesne Blvd.

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 ,

Re: Worley 0. Puckett Vs.

Comstock Engineering, Inc.

Dear Mr. Trumble:

/

./

This letter is to notify you of the results of our compliance actions in the above case. As you know Worley 0.' Puckett filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under the Energy Reorganization Act on September 11, 1984. A cog af the complaint, -

a copy of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 24, and a copy of the pertinent section of the' statute were furnished in a previous letter from this office. , .

Our initial efforts to conciliate the matter ' revealed that the parties would not at that time reach a mutually agreeable settlement. An investigation was then conducted.

Based on our investigation, the weight of evidence to date indicates that Worley 0.

Puckett was a protected employee engaging in a protected activity within the aiiibit -

of the Energy. Reorganization Act', and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprise his complaint. The follow-ing disclosures were persuasive in this determination: ~

1. With regard to the examinations Mr. Puckett had been said to fail, no chjective criteria had been developed to determine the minimum successful score for a Level III inspector.

2. The mistakes or errors comitted by fir. Puckett are subject to dispute and not of sufficient magnitude to justify his dismissal in so brief a period of employment.

This letter will notify you that the follcwing actions are required to abate the violation and. provide appropriate relief:

1. Reinstatement of Mr. Puckett to the Level III Q.C. inspector position or a mutually acceptable monetary award.

2. Payment of wages lost to Mr. Puckett for the period from his dismissal to date.

3. Payment of relocation and temporary living costs for Mr. Puckett's move to Illinois and return to Ohio (and return to Illinois if reinstated), under the terms of Comstock's relocation policy.

This letter will also notify you that if you wish to $ppeal the above findings and m q remedy, you have a right to a formal hearing on the record. To exercise this right V you must, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by teleoram to:

v

,~Q ^

Q J Mr. T. Trumble Corporate Administrator The Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of Labor Suite 700, Vanguard Building 1111 - 20tn Street, fl.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Unless a telegram ' request is received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within the five-day period, this notice of determination and remedial action ~will become the final order of the Secretary of Labor. By copy of this letter I am advising Worley O. Puckett of the determination and right to a hearing. A copy of this letter and the complaint have also been sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. If you decide to request a hearing it will be necessary to send copies of the telegram to 1 Worley 0. Puckett and to me at 230 South

Dearborn Street; Chicago,

Illinois 60604; (312) 353-8145. After I receive the copy of your request, appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me.

It should be made clear to all parties that the role of the Department. of Labor is ..

not to represent the parties in any hearing. The Department would be neutral in such a hearing which is simply part of the fact-development process, and only allows the parties an opportunity to present evidence for the record. If there is a hearing, an Order of the Secretary shall be based upon the record riade at said hearing,~ and shall either provide appropriate relief or deny the complaint.

incerely, p .

Daniel P. New '

Area Director DPN:In cc: /Mr. Worley 0. Puckett Nuclear Regulatory Co'mmission J

D

- , - - ~, - - . , -- - - ,

I LT N I

4-0193985317002 11/12/84 ICS IPMNTZZ C8P PGH8 '

1 4122818988 HGH TDHT PITTSBURGH PA 11=12 0133P EST mMMM l

~ ~

Exhibit 4

> ,r.; l TH TRUMBLE CORP 8 HUGHE8 '

_ c' .-

'i l 912 FORT O'QUESNE BLVO  ;,,

I PITTSBURGH PA 15222 ,

n, pgy 15,1981, i i .!' s THIS IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF'YNE FOLLOWING HE88 AGE:

4122818088 TDHT PITTSBURGH PA h,7 11-12 0133P EST j PHS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR LAW JUDGE, DLR .

i US DEPT OF LABOR SUITE T00 VANGUARD DLOG 1111 20 87 NORTHWEST WASHINGTON DC 20036

SUBJECT:

WORLEY 0 PUCKETT VS COM8TOCK ENGINEERING INC ON BEHALF OC COMSTOCK ENGINEERING IhC ! WISH TO APPEAL THE RECENT DECISION ISSUED IN HR DANIEL P NEW'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 6 1984 REGARDING THE ABOVE CASE COMSTOCK ENGINEERING WISHES TO EXERCI8E ITS l

RIGHT TO A FORHAL HEARING TH TRUMBLE CORPORATE STAFF 13:35 EST i l

l HGMCOMP --

~

cc: Daniel P. New _

Worley O. Puckett '

W. G. Cheney -

E. T. McGonigle Legal File File ,

e,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456

) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Intervenors '

Response To Applicant's Motion In Limine - Puckett Settlement Agreement on all parties to this proceeding by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged, l and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North

Dearborn,

Chicago, Illinois 60602 on this 3rd day of June, 1986; except that the Licensing Board, NRC Staff Counsel and counsel for Edison were served personally by delivery to the hearing in Markham, Illinois held on June 4, 1986.

In addition, copies of Exhibit 5 (Puckett Settlement Agreement) are being served in camera in sealed envelopes to i

the Licensing Board and to .the Docketing and Service Section. )

i -

x-

. v__ Ib o

1

BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Washing ton D.C. 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602

, Richard F. Cole .

Docketing & Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 washington D.C. 20555 A. Dixon Callihan C. Allen Bock, Esq.

Administrative Judge P.O. Box 342 102 Oak Lane Urbana, Illinois 61801 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bridget Little Rorem Stuart Treby, Esq. 117 North Linden Street NRC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.

Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil 3 Joseph Gallo, Esq. Champaign, Illinois 61820 Isham, Lincoln & Beale i 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Lorraine Creek j Suite 1100 Route 1, Box 182

, Washington D.C. 20036 Manteno, Illinois 60950

) Region III Office of Inspection &

. En fo rcemen t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission 799 Roosevelt Road j Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission j washington D.C. 20555 ,

i

! Atenic Safety and Licensing

) Appsal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington D.C. 20555 I

i i

_ _ . _ , , _, , _ . . _ __. - , _ , - _ . _ _ _ , .