ML20005E689
| ML20005E689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1989 |
| From: | Kingsley O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005E690 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001100113 | |
| Download: ML20005E689 (16) | |
Text
.. - -
s,
.s.
4;
'o 6N 3BA l.eckout Place DEC 071989 Mr. Dennis M. Crutchf'ield I
Associate Dire: tor for Soecial Projects U.S.. Nuclear Ragulstoiry Commission Office of Nuclear Ae&< tor Regulation Washington 0.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Crutchfield:
F In my July 27 and Octobe* 2, 1939 lette s to you, I discussed certain actions we were taking to ensure that complaints under Se: tion 210 of the Energy 1
Reorganization Act are effectively being lavtstigated and handled and thnt f
proper management decIstons are being trade with respect to safety concerns and employment issues that are raised.
I a so responded to your inquiry about a complaint filed by [
), who was concerned that a May 25, 1989 memorandum from TVA's General Counsel to me could be improperly used as a blacklist of individuals whc have raised safety concerns.
Since my October 2
~
letter, there have been some developments with respect to this specific issue 1
and other Section 210 proceedings that,,e ttcught you should be aware of.
L Accordingly, we are briefly summarizing these developments below to put the 1
allegations that have been raised in perspective.
We are continuing to review the effectiveness of sianagerrent activities in this area and to emphasize te TVA en.ployees that TVF is cenmitted to 6 policy agate.st intimidation, harassment, or any otter form of improper discrimination, and will continue to take aggressive actior to prevent discrin11ation of any kii.d against anyone in ccnnection with their expression of safety related concerns.
In our investigation of (
) complaint we found no evidence that the May 25 menorandum had been improperly used against him or others.
Hewever, we did discober that a selecting supervisor, who otherwise knew that
[
] had filed a complallt, irrproperly considered that information in eva'uating him for other e nloyment positions.
According'ly.
even though the complainant would not hive been selected for the vacant L
pcsttlon, we resolved his complaint on 1 c.tsis that allowed him to continue hls employment with TVA.
We also took disciplinary action against the manhger involved.
There have been some additional developmelts on this same blacklist issue of which you should be aware.
In one case, the United States Department of
- 1. abor, following a full investigation of a very s'milar complaint about the May 25 memorandum, ruled in TVA's favor finding that there was no evidence of any discrimination by TVA on the basis of that mercrandum.
That complaint was filed by a former employee, (
)(
), who claimed that the memorandum was used as a blacklist against him to elininate his TVA employment i
opportunttles i.nd provide unfavorable ref! ences to outside employers.
1
[-
3 has app 7aled this decision.
He would note that (
j nas 9001100113 891221 PDR ADOCK 05000259 l
P PDR
. DEC 01 1989 s
Mr. Dennis M. ;rutchfleid
)
Initiated at least 15 other legal procenings involving TVA, including 5 cther pending Depart lhent of Labor con: plaints.
As you probably know, his most recent pending complaint charges NRC and TVA w'ih conspiring to violate his rights under the Energy Reorganlaation Act.
Im Departmert of Labor rejected the complaint.
l I referred in my Octoter 2 letter to a finding by the Department of Labor's Hage and Hour Olvision that TVA had bletl115ted another employee,
)
[
1, by including her on the Hty 25 memorandum.
TVA appealed this finding pecause no allegation of this k'rd was raised in her compialnt and we
{
were not informed by the inv6stigator thht it was an issue in the case.
As a result, that finding was rejected as outside the scope of that case by the Administrative Law Jtsege.
For the limited purpose of showing whether any pattern of discrimination existed, the jtdge did allow the complainant to Introduce proof of agy such clackilsting, at the evidentiary hearing (, which is now completed. No proof was offered of any blacklisting activity.
)
has filed two other Department of Lt.bor tempialnts (one raising solely the blacklisting claim).
In a (
) decision on both of these complaints, the Wege and Hour Division did not find tiscrimination with respect to the blacklisting complaint, but $1d conclude that TVA harassed "her and her work product" at an (
) meetirg. Our irvestigation did not show any illegal conduct at that meeting or otherwise, anc we will appeal for a hearing by an Administrativt Law Jtscge.
(
) h u also flied a Federal court lawsuit claiming sex 4ad age discrimination with respect to various personnel actions over the course of her career.
The couri, on our n.otion, has denied her claim of age discrimination in that suit.
The Wege and Hour Division also ruled in TVA's fave.r on (
) on a complaint by (
), a former TVA emp'oyee who had filed numerous prior administrative complaints and two pendint court cases against TVA regarding his treatment as an employee.
(
3 claimed that the termination of his enployment by a reduction in #crce (RIF) when (
) was discriminatory, and that tie Hay 25 niemorandum was a blacklist circulated to $11 TVA managers in an attstrpt to eliminate his TVA employment i'
opportunities.
The Department of Labor tcund that his claims related to tne RIF were the sJbject of one of his pendir g court cases against TVA, and that a decision on thtt claim would thus be "imppropriate."
(All of (
l's other claims to that court case have beer dismissee, and he is appealing the district court's dismissal of his other <ase.)
The Department of Labor further found that "[.t]here was no (viderce to substantiate" (
3's claim that there had been any adverse action b; anyone against him because of the mention of his case in the May 25 mtmorm dum.
These developments in relation to allegailons of blacklisting based on the May 25 memorandum are consitter.t with a report issted November 22,1989, by TVA'1 Inspector General following his imesCgatior of the purpose and d'stribution of the memorandum.
That it.esPgattor was conducted at my request.
The Inspector General found no evidence that the memorandum was created or used to blacklist the indiv1Jtals identificd in the status report
t-4.
DEC 07 20 3
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield attached to the memor.hndum.
Rather, he concluded that the memorandum was prepared to provide % clear Power manaprent with a total picture of recent Section 210 cases and to improve TVA's effectiveness in handling such cceplaint s.
No evidence was found that 1VA management disclosed the document outside TVA or that it was widely circul6ted throughout the nuclear utilit/
industry as had been allegte by certain complainants. A copy of the Ins;e.: tor,
General's report is enclose $.
We have recently received se w ral other rulings in proceedings filed by errployees of Nuclear Power who claimed tlat TVA discriminated against them.
An Administ ative Law Judge for the Departtient of Labor, following extended discovery,Ias ruled that TVA did nct ciscriminate against (
), a former TVA contract employee at (
).
(
) claimed that TVA terminated his employment tocatse he had teen blacklisted by his prior employer for raising safety concerns.
The judge found that.there.as no evidence of any blacklisting or discrimitation by TVA or the prior employer.
In another case, three (
),
(
), (
), and (
), filed complaints with the United States Merit Systems Prctection Board, alleging that TVA improperly terminated them and refused to rehire them in retaliation for their insistence that TVA comply with croper procedures and safety regulations and their reporting of safey concerns to the NRC and TVA's Employee Concerns Program. After a full evidentitry hearing, the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld their terminations and specifically found that the terminations were no; motivsted by the employees' expressions of safety concerns. All three complainants have also filed Section 210 complaints with the Department of Labor.
An Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor, after a full evidentiary hearing, has ruled against (
), a former TVA (
).
(
) was terminated from TVA employment after he had failed cn three occasions to pass a required examination for qualification as a (
).
He claimed that he was terminated in retal'.ation for raising safety concerns and because of age and race discrimination.
The judge found no evidence of retaliation with respect to (
l's terminaticn.
In another case, the Herit Systems Protection Board, again after an evidentiary hearing, upheld the termination of a Vuclear Power engineer.it
(
), (
), who filed two complaints--one with the Merit Systems Protection Board and ano-her with the Otpartment of Labor under Section 210--claiming that he was irrprescrly terminated and not hired for other positions because he raised safet.s concerns.
He also challenged the validity of TVA's decision to (
).
The Merit Systems Protection Board upheld (
) and held that [
]'s termination was valid.
A hearing was held on
(
l's Department of Laber complaint in (
), and we are awaiting a decision.
DEC 07 I!i'3
-a-Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfitid
~..
In three separate proceedings, both the lepartment' of Labor and the Merit Systems Protection Beurd have rejected tie claims of another (
) employee, (
).
(
) claimed that he was terminated and not selected for another lesition because he had reported safety concerns to the NRC and had part'ttpated in earlier Section 210 cases.
The Wage and Hour Division of the Departrent of Lat.or found no discriminhtien against (
) a.nd he did not appeal, thus making the decision final.
The Merit Systems Protection Beard aise fcund that his termination was proper. While his Merlt Systens Protectitn Board proceeding was pending.
(
) filed another complaint with the Department of Labor again charging that his nonselection for anothcr position when (
) was discriminatory.
The liege and Hour Division of the Department of Labor has denied that complaint as well and [
3 has appealed that decision.
An Administrative Law Judge o' the Departnant of Labor has issued a recommended decision finding that TVA discriminated against (
)(
), a former contract employee.
(
) had filed a complaint charging that his contract was not extended because he had revealed safety concerns (
).
Hcuever, th( decision included no findings of discriminatory acts bj any particular 1W. manager, and TVA does not believe that any discriminatory acts occurred, for these amd other reasons, TVA plans -
to argue before the Secretary c.f Labor tiat the recommended decision was incorrect.
The Department of Labor has focnd discr'nina*.lon in another complaint, filed by (
), who had complained M cut a nunt;er of alleged discriminatory events.
During concillarcn, (
) had demanded paynent of $110,000 plas attorneys fees to sett'.e her complaint.
The Departirent of Labor found discrimination in certain acitons which comprised her complaint, including an unsuccessful attempt to trurfere in a selection decision involving complainant, but did not awani her the damages she was seeking.
Our investigation had disclosed that even thotgh TVA m6nagement in our view did not violate Section 210, certain managen ac:ed improperly under TVA standards with respect to the selection.
For thi'; reason and in light of the fact that no backpay or consequential dsmages wero awarded TVA did not appeal the decision (nor did the complainant).
Disciplinary action was taken against the two managers involved.
There are several other complaints that ~VA has either resolved or is attempting to resolve.
We will be glad.o provide you with information on those cases as well as the cases discused above, including copies of tre various rulings that nave been made.
We think it would be Jseful to discuss w.th you and James Lieberman TVA;
actions in this area more fully, and we appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on December 12. We ell) call pu to discuss the agenda for the
- meeting, In addltion, because of our concern that this letter not be viewed by those involved as in any why infringing non any privacy interests that
J.,,
DEC 07 M9
_3 I
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield i
they may have, we rt@est that this lethr not be ' laced in your Public F
Docurr.ent Room or otherwise be disclosed to the DVblic.
However, ! art l
enclosing with this letter &n additional copy from which certnin identifying i
information regarding the affected indt'.'idu61s has been deleted.
This dsleted copy could be used for whatever public disclosure you believe is necessary.
j Sincerely, o.sginsi ele,e.w! by 0, p. tc,1.. ;. - *'.
1 Ollter D. Kingsley, Jr.
i Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power Er. closure cc: Mr. James Liebernun (Enclosure)
Director, Office cf Enforcetent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mission Washington, D.C.
20555 C. E. Ayers HA 25 65C-C E. $. Christenbury, ET 110 33H-K W. R. Cobean, Jr., LD 6N 38A-C L. M. Cuoco, LP Sfl 1568-C T. A. Ippolito, Rockville Licensing Cffice N. C. Katanas, LP 55 83E-C M. O. Medford, LP 6N 38A-C F. L. Moreadith, UT 12A 12A-K S. E. Hallace, LP 3N 75A-C R. F. Wilson,
'.P (iN 38A-C
-n ~
1 3
e f
1 i
.f 8-l r
ENCLOSURE 6 f-g h
t L
fs f
E e
e n
e t
L i
L k
e i
"NY*SMyR%5+nri-L,y a
4
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Office of the Inspector. General REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY l
e l
1 Title of Case: TVA Management l
Ruclear Power Alleged Blacklisting of Individuals Who Raised Nuclear Safety Concerns Earassment and Intimidation' File Number: 2A-282 b
oone et h==>
NOV 2 21989 l
l l
l l-4 Randall B. Morris lavatisated By:
Evelyn H. Sturgill Report Written By:
41//
//
Approved B :.3
,i n,- 7 c..,.ia. %&
m-,
i sL l
r 1
1 INTRODUCTION L
This investigation was based on a request from 011ver D. Kingsley, Jr.
Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power,(NP). Kingsley asked the OIG to investigate the circumstances surrounding the purpose and distribution of a May 25, 1989, memorandum from Edward S. Christenbury, General Counsel, to Kingsley. That memorandum concerned the handling of complaints filed under Section 210 of the i
Energy Reorganization Act and attached a status report on pending and recently resolved Section 210 cases. Kingsley stated that several former and current TVA employees have (1) questioned the distribution of the memorandum and (2) suggested the memorandum and its attachment could be used to " blacklist" individuals who axpressed nuclear safety concerns. Kingsley subsequently asked the 0!G to investigate the alleged distribution of the memorandum outside TVA.
SUMMARY
OF INVESTICATION I
Our findings are outlined below.
Our investigation revealed na evidence of employee misconduct in l
connection with the General Counsel's May 25, 1989. memorandum to the
[
Senior Vice President of Nuclear Power.
I There is n2 evidence the General Counsel's office (0GC) created the memorandum or NP managers intended to use the manorandum to blacklist the p
individuals identified in the status report attached to the memorandum.
Rather, OGC prepared the memorandum to provide NP with a total picture of I
recent Section 210 cases and improve TVA's effectiveness in handling such complaints.
1.
Eight employees filed a joint Section 210 complaint with the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) claiming TVA discriminated against them by releasing the memorandum and status report containing their names.
They
. alleged the memorandum was videly distributed within TVA and the nuclear industry, including Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Since DOL has the statutory responsibility to address the issues raised in this pending
.w.
ntn asa.,.
4......<,..,
..... r. 4 < 4 r, 4.
..t w........j...
l l
t e
n
--e
r p..
?.
- j NP support p3rarnnel distributed the C Carcndum to th3 NP Vice Presidents l
l and, in some cases, to managers below the Vice Presidents.
NP, in accordance with its customary procedures, also.put the document on the I
Records and Information Management System (RIMS).2 The following factors contributed to this wide distributions (1) the document was not marked administrative 1y confidential by OGC SI NP or otherwise given special handling (as a result, NP administrative personnel, in accordance l
with the usual practices, put the document in RIMS), (2) OGC and NP have differing opinions on which organization is responsible for determining whether an OGC document should be treated as confidential, and (3) neither TVA, NP, nor OGC have guidelines for determining when documents should be classified as administrative 1y confidential.3 We found na evidence that TVA management disclosed the docusent outside TVA or that it was widely circulated throughout the nuclear utility industry.
(More specifically, we developed na evidence that the report t
was distributed outside TVA, except to the Nuclear Regulatory Concission
[NRC). However, we recognize because of the wide distribution within TVA that some TVA employees ag.Y have released it outside TVA.)
NP and OGC have' informed us that they have taken corrective actions to prevent future disclosures of potentially sensitive DOL matters, rad NP has taken corrective actions to help ensure the May 25 memorandum is not used improperly.
The bases for these conclusions are outlined below.
THE PURPOSE OF THE MAY 25. 1989. MEMORANDUM In a July 27, 1989, letter to the NRC, Kingsley stated that soon after he started working at TVA (during November 1988), he realized TVA's handling of DOL Section 210 complaints needed improvements. Kingsley stated there was a need for greater management attention to, among other things, evaluating 2.
RIMS is an automated document filing and retrieval system for Power and NP. The organization which first receives a document is responsible for
' putting the document on RIMS unless the originator of the document has already placed the document in RIMS.
(OGC does not utilize RIMS.)
3, o. r m.., 4
.u.
.........e,.....
~
w*
and cenciliating such complaints.
Kingsley further stated that nesded efforts
.l included maintaining up-to-date information on Section 210 cases, and CGC f
prepared the May 25 memorandum "as an integral part cf this major effort."#
a Douglas R. Nichols, Assistant General Counsel, and Brent R. Marquand, an OGC i
attorney who helped prepare the mamorandum, both stated the memorandum and I
status report were prepared to provide Kingsley (1) a total picture and status j
report on recent Section 210 cases against TVA and (2) ways to more effectively handle D0L complaints. Nichols also stated OGC prepared the i
memorandum to ensure that individuals who filed DOL complainte did n21 receive i
disparate treatment. Marquand further stated that 0GC maintains a list of DOL
[
cases in order to respond to inquiries from various sources, including NP, 4
DOL, and NRC.$ According to Marquand, this particular status report was prepared, in part, in response to the ECP's and 0!G's parallel effort to identify.,4ction 210 cases.6 Nichola stated NP did ngt ask OGC to prepare the memorandum.
OGC and NP managers denied they planned to use the memorandum or status report to blacklist or otherwise discriminate against the D0L complainants, and our investigation revealed no evidence to the contrary.
i 4
Various entities within TVA, including the OIG, OGC, NP Human Resources, and the NP Employee Concern Program (ECP), also recognized there were problems in TVA's handling of Section 210 complaints.
5.
In this connection, Nichols also provided the OIG a copy of a 1986 NRC report on harassment, intimidation, and wrongdoing issues at TVA. Nichols
+
stated the report came from NRC's Public Document Room.
The report contains a listing by nARA of 12 DOL complaints against TVA.
6.
During April 1989, the OIG asked Sue E. Wallace, NP Human Resource Manager, for an update on the status of certain DOL cases.
Subsequently, Wallace decided to respond to the OIG's request by developing a list of all pending DOL complaints. Wallace further stated that developing a list of DOL complaints was the first step in analyzing the impact of TVA reorganizations on employees who had filed such complaints. On May 30--
five days after OGC sent its list to NP--Wallace sent the OIG and OGC her list of DOL Section 210 cases.
That document was marked " administrative 1y
' confidential."
~ -
l q.,,, % -
- THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MEMORANDUM s
Distribution of the Memorandum Ingide TVA I
Catherine L. Baugh, an NP administrative assistant, received the memorandum on May 26, 1989, and distributed it to (1) Wallace (NP Human Resource Manager),
(2) the NP Vice Presidents, and (3) RIMS.
Baugh stated she distributed the memorandum to the Vice Presidents because it dealt with new procedures for handling DOL matters.
I Subsequently, an NP secretary and two administrative assistants received the memorandum and distributed it to individuals who reported directly to the NP Vice Presidents. These three support employees distributed the documents further (i.e., to the NP Vice Presidents direct reports) because, in their opinion, the direct reports needed to know about the procedural changes for l
handling DOL cases. According to one of the support employees, two of the direct reports' secretaries further distributed the document to their direct l
reports.
Baugh stated the memorandum did not list any individual's names.
(However, she acknowledged she did not read the status report of DOL Section 210 complaints that was attached to the memorandum.) She stated the memorandum was n21 marked confidential and if the document had been classified she would have given it special handling.I Baugh stated she received n2 instructions or directions regarding her decisions to (1) distribute the memorandum or (2) send the document to RIMS.
She stated ng NP manager read the memorandum before she distributed it.
(In addition, the administrative assistants and secretary who distributed the memorandum in their organizations stated they did n21 receive any instructions about who should receive the memorandum.)
7.
Nichols and Marquand stated there was nothing improper in distributing the memorandum to the NP Vice Presidents.
- 8..Several NP administrative assistants and secretaries stated that the documents NP receives are not given special handling unless they are marked sensitive or it is obvious the information is sensitive.
Two NP administrative assistants stated they would not have handled the memorandum any differently than Baugh.
1
l 1
'j. 5. e j
Subsequ;ntly, during June 1989, a TVA c picyee idsntified on the status report i
1 told Mellon D. Robertson, the NP Human Resource Officer assigned to coordinate the handling of DOL matters, that an " upper level".. Nuclear Engineering l
' Assurance manager (the employee refused to identify this manager) gave him a I
copy of the memorandum and characterited the status report as a blacklist.
Robertson met with Wallace (NP's Human Resource Manager) regarding the J
memorandum, and Wallace decided to retrieve the memorandum and status report.
Wallace stated it is fairly obvious that lists of DOL complainants should not be widely distributed, and she acted immediately to retrieve the copies.
Wallace stated she wanted to (1) assure employees that TVA would not intentionally circulate a listing of individuals which could be perceived as a blacklist and (2) protect the personal privacy of the individuals identified in the status report.
Wallace directed her secretary to retrieve the copies of the memorandum from
?
the Vice Presidents. Subsequently, the Vice Presidents' secretaries or administrative assistants retrieved the copies of the memorandum and status report.' Wallace stated she did not think of retrieving the document from RIMS until Kingsley received a July 20, 1989, NRC letter asking about the document's distribution.
She, Kingsley, and Mark Medford (Vice President of Nuclear Technology and Licensing) agreed the document should be retrieved from RIMS and initiated steps to retrieve it.
l On July 24, 1989, Baugh asked RIMS to delete the memorandum from the systam.
On July 27, 1989, RIMS personnel confirmed that it had been deleted. However, NP subsequently discovered the document had, in accordance with RIMS procedures, only been deleted from the comeuter inder and could still be retrieved from RIMS by using the backun microfiche index.
Subsequently, RIMS deleted the document from the microfiche, p
9.
We could not determine whether all the copies had been retrieved.
For axample, one copy sent to Nuclear Training had not been returned at the time of our investigation.
Further, there was evidence that TVA employees made copies of the memorandum and status report.
10.
As explained in TVA's August 10, 1989, letter to the NRC, TVA's normal procedure for deleting documents from RIMS is to delete references to them from the computer-stored index.
However, the document itself remains on microfiche, and there is a backup microfiche index.
[
. [.'. o '
l Distribution of the Memerandum Outside TVA e
According to a Section 210 complaint filed against TVA on behalf of several individuals listed in the status report, the memorandum and status report were widely distributed in the nuclear utility industry, including Martin Marietta.
Our investigation revealed no evidence to support this allegation. 1 Several NP managers and OGC attorneys stated they had no specific knowledge l
that the memorandum or status report were distributed outside TVA. Only one individual provided the CIG with the name of someone outside TVA who allegedly had seen the May 25 memorandum. However, this individual--a Martin Marietta employee and former TVA employee-stated he had seen the memorandum Eh11g
==aloved at TVA.
According to this employee, he had ng_t seen the May 25 i
memorandum while employed at Martin Marietta. He further stated he had no knowledge of anyone outside TVA receiving a copy.
In an effort to obtain specific information about this allegation, the OIG contacted each individual listed on the DOL complaint and their attorney.
t However, neither the individuals nor their attorney provided the OIG any information about their allegation.12
~
TVA PROCEDURES FOR CLASSIFYING DOCUMENTS ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL 4
L Our investigation revealed that (1) TVA does not have an agency-wide policy for classifying documents or identifying documents that should be classified and (2) neither NP nor OGC have policies for classifying documents.13 l
l According to Linda E. Blevins and Georgia S. Greene, Information Services program managers, each TVA office is responsible for maintaining policy and guidelines regarding classification of documents. Alva Jo LaMontagne, RIMS Manager, stated the procedures for document classification are " fragmented and in some instances not current."
- 11. Our investigation did reveal that a TVA employee gave a copy of the l-memorandum to the NRC.
- 12. OGC also requested the complainant's attorney to supply any f_ acts regarding circulation of the memorandum outside TVA.
i
- 13. TVA does have some procedures for handling documents af ter they are classified.
l
=.
i
- i
[
Nich31s (Assiettnt G:neral Counsel) stated OGC dses not routine 1v classify s
documents they send to senior TVA managers. He stated OGC has sent status reports to senior managers for years without marki;ng the documents administrative 1y confidential.14 According to Nichols, OGC marks documents
" administrative 1y confidential" only when there are Privacy Act protection considerations or the information is exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Marquand (TVA attorney) stated OGC's litigation department only marks documents as confidential if they contain information that is protected by the Privacy Act.
(Nichols and Marquand both stated the i
information contained in the status report is oublic information and has no Privacy Act protections.) Nichols and Marquand also stated that the recipients of OGC documents are responsible for determining how to classify and distribute those documents.
According to Wallace and NP support personnel, the originating office which sends the documents (in this case OGC) is normally-responsible for classifying the document prior to dissemination. According to several NP employees, OGC doea mark some documents administrative 1y confidential and OGC documents that are not marked confidential do not automatically receive special handling.
i L
OCC AND NP CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Although OGC has not officially changed its handling of DOL matters, Marquand and Richols stated OGC is now more sensitive to DOL matters.
They stated OGC is currently either marking D0L-related documents as administrative 1y l
confidential or conferring directly with the receiving office to ensure the documents are properly handled.
NP is currently marking DOL-related documents as sensitive or confidential (if the document is not already classified), and NP is ngt putting DOL-related documents on RIMS.
In addition, according to letters Kingsley sent the NRC, NP has taken the following actions in connection with DOL matters.
14.
In a July'27, 1989, letter to the NRC, Kingsley stated that although the memorandum could have been marked confidential, the General Counsel frequently advises NP managers on the status of cases and other matters without such markings.
7
+
s
i
~[*
Kingsley ctunneled tha Vice Presid:nt whtse organizatien distributed the-4 May 25 manorandum about the need to be sensitive in handling DOL issues.
He also instructed his support staff to review.,the process for receiving, distributing, and filing correspondence of this type.
i Kingsley met with groups of employees to emphasize (1) their duty to express safety and quality concerns and (2) TVA will not discriminate against them for expressing such concerns.
j l
Kingsley released an internal press release to all NP employees confirming
]
TVA's pledge not to discriminate against amployees for expressing concerne.
NP established a specialized orientation program at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant to heighten managers' sensitivity to (1) employees who have expressed safety-related concerns, (2) Section 210 provisions, and (3) DOL procedures.
i 4
Kingsley directed his immediate subordinates to make clear to all concerned that the status report is not used to discriminate against any of the individuals on the list.
NP implemented stronger internal procedures for handling DOL cases as suggested in the May 25, 1989, OGC memorandum.
I e
8 L
[
RECOMMENDATIQNS j
Based on the information developed during this investigation, the OIG makes the following recommendations.
1 1.
The Vice President. Information Services, should consider the feasibility l
of providing policy and procedural guidance to TVA organizations on identifying and markins documents that should be treated as administrative 1y confidential. The OIG bases this recommendation en the i
following factorat t
NP and OGC apparently disagree regarding which office is responsible a.
for determining whether an OGC document should be treated as confidential.
1 i
b.
Neither of the organizations we looked at--NP and OGC--had procedures i
for identifying and marking documents administrative 1y confidential.
c.
Decisions on marking documents administrative 1y confidential seem to be made on an ad hoc, individual basis.
2.
The Senior Vice President of Nuclear Power and the General Counsel should consider clarifying which organization is responsible for determining whether to treat OGC documents as confidential.
In this connection, i
although NP and 0GC are now more sensitive to DOL matters, they are still relying on oral guidance to maintain that sensitivity and to classify documents properly.
i r
REMARKS Our investigation of this matter is closed, i
83801 9
-