ML20042G013
| ML20042G013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/07/1989 |
| From: | Charlotte White NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F712 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR45768, RULE-PR-19 NUDOCS 9005100299 | |
| Download: ML20042G013 (1) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
l'fse nso %
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
wAsumoiow. o. c. nosos MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigations FROM:
Chester W. White Director OfficeofInvestigationsFieldOffice,RegionI
SUBJECT:
DRAFT SEQUESTRATION AND EXCLUSION RULE Pursuant to your July 22, 1989 memorandum, following are examples of incidents where, we believe, attorneys impeded our investigation, or at a minimum, prevented full and complete disclosure of information relative to the investigation.
1.
Case No. 1-89-006 (Ongoing) - During the course of conducting an investigation at en NRC licensed facility, the investigator was approached by an individual previously interviewed. This individual informed the investigator that during his interview he wanted to answer questions in greater detail but felt " uncomfortable" about doing so with the licensee corporate attorney present. When advised by the investigator that he could have requested a meeting with the NRC in the absence of the corporate attorney he responded that, "you have to understand, I work for higher mana,gement".
2.
Case No. 1-85-011 (Closed 1 - During the course of this investigation, corporate attorney's for P.he licensee interviewed witnesses (licensee employees) immediately after they left the interview conducted by 01 investigators. The attorneys asked each interviewee the details of their discussions with the O! investigator.
Being aware of this caused the investigator to structure their interviews in such_a manner as to. attempt
- - " ~
to disguisei their q11estions'to precidd; -(sclosure of~information that may have compromised their (the NRC) inve, tigation, yet elicit the information needed.
While it is difficult to determine the full ramifications of the above incidents, common sense tells you that once an employee knew that management was going to be made aware of statements made during their respective interviews, they would be less than candid with information negatively impacting the licensee (their employer).
cc:
W. Hutchison 9 05100299 890007
$953 45768 PDR e
J