ML20043C526
| ML20043C526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1989 |
| From: | Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Carr, Roberts, Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D040 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-6 NUDOCS 9006050289 | |
| Download: ML20043C526 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
% +...,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N g,
,, j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL wAaN WGTON, D.C. 30886 March 30, 1989 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM FOR:
man Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss FROM:
s, Alan S. Rosenthal
SUBJECT:
INQUIRY INTO ALLEGED TRAVEL ABUSE BY NRC EMPLOYEES In our March 20, 1989 joint memorandum to Chairman Zech, copies of which were sent to the other Commissioners, Mr. lierr and I noted the understanding we reached respecting the Office of Inspector and Auditor investigation (187-31) concerned with alleged travel abuse by NRC employees.
Because, prior to my assumption of any responsibility for it, that investigation had been completed with the exception of the typing of the final report, it was agreed that_OIA would prepare that report and then submit it to me for my review.
Upon that review, I could sign the report as prepared, revise it, or hold it in abeyance pending further investigation.
In accordance with that agreement, on March 28, 1989 I was furnished the report prepared by OIA.
My close examination of that report, including all attachments thereto, has led me to append my signature without ame ndinent.
In a nutshell, it appears to me that there was a g
i^
sufficient inquiry into both (1) the allegation regarding transportation to the Waterford facility that triggered the investigations and (2) the circumstances attendant upon the
- g transportation supplied to NRC officials by a utility in n.
connection with the visit of those officials to the Comanche Peak facility.
I am equally persuaded that the conclusions reached 6n each subject is amply supported by the fruits of
?
the inquiry.
There is, however, one conclusion that warrants brief
- hu.ci additional comment.
The observation that NRC reimbursement po:a:
for'the Comanche Peak transportation was calculated on an eM erroneous basis rests upon information obtained by OIA in an interview of in the NBC Office of the General Counsel.
As noted at page 8 of the report (see elso attachment 32),
advised OIA that office had received an opinion from the Office of Governrent Ethics to the effect that 2 einibu r ser ent should have been based co a Information in this record was deleted in accordance with he Freedom of Informati i G.
gaw Am 6 + Mig"L "c 1
90%OStrLe
I 2
pro rata allocation among all passengers in the airplane of the actual cost of the transportation provided by the utility.
(The NRC reimbursement had been based, instead,-
upon the expense that the government would have incurred had commercial air transportation been employed by the NBC officials in question.)
went on,.however,.to point out that the opinion had been provided verbally and that, to subject.
knowledge, there is no written guidance on the It seems to me that, allow in some future situations the resif the Commission is prepared to to utility-supplied air transportation,grt by NRC employees the Office of Government Ethics should be called upon to provide a more formal expression of its opinion on the reimbursement matter.. Although the judgment it orally supplied does not appear unreasonable, a case nonetheless might be made for the quite different approach to reimbursement followed by the NRC in connection with the Comanche Peak transportation.
That is particularly so given the difficulties that could be encountered in arriving at the actual cost-to the utility of a particular air trip.
I would think, for example, that different accounting procedures would produce-quite different results in that regard.
Ascertaining the cost of equivalent commercial air transportation should not present the same difficulties.
it is either appropriate or obliIn these circumstances, and assuming the Office of Government Ethics,gatory to take our cue from a written opinion from that office (containing a full explanation of the reasoning underlying its conclusions) manifestly is warranted, i
i i
1 On this score, I wholeheartedly endorse the OIA view that there is a potential perception problem associated with such resort and, therefore, l
1s desirable.
specific guidance in this area 1
1
- a
- m