ML20043C544
| ML20043C544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/10/1989 |
| 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 9006050309 | |
| Download: ML20043C544 (4) | |
Text
__
m CON _EIDENTJAir ~~-~
o meow $,\\
UNITED STATES -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
wAssiNotow.o.c rosos April 10, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman tech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss FROM:
Alan S. Rosenthal
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR INVESTIGATION NO. 87-13 l
I have reviewed the Office of Inspector and Auditor's L
(OIA) file in connection with the above. identified investigation.
In addition, I have discussed the content of the file with the OIA investigator who was principally responsible for the conduct of that investigation prior to the February 28, 1989, transfer to me of further responsibility for it.
On the basis of these steps, and for the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that there is no need to pursue the investigation any further.
Rather, in my view, the investigation should be terminated with the issuance of an admonition to a particular employee of the Office of Investigations (01) with-respect-to a minor indiscretion on part while in the course of the performance of official duties.
1.
The investigation was instituted by OIA as a result of a March 4, 1987, letter from to then Commissioner Asselstine.
had been employed by
, at, among other nuclear power facilities, and At at In relevant part, letter to Commissioner Asselstine complained of the perceived f ailure of Region I personnel (not OI) to treat with appropriate s'eriousness certain safety concerns (especially those related to
) that had brought to the Region's attention.
Following the referral of the letter to OIA by Commissioner Asselstine in a March 13, 1987, memorandum, bg and were interviewed by OIA investigators on April 16, 1987, in Informatica in this record was deleted in accordance with the freedom of Inform 8n
"*h--
~~
9006050309 90040 UN" E" (eQ c
i e
2 l
(where
-resided).
During the interview, reiterated belief that safety concerns had not been adequately addressed within the NRC --
D more particularly by the Region I staff.
With regard to 01, P
appeared to have only one specific complaint.
According to OI investigator had asked another interviewee,
, questions about L
and had called upon to rate on a scale of one to ten.
had informed that had declined to do so even o
after being pressed by Thereafter, on January 13, 1988, an OIA investigator i
interviewed who was then an L
but had previously worked at h
the informed the l
investigator that, in October 1985, had been interviewed by in connection with certain technical concerns l
that had presented to OI with regard to Hope creek.
At the conclusion of interview, L
- stated, asked questions about In l
the wcrds of the OIA investigator's reports related that asked if knew whether or not was an anti-nuclear activist, and if was good looking.
said told that had oni,y met on one occasion.
then asked to rate on a scale of one to ten.
related that-declined to answer because thought it was l
improper and irrelevant.
further advised that L
was persistent.
repeated to i
that had only met one time.
1 Within a few days after interview of The report of the OIA investigator interviewed l
that interview contains the following:
stated that did not recall asking what looked like and to rate on a scale of one to ten, although "that doesn't mean I did not".
related that as an investigator, of ten asks questions about the L
physical appearance of people to gather additional l
information about them, stated that background information developed during the course of the OI investigation revealed that was an anti-nuclear activist.
further stated that L
"in my mind, I might have had the possibility of interviewing" added that if did ask the question, saw no harm in doing so because l
e 3-it was not intended as a disparaging, sexist, or L
degrading remark.
stated that as an experienced investigator, has found "a person's looks is one of many indicators of their self-esteem" and "just another source of" information.
. The only other OIA activity during 1988 bearing upon the assertions was the referral to Mr. Stello on January 29, 1988, of the six technical issues that believed had not been appropriately resolved.by Region I.
In her referral memorandum, Ms. Connelly-noted that OIA was " reviewing the staff's handling of these issues but there appear to be technical disagreements between the alleger and Region I which you may want (your] staff to review."
Appended to the memorandum was a transcript of OIA's April 16, 1987, interview of By March 23, 1988, memorandum, Mr. Stello transmitted to Ms. Connelly the evaluation of the six technical issues by the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).
A copy of that evaluation is attached.
As you will note, it does not suggest any serious shortcomings on the part of Region I in the handling of concerns, let alone any OI deficiencies.
2.
It is now over two years since this investigation was instituted and over a year since any significant action was taken by OIA in connection with it.
The question thus arises:
is there any good reason why the investigation need be continued at this late hour?
I am satisfied that there is not.
The investigative file is devoid of anything to support assertions that Region I did not appropriately address technical concerns; to the contrary, it appears that there was simply a disagreement between and Region I regarding the substance of those concerns and the action, if any, that should be taken to resolve them.
(On that score, the NRR evaluation indicates the current absence of any significant safety problem.)
Moreover, apart from the matter of references to I do not construe complaint as bringing OI's conduct into question.
Be that as it may, there is not sufficient evidence of possible OI derelictions to warrant the expenditure of time, effort, and money in a further inquiry.
On the other hand, I believe the request of respecting to have been plainly improper.
Although not serious misconduct, it seems to me that should receive a written admonition.
In addition, because apparently does not recognize that the
V 4
.r request was at minimum in very poor taste, it might be desirable to instruct Mr. Hayes to provide 7
(perhaps through the OI Region I Field Office Director) with some guidance as to the outer bounds of propriety in the conduct of investigative interviews.
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that this investigation be terminated on a finding that, apart from l
the one relatively minor matter involving OI investigator there is no evidence of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on the part of Region I or OI employees in the handling of concerns.
Unless the Commission otherwise directs, I do not plan to pursue the investigation further.
Should a Commissioner desire to examine it in the consideration of this recommendation, the entire OIA investigative file will be supplied upon request, i-Attachment l
l l
l' 1
i r