ML20043C568
| ML20043C568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/12/1989 |
| 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 9006050332 | |
| Download: ML20043C568 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. - - -. } CONFIDENTIAL-UNITED STATES .I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl!MilON -{ WASMNOTON, D. C. Mees April 12,1989 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Each 1 Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss FROM: Alan S. Rosenthal
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR INVESTIGATION NO. 87-06 In my April 10, 1989, memorandum, I recommended the termination of one of the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) investigations involving the office of Investigations (OI) for which I was given responsibility. I noted that that investigation (No. 87-13) had been instituted by OIA more than two years ago and had been in a state of suspended animation for over a year. In these circumstances, I thought the first question before me to be whether the OIA investigative file disclosed the existence of cause to resume the investigation. For the reasons assigned in the April 10 memorandum, I concluded that there was no such cause. I have now closely examined the OIA file in another of the investigations that are now assigned to me because of OI involvement.- This investigation (No. 87-06) was initiated in early 1987 and likewise has received little, if any, CIA attention over the past year. Accordingly, it poses the. same threshold question as confronted me in connection with No. 87-13. For the reasons that follow, the question receives. the same answers in my judgment there is no justification for pursuing this investigation and its targets should be advised that ~it has been closed without any. adverse determination regarding their conduct. 1. In a December 19, 1986, memorandum, the Region II. Administrator transmitted to OIA a December 18, 1986, l internal memorandum prepared by Bruno Urye, Jr., a member of the Region staff, with regard to a telephone call that i i had received from . a TVA employee informed that he had been interviewed on December 17, 1986, by two OI investigatoss Information in this record was.seted kt, mm ti0ns _M12 dm of inform in ::ccrdan:e with the Fred A CONFIDENTIAL h g60g 9_00405 AIROZO90-6 PDR. rn'a D-b /0 7
2 assigned to the Region II field of fice, and , and wished to file "a formal complaint" against them. According to , the investigators had refused to allow to discuss what deemed to be possible federal felonies. In addition,
- asserted, they had threatened respecting lying to the NRC and, in contrast to their demeanor at a prior meeting with
, had been haughty, rude and hostile. On February 6,1987, an OIA investigator interviewed in connection with his complaint. stated that had been interviewed twice by and , the first time some two weeks prior to December 17 (in actuality, on December 4). According to , at the earlier interview the OI investigators had freely accepted any documents and photographs that wished to present to them in connection with claims that quality assurance personnel were being subjected to harassment and intimidation at Sequoyah. At the December 17 interview, however, their attitude changed dramatically. It was perception that the investigators became very hostile, took the position of management, and implied that was lying. In this regard, faulted the investigators for not pursuing assertion that certain other specified Sequoyah quality assurance inspectors also had been victims.of harassment and intimidation at the hands of the-supervisor who allegedly harassed It was this f ailure that offered as the substance of his claim that the investigators had turned their back on possible federal felonies. In view, the threats that the quality assurance inspectors assertedly had received from violated criminal provisions of the Atomic Energy Act et 1954. As it happened, the December 17, 1986, interview of by the OI investigators was stenographically transcribed. The stenotype reporter, , was interviewed by an OIA investigator on April 21, 1987. described the demeanor of during the interview as " kind, professional, and f air" and further of fered the opinion that the investigators had " bent over backwards to accommodate" during the interview.
- Finally, stated that did not recall being threatened about lying to the NRC and that, had there been _ such a threat, it would have'been recorded in the transcript of the interview.
My own review of the transcript similarly did not disclose anything to suggest that was ill-treated during the December 17 interview or that the OI investigators had otherwise acted in an unprofessional 9
~ - - e e 3 1 e To be sure, the investigators did question the manner. accuracy of certain of statements and interrogated closely on others. But they had cause to do so and were sufficiently civil throughout the interview. With respect to the matter of the asserted harassment and intimidation of other quality assurance inspectors by was invited by to supply i their names, accepted that invitation and provided the names of four such inspectors: (Tr. 34). went on to answer a few additional questions about those individuals (e.g., which of them were still in TVA's employ). 1.t no point in the course of the interview did the OI investigators inform that they would not allow to present information in possession respecting the harassment and intimidation of quality assurance inspectors at Sequoyah. And, significantly, the interview ended with this colloquy between and (Tr. 91-93): BY 0 Couple of final questions, During our interview today, have I or has who r are both representatives of the NRC, have we threatened you in any manner or offered you any reward in exchange for your testimony? A No, Sir, certainly not. L Q Okay. Have you given the statements that you've given today freely and voluntarily? l l A I have. O Is there any additional statement or any additional information that you would like to give at this time that you feel would serve to clarify or further explain some statement or some I information that you've previously given to us today or two weeks ago when we talked with you, for that matter? Sticking strictly to the subjects that we've talked about today, is there anything else that you need to report to us concerning harassment, intimidation, threats, discriminatien that you have not already stated to us? s ~
l 4 A Well, just the final statement that the way I interpret the Atomic Energy Act, an inspector is free and is duty bound to come in with a concern. And in the time of you could not do this except at your own very great risk. Q Okay. Is there any additional information you would like to give? A No, sir. On October 2 and November 20, 1987, respectively, were interviewed by OIA investigators. By way of explanation for his decision not to pursue the claim that other TVA employees had been harassed and intimidated by stated (Tr.~10-11) that it was understanding that 'any allegations of harassment and intimidation within the TVA organization prior to January 1,1986 would be investigau 4 by the TVA Of fice of Inspector General and anything af ter that date would be investigated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Investigations." This exchange followed (Tr.11-13) : Q To your knowledge, has the TVA Inspector General opened or initiated investigation into the harassment of these three individuals, A From iny memory, I know they have not received an allegation from and 'I believe they have l not received an allegation from I know that filed a complaint, but it was not a harassment and intimidation complaint, and I am not sure about the other two. I have done quite a few file reviews with the TVA IG and I don't recognize the names as beitig victima of HEI 6cmplaints. or Q The agreement with the TVA Inspector General delineating the respons$bilities for HAA Investigations, was this in writing or was this a verbal agreement with the TVA Inspector General? A I can't say. I am not sore whether that has been reduced to wr.iting or not. l Q Well, are you able to say, assuming raised the issue of l d
l i 5 j and havino been harassed by ) . and mentioned normally would we have initiated an investigation of this aspect of this allegation or this would have been referred to the TVA IG7 A Well, it would depend on the time frame involved. \\ Q What was the time frame for allegation, or his alleged harassment by .? A It was prior to '86, but the reason the office of Special Projects for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wanted us to continue our J investigation was that he had alleged continued harassment and intimidation after 1986 and they--and when I say they, I refer to 0.SwP., or Office of Special Projects--wanted us to verify whether or not that harassment was continuing. Q rrom testimony in December 17th interview, it appears that is raising the issue of and to either reinforce or substantiate allegation of harassment and intimidation by was mistreated by Would it have been appropriate to interview these three individuals in furtherance of your investigation, or in furtherance of your investigation of allegation that he had been harassed bl A It possibly would have, depending on how the case progressed. Q Let me ask you this, , have these people ever been interviewed by O.I.? i l A was interviewed, I think, the i night before was interviewed. I In OIA interview, noted that was the lead investigator in the matter. went on, however, to concur in belief that TVA l harassment and intimidation complaints were to be investigated by TVA's Inspector General if they concerned (as did all those here involved) conduct before January 1, 1986 -- the date (or approximate date) upon which Admiral White arrived at TVA to assume control of its nuclear program. In his words (Tr. 15) : 1
6 Now to answer your question what do I know about the pre-White, post-White letter. I know very little about that. I just know that the bottom line of the decision that was made -- and I guess by our headquarters people, Fortuna, Hayes and whoever else -- I know the bottom line is that any allegation that had its origin and existence prior to the time that Steve White became the Director of Nuclear Operations at TVA would be a matter that would be resolved through TVA's IG j effort. Any allegation that had its origin and existence from Steve White's entrance at TVA to the present time would be a matter that would be j resolved by the Office of Investigations of the NRC. On November 17, 1987, shortly before the interview, CIA interviewed in TVA's Office of the Inspector General, indicated that was not personally i aware of any formal arrangement between office and the NRC respecting the handling of pre-January 1, 1986, harassment and intimidation complaints involving TVA management. did note, however, that the office had 4 received a number of such complaints from OI's Region II field office. In addition, it had conducted an audit which had included the review of more than seven hundred complaints. As a result of the audit, it had initiated investigations involving on the basis of the foregoing and the other information i in the file, the principal CIA investigator assigned to this matter reached the conclusion (as reported to me in a telephone conversation with him approximately two weeks ago) that the OI investigators were not guilty of dereliction of duty or other misconduct. Rather, in his view, they had done what was expected of them. He apparently also decided, however, that there was reason to inquire further into the i t. foundation for, and memorialisation of, the policy of L referring pre-1986 TVA harassment and intimidation complaints to the TVA Inspector General. It nonetheless does not appear from the OIA file that much, if anything, was done in the furtherance of that inquiry during 1988 or L L the first two months of 1989. L 2. Over two years have elapsed since OIA instituted its investigation into the performance by of their official duties. In my opinion, there is no possible warrant for having left those individuals under a cloud for such a long period. Their conduct of the December 17, 1986, interview was either beyond reproach
i e t 7 i or open to criticism. No matter the appropriate conclusion in that regard, fairness to them (as well as the furtherance of the interests of the agency) dictated an ultimate resolution of the complaint no later than the end of 1987 (if not considerably earlier). Instead, as noted, the investigation has been kept open without any apparent activity for more than an additional year. I see no reason, let alone a compelling one, why should continue to be kept in suspense as to the disposition of the complaint against them. And that disposition should be in their favor. While obviously resented being vigorously questioned on j some of his statements, the investigators were fulfilling their duty in doing so and, once again, cannot be fairly accused of having abused in the process. And there is a like lack of substance to insistence that the investigators had refused to permit him to discuss asserted criminal actions on the part of TVA management. In reality, his grievance seems to be that, when he made reference to the asserted harassment and intimidation of I other quality assurance inspectors, did not pursue the subject with him but went on to other matters. As seen, this choice apparently rested on ( their good faith reliance on the so-called ' pre-Steve White" rule.respecting the allocation of responsibility for the investigation of TVA harassment and intimidation allegations. That consideration aside, great latitude neesssarily must be accorded investigators in deciding the extent to which certain subjects should be explored in the course of a particular interview Monday morning quarterbacking on such decisions well after the event is s neither fair nor productive. It is unclear to me why, in the circumstances, the OIA investigator deemed it necessary to explore in depth the underpinnings of the " pre-Steve White" rule (he seemingly entertained no doubt that the OI investigators justifiably believed there was such a rule). Nor do I understand why, if undertaken, such an exploration could not and should not have been brought to completion well before now. In any event, I am persuaded that no cause exists to pursue that matter at this very late date. Whatever may have been the genesis and precise level of approval of the policy regarding the investigation of pre-1986 allegations, that policy necessarily expired over three years ago.
- Surely, we all have better ways of expending our time than plumbing the depths of something.that now has little more than historic significance.
t I g For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that this investigation be terminated on a finding that there is no evidence of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on the part of 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 OI investigative file will be supplied upon request. i I ., ~... -.}}