ML20077D155

Endorses Js Morris Comments Made in Re Response & Replies of Univ of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) & MURR Directors.Confidential Personnel Evaluations Encl.Encl Withheld

ML20077D155
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	12/02/1994
From:	Baskett C, Chaudhuri T, Mason M MISSOURI, UNIV. OF, COLUMBIA, MO
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML19311B547	List: ML20077D155
References
EA-94-121, NUDOCS 9412080080
Download: ML20077D155 (4)

Text

'

Research Reactor center g Research Park Colurnbia, M:ssouri 65211 II Telephone (314) 882 4211 FAXt314)882=3443 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA December 2,1994 Director, Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission ATTN:Documeut Control Desk Washington DC 20555 RE: EA 94-121 University of Missouri Research Reactor License R-103 Response to Licensee's reply to Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (September 12,1994); and MURR Director's reply to the Demand for Infonnation therein

Dear Sir:

As members of the Analytic Epidemiology, Nutrition, and Immunology (AENI)

Group at the University of Missouri Research Reactor we would like to endorse the comments made by Dr. L Steven Morris in his November 15, 1994, letter to you concerning the response and replies of the University and the MURR directors. Dr. Morris was our group leader and immediate supervisor prior to his demotion which occurred on March li, 1993. Our group was also abolished by that action. Some of us continued under his supervision throughout that period in which our group identity was undefined and unrepresented in the MURR organization. One of us was removed from Dr. Morris's supervision entirely. As you are aware, the AENI group was reestablished in June,1994, by Order of the Secretary of Labor as a result of the Recommended Decision and Order entered by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing requested by the University in an attempt to ovenurn the findings of the initial Depanment of Labor investigation, held in May,1993.

Our primary reason for writing this letter is to amplify the concern raised by Dr.

Morris on page 12 of his letter where he has discussed allegations, new to us, made by Dr.

Rhyne on page 2 of his October 31,1994, reply to your Office. In this section Dr. Rhyne has stated that the demotion of Dr. Morris was not due to his involvement in protected activities, but instead, resulted from " deficiencies" and " counterproductive actions" attributed to Dr. Morris and his group.

h O MC ge N \l oopka 88 y {"/00gtuusi^

x^N As iry R ttA sr. Louis 9412080080 941202 ^"** w mme PDR ADOCK 05000186 O PDR l s

4 4

Director, OfHee of Enforcement December 2,1994 Page 2 There are two specific points regarding these allegations we wish to make. First, we do not believe that Dr. Morris was deficient in the performance of his job; nor do we believe . i that his actions were counterproductive to the mission of the MURR. Second, Dr. Rhyne's expansion of the allegations to include other members (unnamed) of the group represents new and disturbing infonnation to us. Dr. Rhyne has not informed us, either orally or in writing, regarding: 1) what the deficiencies are; 2) what the counterproductive actions are; and 3) which members of the group are guilty of either, or both.

These new allegations are particularly disturbing because they have not been made directly.to us. Instead we discoveret them by reading the correspondence between the NRC ,

and the University made available to the group by Dr. Morris, at the n: quest of Dr. Rhyne.

This letter arises from our concerns, it was not suggested by Dr. Morris. We are also perplexed by Dr. Rhyne's allegations because they did not surface in the written personnel evaluations of three of us which were done by Dr. Morris at the specific request of Dr.

Rhyne. These evaluations, which are attached, were provided to Dr. Rhyne prior to his - ,

October 1,1994, deadline. Dr. Rhyne has not discussed or disputed their positive content with any of us. Furthennore, while there were numerous points of similarity between Dr. -

McConnick's and Dr. Rhyne's replies, Dr. McConnick did not extend allegations of "deGeiency" and " counterproductive actions" made against Dr. Morris to "his group". We believe you can understand our concern. We were evaluated, positively, by our supervisor according to Dr. Rhyne's instructions; we received ng additional comments, positive or negative, from Dr. Rhyne; then, one month hence, we read in a document, filed with the NRC, that some or all of us may be considered dencient and counterproductive by the MURR Director. This has a very signincant chilling effect on us for obvious reasons and we are not comfortable discussing this with Dr. Rhyne, fearing additional retaliation.

One of the undersigned, Dr. Chaudhuri, a research scientist at the MURR, is to be evaluated annually and provided a written summary by Dr. Rhyne according to his stated  ;

policy. In faci, regarilin{; tie evaluailon ofs 'cientific staff ai'ihe hiUdt, br. hicCorniick made the following statement at the July 22,1994, Enforcement Conference:

"I believe it is very important with respect to all personnel that on an annual basis one considers the scientific staff end the degree to which they are to be considered for pmmotion." (July 22,1994, Enforcement Conference Transcript at page 133) ,

Ilowever, contrary to his stated policy, Dr. Rhyne has not evaluated, omily or in writing,  ;

any of the scientists in the AENI group (Drs. Morris, Chaudhuri and Zinn) for over a year i (the last evaluations of these individuals were conducted by Dr. Rhyne in September,1993); l nor are any evaluations scheduled. While Dr. Morris was specifically named, there exists no means by which Drs. Chaudhuri and Zinn can detennine if the allegations of "denciency" and "counterpnxluctive actions" apply to them. Employees about whom negative personnel u - _ - - , _ __

I Director, Office of Enforcement December 2,1994 Page 3 statements have been made should not be required to ascertain whether or not they are included in the deficient set via guesswork or a process of elimination.

One of the commitments made in Dr. McConnick's October 28,1994, reply to your Office on behalf of the University was that a new policy governing negative personnel actions taken against MURR staff would be implemented. Regarding this new policy, Mr.

Hoskins, counsel for the University, at the July 22,1994, Enforcement Conference held at Region III Headquaders, stated very clearly:

"I think part of [why] we found ourselves in that situation is we didn't have good documentation about the earlier problems Dr. Rhyne had had with Dr.

Morris, so we couldn't demonstrate as well as we would have liked to have all these prior counseling sessions. We don't want to be in that position again.

We don't want to be up here saying we had good reasons but we can't show you. Next time we want to be able to demonstrate to anybody that there were good reasons for the action without any doubt." (July 22,1994, Enforcement Conference Transcript at page 113-114)

How can we have confidence in the use of this new policy, or the commitment made by the Office of General Counsel for the University when, in response to these very issues, Dr.

Rhyne makes new unfounded allegations against an undefined number of unnamed individuals where the only identifier is that they are members of Dr. Morris's group? We are very concerned about Dr. Rhyne's October 31,1994, reply and request that your Office pursue his new allegations by requesting that he specifically identify: 1) all individuals (based on the Rhyne reply, there is more than one) to whom he is n: ferring; 2) all deficiencies alleged for each individual over what time period the alleged deficiencies existed; 3) all documentation which he has in support of his allegations for each deficiency alleged; 4) the corrective action he seeks for each deficiency, for each individual who he finds deficient; 5) all counterproductive actions he alleges for each individual over what time period the alleged counte productive actions occurred; 6) all documentation which he has in suppon of his allegations of counterproductive actions for each counterproductive action alleged; and 7) the corrective action he seeks for each counterproductive action for each individual he alleges is involved in counterproductive actions.

For a manager, in this case the MURR Director, to state that a group of employees is

" deficient" and engaged in " counterproductive actions" requires that manager to take specific disciplinary actions or be negligent in his managerial duties. According to the commitments  ;

made in writing by Dr. McConnick, on behalf of the University, and the clear statements made by the Office of General Counsel at the Enforcement Conference, the infonnation requested above should not only exist in written fonn, but it should have already been provided to the affected employees. In our specific cases, and to the best of our knowledge

Director, Office of Enforcement December 2,1994 '

Page 4 l

for other members of our group, this has not occurred. Therefore, it is our conclusion that I the new policy requiril d progressive discipline and written warnings appears to be a hollow shell.

l Among his opening remarks at the July 22, 1994, Enforcement Conference, Deputy Regional Administrator Hubert hiiller made the following statement related to the desired workplace climate conducive to reporting safety concerns:

"The record as we see it here is quite to the contrary; that there was not an environment which encouraged bringing forth issues. And without getting into all of the details here in this introduction, it's our view that there was clearly a chilling '

atmosphere or effect from the actions that were taken throughout this year or so that this episode played out." (July 22,1994, Enforcement Conference Transcript at page 8)

It is our intent in this letter to point out that, for some of us, the " chilling atmosphere" still exists and the " episode" is still playing out.

We are agreeable to discussing these matters with you at your request and convenience.

Sincerely yours, f6):M& .fgia2 Lef I .

Connie Baskett Tandm Chaudhuri Senior Research Specialist Research Scientist Yh?b A h/eu, x- '

f hladolyn hiason Vickie Spate Research Specialist Supervisor, Reactor Research I; tbs Attachments (3) l cc: R. DeFayette, NRC Region III l S. Weiss NRC/NRR