ML20138M784
| ML20138M784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138M747 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-783 NUDOCS 9702260204 | |
| Download: ML20138M784 (72) | |
Text
__ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ___ . . _ _ - - - _ . . . . _. .
~
- \ Gfficl01 Trans3ript of Procacdings i
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
Title:
Interview of James Lieberman i
l Docket Number: (not assigned)
Location: Rockville, Maryland i l
. 4 i
- 4 Date: Monday, July 22,1996 4
l l
Work Order No.: NRC-783 Pages 1-67 Q . , . '. .-
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
, 9702260204 970225 PDit ADOCK 05000245 T _. _ PDR
- m. .24._m ua a ._ u .: 22_a.4a4-..a, ._m..a.2,. _w .s a.me. . ___um.... _. .mmu..__a.m.,. 2. .2 4_,m. --.....,,=._.a_....~~~m._m ._.w. _ . - ~ . . .
j e 1
i.
J - trde m i
m e.vuro m u m ,or (Name/Fosition) l g % ("arraedan and Rem far Cc.;;_ "-
22 /4 (he- S~ir>1rk " fo "JPatind" l}
SE l f f w eb.
'
- Nab &W"h"M MO 1
[S 3_ C WMO L in cl d W 'I & iss f I' 1
\ f,, ~7 _ LL M4_-
1 # Vi w rita# " fD " FEvin nHc U i (/ i I
I I
k i -
l t
i i
4 I
i
- > /
4 i
l
. Page of St /
/ ),
M Dat h 1
} Page 3 1
I i
4 4
_ . . - . . - - . . . . - . _ - - - . . _ . - - . - . . . . . - - - . . - ~ ~ . . - ~ . - - . - . . . - - . - . . - .
1 W dy .
} }
s i >
!.e
! ADDENDUM TO NtuYEW OF- d /
- d e'7 N **
l (Nametrosiden) l Eass Unis ca=daa =d a- rae c= ' _
~}
W 10
}O TV1/14 TO J/ ' //g)r *) tT f t* tones 95@ sat o Coso /#st7's eo retosome,o/4to.say , gg, e l 10 /0 $ 7"o*
- V C 'l 8/ / 4 AG.o s*5* sesSAr. };ps4gL h
ff /0 sW st%* ** /) + ,C
- Vst ae ,qrg er J- '
b N J' 4forMi **
- a 7 - de e . ^ ^ *. WJ > ro 6Asee d l s/kork ad 7b n m+, m ,4/ m 4 duE- ~*rm .
l.
k ~ $7"o 6 K.d AW Ie)d 9Y 30& /Y ada su= = 7 & *Y l MdB<r-s 7he of & Mos79a*##se r *2** *7 e on.s- - m s f-s i r ralsmk to 2 dr.u- w.<As w vow , os,s m, l2 3 V Nr od */ pc7" /Vtit/
- i 4L r 2. -2 s crnts Ihs.c tenc /s-rs -s<s7*-2 ss " this aw, 4
6Lsrb} Ads 2- bit}90s- 374*We= *' T I**//M /094 4 hM ///W ^ 5 o "N
_ j k }Ed era *Ad b i 4&- i5 s is a v.e " F tro=6 & ' =s rusat * " uj/sse s- /N ~
1/ H sfX%- 7bshe sq ddt reaf., Y a r * ' '
D 'f3 /0 $7%K sC. */ c v < &s lettt' ss !M C*+6C J
- 96Lo q, e op/sse 't e.ees* w a N "' tenso'r*/
W.P6 4
0 e
. Pase Ld_l sisnatwo M D'*M1 Page 3
- e. . - - - , < . - . .
a-h i
lf t +
ADDENDUM TO DmAYEW OP
~
bI666RMAN 'lfn/9 Q (Name/ Position)
- f.188 Lig ca. Tad = and Ra==aa far c _;_ "--
- I 11 / qC'
- SL w -
- m um . om, y ... -
v -
l
]
l
}
f
- i i
I 1
1 o
(
,t 1
i i
1 1
i 1
i e
4 i
i, .
I
! I i .
4 3
1 y 5 f
- r. Lotj signai b-
{ b m hJE Page 3
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
3 +++++
i 4 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
~
INTERVIEW 6 ------------------------------------x 7 IN THE MATTER OF: :
8 MILLSTONE REVIEW GROUP :
9 ALLEGATIONS & EMPLOYEE CONCERNS : Case File No.
10 INTERVIEW OF JAMES LIEBERMAN : (not assigned) 11 : '
12 ------------------------------------x i
13 Monday, July 22, 1996 i
14 15 Conference Room 1F9 ;
16 One White Flint Plaza 17 11545 Rockville Pike i 18 Rockville, Maryland
- i 19 '
20 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 21 12:00 p.m.
22 23 BEFORE:
24 JOHN HANNON, Team Leader 25 RANDY HUEY, Investigator NuEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERB 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20015 3701 (202) 234 4433
a b
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(12 : 07 p . .n. )
3 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Good afternoon. Tof.ay is 4 July 22, 1996, approximately noon.
5 My name is John Hannon. I am here 0.t the White' Flint Building in Rockville, Maryland.
6 With me is 7 Randy Huey. We're talking with Mr. Jim Lir.berman today as 8
a continuation of the interviews we've bv.en doing looking 9 into the allegations and concerns hand?.ing at Millstone 10 during the last 10 years.
11 We are on a f act-findir,g mi'ssion to figure out 12 what, if anything, went wrong with the process and to try '
13 to develop a database from which we can draw probable root 14 causes and identify potential corrective actions that 15 could be recommended for the N'i.C and Northeast Utilities 16 to improve the process for fuf;ure employee concerns and 17 allegations.
18 Our focus today uill be the enforcement
, 19 practices and policies and p::ocedures. We are looking
- 20 historically at some of the
- ases that have generated some 21 of these questions. None of the questions that we have to 22 ask today have been asked to our knowledge before, but for 23 your purpose, Jim, if they've already been asked and 24 answered, then you can simply refer us to the material.
25 We don't need to revisit any c't that stuff that has NEAL R. G5 TOSS court REPORTERS ANU TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 236 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234-4433
. ., .. .- - - . . . . . ~ . -
3 1 alrsedy bosn on tha public record.
, 2 But to the extent that some of these questions 3 you may have subsequently been asked and answered in the 4 past, you may have additional or different thoughts now t
5 since those reviews were completed. Any comments you may 6
have now related to how well the recommendations of those i
7 review's have been implemented would be appreciated.
8 The interview is being transcribed as have all 9 of the interviews we have conducted to date. We're doing I 10 that for two reasons. One, so we can ask the right 11 questions and followup questions, and pay attention to 12 them and not have to be diverted by notetaking, and also 13 we'll have the clear record of what you said to deliberate i 14 on later.
I 15 The accuracy of the transcript is important, 16 and we will afford you the opportunity to review it and
{
17 make any clarifications or changes to accurately capture 18 what you wanted to say. I'll have a handout at the end of 19 the interview that will describe the process we'll use for 20 that, and our transcript custodian will be contacting you 21 probably next week to arrange to have that done.
22 Do you have any questions before we begin?
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: No, I do not, John.
24 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Okay. Let me ask Randy, i
25 if you would, then begin the questions. i NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCPUSERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 3701 (202) 234-4433
1 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okny. Firot of all, tha *
- j. 2 first question, our review indicated based on the case 3 files that we have reviewed, and some of the individuals 4 that we spoke to in the course of our review, indicated "
5 that some additional attention may be warranted relative 6 to the severity. level of the enforcement process and ;
i 7
ensuring that the severity of the enforcement process is B
sufficient to deter licensees from discrimination.
-9 One example that came to the forefront in that '
10 regard was a May '93 discrimination enforcement action 11 against NU for Millstone discrimination, which involved 12 corporate level NU personnel begging the question of i 13 severity level 1 type enforcement.
14 Sort of looking back and maybe doing some 15 amount of second guessing considering the subsequent 1
16 history of discrimination at NU, we'd be interested in l
{
17 getting your thoughts on two accounts. One, whether more 18 severe enforcement action involving corporate level 19 officers in the company may be warranted in future -
20 discrimination cases, and secondly, we'd be interested in i l
i 21 any thoughts you might have on whether if more severe 22 enforcement action were implemented, would it have some 23 good effects, some positive effects?
24 And maybe you might have some thoughts in that 25 regard relative to the May '93 case, whether had we done NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(205 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 4701 (202) 234-4433
o 1 cnything mora covara, do you think it would hava hed cny
. 2 impact?
3 MR. LIEBERMAN: The .;ay '93 case that you 4 refer to, Randy, is that the enforcement action based on 5 the iscrimination against hM 6 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: That's correct.
7 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. That was a very 8 difficult case. There were approximately nine or 10 9 volumes of testimony in that case. The staff made a 10 considerable effort to review that case. In fact, we even 11 went away for a week with representatives of OGC and NRR 12 and the region to study the case and debate the evidence.
13 We were not of one mind in that case. We 14 weren't of one mind as to who was responsible for the 15 l discrimination. There were views that maybe 16 discrimination did not occur. It was not a simple issue.
17 The premise of your question is that maybe we 18 should have had a higher severity level, or maybe we 19 should have had a higher sanction. We went with a level 20 2, primarily because the individuals involved were not 21 corporate officers. They were corporate officers
~
22 associated with this case. There was a vice president, as 23 I recall, involved. But there were also first- and 24 second-line supervisors involved in the case.
25 We thought, on balance, this was more a middle NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2 % 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
i i !
- , 1 meneg:m nt cnd not corporate manag;mant, and thnt wco why !
2 we had the severity level a 2. I ?.co , in recognition of I 3 the differing views ac to whethc) serimination ccurred I l
4 and the level.
l 5 Level 1 cases I think should be reserved for l l 6 clear cases of very significant violations in the 7 discrimination area where it is clear that corporate 8 management was involved. And that was, as I said, a l 9 difficult case.
l l 10 Would stronger enforcement action have made a j 11 difference with this licensee? I've thought about that. )
1 12 That was $100,000 for the violation; the maximum civil 13 penalty is $100,000 per violation. We had a DFI 14 associated with that case. At the time, we thought the 15 letter and the action we took was very significant. As l
16 you know, since that time we issued, I guess, a $220,000 1 Ey#0 l 17 case for discrimination involving as well as I 18 the subsequent violations there. We also issued recently
)
19 a 3100,000 case with -- involving b' N 1
20 There were other cases that were investigated 21 where we did not find discrimination. This company, on 22 the surface, has told us in various briefings they are 23 doing some good things. On the surface, they may appear 24 to be good things, but they apparently have not gotten to l
l 25 the root cause, really dealt with the problem. If we had
- NEAL R. GROSS i CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
1 o highcr ccnction, would thic plcnt have dons more? I'm 2 not sure. l l
3 I'm not sure with the current management, 4 senior management, corporate officers, even a double or 5 triple civil penalty would have done the job. This 6 company has had if not the most civil penalties in recent 7 years, one of the highest levels if you added up all of I
8 the civil penalties.
{
l 9 And this company I think has a hard time 10 getting the message that we're trying to get. They have 11 difficulty admitting error. So in hindsight, I'm not 12 convinced today that higher civil penalties or stronger 13 action would necessarily have changed things. Clearly, if 14 we got rid of Mr. Fox rnd the other gentlemer. that were l
15 involved, things probably would have changed. I didn't 16 think -- I don't think, as I look back, that we had the 17 evidence to take the action against those corporate 18 officials.
19 Did I get all of the --
20 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Yes.
21 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- questions there for you?
22 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: In that we note that your 23 whistleblower review group had one of their i
( 24 recommendations the. consideration of a higher sanction for 25 wilful-type discrimination, I would assume from that that
. NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N,W.
(202) 23N WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000A1701 (202) 234-4433 l'
i
f
, . 8 1 you ara of tha opinion thnt highar ocnctions, in general, 2 may be warranted and may have a more remedial effect than 3 they would have with Millstone in the timeframe of 1993.
4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, it is true that the !
5 reassessment of the NRC's program for protecting allegers a
6 against discrimination, NUREG-1499, had as a i
l
- 7 recommendation increasing civil penalties for wilful l
4 8 violations and discrimination, those type cases, to 9 $500,000. The Commission did not adopt that J i
10 recommendation in part because of that recommendation. We 11 had another review team that looked at the enforcement i ;
h 12 program, NUREG-1525. And I was the chairman of both of 13 these review teams.
14 The outcome of the enforcement review team was 15 not to recommend a higher civil penalty, because we ;
16 concluded a higher civil penalty is not necessarily the i
17 solution. There is many things that influence the I l
18 sanction or influence the impact of the sanction -- the '
19 adverse publicity, the impact on the money markets, 1
- 20 insurance, NRC attention, the state PUCs. And it's not so 21 much the absolute amount of money, but the relative amount 22 of money that we thought was important.
I 23 To these big companies $500,000 is not 24 necessarily a huge amount of money. I mean, obviously 25 it's a lot to me and you, but to a company that has multi- i l
NEAL R. GROSS :
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR8EPS l 1323 RMODE ?SLAND AVE., N W. i (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000lL3701 (202) 23 6 l
. - . - - . .. . .. . ~ -
l 5
- i. '
1 billion dollaro in ecpitol caosta end in onleo, $500,000 l
! 2 is not so much money. Maybe a million would be better, l
3 maybe $10 million would be better. I'm not sure what the I l 4 a solute amount of money would be to solve the problem. l 5 Clearly, NRC has put more attention in the <
l '
I l 6 area of discrimination, and I'm sure we'll talk about some l 7 of the things that we've done. 1 8 I think.the industry knows of our concerns. I j 1
9 think the industry appreciates the aggravation they can j 10 get into when they have a case involving discrimination 11 and the averse publicity. And I think the most important 12 impact of enforcement is the adverse publicity.
13 Also, getting on the watch list is obviously 14 not a good thing for utilities, and civil penalties help 15 to get them on the watch list. It's not a specific 16 criteria, but in my view if you look back at the licensees 17 who have been on the watch list, you will also see that 18 they are also the ones that have the more -- greater 19 number of civil penalties and the greater number of 20 escalated cases. There is almost a one-to-one 21 relationship. Clearly, these are the plants which are 22 discussed at the senior management meeting. I 23 So civil penalties tell the licensees, when 24 they get several of them, they are heading in that l
l 25 direction. I think that, tc,gether with the publicity, is
! NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433 l
l
_m . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ ._ _
. 1 a significent m2cccg3. Rnrely do I 033 in tha nswspnpar, 2 even when we give out a $50,000 civil penalty, NRC gave 3 too low of a fine, or the fine isn't treated 4 significantly. People are concerned that when their bills 5 go up, or their potential for their bills go up, even by a
)
6 little bit because the entity got a civil penalty, they 7 put adverse pressure on the company. These utilities like 8 to be considered good corporate neighbors, and they want 9 to avoid any sanction.
10 So, you know, I think vigorous civil penalties 11 are better for -- not better, but are more appropriate in 12 the more significant cases. But it's the relative amount 13 which is I think more important, and the frequency of 4
14 getting them, than the absolute amount.
15 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay. Well, you've sort 16 of headed towards the last thing I wanted to ask about.
i
)
17 Relative to severity level and relative to the concept you 18 addressed of negative publicity being one of the chief 19 motivating factors of enforcement, and the relative nature i
20 of the -- what I'll call the level of the enforcement as l l
21 compared to other organizations that are being cited, 22 Millstone has received I guess in your litany that you 23 went through I think three escalated enforcement actions 24 within the timeframe of the review we're doing.
I 25 None of those have been severity level 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2 % 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000A1701 (202) 2 % 4433
1 enforcement actions. Probably tha one that I --
from my i 2 review that came closest was the one we just talked about 3 involving a you share some of your opinion 4 and comment on why isn't a severity -- an increased 5 severity level warranted as a function of the repeated i
6 nature, on an ongoing nature, of discrimination?
i 7 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, when you say " ongoing l 8 nature," do you mean different cases?
l 9 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Yes.
i l 10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, these cases have, you !
-, U b 11 know, separated in time. I think the case, for j i 12 example the most recent c se, is -- let me step back. I 13 believe the ca e occurred prior to th 14 case and when the deed occurred, but came out after the Ey & E% b 15 cas . So to escalate the case because of 16 might not have been supportable because it happe ed 17 before the case. We wouldn't escala e the 18 case because we didn't know about the case.
19 Now comes several years later.
20 involved a contract. Didn't have a corporate 21 management involvement that the other cases had.
22 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: I guess that's where --
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: And I -- I have to be careful OW&
24 here, because the case is not over yet. I don't 25 want to say anything here that will jeopardize --
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200C53701 (202) 234-4433
_. . - . - - . - - . - . - . _ = - . . - - - .. . - .- . . - , ~. - . ~- .. ..
12 4
1 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Wall, let'0 just cpack
]>
l
.. 2 generally.
l
, 3 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- you know, potential 4 enforcement action.
5 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: The general thought I 6 wanted to pursue was, you know, without putting labels or
} 7 specific cases to it, but just a situation where you had 8 one close call on a severity level 1 or 2 that was the l
9 initial case. Then you have another example of l, 10 discrimination at that same facility with that same senior 11 management structure. Then you have a third one at that g 12 same facility with that same senior management structure.
1 4
13 At some point, would it be an -- would it be 1
t 14 an abuse of the enforcement process to consider that .
i l
15 although the investigated specifics of the case didn't l j 16 involve a senior corporate level official? At least that I i'
f 17 was sufficiently done under his watch and with the track I j 18 record, the accumulation of evidence warrants a more 1
i 19 severe enforcement action.
i 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, if you hypothesize a 21 situation where corporate management is not addressing the t
j 22 issues, not attempting to address the issue, and they're 23 condoning future cases, they are condoning cases of
! 24 discrimination --
l 25 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Or even just not being 6
i NEAL R. GROSS j COUM REPOMERS AND TMNSCNSERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000H701 (202) 2364433 I
.I ,
1- succacoful.
4
!* 2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, the trouble with 1 ,
i~
3 successful, these -- these issues don't get turned around I
-4 overnight. These are large organizations. To change a l
5 corporate culture takes time -- to change management 6 philosophies. You know, forget about discrimination, take i 7 a -- just poor performance. You're going to have some
]
8 problems occur as you're trying to fix things. You don't 9 weed it out overnight.
10 Severity level l's have been reserved'for the 11 most extreme cases. Now, severity level 2's, on the other 12 hand, are still very significant.
13 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: I believe there have been 14 severity level 1 --
I seem to recall that we've had 15 severity level 1 discrimination enforcement --
16 MR. LIEBERMAN: We have.
17 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: -- in the past.
18 MR. LIEBERMAN: We have. But it is when we 19 can prove it. If your premise is when a licensee is not 20 taking action, it's just occurring and occurring and 21 they're not acting reasonably, and violations continue, 22 that could be an element to consider an increase in the 23 severity level.
4 24 One problem was at Millstone. We have lots of 25 allegations, lots of issues, lots of investigations. But ]
i NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1' 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433 l l
, . - - - . - . . . . , . -- . - . _ = . - . - - - - . - . . . - . - ~ ~ - - - . . -
. 14 I wa only hava thras ceces, and I think those emues -- ona 1
',- 2 case occurred'in the late '80s, another case occurred in s
i j 3 the early '90s, and another case occurred in -- I'm not ,
4 )
- 4 sure when~the most recent case occurred, '95.or so maybe.
l 5 Given the hundreds of employees they have, l 6 thatin itself may not be the trend to justify the higher 7 severity levels. On the other hand, there is a problem-8 there, and they're not related issues. Maybe I.just see 9 it now.
10 You can't solve this problem just by taking 11 enforcement action case by case by case. We've had 12 reviews. We've known about these issues for a long time.
13 Maybe this plant should have been on the problem plant I 14 list earlier, at least I think so. And I guess others, 15 based on IG investigations, have suggested the same.
16 Discrimination is' sues are really difficult 17 because there is usually two sides to every story. We 18 should have required these -- this licensee to have done 19- outside audits, independent. audits; to try to get an 20 understanding of this problem and where the issues were.
21 I suggested tr.is on at least two occasions to Northeast 22 Utilities when they were giving us briefinga on programs 23 they we're doing, and they chose not to do it.
24 One of the recommendations from the review i 25 team efforts has been to NRC to develop a survey NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSEPS 1323 MHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(302) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000H701 (202) 234 4 433 j
. . ~
1 instrum2nt end davolop a procaso to mascure tha climste.
2 The agency has not adopted that recommendation. Maybe we 3 were rethinking that in more recent days. ,
i 4 We have not been proactive enough to get to 5 the heart of this issue. It's not just enforcement. The I
4 6 real problem is not enforcement, I think. It is more this i d
I 7 cult'ure or attitude, the focus on corrective action and j 8 the lack of taking corrective action, which, you know, we 1
9 are getting a better understanding of as we go through l l
- 10 this.
11 So, in hindsight, could we have taken more 12 enforcement action? Maybe the severity levels might have 13 been higher. The civil penalties were at the maximum for I
14 the violations.
1 15 Should we use the wrongdoer rule more? At the 16 time we considered it, and based on the facts of the cases 17 we didn't think we had the case to use the wrongdoer rule.
18 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay. Well, you've 19 certainly introduced some subjects associated with the 20 problem involving more than just enforcement, and I want 21 to get on to that.
22 John, did you have anything -- more followup 23 on severity level? Okay.
24 Second, our review raised the question of 25 whether NRC enforcement process might be inhibited or side NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200064701 (202) 234-4433
1 track 2d wh3n d3 cling with cignificent gan3ric probisma 2 that have a severe economic impact on a licensee.
3 Examples that were mentioned to us during our review were 4 motor-operated valves and the Rosemount level indicator 4
5 issues.
6 In your view, does the NRC at present, or f
, 7 expect to in the future, to consider economic impact in 8 its enforcement process? ,
I 9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Economic impact in a sense I 10 that by taking an action we will --
11 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Economically affect the 12 licensee, i.e. is there any entering into the NRC's i
13 enforcement thought process what the economic impact might 14 be on the licensee? Taking the case points with NOVs and i
15 Rosemount, we didn't take any enforcement action with any ;
16 licensees because this was a generic issue that took a 17 while to get our hands around and -- l 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Let me answer the 19 question squarely. To my knowledge, I have never made an 20 enforcement decision that took into consideration -- or 21 failed to make an enforcement decision because it may have 22 economic impact on a licensee. I have no vested interest 23 in these plants, and the issue is not whether there's an 24 economic impact.
25 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TI%NSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000lL3701 (202) 234 4433
- ~- - - ., , _
g 1~
1 MR. LIEBERMAN: You know, , hava wantsd to
,. 2 shut down a lot more plants than this agency has shut 3 down, nd'so I don't --
I don't see that as the issue.
4 The issue is the generic aspect. This agency 5 does a very good job in dealing with a violation at a 6 given plant from the enforcement point of view. But as 7 soon as we have the same violation at several plants, then 8 there's a problem. And why is that? Because the premise 9 of the enforcement policy is not punishment, it is not 10 retribution, but it is to provide incentives for licensees 11 to identify and correct violations.
12 So we have an issue at a given plant, and be 13 it fire protection or whatever it may be, and then we take 14 enforcement action. Maybe we take enforcement action in 15 another plant. And then we figure out, hey, many plants 16 have this same problem. The goal isn't just to send your 17 checks in. The goal is to identify these issues and 18 correct them.
19 So then we issue an informaticn notice to a 20 licensee. "You've got this problem. Look for it." And 21 then if they find it and take good corrective action, 22 generally we don't turn around and say, "Give us a check."
23 You know, it's like sending out an information notice. We 24 should have a blank check with it. "We expect you to find 25 this problem. If you find it, send us $50.,000." We don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSERS I323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433
j 18 1 do that. Tha gon1 to to encourega lican0Gsc to id2ntify )
2 and correct problems. ,
l 3 The NOV stuff -- we have taken some A
4 enforcement actions for licensees with NOV issues. We, 5 the agency, has spent a lot of time trying to figure out 6 what the right solution to the problem is. i 7
Rosemount -- we did take an enforcement action 8 against the Rosemount Corporation. The Rosemount is a 9 vendor, not a licensee. Our legal authority for a vendor j 10 is different than with the licensees. I take enforcement l
11 based on inspection findings and recommendations from the j
, 12 regions and NRR. I'm not aware of anyone, you know, i
13 giving us some enforcement cases -- NOVs or Rosemount --
i 14 that we didn't take action on because of, you know, going i
15 back to the economic issue.
b 16 The generic issue is one that we -- we 2
17 struggle with every day, and it's something that we 2
18 probably should develop some guidance how to deal with.
19 Randy, you know, you used to be in Region 5.
- 20 Trojan got the first fire protection one. They got the l
21 first I think EQ one. They got the -- several cases they 22 were the first ones. I think the important thing is to )
23 spread these around so we don't pick on an individual 24 licensee. But if we give a civil penalty to every 25 licensee, or almost every licensee for a given area, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TI%NGCRISERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20015 3701 (202) 2344433
19 1 think thoro'c c problem with tha rsgulatory prococo.
. 2 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: You've answered my 3 question.
4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
5 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Moving on, our review of 6
NRC files noted three different NRC team inspection 7
reports issued between October of '90 and June of '93, which concluded a lack of chilling effect at Millstone.
8 i
9 Again, from your enforcement role, I was interested in 10 your perspective, considering the history of 11 discrimination problems at Millstone, is NRC doing a l
! 12 themselves a disservice, do you think, from the standpoint
, 13 of going on record with findings of non-discrimination i 14 when we're seeing discrimination occur, you know, based on 15 -- basically, based on faulty mechanisms, or apparently 16 faulty mechanisms for sensing the atmosphere of the 17 licensees?
. 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: And the answer to your 19 question is I think yes, and let me explain. I do not
- 20 like these inspections when NRC goes out and interviews 21 workers to ask them if they have a chilling effect. "Do 22 you have this chilling effect?" Obviously, we don't ask a 23 question like that, but we ask a series of questions.
j 24 When the -- if you're a worker and you're 25 really concerned about raising issues, and you're NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 2000 6 3701 (202) 234 4433 1
. 25 1 concernsd about your livelihood and your fcmily cnd all of 2- those things that go into concerns about being 3 discriminated against, and here is someone from the 4 government or a stranger that comes up to you and says, 5 " Hey, are you afraid -- you don't know whether that's 6 going'to get back to your management or whoever. Is your 7 name going to be publicly associated with this?" I think 8 it's very hard to get reliable, honest information from i
2 9 people about this type of thing.
4 i 10 You know, your manhood is being attacked and 11 you're afraid to -- to raise an issue. It's also the way i
1 12 you ask the question. I happened to read the Maine Yankee 13 report on the cultural assessment over the weekend, which 14 I thought was a particularly good one.
15 If you ask a person, "Will you report to your 16 management a failure that would cause a meltdown and 17 jeopardize everyone in the community, including your own 18 health and safety and your family?" I think that's easy.
19 Of course you'd say yes, or I hope you'll say yes.
20 A more difficult question in they are not 21 following this procedure, and if they did it right they're 22 going to have to stop the outage and cost them a week of 23 outage time, and it won't make the plant that much safer 24 but it will at least be in accordance with requirements.
25 That's one where it's -- the impact is more economic with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. J (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 25' adi1 i l
u
' 4 1 little enfoty psyb ck. You mny think twica. Somsona m2y
. 2 think twice before you raise that issue.
3 And so there is a whole series of issues, some 4 more significant than others. So when you ask a person, 5 "Will you raise issues?" I think it depends -- you've got 6 to tie to that the degree of safety significance.
- 7 .
So I don't like the inspections that we do. ;
4 8 That's why one of the things we recommended is to have a
. 9 survey instrument by professionals who are disinterested i 10 in the particular case, neither the NRC nor the licensee, l 11 to do these surveys and get information. And to do that 1
12 frequently or periodically to see if there is improvement )
13 in performance, and I clearly think that needs to be done !
- 14 at Northeast. And I gather they are planning or doing l 15 something in this area, but I don't know the details of 16 what they're doing.
17 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay.
18 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Let me follow that, Jim.
1 19 You indicated that that recommendation had been made. Was
- 20 that in the enforcement NUREG or in the 1499?
21 MR. LIEBERMAN: 1499.
22 INVESTIGATOR, HUEY: It's in 1490.
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: And the staff did not support l 24 that recommendation. We even had an attachment from 25 Batelle that was entitled " Assessing Organizational NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 236 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234-4433
22 I
4 1 Climats of th3 Nuc1Ger Inductry for Employaa's Rsporting 2 of Safety Concerns." And there were some ideas on that 3 issue.
4 TEAM LEADER HANNON: It didn't go anywhere?
5 MR. LIEBERMAN: No. I think it might have 6 been one that we reevaluated over time, and -- but I've
.i 7 lost track of what has happened to that.
8 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Okay. According to the 9 interview I conducted last week in Region 1 with Mr.
10 Kelly, who was the team leader for the 1990 inspection 11 effort that Randy made reference to at Northeast 12 Utilities, there was an attempt at that time to develop a 13 set of questions to assess the culture, and they had 14 support from one of our industrial psychologists named 15 Dolores Morisow in developing those questions. And they 16 interviewed, it's my understanding, over 100 people in the l
17 course of that inspection. ;
18 But there hasn't been any -- to your knowledge "
19 any followon from that, similar work that was done in l
- 20 Region 1 to try to further development of that process?
21 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, there has been. I think 22 there is an inspection module that was developed. I think l
l 23 most recently they used it at St. Lucie. There has been l
24 some effort to develop a more standardized approach.
25 As you know, Randy has done various NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE, N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234-4433 !
_ _ _ . - _ . _ . _ _ . .. ._ _ _ .- _ . _ . . _ _ .m____ _ _ _ . _ . . _ .
4 23 1 incpactions liko thic at -- Pelo Varda comaa to mind.
2 TEAM LEADER HANNON: But I'm understanding 3 also that that was done in the '95 effort at Millstone,*
4 4 -he Anil Goutam effort, which is the third --
5 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I 1
6 TEAM LEADER HANNON: -- one you made reference I
1 7 to, was also done with the current thinking and i 8 development on that -- those techniques. So we still i
9 don't have a viable product.
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: My point is that --
you know, 11 TVA has with their inspector general has -- has done these '
, 1 12 --
tried to do these surveys, too. These are very
, 13 difficult things. I'm not criticizing what we've done. ;
14 What I'm saying is that they are not very helpful in 1
15 getting realistic information because of the nature of the 1
16 beast.
17 Are people being honest with you? I think you j 18 need more than just interviews. I think you need i
19 instruments designed by psychologists where they ask the 20 questions from different perspectives, mixes the questions 4
- 21 with other issues. You know, how is your salary? How is i
22 the work environment? Lots of different things to try to i
- 23 measure climate. It's very difficult to measure climate.
~
24 People sometimes have gripes about the
- 25 company. Any company, there is going to be some people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RMoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20 DOM 701 (202) 234-4433
. I who -- who cra not hrppy. I don't know how m ny p;oplo
, , . 2 are at the Millstone site, but let's say there's several 3 thcusand. One percent of several thousand is still a 4 numcer of folks. And, I mean, do you ever get perfection?
5 Do you ever expect to get everyone to buy in on anything?
6 You know, here at NRC, I don't think you --
7 you know, just people -- you're always going to have some 8 small percentage. The question is, is it all in one 9 group? Is it disbursed around the company? Does it 10 change over time? It's not a simple thing, and I think !
11 that this is an area that we could spend more effort on it i 12 as an agency to develop tools as professionals out there 13 who do these type things.
14 Frankly, I think licensees should be paying 15 for these efforts, and having the responses sent to, y,u 16 know, a blind address, you know, no names. I mean, 17 there's techniques to do these things. I'm not an expert 18 on it, but I don't feel that just interviewing people by 19 government employees is the way to get the real answer.
20 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Well, the NRC obviously by 21 nature is a technical organization, and 50.7 is a really 22 unique regulation in that it really, in my opinion - 2nd 23 I'll state it in the fonn of asking this question -- is 24 that it forces us into an area that is really out of our 25 element and out of our fundamental expertise.
f NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000lL3701 (202) 234-4433
. 4-1 But I would ba interested in your opinion co 2 to is chilling effect the only reason why the NRC is 3 involved in this aspect of, you know, people and the way 4 they think, and the way they feel, and culture, and all of 5 this touchy-feely stuff that we normally don't get 6 involved in?
7 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, you're right.
8 We are good at, you know, nuts and bolts -- gearheads as l
9 Ben Hayes used to say. But it's the people who run these 1 10 plants. It's the management that run -- you know, are 11 involved in these plants. And, you know, what -- if I 12 knew the secret of what r.akes a good plant versus a poor i
13 plant, I wouldn't be working, you know, for the government 14 here. But I'm sure the people issues are a large part of 15 that process.
16 So the issue of discrimination, the -- strike 17 that. The real issue is having the questioning attitude.
18 What we say in our report, 1499, a safety culture, where 19 people are appreciated for. raising issues. Complacency is 20 never acceptable. If you raise issues, you are encouraged 21 to raise issues. You don't have to be right. They'd 22 rather have the issue raised than -- and the person be 23 wrong than not to have the issue raised. You know, it's a 24 management philosophy that I think separates the better 25 licensees, and so now you get the chilling effect.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23M433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20015 3701 (202) 2364433
.o.
. 1 If you heva e picca whsro p2ople crsn't 2 raising issues, where management is not receptive to new 3 ideas or different ideas, if you see your buddy being 4 discriminated against -- and the most difficult -- I don't
- 5 want to be like on a soapbox here, but I've given a lot of 6 thought to this issue. The most difficult thing about 7 discrimination, chilling effect, is it doesn't matter what 8 the true facts are. It doesn't matter whether this person
^
9 was really laid off because he was late for work or wasn't i
10 competent, what not. It's what the rumor mill thinks 11 happened.
12 And so if the people think he was laid off for 13 inappropriate things, they say to themselves, " Hey, should J
14 I raise this issue?" And we're going to talk about the 15 DOL process. Why should I risk my livelihood and my 3
16 family's livelihood to raise an issue when I see what 17 happened to that guy? And that's the chilling effect.
18 You can't measure it, but it's something you have to look i 19 out for and be concerned about.
20 And I think NRC clearly has an appropriate 21 role to weed out and take enforcement when there is 22 discrimination, and be sensitive to these perception 23 issues, and try to have the licensees deal with those 24 issues. And we had some recommendations in the 1499 on 25 that issue. It got into the enforcement manual. The NEAL R. GROSS CouM REPORTERS AND MANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 2000tL3701 (202) 234 4433
27 1 minual chtptGr 8 8 now hna thic ctuff in it.
. 2 And Guy Caputo is now interested in this l 3 issue, because he is'also recognizing that individual !
4 I cases can't solve this problem. And we're going to be ;
5 working wi'th Ed Baker and Guy and starting to track 6 allegations from plant to plant periodically, and try to {
7 see if we can't be a little more proactive to try to focus 8 on this chilling effect in advance of discrimination i 4
1 9 occurring.
l 10 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay.
11 TEAM LEADER HANNON: That leads right into l 12 this issue about the chilling effect, if we could capture I
- 13 that before you --
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
15 TEAM LEADER HANNON: --
move on. That some of 16 the individuals that we interviewed indicated that the 17 chilling effect letter that we issue is of virtually no 18 value, that it doesn't have any impact, and what we should 19 be doing is more aggressive enforcement actions, like 20 after a DOL determination that discrimination has 21 occurred, they suggested that you should require a public 4
22 posting, for example, highlighting the discrimination and 23 the federal prohibitions against continued discrimination.
24 What is your present view of these chilling 25 effect letters? Do you think they're worthwhile? And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS
. 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234 M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 200063M1 (202) 2S4-M33 4
28 1 what oth3r msccurso do you think chould ba considarad?
. 2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. You know, I am the 3 author of this chilling effect letter concept. And in the 4 right cases, they're good. If a licensee hasn't had a 5 discrimination issue for several years, then I think it's 6 appropr'iate . Well, let's go back to why we have them to 7 understand -- understand this.
8 The area office of DOL makes a finding of 9 discrimination. That area office finding is sometimes not 10 worth the paper it is printed on, and even DOL management 11 will tell you that. The problem is they have 30 days by 12 statute to do this investigation. In the first few weeks 13 of that time period they are spending time trying to get a 14 reconciliation between the parties. And if they can't get 15 it, the time left they do the investigation. It may be 16 only a week or two.
17 To deal with discrimination cases, in many of 18 these cases, in two weeks is impossible. To do it in 30 i
19 days is probably impossible. That's why one of our 20 recommendations is -- well, I should also say in OSHA --
21 strike that.
22 Wage and Hour, they do -- Wage and Hour 23 Division has 60,000 complaints or so a year that they have 24 to investigate. Only a few hundred or a hundred are 25 associated with discrimination. In many cases, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
l
- 23 j 1 invaatigntor who doas the Wago and Hour investigation will i i e 2. have never done a whistleblowing case before. And while i
1*'
j j 3 in OSHA, they use a-cadre of people, all they do is 4 whistleblowing investigations. And we have recommended
[
il 5' that DCL transfer the whistleblowing cases to. OSHA, and it I 6 looks like that's going to happen in the fall. !
l 7 That is going to strengthen the quality of the a '
j 8 -- that first report. But they still have to comply with e
- 9 the statute. You know, government agencies like to comply ;
l s
10 with the law, and they have.30 days to do it. We have
- I recommended legislation to extend that investigative time 11 l
1 12 period to four months. I think four months. Or was it l
+
13 three months? But a longer time period to provide for a l l 14 better investigation. Then, we may be more -- or~in a !
'15 better position to rely on the findings of the area l
- 16 office.
- 17 So getting back to the chilling effect letter, i l 18 we have a finding of' discrimination. We don't feel l
{ 19 there's.the quality there to take enforcement, but we had 1
l 20 to do something. TWe just couldn't let it sit there. So
- 21 we said, "Okay. Let's send this letter to the licencee i 22 and say, 'Okay. Here is this finding of discrimination.
i 4
23 You may disagree with it. But what is your view on.the 24 facts? And second, what are you doing to remove any ]
j 25 potential chilling effect from this issue?'" because now i
4
- NEAL R. GROSS COUM REPoMERS AND TRANSCNSERS i I323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. !
l l (204 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20E3701 (202) 23H433 l
~. - - . .- . - --
- . 1 1 comstim2o tha mara iccuenca of the DOL dacicion can cracto
, 2 a chilling effect.
l l
3 Maybe only three or four people knew about l
f 4 this discrimination. But now it is public, and so now 5 people, if they weren't chilled before, they become 6 chilled because they're, "Hm, look what this company has 7 done." So what have they done?
J 8 So when there's only one or two type of cases, 9 it's.a good avenue. Now, when you've got multiple cases, 10 like in the Millstone or Pslo Verde or TVA, using those 11 chilling effect letters are probably not the right thing 12 to do. That was another recommendation in the 1499 to be 13 more proactive, have meetings, use DFIs, and things of 14 this sort, instead of chilling effect letters.
15 And we have that in the manual, but I have to 16 say we -- we may not have been doing that as much as we 17 should be. Chilling effect letters are normally handled 18 by the regions, and I don't get very involved in them. We 19 started tracking chilling effect letters by using EA 20 numbers, so now we can see if a licensee is getting -- you 21 know, the frequency of a licensee receiving these things.
22 And, as you know, we have discussed the Scully matter, and 23 not to use a chilling effect letter in that case but maybe 24 use another approach.
25 So the premise of the issue of chilling effect NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TMNBCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200 5 3701 (202) 234-4433
s.
1 lettero may not b3 tha cppropriate vshicle whan you hnva
', 2 multiple cases. I agree with that.
! 3 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay. We spoke earlier at t
e dr-- length on escalated enforcement actions. I want to 4
5 very briefly touch on the other end of the enforcement 3
6 spectrum, as it relates to being responsive to allegers 7 who come into the NRC. Our review of case files 6
8 identified an instance where an alleger had pointed out a 9 relatively minor problem involving excessive use of 10 overtime.
11 The NRC independently verified the validity of 12 his concern but took no enforcement action. And it 13 appears that the basis for that was that a similar 14 overtime violation had been issued in the recent past, and 15 the licensee hadn't had sufficient opportunity to correct 16 it before the NRC felt appropriately warranted issuing 17 additional enforcement action.
18 Removing yourself a little bit from the rote 19 enforcement of policy, do you view there is any maybe 20 exceptions warranted to normal enforcement action when you l
. 21 are dealing with a situation where an outside licensee 22 employee has come to the NRC, pointed out a valid 23 violation that is a recurring example of a problem that
. 24 we've cited in the past? Should we put any additional i
25 emphasis on maybe going ahead and issuing another i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 3701 (202) 23M433 j I
32 1 citation? or 10 it cppropricts to toka no anforcem:nt
. 2 action?
3 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, I'm not familiar with~
4 this particular issue. I think the question might be how 5 much time has occurred since the previous citation? For 6 example, let's say there was an inspection on day 1, and 7 we issued an NOV. And the licensee said, "Here is what 8 we're going to be doing. We're going to be taking 9 discipline against that supervisor.
We're going to be 10 changing this program, changing that program." And the 11 violation occurred two days later, before they are able to j
12 modify their procedures or what not.
j 13 If it's a clear violation, I mean this is not 14 a judgment call, but there was a mistake made and a 15 licensee is put on notice at the exit, I don't have any 16 problem issuing another citation. If it's an issue where 17 the procedure wasn't so clear, and they had to clarify 18 their procedure, and it's going to take time to do that, 19 that's another thing. Whether we identified it or the 20 alleger identified it I don't think should necessarily 21 make a difference in whether the violation occurred.
22 The question is, did the licensee coa.mit a 23 violation, and was it reasonable for the licensee not to l
l 24 have. committed that violation?
25 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS ;
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23M433 WASHINGTON. O C. 2000b3701 (202) 236 4433 l l
I 33
. l 1 MR. LIEBERMAN: I don't -- I don't look ct tha
. 2 non-escalated cases very much. This, I realize, is a 3 weakness of the program, but it is limited by FTEs. When 4 I do look at the non-escalated cases, I usually get 5 concerned how consistent we are in dealing with'them. For 6 example, at Millstone and Haddam Neck, I think there were 7 many violations that we could have taken more action on, ;
8 and that does concern me.
9 When an alleger identifies the violation to 10 NRC, one could almost say that's the strength of the 11 licensee. Well, it's like QA findings. Is it good --
12 does an effective QA program mean that the QA program is 13 finding violations or not finding violations? If allegers i
l 1
14 are raising issues with us, and they feel comfortable 15 raising issues with us, that suggests there may be an 16 environment where people are encouraged to raise issues.
17 We'd rather raise them -- have them raised to 18 the licensee. But if they want to come to us, that's 19 fine, and we want licensees to let people know that it's 20 okay to come to us. So that may be good.
21 I've seen some cases where I think allegers l 22 withhold information from a company to give it to the NRC j 23 so the company will get a citation. I don't think that's 24 healthy either. We don't want to be manipulated by the 25 process. I think it's fact dependent.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 2000M701 (202) 234 4433
.. . . _ _ . . . _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _- ___.m ..___._m.... _
j
- . ., 1 INVESTIGATOR HUEY
- Okay. .Your commanto era 1
2 helpful.
' . I l
3 Okay. This'is -- the next question is a mind -
f 4 stretching one. Our review developed the question of l i !
5 whether the DOL process has focused the definition of 6 protected activities too narrowly, applying only to the 7 specific employee and not, for example, to his 8 subordinates or family members. We have noticed in our j i
9 review instances where it -- where licensees may have 10 harassed or intimidated concerned employees by targeting 4
11 their subordinates or family members.
i 12 We are interested in your view -- your l 13 comments as to whether the NRC should consider any 1
14 protection of subordinates or family members from l 15 harassment by licensees.
l 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: This really gets to a legal 17 question, what is protected activities? To my knowledge,
{.
18 I don't recall -- well, first of all, protection -- we 19 don't protect employees from harassment. We take action 20 when -- when discrimination occurs. This whole term 21 " protection" is difficult. The remedy is provided by DOL, r
22 but I don't think that is really the focus of your i 23 question. 1 i
I
-24 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: No.
1 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Protected activities is NEAL R. GROSS i CoWM REPoMERS AND TRANSCNSERS t32s RHooE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23644 3 WASHINGTON. D C. 2000H701 (202) 234 4433 5
1 raising icouso. I'm not cwnre of any ecoGo whsre wa've o.
2 been presanted with a est of facto whsra tha cmployco who
./.
3 was engaged in protected activities was gotten to because 4 :f harassment to the family members. For example, 5 employee X raises a concern and his wife also works at the 6 company, and they fired the wife to give a message to the 7 employee. ,
8 My own view is I think that would probably be 9 a violation of the-law. But as I said, to my knowledge, 10 this hasn't come out squarely in a case yet.
11 Harassment is harassment. And if you use 12 harassment by affecting subordinates or family members, I 13 think you can make out a case for discrimination there.
14 As I think about this, there was an issue in one of the 15 cases, but I don't think we concluded discrimination 16 occurred. l 17 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: That's correct, at least 18 in the case I'm thinking about.
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: And in that -- anyway, my 20 thinking of today would be I think you can make a good 21 argument that that would be considered an adverse action, 22 if you can draw the nexus fact-dependent.
23 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Very good. Thank you.
24 The next question is simple and short. Should 25 NRC hold open enforcement conferences for all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHtNGToN. D.C. 200 5 3701 (202) 234-4433
1 diceriminstion ecsas? j 2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Wall, that's a policy quastion 3 that we -- we have a working -- right now, we have a 4 Commission paper due in eight days to the Commission, and i 5 we are giving active consideration to opening enforcement 6 conferences and discrimination cases. In DOL cases, we 7 have been opening cases. In fact, just Friday we had a
! 8 case involving south Texas, two discrimination cases in 9 South Texas that we had to conference on. And we -- we ;
- 10 let the -- call the victim, the person subject to i
11 discrimination, listen in by telephone and their attorneys 12 listen in by telephone. i 1
13 We're considering ways to be more proactive in ;
I 14 that area, especially if it's not based on DOL. And if 15 it's not based on DOL, based on OI. Maybe there's a role 16 to have the employee participate in the enforcement 17 conference- . So after we hear the licensee's perspective, 18 we can hear the employee's perspective and then give the i
19 licensee -- for the licensee to rebut the employee's 20 statement, since they are the ones subject to the a
21 enforcement action. So we get the issues more joined.
4 22 So maybe that's a long-winded yes.
23 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay.
24 TEAM LEADER HANNON: But let me follow that, 25 because that part, having just heard some similar answers NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 from folko in R;gion 1 -- by tha way, I got ona contrnry 2 vicw that wa chouldn't ba htving opcn conferencas,
.i.
3 enforcement conferences on discrimination cases, because 4 it allows the utility the opportunity to retry their case 5 in a different forum outside of the DOL proceeding.
6 MR. LIEBERMAN: Could I just respond to that?
7 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Sure.
8 MR. LIEBERMAN: What we're thinking about --
9 and you're right. And what we've said to licensees in the 10 last two predecisional conferences on DOL cases, that 11 we're not interested in retrying a case. We want to focus 12 on corrective action. If you give us any information that 13 is different from what you gave DOL we want to know about 14 it, and we want to know why you're giving it to us and not 15 to DOL.
16 There are people -- in fact, I'm going to have 17 a differing professional view filed I would expect in the 18 near term. People don't like relying on the DOL case.
I 19 Some of these cases are close calls, and they don't feel ]
20 it's appropriate to take action on a preliminary or a l
21 recommended decision by DOL.
l 22 We accuse people of wrongdoing before the )
I 23 adjudicatory process is completed by -- if we have an open )
24 conference and we release the OI report in advance, we 25 accuse people of wrongdoing before things have been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TPANSCRIBERS ,
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 cdjudicated, b2foro wa hanr th2 oth;r cida of th2 ctory, 2 and unfortunately we don't agree with the OI report, and, 3 you know, there is a down side of that.
4 If the -- where we're heading is if you've 5 gone to DOL, if you've had an ALJ adjudication, maybe we )
6 should forego the enforcement conference and just focus on l 7 corrective action and writing it. If it's an OI case l 8 where.we haven't had a DOL proceeding yet, we are planning 9 about releasing the OI report, and we did that the other 10 day at salem.
11 So parties have the benefit of the OI report.
12 They can use that in the DOL process. We've done that --
13 several cases of this on the recommendaticns from the 14 review team. And then, since the OI report has been 15 released, have an open conference on it.
16 There is pros and cons, but we think there is 17 more pros than cons.
18 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Can you clarify one thing 19 for me? How there could be a case that is proceeding on a 20 discrimination complaint through the OI process, and 21 because of the time limits involved with establishing the 22 DOL rights, that it hasn't been activated in DOL but there 23 is an OI proceeding such that you would be considering an 24 enforcement conference based on an OI finding.
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Because many DOL -- well, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. . ~ -- . _-- . .. . . - . ._.
1 A) ovaryona who comas to un doacn't coms to -- go to DOL.
'~
2 If they feel a discrimination occurred, "I'm sick of the P
3 industry. I'm going'to get out of it. I'm not going to 4 DOL," that's A. B) some of these discrimination issues 5 don't have a great economic impact, and they choose not to 6 go to DOL.
I 7 DOL is a public process. It requires you to 8 hire a lawyer. It requires you to take the initiative.
9 And let me just go to an aside here. And one of our l 10 recommendations is for DOL to be a more activist and 11 litigate the cases or litigate cases where they find 12 discrimination by the area office. So the employee 13 doesn't have to hire the attorney and mortgage the house, 14 and suffer all of that extra financial impact. DOL is 15 changing the process to -- to permit doing that in the 16 right cases. -
17 But going back to the question, some cases are 18 settled. Many cases are settled in the process. So by 19 the time OI completes their review, the case is settled.
20 In some cases -- OI is getting faster now in doing cases 21 -- they have issued their report, or completed their 22 investigation, before the hearing has concluded or before 23 the decision of the ALJ has occurred, and because the ALJ 24 process takes a long time. And to the extent we do that, .
25- the parties can use that information.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 3701 (202) 234-4433
1 I think I've answared your quastion.
,, -2 TEAM LEADER HANNON: That's helpful, because I 3 -- I was under the view that generally, if we had an OI i 4 finding that supported a discrimination complaint, that 5 there would also be the DOL proceeding in parallel. But 6 you've indicated there may be cases that doesn't occur.
7 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right.
8 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Okay.
9 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: We've already touched on 10 application of 50.5, and I don't want to pursue any more 11 generic questions in that regard. Could you either for 12 the record, or subsequent to the interview if you would 13 need to recearch the enforcement files, could you just 14 provide us some examples of current applications of 50.5 15 and discrimination cases?
16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, in some notes thinking 17 about this interview, I put together some cases. Palo 18 Verde, we issued an NOV to a person who was responsible 19 for discrimination.
i 20 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: That's the one I'm -- the -I
, 21 one that I am familiar with.
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. That was Mr. Warriner. l 23 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Right.
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: In South Texas, we issued an ,
, i 25 NOV to a Mr. Balcom for discrimination issues there. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
41 I hsva issusd various letters to psoplo involvsd; you might
- 2 call them a letter of reprimand. I'm not sure what they 3 were entitled, but they certainly weren't compliment 4 letters.
5 At Turkey Point, most recently, Vogtle in 6 several letters, Susquehanna. I think we also issued an 7 NOV in Susquehanna.
8 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: To the individual, j i
9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. These are all letters 10 to -- letters or actions on individuals. Browns Ferry, l
)
11 Comanche Peak, recently we had three letter of reprimand 12 to supervisors. In fact, in that particular case, we !
13 didn't take enforcement action against the company, i
14 because the supervisors were involved in discriminatory )
15 conduct and they -- 5:00 on one afternoon they pulled this 16 person's badge because he was engaged in protected 17 activity, or they thought he was engaged in protected 18 activity.
19 When the vice president -- the senior vice 20 president found out about it the next morning, he quickly 21 directed the badge be reinstated. The individual 22 involved, probably to this day, does not know his badge 23 was pulled for a short time period. And action was --
24 corrective action was taken, and that's the type of 25 performance we're looking for companies to take. So we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEnS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234 4433
u 1 did not iccua cn snforcsmsnt cetionn to compnnios, but wa
,- 2 did issue letters of reprimand and had enforcement 3 conferences with individuals. -
4 And I guess I should also say not only did we 5 have letters and NOVs, we also had several enforcement 6 conferences with individuals where we asked them to 7 explain their actions. We have not issued a -- we have .
8 also had some DFIs, too. We have not issued an order in '
9 recent days to remove someone from license activities, 10 though.
i 11 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Didn't we -- maybe I got 12 lost in the shuffle. I thought with Mr. Warriner we ended 13 up restricting -- I mean, he was voluntarily leaving the 14 industry, but I thought we had -- that was going to be my 15 last question. What is your -- to.your recollection, what 16 is the most significant example of action we've taken up 17 in -- including an order prohibiting --
l 18 MR. LIEBER N : Well, I think in the Warriner ;
19 case, where there was a criminal conviction with the NOV, 20 I think we concluded that the felony conviction, together 21 with the civil penalty of the company, was sufficient.
22 Now, this agency won't take action against individuals.
23 We apply a relatively high standard, the legal standards, 24 preponderance to the evidence. But when we're dealing 25 with individuals, we generally take a relatively high !
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 l i
1 standard bafore wn rcmova comnona from licansa activitico. !
l 2 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: So we have not removed l i
3 someone from license activities as of this --
4 MR. LIEBERMAN: In recent years. You know, I l
5 the very first case before the wrongdoer rule at Davis '
6 Bessie removed a QA manager. That was a clear case wh. e l 7 the QA manager took action against a QC inspector, because I
. 8 the person had -- went over his head raising an issue, and l
9 we removed the QA manager. That was in the late '80s 1
10 before the wrongdoer rule.
u We also have the -- you'll be getting this, 12 but maybe I should just raise it now. The criminal aspect 13 -- a deliberate violation, most of NRC requirements is 1 I 14 also a criminal offense, and industry is well aware of i 15 that. And we had this one criminal conviction. We've had 16 several referrals, and that has some beneficial aspect.
17 When you have a grand -- when you're invited to a grand 1 i 1 18 jury, I'm sure people don't take that lightly.
19 We haven't had a lot of repeat cases where the 1 20 same individuals have been involved in discrimination, so 21 I have to say I think for the most part our enforcement 22 actions have been effective. People don't like going to 23 these conferences. I had one conference that lasted five 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with an individual, and he was in tears. You know, 25 this plant manager took this thing very seriously.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. __ _ _ __ _. _ _ . _ = . _ _ _. _ _
ss j
, , 1 Thace downsizing things which are occurring
,, 2 across the industry -- not easy for them to select 3 employees, and they have to make sure they're not~doing 4 this in a way that discriminates. We have investigated l 1
5 several of these cases, and I think supervisors know that 1
6 there~is 211 and 50.5 and 50.7. And while we're not l 7 taking action and removing people, we are taking actions. I 8 And when the United States Government sends you a letter, 1
9 and your livelihood is in nuclear power, that's considered q l
10 by a lot of people as pretty significant acti'on.
- 11 TEAM LEADER HANNON
- You brought up the
)
12 referral to DOJ, Department of -- by the way, you used an 3 1
I 13 acronym, DFI. I'm not_sure that has been described.
14 Could you -- l 15 MR. LIEBERMAN: DFI is a demand for 1 16 information. It is essentially a show cause order. Tell 17 us why we shouldn't do something. They have to respond in I
! 18 writing under oath. On the basis of that, we decide 19 whether to go forward with a sanction or close it out, or 20 whatever.
21 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Okay. With regard to the 22 referrals to the Department of Justice, it has been 23 indicated to us that some of the people in the alleger 24 community feel that we fail to fulfill our enforcement 25 responsibilities in these cases when we defer them to DOJ, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
. , - , . , + . . p J. .-+ .A*5 L-._ J-A.+, s -.-u. Jt #.L.mL_ - __. 4 A L . .m_ m a_,+
45 4 4
. j 1 bscauso it navar recults in any additionnl substantiva 2 penalty for the licensee and only delays the NRC 3 enforcement process to the point that enforcement is 4 untimely or less severe than it otherwise might have been. ;
l 5 Do you consider that the DOJ referral has any 6 negative impact on NRC enforcement? Has it added any l
7 additional value? You've indicated you thought it did, {,
8 so elaborate on that.
i 9 MR. LIEBERMAN: This is not a choice by the 4 10 NRC. This is a statutory requirement to refer matters to
- 11 the Department of Justice. We had a hearing before 2
12 Senator Glenn in '87, where the issue of DOJ and NRC --
, 13 the referrals of NRC to DOJ came up. We were accused of 14 not providing them cases.
15 I myself was investigated several years ago 16 for writing an analysis that was -- some people viewed'was l
17 designed to -- not to have a case referred to the 18 Department of Justice. So that was in the mid '80s.
19 After that congressional hearing, and I 20 believe there was even a conference report that directed j 21 us to have a memorandum of understanding with the 22 Department of Justice, which I was involved in negotiating 23 -- a good criminal conviction is better than any NRC civil 24 action, in my view. And so if the case is investigated by 25 DOJ, and they prosecute, I think that goes a long way to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
, =
46 1 -- for deterrence.
, 2 It is true that very rarely the cases are 3 investigated, and there is usually a pretty long time --
4 or a long time for the DOJ referral process. Sometimes 5 they work under a five-year statute of limitations for the 6 criminal case. DOJ has done much better over the years.
7 In many cases, we get the declination before the OI report 8 is completed. But in the more significant cases, it does 9 take time.
10 And I think it is an important part of the 11 process because licensees know that deliberate, wilful 12 violation -- discrimination is -- falls in that area. It 13 will be reviewed by the Department of Justice. I think 14 that has a remedial aspect, even if DOJ doesn't prosecute.
15 If they have a grand jury -- in some of the Millstone
/
e 16 cases there were grand juries in the discrimination area.
v 17 That has I think a beneficial aspect to it.
18 I wish it was more timely, but, you know -- ,
.o 19 just like we take it -- when we take action against an g 6
20 individual we want to be right, I think DOJ also feels 6 21 that if they are going to indict someone they want to take 'o 6
9 4 O 22 the time to perfect their cases, too. So I think it is o m g .a a #
23 part of the process -- a tool and a quiver -- and it can 'yg D %
24 ca J help -- help us do a better job.
25 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay. The next question o
NEAL R. GROSS l Co0RT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 .
h
! B
$ u w .
-cW4
!! 46 1 -- for daterrance.
, 2 It is true that very rarely the cases are 3
investigated, and there is usually a pretty long time --
4 or a long time for the DOJ refer' ral process. Sometimes 5- they work under a five-year statute of limitations for the 6 criminal case. DOJ has done much better over the years.
7 In many cases, we get the declination before the OI report 8 is completed. But in the more significant cases, it does 9 take time. I 10 And I think it is an important part of.the 11 process because licensees know that deliberate, wilful 12 violation -- discrimination is -- falls in that area. It 13 will be reviewed by the Department of Justice. I think 14 that has a remedial aspect, even if DOJ doesn't prosecute. j i
15 If they have a grand jury -- in some of the Millstone l 16 cases there were grand juries in the discrimination area. I 17 That has I think a beneficial aspect to it.
18 I wish it was more timely, but, you know --
19 just like we take it --
when we take action against an 20 individual we want to be right, I think DOJ also fr.els 21 that if they are going to indict someone they wr.nt to take 22 the time to perfect their cases, too. So I think it is 23 part of the process -- a tool and a quiver -- and it can 24 help -- help us do a better job.
25 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay. The next question NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
l 47 1 iod2slingwiththatimalinsasccp;ctbowell. Our rcvicw 2
raised a c'..estion of whether some licensees use the DOL-
-o 3 process tc inancially it..imidate and beat employees into 3 4
submission of settlements >ecause of the licensee's 5
relatively unlimited finar.cial resources and legal 6
resources compared to the individual DOL litigant.
7 Do you think that this problem may be '
8 compounded by NRC not aggressively pursuing cases that are 9 ultimately settled, from an enforcement standpoint?
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Why do you say NRC does not 11 pursue cases which are ultimately settled?
12 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: It has been suggested that 13 cases that are settled at a lower level don't come into 14 the NRC arena from the alleger coming directly to the NRC, 15 our only involvement being notification of the 16 discrimination through the DOL process. That absent 17 pressure by the alleger, the individual coming in and 18 pursuing his case personally with the NRC, that we tend to 19 back off from spending much time or consideration on cases 20 that are settled, figuring that if the person doesn't come 21 and complain he must not warrant our effort.
mei l, 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. I believe the 23 case was a case that was settled, and we investigated it 24 anyway.
25 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Of course, he was very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
40
, 1 voen1 in coming to uo comp 1 mining cbout diceriminstion.
, 2 MR. LIEBERMAN: But the policy of the agency 3
-- and some of this is changing -- the enforcement policy 4 says that if a low level supervisor is involved in the 5 discrimination, and it is promptly corrected and settled, 6
settled before the person has to go to the expense of the 7 hearing process, we'll consider that in enforcement 8 action.
9 We've modified the priorities for 10 investigations, and the fact that the case is settled is 11 not a relevant criteria, if it meets the high priority 12 standard. And the Commission has asked us to develop a 13 plan to do investigations independent of DOL in the high 14 priority area, and that was the paper I referred to a few 15 moments ago that's due shortly.
16 But in the DOL area, if all we have is a DOL 17 investigation, and you have a recommended decision, and it 18 goes up to Secretary of Labor and it gets settled in the 19 process, and now it is three years after the evil deed 20 occurred and the case is settled, we don't have a finding 21 of discrimination. For us to then turn around and do an 22 investigation, looking at things that happened two years 23 ago, sometimes is very difficult.
24 In one case, we are looking at the record that 25 DOL developed in adjudication and considering whether we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
49 1 chould teko enforcsmant cetion b sed on that record, not
, 2 the ALJ decision but the record, even though it is 3 settled.
4 The goal is doing the investigation early on, 5 and with the high priority cases we intend to do that, 6 whether or not they settle.
7 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Could you describe where 8 the prioritization is identified? Is it in 8.8?
9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yeah, manual chapter 8.8, 10 where -- I think it's four examples of high priority 11 investigations. It comes out of the recommendations from 12 the NUREG-1499, and I think we are adding a fifth one to 13 it. I don't remember exactly what it is. But our goal in 14 response to the Commission is do a better job, a more 15 timely job, in making sure that those type cases are 16 investigated, and we have reprioritized -- .
17 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Independently.
19 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Yeah.
20 MR. LIEBERMAN: And we have reprioritized the 21 investigations in-house according to that criteria.
22 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Is there a process by 23 which you would obtain information relative to the 24 settlement that might indicate the nature of the dirty 25 deed, as you put it? In other words, if they settle for a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 i
50 1 cmtl1 cmount of monny, it's likely-not a very strong ccco
. 2 there. On the other hand, if it's a large settlement, 1
3 even though it might be obscure to the NRC, there could be {
4 more of an egregious conduct.
4 5 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'm not sure if you can -- if 6 you can say that. You know, it may be what the damages l
7 are in a particular case. It might have been a severe 8 case of discrimination, but there wasn't money lost. For 9 example, a person of -- gets fired and immediately gets 10 another job, say within a week, at a higher salary. If 11 that case goes to a DOL hearing and the employee wins, he 12 still -- or she may still -- he or she may still not get a 13 lot of damages. They may settle the case.
14 There is nuisance values, how good your lawyer 15 is, how egregious the facts look. I mean, there's a lot 16 of things that go into a settlement. So the fact that I i
17 they were settled doesn't necessarily mean that l 18 discrimination occurred. Some licensees have told me, or 19 their attorneys have told me, their policy is to settle 20 discrimination cases.
21 This company, or the companies people have 22 spoken to me about, they say they can't afford to have a 23 discrimination issue on their site. They want to weed it 24 out real quickly. If you remove that potential chilling 25 effect, they are concerned that that may be encouraging NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C, 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
- ._ ~ . - -- .
51 1 othar cmploysso to raise iscuas. But roma lictnacco 2
figure, hey, it's better to do it that way than to have 3
these cases go on for years and simmer and just create 4 problems. So all I'm trying to say is you can't tell 5 necessarily what a settlement means.
6 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: One last question dealing 7 -- focusing on timeliness, and we've already touched to 8 some degree on the timeliness of enforcement actions. -But 9
just to address it again here frontally, considering the 10 lengthy process for completing discrimination 4
11 investigations, is there anything else further than what
- 12 you've already indicated in discussing the previous 13 questions that -- where the NRC should -- could consider 14 some additional measures to improve enforcement action 15 timeliness associated with discrimination cases? '
16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, having more people 17 available in enforcement, more PTEs, would be helpful. My l 18 office is a relatively hardworking office. We have 19 relatively few people in enforcement compared to elsewhere 20 in the agency. More people could help process these cases 21 faster. More attention within the agency would help 22 things go faster. But, you know, if you go --
l 23 discrimination, high priority. How about -- other cases
, 24 are also important.
25 The -- we are looking at working with OI_to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 254-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200C63701 (202) 234 4433
52 1
gat their tranceript into evidsnca early in tha proccco co 2
that when the report is done we are more likely to be 3
ready to go with it, tightening up timeframes, working DOL 4 cases. Changing the enforcement process to have the --
\
5 the individuals involved may speed up the process because 1
- 6 we've had several cases where the person observes the i 7 i enforcement conference and then sends us a letter with all !
8 of the problems, and then the licensee wants to respond to 4
l 9 that, and that just drags these cases out. !
10 So if they are there and the issues are 11 joined, maybe that will quicken the process. We might 12 also learn from the process. I l
13 Getting more OGC support in these cases would 14 be helpful, having OGC closer involved with OI, so that 15 when OI concludes discrimination occurred they will have 16 had OGC input at the front end. So we don't have to start 17 reviewing the issue at that point. Having OGC be involved 18 and assisting the investigators at the front end and 19 scoping the -- the investigation as to what facts may be i
20 needed, again, would be helpful, because OI, you know, is 21 relatively independent. And you get the product at the !
22 end, and there has been times where they proved something 23 is wilful but it wasn't a violation.
24 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Some of these ideas were 25 certainly covered in 1499. Some of them that you're NEAL R. GROSS i court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
53 1 mantioning now I don't recall. Aro thaca --
2 MR. LIEBERMAN: No , these --
3 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: -- new ideas, or are these 4 covered some --
5 MR. LIEBERMAN: No. Some of -- the OGC aspect 6 is -- we couldn't get a consensus to put it in the report.
7 For whatever reason, that issue gets -- being raised, but 8
I nave not found anyone in OGC who has been particularly 9 responsive to -- to that issue.
10 If these are involve Commission papers, that 11 takes an awful -- it takes an awfully big effort to get a 12 Commission paper through the system. We recommend as part-13 of the enforcement review to decrease Commission 14 involvement in certain cases, including actions against 15 individuals. That will save a few months on cases that 16 have to go to the Commission. And we're still working on 17 that effort.
18 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay. You mentioned 19 OE (sic) resources. Do you care to offer any opinion 20 relative to OI resources?
21 MR. LIEBERMAN: No , I think that is something 22 for OI to consider. I would think that they certainly 23 have more investigations than they have staff power to 24 investigate. So -- so one could say a larger effort in 25 that area can't help but to speed up the process, in my NEAL R. GROSS l; COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l
54
.. 1 view.
2 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: One last followthrough on 3 the timeliness aspect'of enforcement in discrimination 4 cases. Could you offer your opinion as to whether. civil l
5 penalties or mitigation of civil penalties is influenced 6 by the long period of time from the occurrence of the 7 discrimination to the actual implementing.of fthe j 8 enforcement?-
9 And I'm asking the question in the context 10 that sometimes it has been such a long time that the 11 licensees had opportunities to take a number of corrective 12 actions that wouldn't have been taken had the enforcement 13 been more timely. Do they perhaps receive inappropriate 14 mitigation for corrective actions just due to the fact 15 that the process is drawn out so long?
16 MR..LIEBERMAN: Okay. There is two issues 17 here. One is the statute of limitations. So if it's
- 18. greater than five years, we can't have a. civil penalty.
19 And we used to have that problem, but that is less of a I
20 problem now because we initiate action based on the ALJ~ j I
21 decisions. We don't wait for that process to be 22 completed. l 23 So we've had some cases recently where the 24- area office found no discrimination. And this is I 25 important to -- to appreciate how difficult these issues NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 3701 (202) 234-4433
- 1. are. Arca offica finds no discrimination. ALJ finds no 2 discrimination. The Secretary finds discrimination. !
3 People say the area offices tend to find discrimination.
4- ALJs, depending on how you look at it, may tend to find 5 it. These are difficult cases. Different people have 6 different views on a set of facts.
7 So if no one has found discrimination until 8 the Secretary of Labor has ruled, sometimes we're out of 9 time and that has happened recently. But I-think your --
I 10 the focus of your question is not so much on statute of i 11 limitations but when licensees have made substantial 12 corrective actions. That can. influence us -- no question.
13 about it -- because we want to focus on corrective action.
- 14 But we also consider have they provided the
- 15 remedy in the individual. Taking good corrective action
- 16 by not providing a remedy in the individual ~doesn't get --
i '
l 17 doesn't'get them mitigation in-the discrimination area.
18 Taking -- providing a remedy after the ALJ concludes
- 19 discrimination occurred doesn't get them that much e
j 20 mitigation.
21 We consider both the site-wide. problem,
'22 chilling effect, as well as the remedy for the individual.
a 23 In the cases that drag out a long time, they generally 1 24 haven't taken the action for the individaal. But if a
25 they've changed management completely, got new VPs and new
}
NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS i
- 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20lXs 3701 (202) 234-4433 i
y v - - - - . . . - - - , ~, - - - - --
--++e-
56 4
\.
- vica procidsnto, it is a totally differsnt oparation.
1 I
1 2
think that's a consideration that might be appropriate, 3 but generally not.
4 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay. Good. I'm glad 5
we've left 20 minutes at least for the last couple of I 6 questions, which I'm particularly interested in your i 7 thoughts on. Our review of the files indicated that in 8 some enforcement cases the licensee paid the fine, but !
l 9 pretty strenuously disagreed with the findings, and facts '
10 would show that they didn't take corrective -- effective 11 corrective actions by virtue of continuing discrimination 12 cases, or findings of discrimination.
13 From your enforcement perspective, do you see 14 additional measures that the NRC, as an integrated agency )
15 -- you know, the region's Office of Enforcement, NRR --
16 anything more that can be done to deal with situations 17 where you have a licensee, you know, paying a civil 18 penalty but really not what I'll say is having religion 19 but wanting to move on, and not aggressively implementing 20 corrective action?
21 You know, they make a good show of it at the 22 enforcement conference, they do the supplication after the 23 civil penalty, but then they stick it up on the shelf and l 24 continue on. Is there something more that the agency can l 25 do in following through after enforcement?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 I*
l
57
- +
.. 1 MR. LIEBERMAN: Lican3Gac don't hDv3 to cgraa
. 2 the violation occurred. If they pay the money, the case 3 is over from a civil penalty point of view. The premise 4 of your question is the recurring issue again. And I i
l 5 presume it goes back to Millstone. And again, we've only 6 had, you know, three actual cases of discrimination there !
7 separated by time.
B But I think it goes back to what we talked 9 about earlier, measuring -- trying to gauge the chilling 10 effect, trying to determine whether the licensee is doing 11 the right things to try to address the root causes of the 12 problem. My office doesn't follow up on corrective i
13 action. You know, I have to admit that. That we look at i
14 what the licensee is proposing, is planning to do, has j 15 done; and we consider that in the decision.
l 16 We consider the region's views on corrective 17 actions. But then it's up to the region to follow up on 18 whether that action's been taken. I 19 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Let me comment here, 20 because I'm concerned that we're miscommunicating. This 1
21 issue came up when we were in Region I last week also and 22 the corrective action aspect was the focus, and the region 23 correctly indicated that they had followed up on the 24 licensee's proposed corrective action for the civil 25 penalty and verified that it had been done.
I NEAL R. GROSS I
court REPoFERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
. __ . . . .- - . -. .= .
58 !
1 .
1 And wh t was -- what wa finally racchsd --
, 2 arrived at was that if you take the view of the alleger ;
3 community, the people there that are wanting to raise 4 issues and make the plant run better and so forth, and .
5 they see a licensee take the position with the agency that !
6 yeah, we'll pay the fine, here's your check, but we didn't l 7 do anything wrong, the message they get from that is there !
8 !
-- we've got to be careful.
9 There's a definite chilling effect -- signal 10 being sent here. And they watch and see wha $t the NRC does 11 about it. And the NRC's reaction to that rebuttal was we i 12 see no further need to debate this issue, thank you for (
13 your check, let's move on. So that there wasn't a 14 recognition on the part of the agency that that signal i 15 they sent was causing a chilling effect. -
16 And that was the subtle part that we finally 17 reached in the discussions in Region I. Because if you --
18 there's no question we followed our process. We verified 19 the corrective action the licensee proposed to take as a ,
20 result of the incident case. But it was more this 21 prevailing view, the signal that was being sent to the 22 population at the plant.
23 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: But again, --
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: But how do you deal with that l 25 issue? I mean, if the licensee in good faith -- I presume NEAL R. GROSS i
CCVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200(6 3701 (202) 234-4433
59 I 1 good faith or whatsvar -- ocyo hsy, wa didn't do it, cnd i
2 we said, you know, you did do it; and we've concluded as - I 3 - you haven't asked for hearings -- discrimination -
4 occurred, you've paid the civil penalty, we've looked at "
5 the corrective action, what can NRC do other than to be -- t 6 keepour eyes open and be looking for problems that 7 requires additional corrective action.
8 I understand the perspective of the allegers.
9 You know, people can go to jail and come out -- you know, 10 going to jail denying they're guilty, come out of jail l l
11 saying hey, I didn't do anything wrong then, you know, and i 12 I still don't think I did anything wrong. The -- our l
l 13 enforcement actions are remedial and they're not punitive.
14 They're not designed for punishment. They're 15 designed to give a message. And the licensee, if they 16 don't hear the message and they're not responsive to that
{
17 message, no doubt will have another violation. And we 18 need to be looking out for that. Maybe we should be more 19 demanding in the corrective action and be monitoring that 20 corrective action or doing these surveys. i 21 And I think it gets back to the surveys and 22 understanding what the climate really is. l 23 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: I think we're making a big 24 circle. I think you --
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: And maybe that'.s the solution.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
OU
' * . 1 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: It'o gons through tha --
, , 2 like my reaction like when you said that the region 3 rightly said they followed up at the expense of being --
4 you know, I don't mean to come across' overly critical l 5 because I'm second guessing a lot of my own things that I 1 6 did out in Region V. But I'm thinking it's more going 7 through the motions of following up on the corrective 8 actions using flawed instruments for trying to sense that j l
9 the corrective action has actually taken place, which 10 takes you all the way around to the beginning where we 11 were talking about of how in the world do we develop some 12 instruments that can effectively measure those things.
13 MR. LIEBERMAN: And maybe we need special 14 inspectors with special skills to look into this area. We 15 have some very good resident inspectors with good j 16 engineering technical skills. But everyone of them are j l
17 not outstanding people persons and they're not management j 18 consultants and management experts. And one of the i
19 findings we had in our review team effort was greater 20 sensitivity to allegers.
21 And they're not always right. Maybe some --
22 maybe most of the time they're wrong. I don't know. I 23 really don't know what the percentages are. But they'll 24 be wrong sometimes. If they're in good faith, that's all 25 we're looking for. And we'll look into it and see if
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 61
. . . I thay're right or wrong.
2 We want issues to be raised. And if you're an 3
inspector and you have lots of things on your plate with, i 4
you know, your modules that you have'to do and now you've 5 got all these allegations and you don't think they're -- i 6
you know, they're correct because of the knowledge you 7 have -- and you have to take all this time in dealing with 8 this issue. It can make it frustrating for an individual
{
1 9 inspector.
{
i 10 And that's why we need to keep on training and '
11 reenforcing the inspectors of the value of allegers and 12 the role they play in the process. And I think we're much 13 better off today than we were five years ago. And you 14 know -- but there's still probably a lot te do, but maybe 15 the type people who work on these teams to try to gauge 1
16 that climate -- we need to have more psychologists and 17 different disciplines than just " engineers."
18 Maybe more industrial engineers than 19 mechanical and nuclear engineers. And we might not have 20 that mix of people within the agency, and that may be 21 something to think about.
22 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: I want to quickly get one 23 last question in that is in this same vein. You mentioned 24 earlier that perception is the -- you didn't phrase it 25 that way, but I'll restate it. Perception is the key to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 3701 (202) 234 4433 i
62 1 chilling offset rcthar than the cetual fcets. In that 2 regard, one last question I wanted to ask that comes close 3 to home with you is in responses to the public, responses 4 to allegers, one alleger in particula'r documented one of 5 his concerns about the NRC's lack of appropriate 6 enforcement action with the 2.206 petition.
7 And we took a pretty litigious, stern response 8 that basically just parroted back our policy, which was 9 that -- you know, if you want something reconsidered under 10 2.206, you're supposed to provide some new information to 11 bear. You didn't provide any, good bye. Thinking again 12 now in the context of the way allegers feel and the 13 feeling with which the NRC has done as much as they might 14 do to make sure that these people feel that they've gotten 15 an appropriate response, is there room for maybe providing 16 more insight and feeding the people more information when 17 it's, you know an individual who is an alleger, who is an 18 individual, who has a significant audience in the employee 19 -- licensee / employee community to maybe go further to 20 assuage their concerns?
21 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, the 2.206 process, the 22 manual chapter -- I don't remember what the number is of 23 the chapter -- provides that what you said that --
24 basically you don't use the 2.206 process to relitigate or 25 reopen enforcement cases. In fact, the enforcement policy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D.c 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l l 63 1 itcalf ccya that if -- you don't recon 2idar en cnforc;m;nt
- 2 action in the absence of significant new information.
I 3 At some point, you have closure on the 4 enforcement action. This was an issu'e that we had a 5 congressional issue, nothing to do with discrimination.
6 At what point do you have closure on enforcement action?
7 You had a set of facts, you reached some judgements, you 8 took an action, and now someone says hey, this should have 9 been a higher action -- big action.
10 We have a case where we went out with a 11 $50,000 penalty and the person thought we shculd have had 12 an $80,000 penalty. We do take a formalistic approach to 13 these type cases because enforcement is judgmental 14 process. And frequently it's a compromise where X wants 15 this penalty, Y wants this penalty. How we arrange the 16 violations -- we make judgements and we make compromises, 17 and it's part of the discretionary -- our process is not l
18 always easily explainable. j 19 And in the case at issue, the enforcement 1
20 action we thought spoke for itself. And we had other !
21 issues to work on. This case took a lot of effort to I 22 reach the action we took. And to write down -- to answer 23 specific questions why we did things on the case, in all 24 honesty, it might be difficult because three people agreed 25 to this violation for X reasons; someone else agreed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2 % 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 2 % 4433
64 1 tha violstion for Y rencon. '
. 2 It's like a Supreme Court decision. Sometimes i
, 3 there's nine separate decisions why they affirmed the case 4 below, each person with a different t'heory. But the f
5 bottom line was they agreed. Enforcement actions are ,
6 sometimes similar. ,
7 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: But I guess it just still 8 leaves me with an unhappy feeling where you have an 9 individual that comes in with the specifics saying you 10 only gave a Level 2. Your letter acknowledged that 11 corporate level officers were involved, and your policy 12 calls for a Level 1 in that instance and you didn't do it; 13 and we only respond you didn't say anything new period.
14 I'm just saying in an instance like that, it 15 seems like it would be in our own best interest to at 16 least offer what insight that there is. I mean, we 17 certainly had insight in the commission paper as to why we 18 didn't go with a Level 1. What would be wrong with 19 sharing that with the individual so at least we have a 20 credible record with the public as to what our rationale 21 was?
22 And it doesn't leave that chilling effect with 23 the individual that the NRC has just stonewalled him.
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, do you think that if we, 25 for example, released the commission paper they gave more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-3701 (202) 234 4433
- ~
65 1 resconing in why wa dicegread with OI or thic or that --
2 that would --
3 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: I wouldn't do that.
4 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- s61ve --
5 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: That would raise more I
6 questions than it would answer. !
7 MR. LIEBERMAN: And so if we condense that i
8 commission paper, it may not solve the problem. And for I i
9 example, if we say well, you know, in this particular 10 case, it was a difficult case and some people thought we 11 shouldn't do this and other people thought we should be -
12 doing that, and we compromised and we did X to get a 13 consensus that we thought the lawyers would defend, the 14 commission would buy, this and that -- I mean, that is a 15 process.
16 And the person receiving that may not be 17 satisfied. We try to put in the letters to the licensee 18 what we think is the message we want the licensee to 19 receive and why we did it. And then we get on the next 20 case. I could have had someone spend a week or two 21 preparing a letter to the individual explaining the case i 22 and get it through the review process and what not.
23 And that would mean the next case would be i
! 24 slowed down'that much more. We only have two FTE's in 25 enforcement for reactor cases. And you know, it's a c NEAL R. GROSS ;
l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
. I 66 I 1 problcm.
2 INVESTIGATOR HUEY: Okay.
1 l
3 MR. LIEBERMAN: You know, I understand the l 4 issue, but the nature of enforcement -- you know, it's 5 like DOJ. If someone gets a sentence -- it should be a 6 longer sentence. You can go to DOJ and say tell us why 7 you didn't have a longer sentence or didn't push for a 8 longer sentence. This is a judgmental process that is not 9 easily explained. And I have a sign in my office that 10 says "If you appreciate the law and you like sausage, you i 11 don't want to see either one being made." l 12 And not to make a joke out of this, there's ;
13 something to be said for that. It is a process that when 14 you explain it out with all its issues, we may take away j 15 from the message that we're trying to give the licensee.
16 Maybe the licensee will say well, you know, the agency 1
17- really wasn't that convinced. Maybe it wasn't all that 18 bad.
19 We don't want to give the wrong message to the 20 licensees either.
21 TEAM LEADER HANNON: Jim, I want to thank you 22 for your time. I'm going to give you this handout that 23 describes the process for viewing the transcript. And 24 Cherie Nagel, our transcript custodian, will be getting in 25 touch with you to do that next week. Appreciate you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433
67
>*. 1 sp2nding tha couple of hours with us todsy.
. 2 It's.been very informative. And it's 3 approximately 2:00 and we'll conclude the interview.
4 (Whereupon, the inteiview was concluded at 5 1:58 p.m.)
6 7
I 8 1 9
10 i
11 j 12 13 I
14 )
I' 15 16 17 i l
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l l
. +
e CERTIFIC&TE i I
. 1 This is to certify that the attached
{
Proceedings before the United States Nuclear '
Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: INTERVIEW OF JAMES LIEBERMAN Docket Number: (NOT ASSIGNED)
Place of Proceeding: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of-the foregoing proceedings.
CHRIS BAKER Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
l i 1 l
NEAL R. GROSS ;
CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, NW (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2 % 4433
.