ML20151Y857
| ML20151Y857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1998 |
| From: | Dodd C, Gejdenson S, Lieberman J HOUSE OF REP., SENATE |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Y830 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809210060 | |
| Download: ML20151Y857 (2) | |
Text
f uug fg*,
09/01/98 13:23 G 202 225 4977 Congregg of ti)elHuittb siptated 1Eastjington, BC 20515 September 1,1998 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chaltman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 3C'D BY SECYRe: NRC Omce ofInvestigations Reports 1-95-040,1-95-046,1-95-048,1-97-0 147-037,1-96-007,1-96-014,1-96-034, and I-96-048
- gy 93 3 I
Dear Chainnan Jackson:
We understand that the NRC's Office ofinvestigations has recently closed a ser investigations involving harassment and intimidation g
a requirements. We have some serious concerns regarding the process le
[
Accordingly, we are requesting that the Commission itselfreview the proces
.gO Office ofInvestigations with ruspect to these claims, as well as the specific co
.8jy Additionally, we request prompt answers to the following items:
j
- 1) With respect to the 109 employees who were laid offin January 1996, pre el.J suggest that the Office nfinvestigations' detennination that employee y4 raising safety-related issues was made following a "genenc" review of the o go action. Your staff has stated that the NRC did not investigate each individual c Le have been mformed that the NRC conducted a " generic" review and then on
- 8 selected cases. Why did the NRC only investigate a limited number of ca gg for selecting the cases? We have been told that the NRC has concluded that there 85 sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation of discrimination with resp y g-h employees. How could theNRC reach any conclusion about the merits of tho dg u.
3%
investigation was conducted?
- 2) The Office ofInvestigations apparently has concluded that Northe
-2a not provide " false, inaccurate or incomplete information" relating to re 8..
d is the basis for this conclusion, particularly in view of the NRC's previous co j'Edg been violating the technical specifications witl} respect to the refueling requirem g
yy
- 3) We understand that the NRC 05ce ofInvestigations has closed clai
?. 8.
brought by Mr. George Galatis and Mr. George Bettencoun, former Mills 2:33 f
went public with information that Millstone was not in compliance with lim 3g,y An editorialin the nuclear fuel that could be moved into the spent fuel pool during refuelingt 3u g :8 Nm London Day on August 10 stated that Mr. Ernest C. Hadley, counsel to M w.
reported at a public meetirig in Aptil 1996 that he saw the executive su gjj d h.g 9909210060 990911 3
PDR COMMS NRCC mm, CORRESPONDENCE PDR rudGO Ort atfvCLEO 9s96e
n
' 0/01/98 13:24 B202 225 4977 0
o
.s ft form?
concluding that Mr. Galatis was discriminated a h
of Mr. Galatis' allegations? If such a report did e h
i ld hange in the the conclusions? What additional evidence,if any, was discovered that e to any c h Office of conclusions? Was any portion of this report's findings incorporated into any ot er
\\
investigations report?
J We also want to take this opportunity to comment on the NRC's decisi Special Projects Office which has been supervising activities at Mill d h i iti l months. Although much progress has been made, on-going work at Millston h
operation of Unit 3 demand continuous and active supcivision from his office regional office to continue to devote a heightened level of oversight is closed.
Addressing these issues is emeial to continuing to rebuild public 1
oversight process Sincerely, f
e y
'h j
UdSEPH l. LIEBERM N CHRISTOPHER J. DODD United States Senator g
1Jnited States Senator A
~
5 ESDENSON M.ber of Congress l
l l
I l
l l
l l
l