ML20204J629

Responds to Rept Issued by Ig on 981231 - NRC Staff Handling of Harassment & Intimidation Complaints at Millstone (Case Number 99-01S).Congress Strongly Support NRC Very Successful Efforts at NRC More Open to Accountable to Public

ML20204J629
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	01/12/1999
From:	Dodd C, Gejdenson S, Lieberman J CONGRESS (JOINT & ROTATING COMMITTEES, ETC.)
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20204J583	List: ML20204J577 ML20204J617 ML20204J629
References
NUDOCS 9903300136
Download: ML20204J629 (2)

Text

,

01/12/S9 16:59 -S 16002

> Congit%% of tf)t %lnittb fiiptated -

ElBastington, DC 20515

.r January 12,1999 TheHonorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear ChairmanJackson:

We are writing in response to a report issued by the Inspector General (IG) on December 31,1998 - NRC Staff's Handling of Harassment and Intimidation (H&I) Complaints at ,

Millstone (Case No.99-01S). As you know, the IG initiated an investigation in response to i issues we raised in September 1998. We appreciate your letter ofJanuary 7 which indicates you and the other Commissioners are reviewing this report and will report back to us regarding how the Commission will respond. We urge you to consider several actions to address the shortcomings identified in the decision making process followed by the NRC staff.

In our September letter, we expressed concerned about the conclusion contained id a l Ietter sent by the NRC to employees of Northeast Utilities who were terminated in January 1996.

"Ihe NRC Ictter stated that "although an OIinvestigation was not initiated to examine your specific claim of discrimination, the NRC concluded, based on a generic review ... that you were .

not terminated for having raised safety concems." We believe that this reasoning is logically l flawed. The IG agrees with our assessment stating that "because the NRC did not conduct an i investigation into these allegations, the NRC staff had insufficient information on which to base l this conclusion [that every allegation of discrimination submitted by employees was not  !

substantiated]."

Based on this determination, it is possible that certain individuals were dismissed for raising safety concems regardless of the staff's conclusion to the contrary. As a result, we  !

request an explanation of the steps you will take to ensure that the conclusions concerning j

, harassment and intimidation relating to the January 1996 terminations are substantiated by the facts ofspecific cases.

Although the IG's findings conceming the merits of this investigation are disturbing, we are particularly concemed about the conclusions relating to case 1-96-007. As you know, theIG '

determined that the NRC staff reached agreement in an enforcement conference on December 2, 1997 that there was credible evidence that two to three employees were terminated for raising safety concems. The conference characterized this action as a Severity Level I violation and recommended a civil penalty of S100,000. It also recommended that a Commission paper and Conference Choice letter be drafted. Both actions are significant because they indicate the 9903300136 990318 "' " "

• PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR j

/

01/12/99 17:00 C Ido03 j

- I l

Page 2 i i

1. 1 seriousness of the issue. However, in an enforcement conference held on June 9,1998, the  !

decision made in December 1997 was reversed. The IG concluded that the action taken in June I is largely unsubstantiated by any written or oral record and staff who participated in the June conference can not explain thejustifications supporting the reversal.

This process, which allowed decision makers to proceed without any documentation, is deeply troubling because it goes to the heart ofpublic accountability. It is imperative that independent auditors, Congress, the Commission itself and the public have an explanation which illustrates how diametrically opposed conclusions can be produced from the same set of facts.

1 It is also very troubling that neither you nor the other Commissioners were informed that l the initial decision to proceed with enforcement action -- about which you had been briefed in l December 1997 -had subsequently been changed. Three Commissioners interviewed by the IG l

, stated that they would have expected the staff to inform them of any changes in the plan to take  ;

enforcement action. One stated that this procedure would has e been " good govemment." It is difficult to understand how the Commissioners, who are ultimately responsible to the public and the Congress, can perform adequately if they are not kept informed by staff.

The findings of the IG's repon demonstrate that the process followed in case 1-96-007 had significant flaws and did not follow effective and well-recognized approaches for deciding whether or not to bring enforcement action. Therefore, we request that you provide us with a plan of action for conducting a new review of the facts of the case. It would seem most appropriate that such review be conducted by individuals not previously involved in either enforcement conference relating to this case.

We strongly support your very successful efforts at making the NRC more open and i accountable to the public. We appreciate that you are already reviewing the IG's report and i preparing a response to us. We look forward to hearing hom you soon concerning these importantissues.

Sincerely, e

• 'y

- 7-

.L.,.,...._..... .w.LA. .