Legal

Armed & Atomic: The Mundane Cases of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:33:56 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Since 2005, about 30 investigators in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Investigations (OI) have been granted police powers as Deputy Marshals. As such they have the ability to carry weapons and use police authority. According to the Office of Investigations they needed this power because they have "frequent and direct contact with suspected or convicted criminals." The problem? The overwhelming majority of OI cases involve little to no fieldwork and simply require examining paperwork or processing forms in a regional office.

The issue is of concern because the classification now allows the investigators to get a large salary boost with a 25% premium for law enforcement duties to an average of $130,000 a year and as much as $145,000 for non-managerial staff -- plus the law enforcement officer benefit of early retirement at age 50 and 20 years of service. The OI was originally formed in 1982 to investigate license holders and contractors of the NRC - the group that provides oversight to civilian uses of nuclear technology. Previously, if they suspected criminal wrongdoing they were to notify the Department of Justice who would decide whether or not to open a case.

The OI, supervised by Guy Caputo had its investigators deputized at Caputo's request by the US Marshals service until November 2009. The deputization was required to get police powers for its staff as such special duties are not authorized by Congress. However, their investigators are now allowed to: make arrests, serve search warrants, protect confidential informants, conduct electronic eavesdropping and carry firearms.

One critic from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an engineer who worked at nuclear plants for 17 years before joining the watchdog group, has such a low opinion of OI that he sought unsuccessfully in 1998 to get it disbanded. He also can't think of any reasons the office would need deputy status. "At most, they're looking at white collar crimes," he said.

He finds it particularly galling that OI has used witness protection as a reason to seek deputy status. When he tried to get protection for a Tennessee whistleblower who was receiving threats, the critic said, the NRC "said if they kill him or blow him up, something like that, then we can investigate that and see if that violated any of our regulations. But it's not our job to protect these guys."

The tasks listed in Caputo's letters to the Marshals Service also seem at odds with many of the "Significant Cases" listed in the office's recent annual reports: a guard failing to report his arrest for habitual traffic offenses; the operator of a research reactor modifying equipment without authorization; a doctor lying about a licensing matter; a power plant operator sleeping on the job.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Guy Caputo, Police, US Marshals Service, Deputy Marshal, Law, Legal, Nuclear, Security, Crime, Union of Concerned Scientists, White Collar Crime (all tags)

This story: 6 comments (7 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Subject

pO157.

Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:55:41 PM EST

none

First off, that guy has a serious mustache. He's been watching too many episodes of COPS.

That said, this does seem a bit much for two reason:

The first (and major, IMHO) is that this obviously has the potential for massive government waste. Need a raise that congress will not authorize your workers? Why, get them deputized and they get special law enforcement perks and benefits which were supposed to be reserved only for those doing the most dangerous jobs. Not only is this a waste of our tax dollars (man I LOVE the righteous indignation that comes with just filing a return) but also an affront to those officers who do these dangerous jobs.

Second, what is with the gun carrying, warrant serving, kickass enabling powers? A cursory search reveals one state, NY which grants a crapload of agencies police powers, some more obscure than you would imagine. However, the one example above makes special mention of the fact that employees of many of these agencies aren't likely to encounter the type of rambo-survival situations Mr. Caputo seems to believe his employees will be involved in, thus restricts their ability to carry weapons or do search warrants. I can imagine that some administrative employees will occasionally need some police powers to perform investigations, but if the situation at our nuclear facilities are really bad enough that investigators need GLOCKs then perhaps we have bigger problems.

2

^ 1

Well...

pO157.

Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:33:31 AM EST

none

To kick off discussion...

Would you be cool with one of these pencil pushers living  next door to you and carrying a government issued piece?

Or, are you comfortable with them (theoretically) driving around in some tricked out seizure inducing strobe light Kojack-mobile?

Or is it just the $$ that annoys you?
Or nothing at all.

4

^ 2

"Mission Creep"

uncarved block.

Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:54:08 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

   What's worrisome is not so much the arming and empowering of these officers, but the chance that this same kind of action will become the standard response. Creating another group of government employees who have an incentive to keep what they learn from other agencies- think of the turf battles between the CIA and FBI- is rarely a good idea, and even small instances like this should satisfy a fairly high standard of need before becoming policy.
   The guns and money don't bother me so much as the (apparently) pointless expansion of government power. I'm not much of a libertarian, but I don't think this is the best use of state power either.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

5

^ 4

Re: "Mission Creep"

pO157.

Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:30:35 PM EST

none

You know, I had not thought of that from a logistical standpoint.

I often wondered why they didn't merge all of the federal law enforcement agencies into two or three overall ones, to both cut down on the overhead and avoid the bugaboo that comes from interagency communications.

For example, make the FBI responsible for all criminal investigations, and the US Marshall's service responsible for all building security, facilities security, park policing, executive protection, possibly the border patrol and prisons (sort of like the County sheriff of the government).

Roll all agencies into either one or the other.

How much would that save?

6

^ 5

Re: "Mission Creep"

thefadd.

Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:42:16 PM EST

none

I don't know that it would save a ton. On the one hand, you have lots of small agencies trying to communicate with one another, on the other hand you'd have one large agency so huge it becomes overly bureaucratic. Plus, as an Executive, you actually want multiple law enforcement agencies to keep one another in check. This way, you can play them off one another to serve your own needs and protect you and yours while not allowing any of them to concentrate a large amount power on their own. Thus, the Secret Service, the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, the ATF, the Federal Marshalls, etc. J. Edgar Hoover's ability to concentrate so much power within his office is a mistake no President wants to see again.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

3

^ 2

Re: Well...

thefadd.

Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:04:21 PM EST

none

Well, I have no problem with the guys getting the extra cash and the early retirement benefits, which is what it's mostly likely about politically. I'm sure there are a few guys in the department who would get a hard on the wear a gun but I'm sure there are just as many who don't want the hastle.

Unless this is a major trend, then, of various governmental departments attempting to arm their desk employees I don't really see anything to get all that worked over.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

This story: 6 comments (7 from subqueue)
Post a Comment