ML19259B486
| ML19259B486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/08/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259B487 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902260246 | |
| Download: ML19259B486 (4) | |
Text
1% v
'^ " ' l SEjf,).?.T.ECORD COPY
[h December 8. 1978 q,
f
,2 ) b
[h if
,s m
/
~
b$
l The Honorable Morris K. Udall Subco.cittee on Energy and Environm*nt o [] [] D 9
f Chairnan
(,
's#
Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs
' UU
.'?
House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 Deae Hr. Chaiman:
- . ?,
y.
In response to four letter of September 18, 1978 concerning Lee V.
3 Gossick's testirony on July 29 and August 8,1977, the Cc:: mission has -
M oct to discuss the questions you asked. We have reached the following.
conclusions.
Q l M]
lU 1.
Does the Comission believe that on July 29 and August 8,1977 Mr. Gossick to the best of his ability presented truthful and cocplete testfrony in responding to questions asked by
~
i p-Co::nittee rechers?
We accept Mr. Gossick's position that his testimony was truthful to the es best of his ability, i.e., that what he said was what he believed to be JN correct. In accepting this proposition, we must explicitly acknowledge W
that we are finding the testimony to be truthful in the sense just
'K stated without finding it to be wholly correct. The dictionary contains
'%]/
several definitions of the word truthful, but as we understand the question, it cocprehends an assessment of Mr. Gossick's intention.
h@..
We believe, however, that tha testicony was not co.nplete. At the July 29th hearing, we believe that Mr. Gossick should have been~ more expansive - either by detailing the limits of his knowledge of the ratter, or by clearly defining what he ceant by the word " evidence.' At tf the August Sth hearing, we believe that Mr. Gossick should have limited l ' I, his testfrony to the period covered by the M' F report (post-1958) and, i
J u
in the absence of a clearly stated Cornission view, should not have f 72 fi t
volunteered a Cocnission position on the Apollo /NUMEC catter. Also, he should have indicated that Cocnissioner Gilinsky objected to the flat phrase "no evidence."
u..
k), e, M
}
ma g
..n>-
MC Pont 313 (47H NECM C'240
__,,_.,,7-
- r].- '
~
b6
I'
=
i ~i a
a f
The Honorable Morris K. Udall -4, x
2..
Does the Comission believe that on July 29, 1977 Mr. Gossick' y;.
hid a responsibility to present a core accurate description of ciore consistent with the Conran Task Force report and attach-._
Qi the NRC's state of knowledge about NUMEC; e.g., a statement
,~
~
~
ments thereto?
4
.. ;..y. -
[
The Nuclear Regulatory Coccission is required by law to keep the Congress E-
" fully and currently informed." We have agreed, and Mr. Gossick has
".g, agreed that his testirony fell short of this requirement. Hr. Gossick i
had an obligation to give the Subco:nittee as accurate and full responses to its questions as he was able. Furtherriore, he had an obligation.to prepare himself for his appearance to the best of his ability under the A
circumstances, including familiarizing himself with all relevant documenta-
- y tion such as the Conran Task Force Report and attachrent. We do feel-M that two additional factors warrant consideration --
b, Preparation for the July 29th hearing occurred during a period when Mr. Gossick was "the NRC" -- i.e., in the absence of a
- t. b
- 1?
quorum of Cocnissioners, he assumed responsibility for running the i
[ $O Agency - a position for which he had not been prepared, especially in light of the fact that the ED0's position had not historically been p
involved in or kept familiar with all major actions of the NRC.
g n
The NRC staff tier.bers who prepared questions and answers for
+3 Mr. Gossick believed the "no evidence" statement was correct; the "no evidence" statement had appeared in various earlier documents prepar J. 7/
by the staff.
3.
Therefore, on July 29, 1977, Mr. Gossick was ill-prepared to give a ciore
[
accurate description. We all agree we would prefer he had -- but it is not possible to conclude that en the 29th he should have been prepared to -- there were too many ite=s, particularly focusing on Mr. Conran and 4
allegations about the way he had been trected, for Mr. Gossick to absorb all issues.
s.
3.
Does the Ccmission believe.that Mr. Gossick's testimony on July 29 "M2 and August 8.1977 and his' subsequent response to Cc cittee inquiries
~
(including the testinony on February 27,1978) meets the standards 2.
of performance the Comissicn expects of its Executive Director?
'E
? f ~!
Review by the Comission indicates that Mr. Gossick's testirony did not meet the standards exp=cted of the Executive Director in co:nunicating j.-
with the Congress since ambiguity and inaccuracy have been determined to be included in that testinony. However, we believe the ambiguity and g,
.Y
!M i
6 "P F' W S4 44, f 4 94 4 * *9 '"M M 41 D u..
cow.e=ess=9
.esm.te s e.w rc. s.'.-.+._.r.
!E L
- I T
g-m
- b7
/
3-y OT O
L2 9
The Honorable Morris K. Udall gb
(%
inaccuracy to be attributable in part to institutional failures by the iuclear Regulatory Cocr::ission. In sore respects, the Comission believes Mr. Gossick's testfrony departed from the high standards which we expect f
from the Executive Director. On July 29th he should have detailed so T.7 much of the Apollo /tEEC mtter as he then knew or clearly defined the
.N phrase "no evidence." On August 8th, in the absence of a clearly stated.
E Cornission position, he should not have reflected a Comission position W
cn the Apollo /l&EC matter. On August 2nd there had been a lengthy reeting to review release of the MUF data. At this meeting. Comissioner M
Gilinsky stressed he found "no evidence" unacceptable - that it needed qualification such as "no conclusive evidence." Although Mr. Gossick was at the small meeting that followed, none of the participants is sure that Mr. Gossick was present throughout the entire meeting when Comissioner T
Gilinsky w-nt over the CIA briefing. However, the earlier discussion h
alone should have been enough to alert him to Commissioner Gilinsky's concerns about "no evidence" and he should have rentioned them en August 8th.
y w.
4.
Does the Cornission believe this is [a] matter where disciplinary
-g action is required?
4j 7w In its deliberations on this matter, the Comission has discussed the I *2 s
question of whether disciplinary action is required. We believe that f
apprcpriate actions have already been taken; namely. Mr. Gossick was
'd femally requested to correct the record of the July 29 and August 8 M
1977 hearings. In making this request, the Cocnission infomed
[ 42 f'.M.
Mr. Gossick of its conclusions that his testicony on July 29th was inherently ambiguous and had the potential to mislead, and his 3
August 8th testimony in the matter of evidence of diversion was incorrect.
This was a public repricand. We believe this to be adequate disciplinary
[y action as far as Mr. Gossick is concerned.
r
$* *f In an additional direction to Mr. Gessick, which was also sent to the senior staff, the Cocnission has given specific guidance which reaffirns the Comission's cocnitment to full and complete disclosure and absolute
}4 candor in our relationships with rembers of Congress and its Comittees.
t' g: lll Finally, you requested a clarification of the Comission's instructions a
to f*r. Gossick on the precise canner in which he was to correct the
-5 re cord. On August 11. 1978, a letter was sent to Mr. Gossick requesting C
that he act to correct the records in the two hearings (July and August
- W 1977 hearings). As an enclosure to that lett ' was the remorandum to
$1 Gossick and Office Directors captioned " Testimony Before the Congress."
y Subsequently, on August 16, 1978 Mr. Gossick provided the Comissioners 9
with the two letters he sent to correct the records as we had requested.
. :s Copies of all the documents mer.tiened above are encicsed for infomation.
9GM l p=
s, m.........._._...-........
.,e WWMWEEW@l@MMM METMd
. 68
y O
O
.h Tha Honorable Morris K. Udall.tt I'N w
The Co. mission did not give Mr. Gossick any detailed guidelines for g
accc=plishing this task. If the Subcomittee condered it apprcpriate, jf, the Comission will request Mr. Gossick to submit revised testirnony.
W Mr. Gossick was not reqtasted to correct cny testirnony other than that I
of the July 29 and August 8,1977 hearings, f,
After over a year of review of this issue, we sincerely hope this letter ' '
~
can serve to close these questions. Regarding the much rmre fundamental question as to what, if anything, happened at Apollo /NUMEC, the answers are not clear. The fiRC does nc.t have a direct connection with that incident, although we are interested in leaming lessons from it.
Consequently, the NRC will continue to request information on the L
incident and, this time, keep the Executive Director inforced. Obviously, there are s'any people familiar with the information that exists on this subject who seriously suggest a diversion occurred, and they have i"
argu:nents that do have substance. We have seen no hard proof, one way or the other, but there are various circu=stantial items that keep the
'C question unanswered.
N As you know, Cornissioner Gilinsky has chosen to answer your September 18th Y
letter separately. Further, Co:nissioners Kennedy, Bradford, and I 4
expressed individual views in the context of your February 27, 1978 S
hearing. While concurring in this letter, each of us still holds those
,-.ai separately expressed views as well.
M' Sincerely, EM m
original SiGMi W
,o,,y. u.-
. m Joseph M. Hendrie
'4d
Enclosures:
DISTR 12'ITION:
~
l y]y.
1.
Ltr. 8/11/78 to Gossick agtt.geg, y s w/ encl.
Chron. file h 2.
Ltrs. 8/15/78, Gossick to-Subject file "
v Subec=1ttees SECV
- l. $
OIA cc: The Honorable Robert Bau=an OPA PDR 5#
12/1--
sky abstains from concurrence Br d ord 12/8-,Pe.; gairman Com. Kennedy, Bradford, fo-$iss fo0e'r" li n"s"k y N_
n J'1Le idrr<
.j 12/_1/78 iy, oc -,,, - - om s..............._,...-.._
jg 3
a w s ~ - m..
.. m..
.~ ~
. ~ -
YYNYNY?$$y$+1,h N 5 h $ b W ir& & Il*?L $ $ ' k k 5 5.' h 'N h d s d r' & &
~ '
0 269