ML19274C842
| ML19274C842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/04/1978 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811280027 | |
| Download: ML19274C842 (46) | |
Text
UNITED ST,ATh j# "%g%
NUCLEAR REGULAYORY COMMISSION s
E'f3 WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 e
- g '
s November 16, 1978 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE ALLEGATIONS October 4, 1978 Pursuant to the Commission's Regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act (10 CFR 9.108(d)), the Commission, on the advice of the General Counsel, determined that the subject meeting record, a tape recording, should be made available to the public.
The tape recording is available on request.
DISCLAIMER This is an unof ficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on October 4, 1978 in the Chairman's Conference Room at 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The me.eting was closed to public attendance and observation.
This transcript was prepared from a tape recording of the meetin'.
It has not been g
corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general information purposes.
It is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may a thoriz K
Samuel J 1k Secretary of e Commision f e,d
.~.
p- ~s.
!R c ~a,, Transcript of Procesdings ih..vf. / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE ALLEGATIONS October 4, 1978 Pages 1-45 Prep'ared by:
C. H. B rown g $ U g ()
S Office of the Secretary
1 1
UNITEb STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 Discussion of Employee Allegations (Closed to Public Attendance) 5 6
7 Chairman's Conference Room 1717 H Street,.N.W.
8 Washington, D.
C.
9 Wednesday, October 4, 1978 10 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m.,
12 Joseph Hendrie, Chairman of the Commission, presiding...
13 14 PRESENT:
15 Chairman Hendrie 16 Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford 17 Commissioner Ahearne 18 ALSO PRESENT:
19 l
J.
Kelley 20 M.
Nordlinger L.
Slaggie 21 22 23 (Note:
This transcript was prepared from a tape recording.)
i 24 !
j l
25 l
I i
i e
il I
4
2 s
l 1
t 1
PR'OCEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commission meets this afternoon 3
for a discussion of the Employee Allegations, specifically those 4
made by Mr. Conran in a letter of March 3, 1978 to Chairman 5
Udall of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.
6 We have before the house a memorandum of recommendations 7
prepared by the General Counsel's Office at our request for them 8
to make such an examination and such recommendations as they 9
were able to make.
10 Why don't I turn it over, Jim, to whichever one of you 11 will speak for it.
12 MR. KELLEY:
I asked ---
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's note for the convenience of
' r.
14 the transcriber that Leo Slaggie is here, Jim Kelley and 15 Marjorie Nordlinger from the Office of the General Counsel.
16 And I trust the transcriber will be able to sort out the 17 Commissioner's voices.
lg COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: At the aid of knowing 19 Commissioner Gilinsky is not amongst us.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, at least at the moment.
21 I think Vic ---
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I got the impression that he is 23 not coming.
I l
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think he is not coming.
25 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, so Commissioner Gilinsky may not i
i
3 I
,s e
1 be with us.
2 MR. SLAGGIE:
Let me note.
I don't have my 300 3
decibel amplifier with me here in this room, so if everybody will 4
speak up a little more than you might, but I hope. people won't 5
end up speaking so loudly that I can hear them comfortably.
6 MR. KELLEY:
Let me just comment, I thought it'would 7
-be useful, Leo brings to this a fresh look.
He hasn't been 8
involved in so many of these earlier chapters and I thought that 9
his line as applied to these papers could give us an objective 10 an analysis as our office was able to produce.
I did review it 11 and sign it off as an office product.
I think it is a good 12 analysis.
It represents, in the first instance, a fresh look 13 at the papers and I thought that would be useful and maybe it 14 will be useful now, ifit'UsyourpleasureforLeotojust 15 summarize what the paper says and where it came out, and where 16 we came out.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good, please do.
18 MR. SLAGGIE:
Okay.
Well, I won't try going through 19 this point-by-point, at least a first.
20 My basic reaction to the Conran letter after I read it 21 over several times, it did, at least take a little bit of 22 studying to get a feeling for the context that it was in, is I
i 23 that, at least on its own terms this letter did not really state l
i 24 any substantive allegations that were sustained by the information!
I i
25 l that was in the letter, at least the kind o.f thing in which we say; i
l l
,I i
!i 1
1:
- l
'l 4
1 so and so has not been candid, and maybe he hasn't been, I don't 2
know, but at least the example cited in this particular letter 3
did not support the charges, if you call them charges, in the 4
letter.
I say, if you can call them charges, because sometimes 5
it is very vague, at least to me, what Conran was talking about, 6
like for example, allegation (b) on page 2, this:
"My efforts 7
to introduce into the recent OGC report, information concerning 8
the earlier investigations were effectively stymied by 9
unexplained administrative difficulties."
10 Now, I don't know what this was all about, and what I 11 had to do was to talk to various other people, mostly OGC 12 attorneys who had been involved and all they could mainly do 13 was speculate what it was.-
And then McTiernan's response, which 14 I guess you all have, that's a fairly b.c.emo, July 31st, '78; 15 also addressed what he believed that Conran was talking about.
16 Now, short of directly talking with Mr. Conran there 17 was no more that I could do except to take what these people had 18 said they thought he was talking about, seemed reasonable to me 19 and I analyzed it in that fashion.
I did not contact Mr. Conran 20 directly.
21 I'm not sure whether this was a good or bad thing to 22 do.
It seemed to me probably the way to approach this was to 1
23 do it as strictly a paper investigation.
i 24 MR. KELLEY:
Can I make a comment in that regard, just
{
25 for background, you will recall that Mr. Conran originally made i
l t
j h
i
}
5
[
l 1
a series of charges orally to OGC and then later asked for 3
a lawyer and was given time and legal assistance within which 3
to substantiate the charges he had made.
And the memos back 4
and forth last spring reflect the progress of that and the up-shot was that Mr. Conran didn't provide anything by way of 5
6 substantiation of his charges.
So he was told by a memorandum 7
from me to him that the Commission, in light of his failure to file anything was going to take the March 3r'd letter as his g
g statement and go from there.
S that I think not asking for further clarification 10 and more paper was reasonable under the circumstances.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Since, in fact, the provision 12 f counsel and additional time was precisely for the p'urpose 13 of getting through the cla8ification and it elicited none from 14 15 MR. SLAGGIE:
Well, with regard to letters, in this 6
letter it is not clear to me that Mr. Conran may or may not be 7
ble to come up with additional evidence on that NUMEC matter, 18 but as far as what he actually alleges here, well, all right, g
for example; allegation one, he is alleging, as I understand it that the OGC Report to Congress did not mention the earlier --
what I will call the McTiernan Report which was a report on
~
j 22 Conran's personnel concerns.
23 l
j Now, you might ask:
Nell, so what does that prove?
I tu i
So in fact it is quite true, the OGC Report did not mention the 25
d 6
h i
l l
1 McTiernan Report and, so what, the point seems to be that the 2
McTiernan Report, at least in Conran's view, was kind of a white-3 wash of the whole thing and that nad the McTiernan Report been 4
given to Congress along with the later OGC Report, which presumably 5
Conran regards as more objective and perhaps less favorable as 6
a whole to high Commission officials, Congress would have seen 7
the contrast between this earlier asserted whitewash and the 8
later more objective report and said: uh-huh, this shows that 9
they were trying to cover up things earlier.
That is the way 10 I interpret this allegation.
He does not say that in so many 11 terms, but that is the interpremation
- well, point one: it is 12 not sustained because Congress knew all about the McTiernan 13 Report, they li,,3 been given it and they have it and that really
,I.
14 takes care of it as far as I c:an see.
Nobody made an ef fort as 1
15 to whether or not the McTiernan Report was a whitewash, and I i
16 have no comment on that eithe r way.
I don't know.
I have read 17 it, but this is a movie I came in in the middle.
I notice some 18 people whc came in at the beginning have decided not to stay 19 until the end.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEAP'JE:
You are describing it as being 21 the middle implies that you think this is the end.
I think 22 that's very optimistic.
j 23 MR. SLAGGIE:
No, I'm not saying that this is the end, l
24 I'm just saying that the film may very well continue.
In view j
i 25 of the history, I hope I may be around at the end.
i i
l i
i l
l
s 7
i H
ll 1
1 Okay, so my comment in the analysis ---
~
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That being not a desire, but 3
rather -- rather, merely an anticipation of hopefully, some 4
longevity.
5 MR. SLAGGIE:
Right.
6 So the -- I guess the conclusion I have here is that 7
since, in fact, nobody attempted to keep the McTiernan Report 8
from Congress, there is just nothing in this allegation that the 9
earlier report is a whitewash, Congress has to ultimately decide 10 for themselves that the sum and substance of this allegation 11 was that McTiernan really failed to inform the subcommittee of 12 an earlier report and that just doesn't seem to be so.
13 The second allegation, the one we have talked about a little earlier where it'das difficult to see what the subject I
14 15 of it was, but apparently Mr. Conran had some difficulty with i
16 his union representative and he felt that he was deprived of the 17 services of his union representative briefly.
The facts seem to 18.
be that McTiernan did what he could, out of self-interest, l
19 probably, to get the union representative back to help Conran.
20 I guess he did, I have no reason to doubt what McTiernan says.
21 So I can't conclude that there is any particular substance to 1,
22 that allegation.
I I
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And there is evidence other I
t 24 than McTiernan's own statements in this regard that he, McTiernan,!
l was attempting to get the guy back to help Conran.
l 25 i
i i
i I
l i
8 t
1 1
MR. SLAGGIE:
Yes, that's right, ar.d then this is 2
substantiated by one of Mr. Fitzgerald's memoranda -- Fitzgerald was 3
present, while the phone call, he heard half of the phone 4
conversation, which is at least consistent with what McTiernan 5
was saying.
6 Well, the final allegation, which is kind of a big 7
-one seems to cast a bit of aspersions on Cliff Smith, and I 8
don ' t know, Mr. Burnett, so I never -- it is Richard or Robert --
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What was the comment about 10 McTiernan also failed to transmit a package of highly pertinent 11 supplemental documentation?
12 MR. SLAGGIE:
Oh, I forgot to
.antion it.
That's 13 correct. They apparently did.
14 What happened here was the the Conran/OGC interview 15 was, I guess, taped or at least a transcript was made of it i
16 and Conran wanted to go over the transcript before it was 17 resubmitted.
ig COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My recollection is there was 19 more than one such interview, each of which was taped.
Isn't 20 that correct?
21 MR. KELLEY:
I am not sure.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There were at least two and I'm i
22 i l
not sure but what it may have been eveh three, ac I recall.
23 l
MR. SLAGGIE:
I don't know.
The story is as it was --- {
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There was more than one, I'm 25 i
j6 I
g o
9 i
I i
1 confident.
~
2 MR. SLAGGIE:
Well, apparently the transcripts were 3
then given to Conran to edit and be sure that they were 4
accurate and in the act of editing them he ma6e additional 5
comments and said, see enclosures one, two and on up to about 6
enclosure 20.
His copy of the edited transcripts was given back 7
'to McTiernan and OGC at a time so close to the deadline that 8
they didn't have a chance to review it.
They threw the whole 9
thing in the package that went of f to Congress.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They simply took Conran's edited 11 version and incorporated it directly without further reference 12 ;
in to this?
13 MR. SLAGGIE:
Tha
's what they say.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY; Okay.
15 Mh. SLAGGIE:
And they did not notice that Conran 16 had added in, reference to a number of enclosures.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Did he include copies of all 13 those references with his returned edited version?
19 MR. SLAGGIE:
That, I don't know.
20 MS. NORDLINGER:
No.
I 21 MR. SLAGGIE:
He did not?
It was McTiernan's job to l
22 scrape them up and make a package ---
l I
23 MS. NORDLINGER:
And I think he delivered them, but i
1 24 l
I don't think it was simultaneous delivery.
I 25 l MR. SLAGGIE:
Well, McTiernan says that once this was I
i i
I i
b
i 10 q
.l
. 'i 4
1 l
pointed out to him,that he had left these enclosures out, he apparently gathered them together and transferred them to 3
Congress within, I guess, just a few days of the time the 4
original package went.
So again, it is the sort of thing that 5
Congress has these things.
There was a delay.
It certainly 6
sounds persuasive to me that's how it turned out and that's the 7
kind of mistake I would have made.
I don't see that there is 8
any evidence in that particular discussion of malfeasance on 9
Mr. McTiernan's part.
10 So again, in my view, the allegation just doesn't 11 sustain the underlying theme of all of this that OGC -- not 12 OGC, but NRC officials were acting in bad faith.
13 The third big al. legation as it applies to Burnett and 14 Smith, apparently suggesting that they were acting in bad faith 15 because in their interview with OGC which then went on to Congress, 16 they implied that apparently they knew nothing about this NUMEC 17 matter prior to August 2nd, 1977, which I believe was the date 18 that Commissioner Gilinsky took them aside into a closet or 19 something and said:
Let me tell you about what went on at 20 the CIA briefing, and 21 MR. KELLEY:
Was that, Leo -- the August 2nd date, I think there was a Commission meeting and a briefing on the 22 j
}
=
23 release of the MUF data rather than Mr..Gilinskv personally 24 taking them aside.
I may be wrong.
j l'
25 j
(Simultaneous voices.)
i!
I I
l 2
i L
I
l ll 11 9
il U
i i
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Both of those things.
2 MR. KELLEY:.
Both things happened?'
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Be careful about what was said, 4
because -- but there were two separate meetings, one following 5
the other.
6 MR. SLAGGIE:
You know, I don't know how much Conran 7
'knows about that, because when you read the -- my source on 8
this is reading the OGC interview reports of Smith and Burnett.
9 And in the unclassified version of those reports, it doesn't 10 emerge with real clarity that Commissioner Gilinsky took these 11 boys aside and said:
Let me tell you about my reservations.
12 That part was taken out of the sanitized version.
What is left 13 in,in both versions and I don't know which one Conran saw, I
,4.
14 presume he saw the unclassied version and may not have seen the i
15 classified version.
i 36 In the unclassified versicn -- well, in both versions, 17 the beginning of Smith's interview anyway, there is a discussion 18 on -- let me see, how did I describe this where Smith is talking 19 about they were preparing responses -- let me check to be sure i
20 I know what I am telling you about here.
21 Yes, when they were working on the MUF Report in early 22 June 1977 and Smith's interview said:
"I was decided to say 23 that there was no evidence of theft because none of them had any l
l evidence."
i 24 j
i 25 Now, in putting myself in Conran's position, I would read i
i l
i i.
12
+
il i
i 1
I this and I would say, here, Smith is saying that in June of 2
1977 he had no evidence that there was any theft from NUMEC, 3
but I, James Conran, h nonth before that submitted to him a 4
long report in which, among other things, I pointed out that I 5
have very strong suspicion that something fishy had happened at 6
NUMEC, therefore, Smith is concealing the f act that he really knew 7
about this.
~
8 The way I have analyzed that is ---
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He knew about what?
He knew 10 about something that was supposed to have -- something fishy 11 dhat was supposed to have happened or that he knew that Conra:t 12 thought that?
That is two different things.
13 MR. SLAGGIE:
Yes.
l I
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY-Which is it?
i 15 MR. KELLEY:
That's in the 6th and I think maybe we 16 were about to make th a t.
17 MR. SLAGGIE:
Yes, that's the point.
I mean, Conran 18 seems to be saying Smith knew that something fishy had happened 19 and he is saying he doesn't have any evidence.
In fact, Smith 20 knew that Conran thought that something fishy had happened and 21 it may very well be at that point 'lat everybody had a feeling 22 that something fishy had happened, but now, I don't want to l
1 l
get into this -- this game of "what does evidence mean?"
l 23 i
But if somebody comes around and says:
I have strong
{
24 suspicion that something fishy has happened at NUMEC, I would say, 25 i
i i
13 j
i I
i 1
what evidence do you have; and he would say, well, I don't have 2
any yet, but I'm trying to dig it up.
And that's the position 3
th at, I think, Smith may very well have been in.
Oh, yes, he 4
knows that Conran has some suspicions, maybe those suspicions 5
are well grounded, but the question of evidence means was there 6
something in addition to Conran's suspic. 2n, something confirming 7
'all of this.
at the time -- I guess when Smith later heard from 8
ma-9 Gilinsky about what had gone on at the CIA briefing, at that point 10 had I been Smith I would have said:
Well, now, it is beginning 11 to sound like I have evidence.
Now, Smith didn't regard it that 12 way, I mean, fairly enough he may say well, it is sti:1 the CIA i
13 is speculating, who knows, but ce.rtainly when he was talking in j
i.
I 14 June 1977, though he knew abou,t Conran's suspicions, I think it 15 was not unreasonable for him to say there was no evidence of it.
16 Whether it was unreasonable we are not to add to that, there is 17 no evidence, but there were certain NRC people who smell a rat.
1S That's a separate question.
19 But as Conran's alleJations in the March' 3rd letter 20 put it, I just don't think they support this insinuation that l
21 Smith was not being candid.
May13 he wasn't being candid, but 22 this doesn' t support it.
i 2~,
I didn't mention the Huberman thing earlier and I better.
24 l
The same point, really, seems to be that Conran said, here, I l
95 talked to Ben Huberman and told him about my suspicions and he i
i I
i 3
l
U 14 i
n i
.i il i
tl said he would tell Chairman Anders about this, but s till, these i
2 no-evidence statements came out.
And it seems to me, from what 3
I have read here, that Mr. Conran is equating his suspicions 4
with evidence and anyone to whom he has communicated his 5
suspicions is now charged with having evidence of something wrong 6
at NUMEC.
And if that's the case, I really think that is a 7
distortion, but it is certainly fair enough for people having 8
heard nothing, except what Conran had to say, they hadn't heard 9
any evidence.
So maybe they ought to add, although somebody has 10 told me of his suspicions.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, you know, I understand what
,9 you are saying, Leo, but could you pursue that a little bit, l
{
I because you have said that twice now, although some -- you know --i J
e.
I i
h such an individual might well have added: I don't have any evidence, but I do know about somebody's suspicion.
Wnat obligation do you feel that entails?
You know, how significant is that -- would such an obligation be?
Doesn't it depend upon
- 1.,/
l i
whether the individual who has the suspicions would have any 13 I
real reason to have them?
19 MR. SLAGGIE:
Certainly.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or would be in a position to 21 8
know something, you know, because after all, you know, the local 22
! telephone operator can go out and say,'" Boy did you know."
23 14 You know, what are you going to do?
You have got to write that h
i i,
l down so that the next time you say anything on that subject you i
'~
jIhave to say, but, however, you know, the local telephone operator d
t
15 j
il i
h
~
n i
4 i
li I
1 I is concerned abou i s..
We need to be careful about what we I
2 are saying here, certainly.
I 3
MR. SLAGGIE:
It is kind of a spectrum.
If somebody f
4 in the bus says, " Hey, you work for the NRC.
I've got a 5
suspicion that those nuclear plants aren' t designed safely. "
6 I would say, "Well, yes."
However, if somebody from the staff 7
calls me up from a reasonably high level and say, I heve got a g
sneaking suspicion that nuclear plants aren't designed safely, even though that fellow may not be the head. of Research or the 9
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, I might think maybe I ought 10 investigate a little bit more thoroughly into this to see what his suspicions are based on.
I don't know what Conran's suspicions are based on.
i 13 l
j i I haven't read in to this fhat much.
j MR. KELLEY:
Does this have a bearing?
Am I not
_1 :
l correct in thinking that what Conran was saying at that time l
10 to Smith and Burnett, he had previously said to the Mattson i
17 l
Task Force?
Is that essentially right?
l 18 l
MR. SLAGGIE:
Yes, that's my imoression.
The Mattson 19 I
Task Force ---
20 i
MR. KELLEY:
The Mattson Task Force had looked into l
l 1
21 l
i j
these concerns and had reported to the Commission.
So does 22 j, that have a bearing on the reasonableness of Smith and Burnett H
~~
h later on, not doing anything when Conran comes back telling them
'a ii,something he has previously told the Mattson Task Force.
That 1
e seems to me is significant in the light of the comment you O
e
'nl
.i 16 j
i f
e I
e i
1 are making.
If I'm correct.
I think that's correct.
l 2
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that's correct.
I think 3
that is sequentially correct. Is that your recollection, Marjorie, 4
of the sequence?
It is mine.
5 MS. NORDLINGER:
Well, I think that some of tne things 6
that Conran suggests that he talked to Burnett about, possibly are 7
'not in some of the Mattson Task Force.
I'm ;at really sure about g
th at.
I'd have to double check that.
I think that his of fer to introduce, I believe, it seas 9
Mr. Burnett to someone from the FBI, with '.;hom he could speak 10 l
and ascertain additional facts, was perhaps not in front of the Mattson Task Force.
MR. SLAGGIE:
Yes, that's a fair point.
If somebody
,,la
!l had come to me and said: R$y, I have got you an interview with a l
i 4
guy from the FBI that will tell you more about this, you know, 15 l
it is Burnett's argument and, really, Smith's argument also, 16 always they say, well, there can't really have been anything to 17 i
this because the Commission would have told me if there was.
1C l
l I don't have any real cnswer to that.
That seems to l9 be not entirely a disingen ous statement.
20 COMMISSIGNER BRADFORD:
Where does the list of other o,
~~
ostensible diversion fit in to all of this?
That wasn't part 22 j
of Jim's March 3rd letter to Udall of the various concerns n,
j Conran raised.
Where does that one arise?
The allegation
-~
4
!! that there are other ---
CEARMAN HENDRIE: It appeared in the July 29th q
Us
1 17
- i
=
4 4
I i
i I
,i testimony.
Conran was there, Cochran, Gossick and maybe some 2
other people.
Conran said there were other instances than the 3
NUMEC.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why did we have. Cliff 5
responding to that as recently as May or June?
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Because the Inquiry Board
- Tid 7
'to us: Look, Commission, one of tl e threads that lies unraveled and g
unclipped is the Conran assertions that there have been other 9
instances that people haven' t payed any attention to and you l
O l might consider cropping that up.
So one of the things --
one of their recommendations ---
7 COMMISSIOhER KENNEDY:
-- is the OGC/OIA thing.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- and we then asked staff to go j
h 4.
i back and pick those things up and to gather up that thread, as it were -- and that is the source of that recent activity.
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And that has been transmitted 16 to the committee as part of our earlier response?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
COMMISSIGNER BRADFORD:
So that's not ---
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, the list itself is still ---
20 l
MR. KELLEY:
The staff paper ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- The staff paper with the list is 22 l
j still working, I believe ---
9, 1
~~
li MR. KELLEY:
But it is pretty close to on your desk.
~'
hTherewasastaffpaper,quitelengthy, like an inch thick, p
1 generated earlier in the summer which went bing, bing, bing, this h"
il
i 18 p
l lt o
I 1
instance and that instance and then an explanation went to the 2
file.
But it came up, as I recall, partly classified.
And 3
there were some other aspects of it.
The Commission then sent 4
a memo back saying, please do the following to this paper, including 5
declassifying it as much as you can and there is now a paper 6
back up that you are going to get in a day or two if you 7
got it today, maybe, which is a version that can go in the PDR, g
or at least that is the recommendation from Cliff Smith.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's right.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And the earlier one too, was put in the PDR.
3 _,
j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right, right.
2 HA A
HN e ear er ne, y u remem er, was 13 q:
l a the wonderful nuclear -- some of the stuf f they worked on from t
,,1, Conran was classified, but they had some pages that had been 1:
copied from classified documents that weren' t marked that way lo, and the staf f thought they weren't classified.
The staff had 17 j
i an 2nclassified document circulating around.
Either it or 18 I
conclusions drawn from it leaked across the street, and I get 19
{
this wonderful letter from Tom Cochran saying the analysis your 20 staff is taking is wrong, you know, I had an analysis or his l
l 21 j
critique long before the staff paper arrived.
And then later, 22 l
the staf f discovered what -- they discovered it should have been 9:
!f classified and they probably went around taking back al'1 these
~~
'l O
" unclassified pieces of paper and stamping classified on them.
COMMISSIGNER BRADFORD:
But they didn't get the documents 3
e 4
aj 19 1
I 4
I back.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that was the problem.
Conran 3
was saying how come I have just been told this thing is classified' 4
when, you know, when it was an unclassified version being worked 5
on.
So I don' t know whether we ever got that straight.
Rarjorie 6
was trying to explain all of that some place or other, you know.
7 MS. NORDLINGER:
I think it is perfectly straight now.
~
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, I hope so.
9 Anyway, it was wonderfully confusing, but that was the 10 understanding, anyway, which is, in a way, almos t apart from these allegations.
i 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Not clearly.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let's see, further?
I 3
l 3
i e
11 i
MR. KELLEY:
That's the burden of what you had to say, j
I think, wasn't it Leo?
1_
i 1
6
~'
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Your memorandum makes out that l
l l
l if the Commission finds the OGC analysis, which comment their
_s i
memorandum as has been discussed here to be satisfactory, the 13 h
Il Commission might consider it appropriate to respond to the i
19 i
i subcommittee. We do owe the subcommittee some statement on the 20 March 3rd letter.
We have told them we are considering it and l
I 21 i
still considering it.
I
)
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Have they formally asked?
23 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They wrote us a letter.
0 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ye',
they have formally asked, oh, m=
n j these many moons ago and I think we, in various letters, we say:
1 1
i
II 20 1
and by the way, we are still working on that March 3rd letter.
2 So it is clearly an open -- it is a due bill that lies before us.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And the OGC memorandum suggests 5
that we might want to respond to the subcommittee by submitting 6
a copy of the OGC ana]7 sis with a brief covering letter from the 7
Commission adopting its conclusions.
I presume that we judged 8
that was the direction that we wanted to go, then if you are 9
willing to try to run up a draf t on the cover letter, as 10 well as -- let me see whether there is any editing needed in 11 here.
12 MR. KELLEY:
The use of the word " conclusions" in 13 that phrase, " reasoning and conslusions" was advertent.
This 14 sort of thing is so judgmental it seems to me that any person 15 reading this stuff would write this analysis somewhat differently.
16 It seems to me that with a transmittal that says you essentially 17 agree with the bottom line of this analysis would be something 18 that if you do, would be the point of view you could take.
I I
19 '
think it is hard to get anybody to agree with every line, but 20 I don't mean you have to write a transmittal that says that.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
And we would -- that would be 22 a Letter of Transmittal to the subcommittee, capies to i
23 l McTiernan, Smith, Burnett, Conran and the Public Document Room, l
i i
24 yaweekafteritgoesuptothecommittee---
l
'o i
I!
F JMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Conran's March 3rd letter went l
25 l
i also -- his study is dif ferent -- a Letter of Transmittal to the o
f
1
[
21 I
n
'l I
- I I
I Dingell committee.
Did.we ever hear from them that they 2
ever received it?
3 MR. KELLEY:
Did ve?
I would think that we should 4
send him one too, since he vas copied with it, but, no, I think 5
not and I don' t know that we have an independent committment to 6
him to respond.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't recall any discussion in 3
the letter ---
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It would seem to me that since 10 he has a copy of the letter, since we are doing this and submitting it to Mr. Udall a copy to him would be a reasonable yy l
1 urtesy.
2 l
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I think, in any case a A.
transmissien such as this to the Udall subcommittee with copies to be made available to the other oversight Fabcommittees, j
in any case, is a perfectly routine matter.
I 16 How does that course of action strike you?
17 l
Let me file my comments, first.
I recommend it to 18 i
the Commission and I support it and I recommend it.
We will, 19 I
of course, get a chance to look at the draft letter.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no basis for disagreeing l 21 with it.
I guess I still have a vague sense of unease about l
l f
the overall sequence and about wrapping up the Conran matter.
~~
e:
!.ll Mr. Conran had a complaint entirely apart from the OGC/OIA
~~
H inquiries, on the other hand, we have already basically said i!
y as much as we are likely to say about the OGC/OIA inquiry itself,
,i l
't
D 4
4 4
22
['
i
.l i
I I:
i 1
and granted, we still have further responses in terms of what 2
we are going to do about what's going to haopen. But I don't find 3
any fault with the factual request or the facts in here, the 4
assessment and conclusions that are in the OGC memorandum, and we 5
still do owe a response.
I suppose my trepidation, basically stems 6
from the fact that I'm sure'it won't stop here, I'm afraid.
We 7
would like to find some way to anticipate it headon -- the 8
inevitable next round of further facts, further allegations, 9
further time spent ---
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My own comment was going to be 11 jcst precisely that concern.
It seems to me that something might 12 be said for having Mr. Conran comment on this paper, and to the 13 extent that he has 27 more. allegations that we could talk with 14 coming up.
To the extent that we do not, we are going to get 15 another letter from Mr. Udall with another set of 27 questions, I 16 think, which will be originated with Mr. Conran and maybe somebody, 17 based upon Mr. Conran's concerns. And if so, we can put those thing!
s 18 once and for all to rest as best we can.
I think it would head 19 off one more excha e.
20 I agree with Peter, I don't know how you head it all up, 21 but at least the man made allegations,and the one flaw, it seems 1
22 to me, in this whole proposition is that none of that -- that he 23 was not consulted at all in the process of drafting the report.
24 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That does stem, I think, directly; i
j! from his not having responded to our earlier demand.
25 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I understand that.
I understand y
i o
0 23 9
i i
4 li l
l l
1 that.
i 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it is not helpful to go back 3
to Conran.
He may very well chcose to write us a letter or the 4
Congress a letter or suggest that Congress write us a letter.
5 He can do what he pleases, but repeatedly down the last couple of 6
years, the Commission and its officers have attempted to have 7
'Conran define in any finite fashion his concerns for the particula t g
area and he consistently is unable to do it.
If you ask him for l
9 a report on this, you will be told he can't do that without j
u 10 access to the classified file, a safe to keep it in and a 11 secretary to keep his notes and unlimited time and a union representative to
'.t with him and it will go on indefinitely.
2 We will come, once again then to a time when we say, Okay, you
_a have got three weeks and that's it, and the thing will just
'l go on indefinitely.
l
~'
\\
{
One of the aspects of this has been the Commission's l
Ac need to get the thing enunciated in a form that is in detail, l
17 good.
Fortunately, his March 3rd letter seemed to him to be 13 l
l sufficiently explicit to constitute his statement on these l9 allegations.
And he was unable in spite of all kinds of 20 i
leeway and assistance to get anything else on the paper.
We have; 21 dealt with it now in the sense that we have accumulated the 22 information.
We have looked at it some ourselves and asked the I
23 hp General Counsel's office to study it.
And now to go and ask H
Conran for his comment on the draft analysis ---
0; i.
y COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But you see ---
- i i!
i
]
24 1
i
- j If i
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess, it could just go on l
2 for ever.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
the problem with all of that 4
is none of that appears in what would be sent to the Congress.
5 The fundamental point, which we are now raising as to why Mr.
6 Conran has not.yet been consulted on this matter, doesn't appear 7
here.
MR. KELLEY:
Well, I think that all these ---
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It coulo in the cover letter.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's fine.
But if we did that --
yg MR. KELLEY:
The cover letter could bring out the fact that he was given time and an opportunity to substantiate his charges and didn't do so, we felt that we would take in i
la I the March 3rd.'_etter as c $stituting ---
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
To which he offered no 15 objection, or did he?
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, actually ---
l 17 l
I, MR. KELLEY:
No, and only one other comment, I think, 13 h
bears on this.
There is in my mind a fairness considersation l
1,9
~_
with regard to Smith, Burnett, McTiernan, whose_ integrity had
[ been publicly questioned by 20 Conran.
And I know, from talking i
21 l with all three and I suspect that all of you, maybe have talked ce I
to some or all of them.
They feel verp deeply about this.
I,
~~
d McTiernan retired feeling very bitter and angry.
Smith is h about to leave once this is wrapped up, and they want the J
a Commission to come to grips with it.
And if you go back for
'~
- I
.i N
i
1 25 1
!}
i!
i 4
l i
another rou i, I think it is going to be harder.
l 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess my position on it 3
wnuld be that at the present time Conran has to feel somewhat 4
vindicated in that McTiernan has left, Smith is about to leave.
5 So he has gotten rid of, in a way, those two individuals who 6
were heavily involved in the situation.
The ---
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Or at least they are gone.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I'm saying how he nignt feel.
9 There is a fairly widespread government acceptance 10 that its previous position shouldn't have been so positive.
11 And a number of statements have obviously been made to relax 12 the positive no-evidence situation.
But I -- I never talked to 13 Conran, never talked to McTiernan, never even met either of them.
4 14
- But I would agree with Joe's ppsition.
But I think going back, l
i
.again, my feeling just from reading all of this material is that j
Conran is a man who probably had some -- many points in the l
6 l
beginning which were correct, couldn't get them heard, passed 17 the point of where he is approaching it reasonably and is now at the stage where it is almost a life and death battle he is 19 engaged in, a crusade.
20 l
l So unfortunately, I think that at this stage continuous reiteration is not going to add much clarity. It will 22 l
just continue -- the frustration.
I don' t think not going through:
23 ll the iteration will eliminate the frustration, but I don't see 24
,j anything, really, to be gained and I do agree with Jim's point.
25 hi; I think that there is a stage at which if we are going to go back H
i i
i 6
9 1
l i
l to people and ask them.their further comments, then you go i
2 back to everybody.and ask all of them their comments, and 3
iterate and iterate.
l 4
So I would conclude that I had no real problems with 5
what you wrote as f ar as the analysis went, but the cover letter 6
that goes along with it is probably just as critical.
I don't 7
' expect that this is going to end the issue, because it appears 3
to me that it is directly connected with -- there are two I
9 fundamental issues, at least that I seem to see through here, 10 one:
did a diversion occur at NUMEC; and second:
did the NRC 11 try to cover that up?
My points about all the people that had left relate
?
somewhat to the second factor, in that at some stage I would hope,
3 I,
~~
. r.
h that we are going to be a'ble to make the position to the Congress i
I i
1:,
jI that independent of that, put that aside and there -- that's really old business.
I don't know whether that would be 16 l
successful, but at least I -- that 's right, I forgot to mention.
17 l
Jerry Nelson also left.
So that all of those group -- as far 13 i
l as the first goes, I don't think we'll all --
I don't believe 19 it is the NRC's role to determine that and I don' t think we are going to find it out.
But because of those two latent 21 l
) issues that underlie everything, this is going to continue to 00
~~
l go on and on and on.
I view this as just the next step.
The 23 h
? cover letter is critical to how heatedly it goes on.
So I'd
~~
' go along with Joe's ---
0
'~
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The only -- as I was thinking y
ll 27 j
i i
j i
o
!l i
i about my own, I suppose misgiving, it has less to do with the 1
2 fact that it won't come to an end in the sense that there will 3 I be more allegations and more responses.
A little more to do, I 4
think, with it is wanting to draw a distinction between saying 5
that we don't find substance in the Conran allegations, on the 6
one hand, and then addressing the second of your two points, 7
' John, saying that it isn't all together clear to me one way or
~
3 the other that the f act of the state of know1 edge that Smith 9
and Burnett leveled with the agency in July of '77 would really have supported the no-evidence formulation, that is, as Leo
,n 11 suggested in passing that there may have been some obligation to 1
k into these things,where they would want someone to come
,2 to people and say, look, there is a problem here.
3 l
't i
^
I think that's true, and therefore, in writing a l
letter that says there is no substance to these allegations, we l wa n to stay away from saying and nevertheless -- and therefore, I
j i
o the fact that the staff went before the committees knowing less 17 ll! than perhaps they should have known or the testifying in a way 1:
n yij that implied they knew more than they knew. Well, that is l
19
!j l discussable.
We have been through all of that in these cases 20 l
and we don't need to get back to it very strongly here, but there i
g 21 y
] is a difference between saying the Conran allegations are 22 h
l l! without merit.
.I 23 it h
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't say that.
I didn't 1
l; say the Conran allegations were without merit.
But -- and nor j does the issue that Leo addresses in his letter is: did Smith e
s o
28
{
jj h
l' l
l and Burnett cover something up; that he is charging that in 2
the OIA/OGC study review, did Smith and Burnett indicated they 3
had no knowledge of the NUMEC before August 2nd. And as he 4
points out ---
S COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But he doesn' t allege that.
6 He couldn' t possibly allege that.
Everybody in the United States 7
knew about it by that time, for no other reason than Mr. Conran g
was telling you more.
I don' t think he alle'ged that -- I don't g
think he alleged -- Conran was alleging ---
0.vMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, it says:
"With regard to u
10 what Smith and Burnett said they knew about NUMEC" ---
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What they said about it?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
13
,l COMMISSIONER KEN 'EDY:
That's different.
COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
You know, the point is that l
Smith is denying any attempt to suggest that he was unaware 16 i
that information existed, that Conran contends that Smith and I
17 Burnett seemed to have attempted to convey that prior to 13 l
l l
August 2nd, ' 77 they were unaware of the NUMEC issue.
That's 19 h
what it says, right here.
20 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, you know, Conran is saying 71 l
'~
I that.
i 77
~~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
That they seemed to have
~~7;
.l attempted to convey that they were unaware of the NUMEC issue l
!f q and I'm pointing out ---
o L
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You were saying.-- you were saying
!l t
d
1 i
t 29 l
I.
l l.l i
i t
i 1
Smith and Burnett.
I 2
COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
Oh,no, no.
I was trying ---
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay, I was trying -- I wanted 4
to clarify that.
5 CCMMISSIONER AHEARND:
Oh, no, no.
I thought that they 6
were very clear -- that this is very clear in saying that they 7
were saying that.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They certainly did know that 9
there was an issue.
They never said that there wasn't.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And that 's a fact.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that -- I mean, that seemed to me to be the type of a critical allegation.
3 The much less j critical -- in other words, I felt that if Conran was saying nere are these two guys whose responsibility is this area, they attempted to hide the fact that they knew about this, that's very serious.
17 If his point is, here are two guys whose responsibility 13 is this area, 19 they knew something might be there, and I think that they didn ' t go f ar enough.
That would be a more moderate 20 point to raise, but it is not what he raised.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I agree with that.
,o
~~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And I wasn't trying to say that
~~o=
1 the latter wasn' t true.
I was U
just saying the former wasn't.
~.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No.
And all I'm saying is that n
l m-
'~
1".H it is a challenge to draft a letter in which the Commission ---
'f
3 30 l
l i
i i
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, yes.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- makes clear it isn' t saying 3
that the allegation in which you include words like railroading 4
through a no-evidence position.
There is nothing 'that we find 5
like that there.. One could -- but in saying that, you have 6
to, at the same time draf t a letter that doesn' t repeat the 7
latter point even though -- which is not a point that Conran g
made, or maybe it is.
It has beei: a long time since I have 9 q read his letter.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I don't think it is.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, more explicitly, Peter, what y u are saying is that you are saying that we believe this 2
March 3rd letter of -allegagions are without merit.
We are not IJ
}
l t
at the same time saying that the no-evidence statement ---
1, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Therefore ---
,=
as COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are not judging anything else.
16 l
(Simultaneous voices. )
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
13 f,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are dealing only with what's 19 in Conran's -- what Conran is alleging in his March 3rd letter.
20 l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
That's why the cover s
21 letter is very -- a challenge to write.
I 22 l
f COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That's right.
i 22 i
ll MR. KELLEY:
John, can I -- for my own clarity go back O
~',;
' to the point you made earlier about separating out:
was there d
i
]adiversionatNUMECisoneissue, second issue:
did the NRC U
- i o
31 I
I l
cover it up.
2 Now, I want to make sure I understood your point as 3
to the latter.
You indicated that whether there was or there 4
wasn't, the guys in question are gone, and that that would be 5
a relevant point. I would have trouble ---
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was -- I was more commenting ---
7 MR. KELLEY:
If that's what you are saying, I would have trouble with it.
S COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm passing -- I'm making a 9
10 ccmment more in passing that at some stage, at least to the extent of trying to participate in the running of an agency, the individuals involved that did cover something up -- if they 2
committed an illegal action, then that's a Justice Department
,.iJ i
! issue and not ours.
MR. KELLEY: It can be.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me just make sure that the 16 i
1 record is clear on this from my perspective.
There is no question of whatever in my mind and that i
13 L
l is based upon so many investigations of this subject that the 1.9 number must be all but one of us.
The NRC has covered up 20 no thing. Everything and anything which the NRC knew about this 21 has been put or the public record.
Unless there is some I
I 22 y' individual ---
l e,
li
[
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sounds like inadvertent wisdom, f
~~
c l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- unknown -- unknown to me or h indeed to any of the numerous investigators who have pursued this
- i i
4
4 32 l
^
l I
4 1'
I i
issue for the last two years, is lurking around with information i
2 which he has disclosed to no one.
Of course, there has been 3
no information disclosed -- found in this entire agency or available to it which is not known to a great many more people 5
than in this agency.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I agree with that.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There is nothing, absolutely g
nothing, let the record be absolutely clear ~on this that there 9
is -- and I will be glad to state this under oath anyplace, to 19 my knowledge there is nothing covered up by anybody and the words y,
should never be used in this t ;ency.
Okay?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
2 j
MR. KELLEY:
My concern, like I say, is this:
Take
~#
l! these charges against McTiernan.
i i
That letter accuses McTiernan i
of some se'ious matters and certainly attackc his integrity.
I 1.
I have worked with McTiernan.
There isn' t the slightest question in my mind about McTiernan's integrity.
I would not want the agency to go on record saying:
well, we are not sure if this y
pl was a cover-up or not, 13 l
but Mc=iernan's gone so don' t worry about 19 j
i it.
Now, that's ---
20 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, no.
I wasn't -- the only 21 I
point I was trying to make ---
22 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I wouldn't let it happen.
22 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
The only point I was trying 3 to make is that some time, at some stage when people are
.!j constantly attacking the organization, the fact that the
,1
'i p
I 33 l
l 0
l D'
l d{individualstheyareattackingarenolongerpartoftheorgani-2 l zation, that might begin to defuse their attack.
3 MR. KELLEY:
So you are saying somewhere down the 4
road ---
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
6 MR. KELLEY:
-- interest may be lost.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's what I ---
3 MR. KELLEY:
But you are not talkihg about a cover g
letter that says we are worried about it.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Oh, no. Oh good grief no.
ig MR. KELLEY: Okay, all right. All right.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, I was just trying to say that 2
as far as I could see there were two latent issues here.
One of d
O them I did not see going a ay from the outside.
Questioning the y
] other, I thought,perhaps may eventually go away.
U MR. SLAGGIE:
Maybe these people can come up with something I'm not at all sure I understand, but my impression 17 i'from reading this pile of paper is that Conran was the first 12 il person in this agency to bring up the question that maybe something
?l fishy had happened at NUMEC, 19 l
and as a result of his allegations 20 l
I the various hearings and things took place.
Now, is that i
21 f correct?
22 hl CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I ---
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I do not think that is i
24 correct.
i.
~~
CEAIRJUd; HENDRIE:
No.
d l
g 34
.1
.a j
li i
H 1
MR. SLAGGIE:,Okay, well ---
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think the safeguards organization 3
was aware as anybody in the safeguards business was aware of 4
a very substantial MUF.
It had been investigated.out the 5
gazoo in whatever year it was, 19 -- what?
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
'67.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
'65.
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I mean ---
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- And those reports of those 9
investigations were in the files of this organization.
g COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Now -- hang on.
It might be th a t ---
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes they were.
13 thbught that the pre '68 diversions MR. KELLEY: I 14 1
were ERDA's property and ---
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We had copies of thosu reports.
16 Well I would ---
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To answer Leo's question, 13 l
p though -- When you say "this agency" and you mean *.he NRC?
19 0
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes, I would.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think that's a different 21 I
question. If you nean this agency and its predecessors which I
e, t
~~
i includes the AEC, then it was certainly investigated back in o,
~~
the late '60s many times.
t h
MR. SLAGGIE:
Well, what was the stimulus for the 25 ll n
l!
35 j
s
~
h i
1 CIA briefing?
Did this -- did this -- it was the NRC called up 2
the CIA, wasn' t that it and said, hey come over and tell us 3
what you can about NUMEC?
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.
It is correct.
The stimulus 5
was because 6
MR. SLAGGIE:
And why?
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- we kept hearing these 3
allegations.
MR. SLAGGIE:
All right, was Conran -- was it what 9
Conran said?
y9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Conran was saying some of these things and we concluded that we had better find out what in 2
l i
heavens name was going on and what, if any relevance, remember,
,,s
.4 i
h:! what if any relevance this had to the NRC, because if a diversion; had occurred in 1965 there was nothing whatever that this agency could do about it now or then.
What relevance could it have?
16 i
Our concern was if it had and in any event what were the facts, l
27
! because it was important that we know from the point of view of 13
!l the safeguards program which was then being developed by our i
19 I
safecaards organization, under a continuous strong steam 20 pressure from this floor of this building.
21 i
I i
MR. SLAGGIE: But was it with Conran's concerns and 22 Ujhisexpressionofthema,significantpartofthe stimulus for
~~
e-9 the agency to call for the CIA briefing?
If Conran had said i
t
~'
', nothing, if Conran hadn' t been there was it likely we would have !
2:
called for this CIA briefing?
i Ii
il 36
!i 5
i l
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I can't answer that question.
2 MR. SLAGGIE:
I just wonder if anybody ever told him 3
that.
If after all, his expression of concerns was important 4
to stimulate ---
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He was aware that the briefing 6
had occurred.
He was informed that the briefing was - 'had 7
occurred, I believe, and I think the record shows, I'm not sure, S
I w uld have to go back and refresh my memory, but I think he was told that the Commission -- the Commissioners were now aware of g
the state of knowledge on the problem.
10 Now, I believe he was given this information was he not.
,,14 MS. NORDLINGER:
I believe that's true enough, but I
~~
i i
! don't know with certainty'.
l MR. SLAGGIE:
It certainly seems that Conran's i
_1.:
i suspicions were not utterly groundless, that the CIA briefing l
Ac l
or at least the descriptions I've read of it tended to confirm i
17
)
l that people had reason to worry about what had gone on at 1
NUMEC.
So to this extent, it seemed that Conran was right.
19 As you had mentioned, he is the type of guy that by this time 20 l
he -- as you put it in your. memo -- sufficiently frustrated: he 21 I
had been right and nobody paid any o+aention to him,and at
~~
q this point he has -- this was a reasonable -- his letter here of i
~~
n h Marc'.1 3rd, I think, was very unreasonable.
But maybe at one i
c U
~'
4 time in the past he was reasonable and right and nobody ever 25 told him so, maybe somebody ought to.
a 1
o G
37 l
j.
.t; l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In fact, I believe -- well.
^
I 2
I cannot speak for his bosses.
It is not that he was not heard, 3
ra ther, I think, it is more likely that because having been heard 4
his view did not fully prevail, he was frustrated.
I think 3
that is a f air characterization of the circumstances, but I can' t 6
speak fer his bosses.
But I think ---
7 MR. KELLEY:
Certainly the Mattson Report, I don't 5
know about NUMEC so much, but various of his' concerns, the 9
Mrttson Report said he has got some good points.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
True.
11 MR. KELLEY :
So there was an acknowledgement at that 17 time that some of his ---
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That was not the first -- but
~~
h neither was that the first acknowledgement.
s MR. KELLEY: No. I'm not saying that, but I am just pointing that as an example of:
his points had been acknowledged to to have some validity at various points, I believe, that being l
- /
one of them.
S
,ll l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that recognition.of j
19 his activities is truly -- as to where we are now on the whole 20 j
thing.
i Dick, do you have a problem with proceeding with the 22
!l draft letter here and ---
23
!i 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No.
I do have that concern.
d 24
'I recognize your concern and as you well know, on other occasions 25
.jwouldhavecounseled very much as you are now counseling and I n
d
i 1
38 1
i 0
.. 3
- 4 H
.i n
1 i !
understand that, but again, I'm looking at history and here is I
2 a slightly different type -- slightly different kettle of 3
fish.
It is precisely because of the concern which I had, a 4
sense, if you will, of utter outrage that anybody.would make 5
allegations of this kind against.. people whose integrity 6
cannot be possibly in question, in my judgment, at least.
~
7 Nonetheless, it has been made and it seems to me we 3
ought to tie it down as tight as we can.
Th'at's the only thing that motivates me, and perhaps -- perhaps, as a matter of g
a the best course is to just take a firm and positive statement 10 that says we have investigated these things; we see no merit in the allegations as he made them and that is the end of that, you know.
I think a positive, affirmative statement of that kind i
13 i
nymightbejustexactlythehostureweought to take.
It certainly is the way I feel, 15 i
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we -
you might look at a little i
l l
16 background material in the cover letter.
Your original thought 17 l
l for a transmittal letter wculd have been a rather brief one in 13
- j l
d;; which the Commission would foraard the ana Ays1s, agree with the j
19 j' bottom line, which is that at sum the allegations are without merit}
20 but not, you know, painstakingly line-by-line and say we like f
l 1
this, we don't like that particularly ---
~~
i MR. KELLEY:
One thing, that~would have been one 23 thing.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But to that, I think it would be 25 9useful to add a few paragraphs of what is really hit orical 1
'i lh 39 a
i i
j I
.1 material pobiting out that we made a substantial effort to obtain I
2 I elaboration and more specific detailing of these precise -- of 3
these allegations af ter receipt of his letter from Hart.
That 4
that went on for some time and ---
5 MR. KELLEY:
Do you want to inclose the relevant 6
package?
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why not.
E CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think -- I'm not sure ---
l 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'd recommend no, that that 10 sounds like you are -- it is shifting to an attack against 11 Cor.ran.
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, yes.
12 MR. KELLEY:
It is pretty nasty stuff. I know,. I wrobe it.'
3 3
- j
'4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It has a high potential to n
l distract.
l l;
I CEAIRMAN FEMDRIE:
Yes.
l 16 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But I mean if the committee is 17 1
i concerned they can come back ---
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, that's a very good point. Some 19 j
of those papers are indeed contentious in the sense that they l
20 say, damit, he won't write this stuff dcun and so on, and I would like 21 i'
the history not to have that sort of contentious thrust to it.
22 l
iq The aim here is not to -- I don't perceive this as a spear
?,
~~
d launched at Mr. Conrtn, okay.
24 d
h COMMISSIONER ORADFORD:
Again too, I think the 25
', i
40 1
Committee has a lot of that ---
2 MR. KELLEY:
I think they do.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- because I think Conran sent 4
it up to them.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's right.
6 MR. KELLEY:
Clary sent it.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I had forgot, Clary sent it.
g That's right, Clary sent all of them.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We sent bails of it,actually.
10 Okay, if you will try that.
MR. KELLEY:
It is kind of a tricky letter,. but we y
will try our hand and I'm sure you will have comments and we 2
will see where we go.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We will have a chance to look at l
the language and whittle on it back and forth a little bit, and l_a I really think that is the best ---
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I assume our colleague will be 17 joining us on this letter.
i 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is a Commission letter, and he 19 will need to edit on it and comment and join in it, and otherwise 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On one other communication 21 i
relating to Conran and I don't remember now whether it was i
22 l
i
{ internal or external, we came up with some sort of general i
2' h!j acknowledgement of his past efforts and contribution in O
I 9'
~'
[thisareaanditmightbewelltodothatagain.
2~:
I l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In this letter?
Il I!
t
4 i'
41 i
- I
~
I it V
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, I believe ---
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would have to disagree because 7
this letter, after all, you know -- I don't think we ought to 4
be commenting one way or the other on anything other than 5
allegation.
Remember that what we are addressing here are 6
a series of what I consider to be unprovoked, unreasonable,
7 heinous allegations, which impugn. the integrity of three of the 8
finest men in this Commission.
9 Now, you know, for us, at this juncture to -- in the 10 context of commenting on that, to say, but you know, really 11 nice fellow, good contributions and all the rest, I think, is a 12 grave mistake.
13 COMMISSIONER BRA,DFORD:
Well, the reason
-- the context, I
i 4
' in which it came up before was.a similar one.
If I remember right:
ig it had to do with your exchanges with him, Jim, ---
MR. KELLEY:
Yep.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- then too, we felt that he
- was well out of bounds in terms of what he was saying about I
the reasons why he hadn't come up with the statement, and I 1,1 l
t guess I won't argue the positive conclusions this time, but I I
i 20 i
would like to review that language.
Itwasessentiallystructured{
t_
in the form of files you have made ---
i 22 I
l MR. KELLEY:
Perhaps in a memo from me to him.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Nevertheless, in this case 24 2
!! I think ---
hl 25 MR. KELLEY:
There was a memo that said go back to H
work and acknowledged some contribution in the past.
i
42 u
i i
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And it was not, in any way, 2
an endorsement of his present position, but it did try to keep t
3 some of the balance Leo was talking about before, an 4
appraisal of the overall ---
5 MR. KELLEY: How about if I attach a copy of that 6
language to the draft letter and you can see it.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Sure.
It will be enough of g
a fight to get me to do it in this letter.
Maybe another letter, but not this one.
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was trying to find -- there was O
a place there where Mr..Udall wrote ---
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I need to go now.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Okay, and I wrote him back la, about Jim's -- do you reme$ber I
(Simultaneous voices) 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that the letter saying, 16 what a fine fellow he was and you wrote back and said, yes, 17 he's made lots of contributions, good fellow, but, you know --
13 l
yes.
19 MR. KELLEY:
I'm not sure that we did that, or at 1
20 least'I'm not sure I had anything in that one.
i
' ~,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't know "ho did it, but I
70 l
ijI remember the letter.
U
"~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's -- I haven't laid hands on it p!
s-
~'
but I will go down one more folder, and if I don't, then
- yet, 1
I will leave it to you to dig it out.
It was sometime ago.
l o
p** (Commissioner Bradford departed the meeting at this time.)
I
U H
i 43
- * 'e d
I i
1 This was a Uda.ll/Hendrie exchange.
2 Ah, February 13th.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is 3
a Udall to Hendrie.
As you know, we've looked at a lot of things 4
here -- it is a rather cheerfully phrased letter.
5 "As you know, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 6
has expended considerable effort in oversight activities relating 7
to security,"
et. cetera.
"In the course of conducting this effort it has become apparent there is a strong divergence of g
g views regarding what constitutes adequate security.
Given this i
diversity of opinion, it is essential that thorough consideration 10 i
be given view points outsiae the mainstream of Commission I
managemer.m thinking.
22 "I believe, therefore, that Mr. Conran has performed 13 t
H a service of great value b[ demonstrating considerable l
l I persistence in uncovering and calling attention to various 15 l
I inconsistencies and deficiencies in the Commission's safeguards 16 program.
I recommend strongly that Mr. Conran's demonstrated 17 l,abilitytocontributetotheCommission'sprogramsbetaken 13 h
~
into account in assigning him tasks.
We hope, also, that this 19 l
letter be incorporated in Mr. Conran's personnel file."
20 l
I wrote him back and said:
"I'm pleased to respond 21 ii l personally."
This was not a Commission letter but from me j
I 3,
~~
d, personally.
"As you may know, I mave worked with Mr. Conran j
- jfor a number of years and hold him in high regard personally and H
. professionally.
The circumstances surrounding his efforts to u
present his views on this most vital subject have been perplexing h
44 i
.- r,
il
- I O
i d
1 !
and of great concern to me since assuming the Cha
.4nship..."
i 2
and so on.
3 "There has never been any doubt in my mind that his 4
intentions have been sincere and, although his views, to the best 5
of my knowledge, are shared by few other members of the staff...
6 he has continued to pursue them, to pursue his convictions.
We 7
always have roon for minority views."
3 "Mr.
Conran has certainly helped us in this regard 9
and in my view contributed to the overall improvement in the g
l NRC safeguards posture."
11 What you might do -- I don't know particularly thu.
thece are things you would want to send along, but you might l
! want to make copies of that pair and just attach them as I
_a t,
Pl addendum for background knowledge as the thing comes around --
i the Commissioner letter.
15 i
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's all right with me.
i 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, if the question is going to 17 come up about ---
13
}
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes, you know ---
l 4
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It may be that ---
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it is the wrong letter 21 to eulogize Mr. Conran.
22 g
p CHAIRMRN HENDRIE: Yes, but ---
i 22 a
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This is a letter which -- to o
y vindicate L.iree people who have been personal' attacked d', publicly, by Mr. Conran.
'~
I think this is the wrong place to tell Il
!j 45
!j i
.' */
!!'i i
1 Mr. Conran wbst a great -guy he is.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we are all reminded of this 3
exchange, it may -- it is not as though there is nothing on the 4
record ---
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yee.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- from this Commission, including 7
its present composition, me as Chairman, to say he contributed 2
to the safeguards posture and all, that he is a sincere guy, g
but I think having that at hand might be useful for background i
10 for the Commission.
Then you can let me have that package back.
11 MR. KELLEY:
Right.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I thank,you very much.
3 Let's see, I guess for whatever the ultimate disposition 4.
of the tape of this meeting might be, I would very much like l
t to have it withheld until final action is taken on whatever i
is_
communication the Commission finally issues, that certainly.
,16 I would ask you to join me in voting to withhold the tape.
I IS j
(A chorus of " ayes.")
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So ordered.
20 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 3:20 p.m.)
22 i
7; l
lI "i
24 d
[
25 r
O
,