ML20154E125
| ML20154E125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/07/1988 |
| From: | William Ward NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D958 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-237 NUDOCS 8809160220 | |
| Download: ML20154E125 (15) | |
Text
- . h' e / o UNITED STATES
/ e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
f WWASHINGTON. D. C. 206M
/
- March 7, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigations .
i FROM: Roger A. Fortuna, Deputy Director
! Office of Investigations William J. Ward, Assistant to the Director Office of Investigations
SUBJECT:
CHANGES TO THE OFFICE OF INVEST! GAT!0N3' (01) ANSWERS TO ASSIGNED 01-27-88 BREAUX/SIMPSON QUESTIONS
- We hne just reviewed the final response that went to Congress from the NRC reoseding the subject questions. We are appalled at what we have found.
, There have been significant changes made to at least four of our answers that render them in one case incorrect and in the other cases misleading. Yet -
another vuestion, that was not assigned to 01, was also answered incorrectly. I Let us describe each below:
1 .
I Q16(F): This question, which was not assigned to nor reviewed by 01, !
asked why the 01 Director was not a voting member of the IRB. The thrust
! of the answer is that he did not want to be a rember. Even though we !
l have provided answers to the Congress within the past year that pointed J out that there was an October 1986 Staff Requirerents Menorandum wherein !
- the Comission directed that the OI Directnr act be a member of the IRB, -
j the Staff curiously deleted this piece of obv E isly relevant infnreation, >
1 Thus, the answer misleads the reader to the mistaken conclusion that it l was only O! intransigence rather than the Comission's expressed desire l that led to O! not participating in the IRB. Revisionist history is alive and well at the NRC. ;
i Q'.8(C): The question was what did the O! Director ask f)r in SECY 87-93.
l Our answer was re-written To delete the statement that there were seven l issues for r:hich we asked Comissien affimation. Then someone added the :
j gratuitous and irrelevant statement that, "The paper was withdrawn with-out Comission action at O!'s request." Putting aside for the noment the 1
- fact that it is also inaccurate -- the Comission meeting on July 29, '
! 1987 and the wording of SECY-87-93A demonstrate that there was Comission i action, what wat the purpose of the statement? Does it perhaps intend to I
- convey to a reader a sense that 01 decided that it did not really need l Comission re-affine.ation of its aut..orities?
~
l l
1 1
- Q21
- The question was whether the Comission has ever denied an O! re- i i
quett to initiate an invest.igation. We provided an expansive answer l pointing out that technically, the Wolf Creek natter was not a denial of a request, but was pretty close to it. Someone changed the answer to the categorical statement that tne Cemission has never denied such a re- l
) ceest. We believe this is misleading, and that it represents a semantic a
6809160220 880030 PDR FOIA FELTON86-237 PDR g g.7f. Gf 7
e Ben B. Hayer March 7,1988 quibble. Inasmuch as just one year ago we answered a virtually identical question in the expansive manner in which we tried this time, we find it j incredible that we provided different answers to different Congressmen, or that there has been an institutional decision to so limit the infortna-tion flow. It is also inconsistent from this standpoint: We were told that the question should be narrowly answered in this instance; yet we also have been told that the question regarding instances of 01/0!A
- "collaboration" should be answered expansively, i.e. we should go beyond the plain reading of the question. One senses a greater concern for the
- appearance of our answers than we do for a good faith effort to under-stand and answer fully the Senators' questions, t
Q22: This is the worst of all. The Staff re-wrote the first part of our answer. The effect of this w s to obscure the argument for our position ,
that wrongdoing always has a degree of safety significance, and that this is independent of the technical significance of the violation. To the i extent that the Comission does not endorse Ol's view, we have no problem with it being changed. On the other hand, notwithstanding the discussion
. that we had with Tom Rehm on February 24, the Staff elected to change our answer to state that O! believes that wrongdoing, "... generally has 4 safety significance" whereas our submission (and our position) is that
! wrongdoing, "...always has a degree of safety significance". Obviously -
i there is a significant difference between the two responses. The questinn is why.
A related question is who speaks for OI? In the past, it was the Director. 01. Does this now mean that the EDO speaks for OI? If the EDO now speaks for 01, what does this mean for the so-called independence 4 ,
j that O! is supposed to retain notwithstanding cur move under staff? If .
the EDO speaks for 01, the answer is correct. If he does not, it is incorrect, and should be corrected rather than nislead Congress. ,
l Q24: Our response notes that we have closed 39 cases for lack of re-
- sources. The answer has been changed to indicate that the cases were closed "administrative 1y". As above, this is technically true, but mis-leading. Those cases were closed only because we did not have adequate resources. The change obscures thlTTact.
5 We are worried by what we have seen in this review. In the past, the Comis-sion er OCA made some changes in our answers, usually editorial in nature. '
But we never had a sense that they were intended either to obscure or mis-characteri:e the point we attempted to make. This appears to be a real change in operation. We don't know if it is a direct result of our now being under l J Staff. Its been so long since we have had to clear our answers with them, we forget just what that process was. It is possible that many, or even all, of ,
a the changes were made at H Street. If so, the question still remains -- why are we suddenly being less forthcoming as an agency? Is it indicative of an j
4 a
l
- .. Ben B. Hayes March 7,1988 I a
-l J
. i 6
t attitude towards this subcomittee, or is it a new era in our relationship .
with the Congress? Whatever the answer, it puts us in a tough spot, particu- -
larly given our reputation both within and without the NRC as truth-tellers.
- i 4
& E
- P j -
3 4
l i 4
3
.I 4
i i
l
- r ll I i i i I
i :
l !
J if n
l ll o
'l i
,t l .
i I .!
i i !t
! l
y..
/ %,
- UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
! w AssmotoN, o. c. rosss
{ ~ 'f
\, * * * " / March 7, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigations .
FROM: Roger A. Fortuna, Deputy Direc$or Office of Investigations William J. Ward, Assistant to the Director Office of Investigations l
SUBJECT:
CHANGES TO THE OFFICE OF INVEST!MTiONS' (01) ANSWERS TO ASSIGNED 01-27-83 BREAUX/SIMPSON QUESTIONS 1
We have just reviewed the final response that vent to Congress from the NRC regarding the subject questions. We are appalled at what we have found.
There have been significant changes made to at least four of our answers that l
I render them in one case incorrect and in the other cases misleading. Yet another cuestion, that was not assigned to 01, was also answered incorrectly.
Le; us describe each below:
Q16(F): This question, which was not assigned to nor reviewed by OI, asked why the 01 Director was not a voting member of the IRB. The thrust of the answer is that he did not want to be a merber. Even though we have previced answers to the Congress within the past year that pointed cut that there was an October 1986 Staff Requirerents Memorandum wherein the Comission directed that the 01 Director not br a member of the IRS.
the Staff curiously deleted this piece of obviously relevant infomation.
Thus, the answer misleads the reader to the mistaken conclusion that it was only 01 intransigence rather tnar the Comission's expressed desire that led to 01 not participating in the IRB. Revisionist history is alive and well at the NRC.
l OIS(C): The question was what did the 01 Director ask for in SECY 87-93.
Our answer was re-written to delete the statement that there were seven issues for which we asked Comission affimation. Then someone added the gratuitous and irrelevant statement that. "The paper was withdrwm with-out Comission action at Ol's request." Putting aside for the moment the fact that it is also inaccurate -- the Cemission meeting on July 29 l
I 1997 a,nd the wording of SECY-87-93A demonstrate that there was Comission actien, what was the purp se of the statement? Cees it perhaps intend to convey to a reader a sense that 01 decided that it did not really need Comission re-affimation of its authorities?
l 021: The cuestien was whether the Com'ssion has ever denied an O! re-quest to initiate an investigation. W provided an expansive answer pointing out that technically, the Woli Creek matter was nei, a dtnial of a recuest, but was pretty close to it. Semeene changed the answer to the categcrical statement that the Comission has never denied such a re-quest. We believe this is misleading, and that it represents a semantic ,
f c /A
- Il J D. Cl
4 March 7, 1988 Ben B. Hayes quibble. Inasmuch as just one year ago we answered a virtually identical question in the expansive e.anner in which we tried this time, we find it incredible that we provided different answers to different Congressmen, or that there has been an institutional decision to so limit the informa-tion flow. It is also inconsistent from this standpoint: We were told that the question should be narrowly answered in this instancei yet we also have been told that the question regarding instances of O!/0!A "collaboration" should be answered expansively, i.e. we should go beyond the plain reading of the question. One senses a greater concern for the appearance of our answers than we do for a good faith effort to under-stand and answer fully the Senators' questions.
1 022: This is the worst of all. The Staff re-wrote the first part of our answer. The effect of this was to obscure tha argument for our position l
l that wrongdoing always has a degree of safety significance, and that this is independent of the technical significance of the violation. To the l
extent that the Comission does not endorse Ol's view, we have no problen with it being changed. On the other hand, notwithstanding the discussion l
that we had with Tom Rehm on February 24, the Staff elected to change our answer to state that 01 believes that wrongdoing, "... generally has safety significance" whereas our subnission (and our position) is that wrengdoir.g. "...always has a degree of safety significance". Obviously
^here is a significant difference between the two responses. The question is why.
l A related Question is who steaks for 017 in the past, it was the Directer. 01. Does this new rean that the EDO speaks for 017 If the E00 new speaks for 01, what does this nean for the so-called independence
' that O! is supposed to retain notwithstanding ou, move under staff? If the EDO speaks for 01, the answer is correct. If he does not, it is incorrect, and should be corrected rather than mislead Congress.
024: Our response notes that we have closed 39 cases for lack of re-sources. The answer has been changed to indicate that the cases were l
i closed "administrative 1y". As above, this is technically true, but mis-l 1eading. Those cases were closed only because we did not have adequate resources. The change obscures this fact.
We are worried by what we have seen in this review. In the past, the Comis-l sien or OCA made some changes in our answers, usually editorial in nature.
But we never had a sense that they were intended either to obscure or mis-characterite the point we attempted to make. This appears to be a real change in operation. We don't krew if it is a direct result of our now being under l Staff. Its been so long since we have had to clear eur answers with them, we forget just what that process was. It is possible that many, or even all, of the changes were nade at H Street. If so, the question still remains -- why are we suddenly being less fortheeming as an agency? Is it indicative of an
4 l
.(
Ben B. Hayes March 7, 1988 attitude towards this subcomittee, or is it a new era in our relationship with the Congress? Whatever the answer, it puts us in a tough spot, particu-larly given our reputation both within and without the NRC as truth-tellers.
Distribution:
s/f RED 3 Breaux/Simpson c/f DW/BREAUX/B3 O! 01 Wa rd:dl RFortuna E.3/03/07 8S/03/07 i
. s .
j eMe43 11 65 % *-1 W H I C S tc.cel C,3 a f ch lh
. t
/% ' *
/ \ UNITED STATES NUCL, TAR REQULATORY COMMIS$l0N s$ p.4 ) mAsmNGTON.a,3, a0eos 7
[. ,
March 7,1988 l
MDOP.ANDUM FOR: Ben B. Hayes. Director Office of Investigations s
FT0": Roger A. Fortuna, Deputy Director l Office of Investigations ,
1 l
William J. Ward Assistant to the Directo l Offica of Investigations '
SC ZCT: (
I CHANCES TO THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION 5' (01) ANSWERS TO AS$!GNED 01-27-04 BREAUX/SIMPSON QUESTIONS i
V: htye just reytewad the final response that went to Congress from the NRC rg:rding the subj2ct questions. lle are appalled at what we have found.
7.uN have been significant changes made to at least four of cur answers that i
r:,.':r them in ena case incorrect and in the other cases misleading. Yet i
c .:d.ar cuestion, that was not assigned to 01, was also answered incorrectly.
j L.t e describe ecch below:-
l 1
01C(F): This cuestion, which was not assigned to nor reviewed by 01, l'
- ,tM why the 0! Director was not a voting nember of the IRB. The thrust r c? the answ:r is that he did not want to t.e a riember. Even though we h:v: provided answers to the Congress within the past year that pointed [
Or, ti.:t thare was an October 1986 Staff Requirements Nemorandum wheroin the Cernission directed that the O! Director not be a member of the IRS, j
- no S::ff curiously deleted this piece of obyf6Tsly relevant information,
- W.s.
.: cely tha answer misleads the reader to the mistaken conclusion that it j 0! intransigence rather than the Consnission's expressed desire j
v.:t led to 0! not participating in the IRB. Revisionist history is 4
L'.ive and wall at the HRC.
I Olt(C): Thew: question was what did the 01 Director ask for in SECY 87-93.
! 0;r answer i
s re-written to delete the statement that there were seven
! issu:s for which we asked Comission affirmation. Then somecne added the gettuitous and irrelevant statement that, "The paper was withdrawn with-i eut Ces:sission action at 0!'s request." Putting aside for the moment the l i i Qct that it is also inaccurate -- the Corsnission rueting on July 29, {
in 7 6pd the wording of SECY-87 97A demonstrate that there was Ccmmissien 1
- ctien, what was the purpose of the statement? Coes it perhaps intend to !
L e:ry:y to a reader a sense that O! decided that it did not really need l C: rat:: ton re-affirmation of its authorities? ,
3 M. '. : T'e questien was whether the Comission has ever denied an O! re-i; c:t to initiate an investigation. We provided an expansive ar.swer )
- /,ir.ttr.3 cut that technically, the Wolf Creek matter was net a danial of
- . run;t. but was pretty close to it. Soneone changed the answer to the c::t;:rical statemnt that the Cecnission has never denied such a re- ,
cy: ;. Wa believe this is misleading, and that it represents a semantic i fc/A - ff ;>3 ), C/=LC
2LF2Ve9 11:00 FRC-MLtt-ftGB FC.001 004
@% 5 0
)
Ben B. Hayes March 7, 1938 l quibble. Inasmuch as just one year ago we answered a virtuall f question in the expansive manner in which we tried this time,yweidentical find it i incredible that we provided different answers to different Congressmen, '
or that there has been an institutional decision to so limit the inforea- )
tien flow. It is also inconsistent from this standpoint We were told '
that the question should be narrowly answered in this instancel yet wt I clso have been told that the question regarding instsnees of 01/0!A '
' collaboration" should be answered expansively, i.e. we should go beyond !
th. plain reading of the question. One senses a greater concern for tt.o ep;2:rance of our answers than we do for a good faith effort to undsr-s::.nd and answer fully the Sentters' questions.
(22: This is the worst of lill. The Staff re wrote the first part of our l t .wsr. The effect of this was to obscure the argument for our position i tx.t urongdoing P1'.cys has a degree of safety significance, and that this i i: inde) ndant oTthf technical significance of the violaticn. To the c:cen: that the Co- aission does not endorse O!'s view, we have no problem
! e M it being changad. On the other hand, notwithstanding the discussion l l tht u: had with Tom Rehm on February 24, the Staff elected to change. our cnwer to state that O! believes that wrongdoing, "... generally has t
i tr'Ety significanca" whereas our submission (and our position) is that i e cn;.'oing. "...always has a dagree of safety significance". Obvioutly t ure ic a significant difference between the two responses. The questien l
1: 1: '.l .
l
. ralated question is who speaks for O!? In the past, it was the E rtetor, 01. Does this new mean that the 100 speaks for 0!? If the E00 l t.a: :Sesks for 01, what does this rean for the so-called independence i t*.:t O! is supposed te retain notwithstanding our move under Ltaff? If
- t'.0 !)) speaks for OI. the answer is correct. If he doet not, it is i.*ccrr:ct, and should be corrected rather than mislead Congrus. l 1
Q24: Our response notes that we have closed 39 cases for lack of re- '
scurces. The answar has been changed to indicate that the cases were clesed "adninistratively". As above. this is technically true, but mis- ,
leading. Those cases were closed only because we did not have adequate !
resources. The change obscures this fact. '
We arc verried by what we have seen in this review. In the past, the Comnis-sion er CCA m:de some changes in our answers, usually editorial in nature.
But wo never had a sense that they Were intended either to Cbscure or mis-l characteri u the point we attemeted to make. This appears to be a real change i in operation. We don't knew if it is a direct result of our now being under Staff. Its been so long since we have had to clear our answers with them, we forget fu:: what that process was. It is possible that many. or even all, of the ch: .?:S ware made at H Street. If so, the questinn sttil remains -- why 1 are we scCanly being less forthecning as an agency? Is it indicative of a1 '
" o$m
> iti01 >nc m.M tten tc.coi oos
%O lb ,
l Ben B. Hayes 3 N rch 7, 1938 attitude with towards this subcoretttee, or is it a new era in our relationship the Congress? Whatever the answer, it puts us in a tough spot, particu-larly given our reputation both within and without the NRC as truth.tallers.
l Dietribution shTiv Tb7 eaux /Str.pson C/f ,
i Ch'/BRIA"X/B3 l
i l
i l
< \
O! // 01 -
Ward:d1 RFortuna (4/03/07 83/03/07
ebnes 11:e2 m:+.tmten No.eot ees ,
P 5'ay i O CUESTION 18. In April 1987, the 0! Director submitted SECY 87-93 to the Comission.
(c) What did the O! Director ask for in the SECY paper?
ANSWER O! asked, (1) that the Comission reaffirm 01's authority and responsi-bilities, and (2) that the Comission direct O! and the staff to develop joint tuidence to ensure that all NRC employees are infomed of the scope of O!
authority and responsibility 50 that all matters of wrongdoing are brought to O!'s attention. 0! then provided a list of seven statements of 0! authority tnd responsibility for Comission affimation.
l i
- l i
1 1
. 1 SREAUX/ SIMP!0N-0!
02/09/88 fo M 11-23 7, cp I ,
4 l
I t 7
8., 6 bh ( 0
.00tST!0N 21. Has the Cocnission ever denied an 01 request to initiate an investigation under its Jurisdiction? If so, describe the i specificincidencesandwhytherequest(s)weredenied. '
l !
AnsutR - '
The Cecnission has never denied an O! request to initiate an investigation under its jurisdiction, but did decline to support the initiation of an i
investigation involving two sentcr etnsgers at the Wolf Creek Generating
) Station. Burlington, Kansas, in early 1985.
In accordance with Comissien i
r?' icy regarding the investigation of persons for reasons of character and it.te stty, O! brought to the Cermission's attention certain actions on the p:rt cf thess two senior officials - alleged sexual harassa:ent, alleged i
! b't:':btlling of a fomar employee, and the alleged illegal search and seizure of det.:m:nts frem that employce's vehicle (without that employee's knowledge).
O *. U t:
i net specifics 11y recomend a course of action in the Comission paper s:ttirg forth the above allegations, but Connission Asselstine proposed an irve:tig:, tion 5e conducted. The Ccertission voted not to support this action, q' :
i i
1 l
I i
I; il,
) BREAUX-SIMPSON/0!
02/03/S8 1
i
.mm stics me-Ms.M-etag NO.001 EQB - -
1 l .
.f7Q i
M !STION 22. Please explain the relationship between wrongdoing and i safety issues in the context of O!'s responsibilities to
<l l
investigate wrongdoing. In the Commission's view, does i
i wrongdoing always have safety significance? Does O! share the i
Consission's view of the relationship between wrongdoing and i safety issuest t
! l i
ANSWER i !
j 01 offers the following observations restrding the interrelationship cf
~
3 l wrongdoingandsafety.fTheNRCdoesnotprescriberequirefr.entsfornonsafety
- f 'rsesons. As wrongdong in the NRC context always involves the deliberate i
! {
1 violation of NRC requirements, it must always have safety significance.
j k'rongdoing is not a random chance event. i A component does not just happen to i fcil, nor an individual just happen to enake a mistake. To the contrary, an
) inf tvidual, or mora ominously, a group of individuals, sets out not only to
{
violcte a safety recuirement, but in virtually all instances, to conceal or
{ cever up this violation.
The underlying violation may vary in significance j
) fre- feltification of CA records relating to components that are, in fact, of
- f sufficient quality to falsificaticn of QA records that conceal actual defects. !
I tut the safety significance of the wrongdoing does not turn only on the
- apporont magnitude of the violation per se. The real safety significance Ites i k j l
with the person er persons who comitted the violation. In other words, the issue is character and integrity.
j k
I BREAUX/SIMPSON 0!
i i
! 02/09/08 l
.. -.,._,._ ._ , .._ , _ .., - , .,_,__ - ,.__.--.-,-- ,_ _ _ . - _ . - - - . _ , . ,___m_.. . -- - . -,~- _ . -
03/25/S3 ai 04 WC-t4M-ftE3 NO.001 009
.Pt'eqR ;
a aptSTION22. (CONTINUED) ',
i The nuclear industry is largely self-regulating. For the most part. our regulatory assumption is that most licensees will comply voluntarily with NRC ,
i l requirements, and that their consitment to the protection of the ,public health and safety is as vigorous as that of the NRC. We do not disagree with this i assumption. But, this is what makes character and integrity so important.
J The NRC must be able to rely on persons in the industry to comply with, not j circunvant NRC requirements. Industry employees who engage in delibtrate 1
vielstiens of NaC requirements represent a safety threat in terms of their
! tlvaliability.
1 It is difficult enough for NRC inspectors to detect non-compliance when it is i not deliberste given NRC resource constraints. When such violations are done j e ;arpose, and covered up'. such non-cernpliance is highly unlikely to be l , discovered during routine inspections. Thus, the licensee employeea [
cn;;,;n in wrongdoing is itke a Trojan horse within the regulatory system w....c. s cn m cier traits that may lead them to coortit such violations render l
]
l s':h ertployees safety ha:ards of the first order. '
) !
} i I
Thus, it is O!'s view that wrongdoing, as defined by the NRC. alway has a l
]
! degree of safety significance. ,
i 1 ,
l :
.i !
i j BREAUX/ SIP.PSON-0! ')
1 02/09/80 .
i 1 1
1 i i
- 03/2"A G 11105 E-ftL+ttGB NO.001 010 l
lD P .Q l l
SUESTION24 In his October 8,1987, testimony before the Subcomittee, l Hr. Hayos noted 01's mission of providing thorough, objective, and tim:1y reports to the staff to assist them in making regulatory decisions. WhatcriNeriaisusedtosuspendan investigation based upon a regulatory need? Who makes this decision? Please give specific examples of 01 investigations that have been suspended.
A'M ER Tas Director. 01, may elect to suspend an investigation based en a lack of rJgulatory need, but this would be a rare action for the following reason. 1 Vi:tually all current 01 investigations have been carefully reviewed by the Ste.ff t.nd 0! prier to initiation. Eacn open case represents a joint Staff /0!
decision that the facts available to the NM: at the outset represent a rc: son:ble belief that wrongdoing has occurred. As by definition, regulatory n:cd attaches to all wrongdoing within 01 jurisdiction, the only factor that c:vid lead to a decision that a regulatory need no longer exists would be
- c::pciling evidence supporting a reasonable belief that wrongdoing did not, in fcet, exist. This normally would be a result of the investigative process. !
Under those circumstances, the assigned investigator would, with the concur-ronce of his supervisor, discontinue the investigation and write a final repert of investigation that would be issued in accordance with standard i
procedures. ;
i BREAUX/SIMPSON/0!
09/09/83 ;
i
" ev2 sees 10:59 HRc-es.M-PtGB NO.001 002
. . _ . . . . .. 1
. I ID .
i Although the original requestor of an~ investigation may assert that he or she :
no longer requires an investigation, the investigation would be discontinued i by the Director. 01, only if there was a resednable belief that there was no l
wrongdoing, '
On the other hand, the Director. 01, may want to close a case due to a rect::ter's assignment of a lower priority to the investigation. For example, th: r: questor of an investigation snitially assigned a high priority may, t:::d cr. the belief that the investigative results no longer are necessary, !
L r: ws:t it be treated as a low priority case. Under those circumstances, the c: c could becen a candidate for 01 administrative closure for lack of rc:cerce:. Thus, although of would not close a case solely on the basis that the $ttff asserts that there no longer is a regulatory need, the practical f
r: tits of such a staff action would be to cause the matter to be closed ad.9 int:tratively for lack of resources.
1 1
t.: of Cecember 31, 1987, 0) has closed 39 cases administrctively for lack of I r:tource:.
1 e #,
4 0 O
BREAUX/ SIMP $0N/01 02/09/88