ML20207A426
| ML20207A426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/1987 |
| From: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dingell J, Markey E, Sharp P, Udall M HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8705190388 | |
| Download: ML20207A426 (8) | |
Text
. ~. -
.f" UNITED STATES U
l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555
\\ *.
/
May 6, 1987 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs
~
United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Comission's May 5,1987 response to your April 30 letter concerning issues involving alleged misconduct by agency officials noted that I did not agree with the Commission's response.
Because.Comission procedures do.
not allow an individual Comissioner to include differing views in the Comission's response, I am writing to provide my views on this subject.
I agree entirely with your statement that the events of the kind' described in the April 9,1987 hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Comittee and since raise profound doubt as to whether certain senior NRC personnel have lost sight of their obligations to ensure safety and to meet the highest standards of personal conduct. Although I have great confidence in Mr. Edles' integrity and competence,-I also agree that, for the reasons set forth in your April 30 letter, an internal NRC investigation of these matters is not sufficient. However, I am not yet convinced that-the Comission is on the right course to ensure an independent, objective, thorough and timely investigation of these matters.
I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
First, it is not clear to me that the Comission is giving priority attention to coordinating the planning of our activities with the Department of Justice. At least portions of two of the three matters referenced in your April 30 letter have now been referred to the Department of Justice. Although I agree that an investigation of these matters which consider their broader implications is in order, I believe that the first step should be to coordinate our planning efforts with D0J i_n order to identify and address any concerns they may have.
Second, deciding whether to use a special counsel or another agency's Inspector General to conduct the necessary investigations could delay the start of the investigations. The Comission appears to be divided on this issue.
I fear that pursuit of the Inspector General option could sub-l stantially delay the start of the investigations. The Comission sought.
the help of the Inspector General comunity to conduct the investigations of internal allegations on two other occasions. In both instances, these attempts to obtain the help of the Inspector General. comunity ended in failure and delayed the start of the investigations by several weeks.
For this resson, I believe that the Comission should simply pursue the special counsel approach.
i;-
87051903888[11 hRES ENCE PDR
s 2..
i Third, I am concerned that the scope of these investigations may not be sufficiently broad to identify and resolve all questions concerning the
, independence and objectivity of senior NRC personnel as well as their comitment to protecting the public health and safety. The Comission seems to have in mind investigations strictly limited to the three matters discussed in your April 30 letter.
It is possible, and perhaps likely, that other instances of improper contacts with the industry and improper conduct by senior NRC officials will come to light as a result of the ongoing increased scrutiny of the Agency.
I would therefore accord a special counsel some latitude.to go beyond the three specific items mentioned in your April 30 letter to identify and address other allegations of concern.
I would also give a special counsel broad authority to recomend to the Comission and to the Congress possible administrative and legislative solutions to any problems identified. Such an inquiry, in my view, would do much to help restore public confidence in the Comission's objectivity and judgment and to help ensure that the behavior of NRC employees satisfies the highest standards of integrity.
Indeed, our obligations both to the public and to the many honest and dedicated employees of the NRC require nothing less.
I hope that these coments are helpful to you.
Sincerely, I -, d.'
James K. Asselstine cc: Rep. Don Young Victoria Toensing Joseph DiGenova
)
7
.6.'.
v.
as uco o
' UNITED STATES -
- -(;
- ,y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- !(,,,
y.y
.g WASHINGTON. O.C. 20C55 '
i
[May6,1987.
3
-g +....
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
. Honorable Philip R. Sharp,. Chairman Subcomittee on Energy 'and. Power-Comittee on Energy ~and Comerce United States. House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515-
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Comission's'May 5,1987 response to your April 30 letter concerning issues involving alleged misconduct by agency officials noted:that I did~
not agree with the Comission's response..Because Comission procedures do
-not allow an individual Comissioner to include differing views in the Commission's response, I am writing to provide my views on this subject;-
I agree entirely with your statement that the events' of the, kind described in the April 9,1987 hearing before the Senate GovernmentalLAffairs -
Comittee and since raise profound doubt as to whether certain senior-NRC personnel have lost sight of their obligations to ensure safety and to meet the highest standards of personal conduct. Although I have-great-confidence in Mr. Edles' integrity-and competence, I also agree that, for the reasons set forth in your April 30 letter, an. internal-NRC.
investigation of these matters is not sufficient. However,~ I am not yet convinced that the Comission is on the right course to ensure an independent, objective, thorough and timely. investigation.of these matters.
I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
First, it is not clear to me that the Comission is giving priority attention to coordinating the planning of our activities with the Department of Justice. At least portions of two of the three matters referenced in your April 30 -letter have now been referred.to the Department of Justice. Although I agree that an investigation of these matters which consider their broader implications is in order, I believe that the first step should be to coordinate our planning efforts with 00J in order to identify and address any concerns they may have.
Second, deciding whether to use a special counsel or another agency's Inspector General to conduct the necessary investigations could delay the start of the investigations. The Comission appears to be divided on this issue.
I fear that pursuit of the Inspector General option could sub-stantially delay the start of the investigations. The Comission sought" the help of the Inspector General comunity to conduct the investigations of internal allegations on two other occasions. In both instances, these attempts to obtain the help of the Inspector General community ended in failure and delayed the start of the investigations by several weeb.
For this reason, I believe that the Comission should simply pursue the special counsel approach.
i.
2-t Third, I am concerned that the scope of these investigations may not be sufficiently broad to identify and resolve all questions concerning the independence and objectivity of senior NRC personnel as well as their comitment to protecting the public health and safety. The Commission seems to have in mind investigations strictly limited to the three matters discussed in your April 30 letter.
It is possible, and perhaps likely, that other instances of improper contacts with the industry and improper conduct by senior NRC officials will come to light as a result of the ongoing increased scrutiny of the Agency.
I would therefore accord a special counsel some latitude to go beyond the three specific items mentioned in your April 30 letter to identify and address other allegations of concern.
I would also give a special counsel broad authority to recommend to the Commission and to the Congress possible administrative and legislative solutions to any proble'ms identified.
Such an inquiry, in my view, would do much to help restore public confidence in the Commission's objectivity and judgment and to help ensure that the behavior of NRC employees satisfies the highest standards of integrity.
Indeed, our obligations both to the public and to the many honest and dedicated employees of the NRC require nothing less.
I hope that these coments are helpful to you.
Sincerely, 2
James K. Asselstine cc: Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead Victoria Toensing Joseph DiGenova l
.i
. [ 2 4tgD UNITED STATES o
g y*,,'g
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 g
\\/
May 6, 1987 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Honorable John Dingell, Chairman Comittee on Energy and Comerce l
United States House of Representatives t
i Washington, D.C.
20515
}
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 The Comission's May 5,1987 response to your April 30 -letter concerning issues involving alleged misconduct by agency officials noted that I did not agree with the Comission's response.
Because Comission procedures do 4
- not allow an individual Comissioner to include differing views in the Comission's response, I am writing to provide my views on this subject.
l I agree entirely with your statement that the events of the kind described in the April 9,1987 hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs l.
Comittee and since raise profound doubt as to whether. certain senior NRC personnel have lost sight of their obligations to ensure safety and to meet the highest standards of personal conduct. Although I have great confidence in Mr. Edles' integrity and competence, I also agree that, for j~
the reasons set forth in your April 30 letter, an internal NRC investigation of these matters is not sufficient. However, I am not yet convinced that the Comission is on the right course to ensure an independent, objective, thorough and timely investigation of these matters.
I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
i First, it is not clear to me that the Comission is giving priority i
attention to coordinating the planning of our activities with the Department of Justice. At least portions of two of the three matters referenced in your April 30 letter have now been referred to the Department of Justice. Although I agree that an investigation of these matters which consider their broader implications is in order, I believe that the first
.i step should be to coordinate our planning efforts with DOJ in order to l
identify and address any concerns they may have, a
Second, deciding whether to use a special counsel or another agency's i
Inspector General to conduct the necessary investigations could delay the 1
l start of the investigations. The Comission appears to be divided on this issue.. I fear that pursuit of.the Inspector General option could sub-stantiaily delay the start of the investigations. ' The Comission sought F
the help of the Inspector General comunity to conduct the investigations of internal allegations on two other occasions. In both instances, these attempts to obtain the help of the Inspector General comunity ended in failure and delayed the start of the investigations by several weeks. ' For i
this reason, I believe that the Comission should simply pursue the special i
counsel approach, l
i I
l
...2.
i >
Third, I am concerned that the scope of these investigations may not be sufficiently broad to identify and resolve all questions concerning the independence and objectivity of senior NRC personnel as well as their The Commission commitment to protecting the public health and safety.
seems to have in mind investigations strictly limited to the three matters discussed in your April 30 letter.
It is possible, and perhaps likely, that other instances of improper contacts with the industry and improper conduct by senior NRC officials will come to light as a result of the ongoing increased scrutiny of the Agency.
I would therefore accord a special counsel some latitude to go beyond the three specific items mentioned in your April 30 letter to identify and address other allegations of concern.
I would also give a special counsel broad authority to recommend to the Commission and to the Congress possible administrative and legislative solutions to any problems identified. Such an inquiry, in my view, would do much to help restore public confidence in the Commission's objectivity and judgment and to help ensure that the behavior of NRC employees satisfies the highest standards of integrity.
Indeed, our obligations both to the public and to the many honest and dedicated employees of the NRC require nothing less.
I hope that these comments are helpful to you.
Sincerely.
s:
James K. Asselstine cc: Rep. Norman F.* Lent Victoria Toensing Joseph D1Genova i
a
..r
.y
+
1
~
'7~
,,n ceeg D
UNITED STATES
]
o,
<i
- [,,,, ',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- t W ASHINGT ON, D.C. 206%
g j/
May 6,;1987 j~ '
OFFICE OF THE -
COMMISSIONER
.i l
Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives-Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
The Comission's May 5,1987 response to your April 30 letter concerning issues involving alleged misconduct by agency officials noted that I did' not agree with the Consission's response. Because Cosmission procedures do not allow an individual Comissioner to include differing views in the t
Cosmission's response, I am writing to provide my views on this subject. -
l I agree entirely with your statement that the events of the kind described in the April 9,1987 hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Comittee and since raise profound doubt as to whether certain senior NRC i
personnel have lost sight of their obligations to ensure safety and to meet i
the highest standards of personal conduct. Although I have great confidence in Mr. Edles' integrity and competence, I also agree that, for the reasons set forth in your April 30 letter, an internal NRC ~
t investigation of these matters is.not sufficient. However, I am not yet i
convinced that the Connission is on the right course to ensure an L
i independent, objective, thorough and timely investigation of these matters.
i I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
f
~
i First, it is not clear to me that the Comission is giving priority
}
attention to coordinating the planning of our activities with the Department of Justice. At least portions of two of the three matters-i referenced in your April 30 letter have now been referred to the Department-i of Justice. Although I agree that an investigation of these matters which i
consider their broader implications is in order, I believe that the first step should be to coordinate our planning efforts with D0J in order to identify and address any concerns they may have.
i Second, deciding whether to use a special counsel or another agency's l
Inspector General to conduct the necessary investigations could delay the start of the investigations. The.Connission appears to be divided on this i
issue.
I fear that pursuit of the Inspector General option could sub-stantially delay the start of the investigations. The Comission sought j
the help of the Inspector General comunity to conduct the investigations of internal allegations on two other occasions. In both instances, these l
?
attempts to obtain the help of the Inspector General connunity ended in
[
failure and delayed the start of the investigations by several weeks.
For this reason, I believe that the Comission should simply pursue the special i
counsel approach.
i i
i' l
-m.m,e
~y.~,,%m m
.-cnm---.--.,--v,.,r,,,-w,%g,ey-m,y.,,-nv%%-y,m.wr-.,,,,,,3._,c,--,,,,-o,,mm,..-ww_m_,.m-3--,p..,,,.v--,.
m m y
,4 pm m. m-e v,,m m -
4
_2 i
Third, I am concerned that the scope of these investigations may not be sufficiently broad to identify and resolve all questions concerning the independence and objectivity of senior NRC personnel as well as their The Comission connitment to protecting the public health and safety.
seems to have in mind investigations strictly limited to the three matters-l discussed in your April 30 letter.
It is possible, and perhaps likely, that other instances of improper contacts with the industry and improper conduct by senior NRC officials will come to light as a result of the ongoing increased scrutiny of the Agency.
I would therefore accord a special counsel some latitude to go beyond the three specific items mentioned in your April 30 letter to' identify and address other allegations of concern.
I would also give a special counsel broad authority to reconnend to the Consission and to the Congress possible administrative and legislative solutions to any problems identified. Such an inquiry, in my view, would do much to help restore public confidence in the Connission's.
objectivity and judgment and to help ensure that the behavior of NRC employees satisfies the highest standards of integrity.
Indeed, our obligations both to the public and to the many honest and dedicated l
employees of the NRC require nothing less.
I hope that these comments are helpful to you.
Sincerely,
?
- /x Q
Janes K. Asselstice cc: Victoria Toensing i
Joseph DiGenova 4
e I
9
_-