One of the many things that worry me about the NRC's conduct is their use of deception when it serves their purpose.  And yet, in their governmental regulatory role, they judge others and penalize them for doing as they themselves have done.  The NRC wields power through application of heavy fines, sanctions, and criminal charges when they perceive that those they oversee are being deceptive and lying.  This applies to licensee's of the NRC such as US Nuclear power plants and medical facilities under their jurisdiction. 

 

The NRC presently has no control over US weapons utilizing nuclear materials, thank goodness.  However... Chairman and commissioner Nils J. Diaz discussed plans to change all that.  Russian weapons are another story. He allegedly announced plans to purchase Russian nuclear weapons and use their nuclear material to power American power plants.  The following are his comments made at The Atoms for Peace Conference 2003  on December 8-9, 2003.

 

Nils Diaz of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission discussed the US program of buying enriched uranium from Russia, downgrading it, and using it for energy generation. "Despite the tradition of dividing civilian and military nuclear materials", he argued, "the present efforts show that this is an artificial distinction that has outlived its usefulness".

 

In the event that the occasional unfortunate target for their disfavor is an NRC employee or NRC contractor employee, they fire them. Lets see.... to fire their employee they need a reason; right?  I can almost see senior NRC management at region 4 spinning the wheel and viewing their choice. The wheel stopped at lying.  How about lying?

 

Lying it is... Not too very long ago,  an NRC employee came into disfavor with the NRC's senior management at the NRC Region 4 office in Arlington, Texas. I respect the former NRC employee's privacy and chose not to use their real name.  Let's call this person Skipper.

 

Skipper had served many years of honorable government service.  Skipper observed and reported some very questionable acts by other NRC employees that seemed dishonest, fraudulent, not in the governments or public's best interest.  Skipper was fired by the NRC's senior management at the NRC Region 4 office in Arlington, Texas.  Their trumped up charge was  lying. They said Skipper had changed one figure on an official governmental report.

 

Poor Skipper, lost his job, how would he now feed his family?

 

Nobody at the NRC responsible for Skippers demise cared how he would feed his family.  The only thing they cared about was cover up, hiding the wrong doing Skipper had reported and retribution for his disclosure.  The other employees at the office would see what happened to poor Skipper and keep quiet and not report any more cases of wrong doing. They would have no more contact with Skipper because Skipper was bad; they were told he was a liar.

 

What happened to Skipper?  Like Ron Bath, Skipper saw through the NRC's deception and fought back.  His case was won and he received compensation and another government job.  Ron Bath received no compensation and did not get his job back.  Unlike Skipper, Ron Bath is still waiting for justice. 

 

Now that you have heard Skipper's story, it's time for The Tale of The Two-Faced NRC.

 

Metrics were very important to the NRC.  These NRC people kept track of everything.  Every quarter the NRC region 4 Branch Chief of the IT (information technology) department was tasked to report his department's performance metrics to his boss the Director of the Division of Resource Management and Administration.  These figures were, of course, routed up the chain of command for their scrutiny and approval.

 

The Branch Chief of  IT was  held accountable for metric figures as they related to his departments performance.  Ratings and raises were greatly influenced by favorable metric performance figures, especially if they met or exceeded established goals. 

 

On several occasions the metrics did not meet the goals set for IT department support performance.  After all the data was examined, the math applied and the dust cleared, Mr. Branch chief was below his goal.  Let's see... what could he do?  He re-examined the raw data and applied the math again and again and looked at the freshly "messaged" performance metric figures.  He was still short of his goal. 

 

Mr. Branch Manager called in his second in command and ordered him to review all data and figures and report back to him.  Mr. second in command pored over all the raw data and crunched the numbers with precision and gusto.  The figures didn't change.  It's funny, how the truth rarely changes.

 

Mr. second in command reported back to Mr. Branch manager with the truth.  Mr. Branch manager told him that the truth just wasn't good enough. He gave a percentile figure to Mr. second in command and told him to go back out there and come back with data that supported his newly chosen figure.

 

Mr. second in command came into the office of Ron Bath, contractor employee of the NRC and fellow IT staff member. It was consultation time.  Mr. second in command looked distraught as he explained what he was requested to do.  Ron was asked if he new of any technical planning or statistical reporting method that could possible skew the figures to vary from the truth to Mr. Branch Chief's targeted figure.

 

Ron examined the raw data, listened to reporting rationale and told Mr. second in command that the truthful figure stood.  There was no honest way to produce the metric figure that Mr. Branch Chief was looking for short of posting false figures on an official government report. Reverse engineering was not appropriate in this application. In other words, that would be lying.

 

Ron made it known that there was a clear and present paper trail and computer log that an auditor could easily slide down to determine the truth.  A challenge to the metric performance figure could never be supported upon investigation.  Ron also stated that falsification of a government record was a criminal offense.  Ron and Mr. second in command jointly agreed that they would never participate in such conduct.  The report was returned to Mr. Branch Chief with the lower performance percentile figure unchanged, much to his displeasure.

 

It was left up to Mr. Branch Chief to alter the performance metric figures.  From his subsequent excellent reviews and awards received from senior management at the NRC, the appearance was that he did just that. It looks like he got by with it through the time he fired Ron Bath in retaliation for turning him in for felony criminal misconduct and up to the time he was arrested.

 

Why have you been told this story? 

 

Public Information

 

o The NRC Fired Skipper for allegedly lying on a government report

o The NRC Management lied on a government report.

 

The NRC - Two Faced

 

Conclusion:

 

While the NRC officials accused Skipper of changing a figure, they themselves willfully and knowingly reported false information on a government report when it served their purpose.

 

 

 

The Team of  Ron Bath, Poor Skipper and Mr. Second in Command Score

 

The Team of NRC Senior Management Score

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have an Honest Day,

 

Ron Bath