ML20028D763
| ML20028D763 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/11/1982 |
| From: | Jamarl Cummings NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A771 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301190445 | |
| Download: ML20028D763 (1) | |
Text
May 11, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: William Parler Legislative Counsel FROM:
James J. Cumings, Director Office of Ins,pector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
REPLY TO CONGRESSIONAL LETTER The Office of Inspector and Auditor's (OIA) recomendations to the Comission in connection with the Hayward Tyler Pump case were made in a liarch 30, 1982 memorandum, copy attached. A copy of this memorandum was prnvided to Congressman Ot,tinger on fiay 1, 1982.
OIA prepared no legal analysis' of Comission policies, procedures, rules or regulations prior to Chainnan Palladino's testimony on April 6.1982.
On April 20, Mr. Gamble of my ' staff prepared a memorandum along the lines mentioned above.
On April 23. I responded to Mr. Gamble's memo.
Neither of the above memos wer~e sent to the Commission at that time as I did not concur in Mr. Gamble's' findings.
Copies of these memos were furnished to Congressman Ottin'ger on May 1, 1982.
Attachment:
~
As Stated Distribution:
82-15 /
OIA Reading l
8301190445 830104 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
/
.l.
.. 3
.I..,.
w,ce>l.
. 0} A..
om,q. 50.1/82 k.? A..
.l.
suw.am b,..dCu=1ingsM t..
.j.
a fia rc h 30,1982
!;E40 pat!DUf! FOR:
Chairman Palladino Connissioner Gilinsky Connissioner Ahearne
((Jefg Cornissioner Roberts ery @~n.Q.
J FR0f t :
James J. Cuccings, Director Jr Office of Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
.IllCUIRY It!TO i:RC'S !!Ai;DLIflC 0F THE Ht.YUARD TYLER PU!!P C01:PAfiY IfiSPECTI0fi/It!VESTIGATIOP On !!a rch 25, 1982, in connection with 01A's inquiry into the l'ayward Tyler Pump Company matter, Chairnan Palladino asked (1) Uhat, if anything, did !!RC do inproperly?, and (2) l' hat did PRC co that could be perceived as being an icprcpriety?
DIA's response to these cuestions are as follows:
Clearly, on February 12, 1982, Region IV officials shnuld not have released drafts of the inspection and investigative reports, the draf t transmittal letter to the inspection report and the draft i:otice of f:onconformancc.
"otwithstanding whethcr er not we have specific regulations or cuidance addressing this point, connon sense should nave dictated aaainst this decision, given the totality of the circunstances.
Both the EDO and regional officials - given the frequency and infornality of the various mectings and phone conversa tions wi th !!r. Rowden, et al - should have confirned by teno or letter the substance and nerits of these contacts.
Throughout the investigation and inspection there was less than the proper arcs length distance between f1R C and the vendor and his attorneys. This distance should have been naintained not only because of the competing interest that exists during an investigation but particularly l
l because of the fact that !!RC officials were dealing with former associates who were also former senior officials of the f;RC.
Failure to naintain this distance
)
subjects inspection and investigation reports to the Or,P l
charge that they lack independence and/or objectivity.
/
I 4r{P p
.n9 TF r
,3
'i.
m
r Tne Corr.isst.n l'.u rc h 30, 19F Followinc from the previous points we are left with the
. indisputable fact that the vendor was successful in effecting softening changes to a proposed NRC transmittal letter - and the perception by some that this was done to acconnodate a former boss.
Finally, while the changes did in fact soften the letter I do not believe that regional officials knowingly nade these changes sinply to acconnodate the vendor or f*r.
Rowden.
!!areover, although the chances to the proposed transmittal letter probably would not have been made absent the tactics employed by HTPC and their attorneys, I believe regional officials made the changes in good faith believing they were on point and valid.
With regard to reconmendations, it is my opinion that DIA's inquiry into the various aspects of the handling of the HTPC investigation / inspection substantiates to a large degree what has been brought to the Commission's attention in the past, to wit, the URC investigative program is belou par.
The prirary reason for this situation is not a people problem, as t.e heve many fully trained and corpetent investigators in the field, but rather we lack comprehensive policy and procedures with regard to HRC field investigations. For example, I de not believe there is region-wide agreement with regard to such practices as entrance conferences, exit conferences and sinilar practices as they pertain to investigations.
An irnediate solution to this problen would be the formation of an Of fice of Investigation, reporting directly to the EDC or to the Director, OIA.
Current regional investigators woulc report directly to this office and the office would l
serve as a service organization to the five regions. The l
clear advantage of having this of fice report directly to the l
ED0 could be that najor line functions of the agency would continuc to report to the EDO and CIA vould retain its total overview function.
The major advantage of having this office report to the Director, OIA, lics in the fact that nany field investigations deal with whether or not the regions have done a proper job and this reperting arrennerent would avoid the situation where the EDO is looking at and appraising one of his ewn operations.
i l
I do not believe we can avoid coning to grips with this issue any longer.
DistrDxtdon OLA File 82-15 OL4 rdr l
cc:
U. Circks, EDO l
J. Collins, RO IV l
I out cmet >
sua - r> BMSM 3/30/82 oncy en
-- m