ML20028D780
| ML20028D780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Jamarl Cummings NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A771 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301190451 | |
| Download: ML20028D780 (7) | |
Text
May 10, 1982 Note to James J. Cummings, Director OIA
Subject:
REPLY TO CONGRESSIONAL LETTER Attached for your information is a copy of a letter dated May 6, 1982 from Chairman Ottinger to Chairman Palladino.
According to the Secretariat the due date for a proposed response to be sent to the Commission is May 14.
With input from the staff, I am trying to put together a draft response.
As you will note, Question (2) (i) asks, among other things, for any analysis of Commission policies prepared by the Office of Inspector and Auditor along with any other considerations which OIA recommended, upon which the Commission determined that no disciplinary action was warranted (at least as of April 6, 1982) as a result of the actions of Region IV officials.
I will prepare the part of the response to this question regarding the legal advice rendered by OGC, but I will need to get whatever advice the Office of Inspector and Auditor rendered in this regard in the form in which you want the question answered from the standpoint of OIA's recommendations and advice to the Commission.
William Parler Legislative Counsel
Attachment:
letter l
/
U B301190451 830104 PDR COMMS NRCC n /;'
( /
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
('s,
r~.
n,
u,.w s r
- u a.
ti'l/.C. m.. "
~
r!..?
U.S. HOU5E O. REPRESENTATIVE 5
~.......
- u. a..,.._
,.7e7. >U1*.". nx.
EE.".7*[2*.c.i.
SUSCOMMITTEE CN E'iERGY CONSERVATi0h
- c. e-em. u o. m a...
AND POWER
".'[EldUrt c.Ns" "EcI. "!n.
~
J CF Tat 7,'Cg'2 7
g","$,*C3"'"
COMMITTEE oN ENERGY AND COMMERCE
' f*"2"C.".:;;
WASHINGTON. D.C.
2:515 f
tcz erness)
"' " b'*'f;T* "*'
May 6, 1982 The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing in regard to the actions of the Commission in the case of the Hayward-Tyler Pump Company.
I am, of course, aware of the work that has been done by the Interior and Insular Aff airs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and of your testimony before that Subcommittee on this matter.
However, there is one. aspect of this case which is of particular concern to me, beyond the question of safety significance.
The subject is one on which I have corresponded with you in the context of the Diablo Canyon case, that is, the Ccmmission's failure to take forceful actions to insure the integrity of its processes'.
The.
Commission's ultimate effectiveness in executing its mandate to
, protect the,oublic health and safety and environment rests on the i behavior andfintegrity of its processes and of those individuals l vested with the responsibility for overseeing these processes.
Testimony before the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the Interior Committee established that, upon receiving allegations regarding the cuality of pumps for nuclear power plants manufactured by Hayward-Tyler Pump Company, the NRC Region IV undertook both an inspection and an investigation of the company and its fhcilities.
The Regional Administrator and Deputy
/ egional Administrator for Region IV provided draft copies of the R
V inspection and the investigation report to the company on February 12, 1982.
On February 18, 1982, the Regional Administrator was ordered by the Executive Director for Operations not to release either report to prevent prejudicing any possible criminal in"ustigation.
Notwithstanding assertions otherwise by the Regior. ' \\dministrator, it appears that the Executive Director was not informed by the Regional Administrator that such documents had already been released.
On February 24, 1982, the Deputy Regional Adm'inistrator, in a meeting with Company attorneys in Washington, provided the Company with copies of the final inspection report and the draft letter of transmittal and discussed the lancuage of the draft letter.
This was done in that spite of the Deputy Regional Administrator's acknowledgementthe he was aware of the Executive Director's directive against release of these documents.
NRC headcuarters were not informed of the foregoing events until March 4, 1982.
//
~
2 While the behavior of the Regional Administrator and the Doputy Regional Administrator in supplying the attorneys for BTPC with copies of draft reports created what, at a minimum, is the appearance of impropriety of sufficient magnitude to justify the removal of the investigation from the Regional Office, no disciplinary action was thken.
In addition, senior headquarters officials showed an equivalent lack of sensitivity to the standards of behavior contained in 10 CFR.Part O. Under these regulations,-NRC employees are required to " avoid any action, whether or not specifically
_rohibited by this part, which might result in, or create the appearance of... losing complete independence or impartiality."
This section might be considered to be especially applicable to the actions of headquarters senior personnel.
These officials are responsible for establishing models of employee conduct, which will be transmitted to and possibly emulated by the Regional Offices.
For this reason, the behavior of these officials becomes more than an isolated event of poor judgment.
It becomes a standard of behavior which, if tolerated by the Commission itself, has the po,t'ential to undermine the integrity of the Commission's regulatory regime.
This concern becomes especially important under the new "Regionalization" program which will transfer much of the Commission's investigatory and regulatory responsibilities to the Regions.
With less centralized oversight of regional activities, the Commission must establish clear policies which can be easily followed by the Regional Offices.
This is not to impugn the i
ethics of those in the Regional Offices, but to stress the need for clear standards which can minimize actions such as those taken in Region IV in this case.
l Specifically, I am concerned by:
(1)
The actions of the Executive Director for Operations, l
who:
(i)
Believing that the investigation of that company had not been completed, and knowing that that investigation and joint inspection would be the
{
topic of the meeting, met with attorneys l
representing HTPC, one of whom, Mr. Rowden, is a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission.
[
m
3 (ii)
At the meeting with these attorneys, the Executive Director discussed, in his words, "his (Mr. Rowden's) objection to the language of the proposed transmittal letter," without questioning the fact that Mr. Rowden had a draft Commission document.
(iii)
Following the meeting with the attorneys, the Executive Director "... told the Deputy Director, I.E.,
(Mr. Sneizek) to be sure that the language in the transmittal letter was consistent with the findings of the inspection report."
This would seem to be an elementary directive except for the fact that it w'as given specifically to accommodate Nr. Rowden's request.
Mr. Rowden was concerned with the fact that the letter transmitting the inspection report contained statements which were not based on information contained in the inspection and investigation reports, reports which Mr. Dircks thought to be neither published nor available to Mr. Rowden.
(iv)
Mr. Rowden's concern that the transmittal letter relied on findings which Mr. Rowden did not believe were substantiated by the report indicated Mr. Rowden's familiarity with the details of both unpublished reports and the unreleased letter of transmittal.
This would seem possible only from having copies of such material.
(Indeed, Mr. Rowden displayed the draft transmittal letter during the conversation.)
The OIA report summarizes Mr.
Dircks response to this situation:
"...No one from the NRC including s
myself (Mr. Dircks) knew how--or even thought about how--Indian Head representatives had obtained a copy of the draft letter. (H) e did not believe that it " dawned on" any of the NRC personnel (at the meeting with Rowden) that Indian Head representatives had a copy of the... reports."
n
4
\\
The obvious question is why did these officials not question how the attorneys had copies of this material, or why they did not question the propriety of a meeting to discuss the language of a draft transmittal letter--notwithstanding whether or not Mr. Rowden's concerns were justified.
(2)
The attitude of the Executive Legal Director:
When the Executive Legal Director, Mr. Cunningham, who.
attended'the Dircks/Rowden meeting, was asked by OIA for his opinion, as Chief Legal Officer for Commission staff, on the propriety of that meeting, the Investigation Report states:
"Cunningham replied that he saw nothing improper in holding such a meeting, even at the Executive Director for Operations level, because the NRC's employees performing the investigation all worked for (him)."
It is clear that the Executive Legal Director did not question the need for, propriety or results'of such a meeting.
(3)
The attitude of the Deputy Director, Inspection and Enforcement:
The Deputy Director, Inspection and Enforcement, Mr.
Sneizek stated, when questioned by OIA about his response to instructions f rom the Executive Director to ensure consistent language that
"...he called Seyfrit (Deputy Regional Administrator) either that day or the next and discussed the results of the Dircks/Rowden meeting.
Sneizek asked Sevfrit what ha Eas doinc iD resoonse is Rowden's concerns; Sevfrit said he Eas revising tha transmittal letter is make th; lancuace more acceotable."
(Emphasis added)
It appears that Mr. Sneizek did not question the propriety of requesting to make, or actually making, changes to official documents in response to concerns of attorneys for the vendor.
The preceeding sequence of events is reprehensible, not because meetings with attorneys for a company under investigation were held with NRC Regional staf f before the investigation and inspection were finalized, but because of the impropriety of the m
5 results of those meetings.
Attorneys were provided with copies of draf t reports and a draf t letter of transmittal which contains the significant findings and recommendations of the Commission, texts of these draft materials were discussed snd revised in response to such discussions.
However, the purpose and propriety of the meeting with the Executive Director is not as clear.
Et 'n without the directive to the Region as conveyed through the Depu y
- Director, I.E.,
such meetings have the potential to be perceived as pressuring the regions to conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to influential vendors.
Most importantly, these actions are reprehensible becaus, of the total indifference shown by the Commission to the disclosure of these actions at the highest staff levels.
The Commission's inaction in the f ace of the release of internal documents and evidence that private, unrecorded meetings between a vendor under investigation and senior NRC staf f not f amiliar with the investigation occurred and resulted in revisions in the text of official communications constitutes an endorsement of this promiscuous behavior between the regulated and the regulator.
Because of the severity with which I view the actions of the Executive Director for Operations, and the attitudes of the Executive Director and the Deputy Director for Inspection and Enforcement in this matter, and my concerns that these actions do not appear to be treated as highly improper actions by the Commission, I request responses to the following questions by May 17, 1982.
(1) ' What sanctions are available to the Commission for og C l breach of 10 CFR Part 0 by a Commission employee?
s/??s-cW C-r pP (i)
Have any of these sanctions been invoked?
e p
I (ii) If so, undc* what circumstances?
(2) 'On April 6, 1982, Mr. Palladino testified before the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to the effect that the Commission had determined that no disciplinary action was warranted at this time as a result of the actions of Region IV officials.
(i)
Provide all legal analvsis of Commission policies,
/
procedures, rules and " regulations prepared by the 6/s-(_-
V General Counsel, the Executive Legal Director, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement or the Office of Inspector and Aucitor, along with any other considerations upon which this decision was based.
m-
6 (3)
What was the purpose of the meeting.between Mr. Dircks and Mr. Rowden, in light of the fact that NRC officials present were not familiar with the facts of the case?
Is it NRC policy for senior officials, presumably not involved in or familiar with the inspection or investigation to meet with parties under investigation to discuss the investigation and documents associated therewith prior to issuance of the final report?
If so, please state the purposes served and the safeguards used to protect the agency from possible perceptions of impropriety.
O (4)
What activities are contemplated by the Commission to gy g.
determine whether such actions are not uncommon by Headquarters officials discussed in this letter?
d Sincerely, 4
4/
W Richard L.
Ottinger Chairman RLO:mb
_