ML20134B767
| ML20134B767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/02/1983 |
| From: | Jamarl Cummings NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Ahearne, Gilinsky, Palladino NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134B673 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-334 NUDOCS 8508160065 | |
| Download: ML20134B767 (2) | |
Text
~
a:y t
. * * =
t Distribution:
Ol A Subject 838-13 OIA Reading June 2,1983 Mulley -
Bowers 11E!!0RANDUll FOR:
Chaiman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Ahearne Comissioner Roberts t
Comissioner Asselstine if5161 tisM'c;.
FR0ft:
James J. Cumings, Director O=4 h.C=1:4E
~ - - -
Office of Inspec_ tor and Auditor
SUBJECT:
INITIAL REVIEW 0F 01 ACTIVITIES On April 20, 1982, Chairman Palladino announced the fornation of the Office of Investigations (01) to improve the capability of NRC to perform credible, thorosgh, tinely, and objective investigations. To facilitate the development of quality 01 investigations, the Office of Inspector and Auditor (01A) was directed to:
" Review and coment to the Commission on the adequacy of all 01 investigations fromenow until the end of FY 82.
"Itake a seni-annual audit of 0I progran development, implementation and evaluation activities."
OIA accomplished these tasks through two concurrent yet distinct reviews:
a detailed review of all final 01 Reports of Investigation issued prior to March 31, 1983; and on-site inspections at the five regional 01 field offices.
Results of 01A's efforts follow.
Adequacy of 0! Investications 01A reviewed 18 final 01 Reports of Investigation to determine their adequacy.
Because there were no 01 investigations finalized until October 1,1982, the period of review was extended from the end of FY 82 to flarch 31, 1983.
The overall technical quality of 01 investigations was generally good.
- However, four of the investigations did not fully dncument the circumstances surrounding an incident or allegation and did not develop sufficient evidence to substantiate or refute that an actual violetion occurred.
O!
investigations need to more specifically address regulatory and statutory violations and the elenents of proof required to substantiate those violations. Reports detailing the results of OlA's review of these four investigations were provided to the Director, 01,. for information and appropriate action.
'g>1 8508160065 e50723
~
{#g PDR FOIA ADAT005-334 PDR cra ece >..................
sumac )
can p e
n i
a-01 Procram Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Activities Between November 1982 and March 1983, OIA inspected the five regional 01 field offices.
These inspections addressed physical facilities, personnel structure, administrative and investigative programs, active investigations and inquiries, and the OI interface with the regions. Although the field offices were experiencing the types of problems expected in any new organization, for the most part 01 was off to a good start.
We were informed that the NRC regional offices and the 01 field offices cooperated well.
The Regional Administrators and other key region staff members interviewed by OIA expressed optimism in 01's future and acknowledged an improvenent in the quality of investigations since its inception.
However, our inspectons identified the following areas which require additional attention:
Adr.;inistrative practices used by the field offices varied in effectiveness, but 01 Headquarters was working with the field office directors to develop procedures to ensure all allegations received by 01 are recorded and tracked and all investigative files are properly maintained, controlled and secured. Additionally, the organization and composition of active investigative files required improvenent. flany files reviewed by OIA were in a state of disarray with little or none of the completed investigative activity documented.
Poor documentation impairs ability to conduct a neaningful case review therefore limiting the usefulness of the case file as a nanagement and investigative tool.
OIA review of active investigations and inquiries disclosed that action on some significant 411egations was untimely because investigators were already conmitted to other priority cases.
01 used an inappropriate criterion to delineate a fornal investigation s from a local inquiry.
The decision to initiate a formal investigation,
was predicated on the amount of investigative time required to resolve the issue rather than on the merit of the allegation.
Nonnally, a formal investigation was initiated only if the field office director estimated -
OI involvement would extend past several days.
/
Conclusion Overall, with the exception of the four investigations discussed above, we concluded that GI was satisfactorily acconplishing its ir.vestigative responsibilities.
The problems identified during our regional 01 field office inspections were discussed with the appropriate field office directors who agreed to improve identified weaknesses. Additionally, with the arrival of a pernanent Director in January 1983, and with some additional time to refine current practices and implement new programs and procedures, we expect that 01 will make significant improvements in these areas.
Recommendation In view of the satisfactory progress of 01, I rec'ommend that in lieu of a semi-annual inspection we conduct 'an annual inspection with the next report to be issued by June 1,1984.
/>.
cc:
B. Hafes, 01 omer,
......0...
.. Y.3 f.......O..I A...
, 01......
.. O I A.....
ww.,i >
liul
- e i B o".e rs,,,,,
,, s,sengg,
,c unei n 9 s,,,
r
.N............
.!/..v.$.1.
I" 9. W.
!/.f.3........
em>
........