ML20195C520

Responds to Concerns Re Ofc of Inspector & Auditor 850830 Rept on Facility.Three Distinct Occurrences Handled Differently & Conclusions Reached Separately

ML20195C520
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/10/1985
From:	Connelly S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20195C493	List: ML20195C487 ML20195C498 ML20195C520
References
FOIA-86-84 NUDOCS 8605300362
Download: ML20195C520 (2)

Text

_. _ _ _ ___ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ .

Cys: Roe

[, ,, Rahm UNITED STATES

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RMartin i I wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20555 EDO 967

\*****/ October 10, 1985 I h

MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks

%59'o

/

y Executive Director for Operations

s .

FROM: Sharon R. Connelly, Directo

• i /

Office of Inspector and Auditor /{

SUBJECT:

OIA REPORT ON COMANCHE PEAK, DATED AUGUST 30, 1985 lpf' Your memorandum of October 7,1985, indicates a misunderstanding of the conclusions contained in the August 30, 1985 regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station OIA Rep (ort We SES). of Investigation investigated three separate incidents in which Region IV allegedly failed to respond to reports of wrongdoing by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO). The three incidents were distinct occurrences that were each handled differently  ;

by Region IV, and we reported a conclusion with respect to each incident.

! The first incident investigated concerned alleged inaction by Region IV when notified that eight Comanche Peak SES quality control inspectors had been detained and inspection reports had been confiscated. As a result of our investigation of this incident, we concluded that Region IV was not sufficiently sensitive to the incident as it developed.

In the other two incidents, it was alleged that Region IV took no action when notified 1) that a contract inspector had been pressured to reword an inspec-i tion report and 2) that TUGC0 had falsified inspection reports concerning the spent fuel tank liner plates. We concluded that in each of these two inci-dents Region IV responded appropriately.

Our Report of Investigation distinguished the three incidents and the separate conclusions we reached concerning Region IV's actions. Our conclusion that Region IV was not sufficiently sensitive to reports of the detention of quality control inspectors and the seizure of inspection reports is not an ancillary comment. It is our final conclusion with respect to this particular incident.

Our responsibility to ascertain and verify the facts with regard to the integrity of all NRC operations and to report our results to the Commission require OIA reports to be objective and complete presentations of all findings developed during OIA investigations. A practice of publishing only favorable conclusions in official OIA reports and making critical coments as asides in separate memoranda would not be consistent with the OIA mission.

I hope this adequately responds to your concerns. As always, your comments on our reports are welcomed.

8605300362 860527 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-84 PDR.

, ]*Q 3%?  % R .n @

Distribution: ATTACIMENT A OIA Subject IT-/C OIA Reading October 10, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Sharon R. Connelly, Director #

Office of Inspector and Auditor

SUBJECT:

0IA REPORT ON COMANCHE PEAK, DATED AUGUST 30, 1985 Your memorandum of October 7,1985, indicates a misunderstanding of the conclusions contained in the August 30, 1985 OIA Report of Investigation regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (SES). We investigated three separate incidents in which Region IV allegedly failed to respond to reports of wrongdoing by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGC0). The three incidents were distinct occurrences that were each handled differently by Region IV, and we reported a conclusion with respect to each incident.

The first incident investigated concerned alleged inaction by Region IV when notified that eight Comanche Peak SES quality control inspectors had been detained and inspection reports had been confiscated. As a result of our investigation of this incident, we concluded that Region IV was not sufficiently sensitive to the incident as it developed.

In the other two incidents, it was alleged that Region IV took no action when notified 1) that a contract inspector had been pressured to reword an inspec-tion report and 2) that TUGC0 had falsified inspection reports concerning the spent fuel tank liner plates. We concluded that in each of these two inci-dents Region IV responded appropriately.

Our Report of Investigation distinguished the three incidents and the separate conclusions we reached concerning Region IV's actions. Our conclusion that Region IV was not sufficiently sensitive to reports of the detention of quality control inspectors and the seizure of inspection reports is not an ancillary comment. It is our final conclusion with respect to this particular incident.

Our responsibility to ascertain and verify the facts with regard to the integrity of all NRC operations and to report our results to the Comission require OIA reports to be objective and complete presentations of all findings  !

developed during OIA investigations. A practice of publishing only favorable conclusions in official 0IA reports and making critical comments as asides in separate memoranda would not be consistent with the OIA mission.

I hope this adequately responds to your concerns. As always, your comments on our reports are welcomed.

l a cr> ........0IA 1

. .. .$}. ...

=""'> .M.y11ny.:.Rg

,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,,, g,{,y,,,,,j

..Conne.Ux..... ....................

h.l.uL - ..

M/. Grf. . .................... ......... .. ........ ................. .. ..................... . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . .. ~ . - . - - .

unc rom aia no,soi nacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• us. e 3-e-2 l

)

. - . __. . - . . _ .