IA-88-237, Forwards Proposed Irb Recommendations Resulting from Ofc of Investigation Referrals,For Review,Comments & Suggestions. Response Requested by 870427
Text
yq yto stAtts
/ gBs Ctg.%, ENCLdSt.RE d NUCLEAR REGUL6 TORY COMMISSION
- f. 1 j macics i en .... avest t i mi o on. e sia..t i n va .. ....
g' . . . . , */ ,
April 10, 1987 HEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Allan, Region f.
J. Nelson Grace, Region II A. Bert Davis, Region !!!
Robert D. Martin, Region IV -
John 8. Martin, Regicn V James M. Taylor OEDRO i
Thomas E. Murley, NRR Hugh L. Thompson, NHS3 James P. Murray, OGC James G. Keppler, SFO FROM: Richard W. Starostecki, Chairman, IRS
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED 1RB RECOMMENDA710NS l
As a result of IRB activities oser the past six months, in particular the two-day joint working meeting with the Regions on March 17 & 18, 1957, a number of issues and concerns relating to O! referrals have been discussed. i The issues that have been most recurring vere ac: essed by the IRS mem ers and as a result we have prepared the atti.ched "Proposea IRB Recomendations".
Prior to preparation of a final set of recomencations to the E00, I request !
your constructive review, coments and suggestions on the attached.
A responte by April 27, 1937 would be appreciate:. l 1
i -
R chard W. Starostecki, Cha'icman Investigation Referral B,oard
Enclosure:
As stated c:: B. Hayes, O! '
J. Lieberman, IRB M uter !
J 2erbe, IRB Member
- 4. Burnett, IRB Member F. Miraglia, IRB Member I J. 3niezek, NRR l T. Renn, ECO i
.~
l
[ ,.
pP.0POSEO 189 REC 0KMENDATIONS 1.
01 and the staff should be encouraged to coordinate their activities at
~
all 1evels.
It is tne view of tne IRB that the activities,of the 145 wovid have been expecited and erhanceo by the participation of O! staff, Closer working relationships shoulc be fostered such that the agency's objectives are attained with a clear understanding by O! and staff of ;
their respective roles.
Most matters identified as potential wrongccing need to be followed or pursued far enougn to adequately address potential
[
safety cencerns.
The distinction between "wrongdoing" and "safety impact" will not always be clearly identified, nor in some cases can it .
The regulatory needs of this agency are at times not considered suf fi-ciently because of the perception that "this is ours" and "that is theirs".
Consequently, the respective staffs rust work together until the regulatory and wrongcoing issues are clearly established.
2.
There are instances when staff inspections can benefit from the partici-pation by O! staff.
' Such assistance from 01 is generally needed on short i notice and is not conducive to review by a board.
T5ereis$needto clearly distinguish between requests for O! investigations and O!
assistance.
0! assistance refers to those situations where stere is a neee for 01 support to an inspection (e.g., conduct of an interview) to collect additions) data or information so that a r?ssonable ceter-inati:n can be made as to wrongdoing and whether there is a regulatory neec. C:
assistance requests a; pear to be the type of 01 effort that may not te i
j
_ - --- ~ -------_ __ ___ ____ - _ ---_----------------- - ---- -- -
2-f resource intensive and for which O! may be able to provide pece:t sv;: ort to the staff. Recuests for O! assistance by Regional Administraters nave not always been routinely honored by the 01 field office. Basec en Reglo'nal experiences the field offices do not distinguish between investi-gations and assistance support in that written referral requests have been sought before initiating any field work. OI guidance to their field offic)s on this issue is needed to assure a consistent response.
- 3. To foster closer coordination between 01 and staff, 01 staff should be encouraged to attend pertinent Regional enforcement conferences, allega-i tien panet meetingsi er management meetings. 01 should not self-initiate inquiries or investigatiens without cocrdinating with the Regional 1
Acninistrator or the program Office to assure completioti of the staf f's deliberative process. That is, if the staff cecides at an allegation
, panel meeting that a referral is warranted and an appropriate request is for arded for the Regional Administrator's signature, O! should not initiate its effort pending receipt of a specific request. It is the clear definition of the regulatory need that evolves from the delibera-i ..
tive prccess; to assure that the appropriate regulatory need will be i
- l satisfied by the 01 effort, close coordination between 01 and the staff j
during initiation as well as during the conduct of the investigation i
should be encouraged.
i i
i I
! l
.. . = .
4 01 and Regional staff should be encouraged to provide feedtack more routinely.
The development of additional technical information resulting from certain 01 investigative efforts can impact the regulatory need and attendant regulatory actior,. Consequently, the presence of a technically knowledgeable indivi.dval on selected O! efforts would enhance the utility of the 01 results and provide more meaningful feedback upon which changes .
could be considered in the priority, need for and direction of the rd investigation. Conversely. O! presence on certain staff inspections could provide additional perspective to the staff. To assure feedback is attained. O! field offices and Reg Nnal managers should hold at least quarterly briefings on status of activities in progress. These quarterly briefings should also result in a regional prioritization of cases.
5.
The concept of an emergency O! referral should be retained. Guidance t
needs to be developed for the Aegional Administrators as to the threshold of such requests and the need for coordination with the respective Program Office. i a Emergency referrals are infrecuent (four in six months) and do not appear to impose an administrative burden on the staff. Their i
treatment reflects the urgency of the matter and its immedia'te potential impact on pabile health and safety. Program office emergency referrals could similarly be directly provided to O!. Subsequent notification of i t
the E00 Office on all emergency referrais is necessary. Alternatively. l i emergency referrals could be reviewed by t5e Deputy E00 for Regional i
- Operatiens.
Emergency referrais to date have been coordinated with tre ;
!Ro Chairman by telephene; this c: ordination should be centinued with the I
l l
_ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - . . - . _ _ - .J
respective Program Of fice, and a copy of the final writtea recuest sh:ule be forwarded to the review board for information.
6.
Retai'n the concept of a national priority listing that is periccically updated.
- Every six months, all outstanding O! cases should be reevalua-ted for their regulatory need and priority. A review board consisting of {
SES-level managers f rom the E00 Of fice, NMSS, NRR, Regions and O! shoule reassess from a national priority all cases such that a prioriti:ec tabulation is provided to 01. The Deputy E00 for Regional Operatiens could be the Chairperson. A quarterly review of all outstanding cases by a board with a natienal overview would be very resource intensive.
Quarterly reviews at the regional level with subsequent 6 month board reviews appears to be more useful.
7 The Commission's guicelines of January 10, 1535 for requesting and prioriti:ng investigation requests are adequete subject to consistent interpretation of safety concerns. The guidelines address safety concerns in the licensing process and this has been taken by the IRB to apply in the broad context of safety concerns in the regulatbry process ,
which does not discriminate between licensing and inspection. The term "licensing" has on occasion been read narrowly ard applied primarily to NT0Ls in the licensing process. The form useJ by the staff to request an investigation should be modified in certain rescects. First, it sh:uld include in the pricriti:ation request a reference to the acp1fts:le l
t i
subparagraph of the gu celines which best mat:nes the rationale f0r t*e d l
l l
i
i priority.
This woule enhance more consistent and uniform aoplication of the guideline.
The form should also be revised to include a short st.tement to solicit the safety significa.,ce of the issue. Third, the form should solicit a brief description of inspection activities anc/or !
enforcement activities, in many IRB cases, the requests for referrals have been aporoved after additional information has been identified as being pertinent and the formal request revised to more clearly identify !
l the problem warranting O! investigation.
4 ' !
i
- 8. !
The IRB process has fostered improved communication and coordination among the Regions and between the Regions and Headquarters. OGC and OEORCGR participetion has been valuable in providing constructive suggestions and recommendations; the synergism. of the IRB discussions has been most beneficial and the consensus decisions of the IR8 have resulted ,
in no cases being contested by any requesting Region or Office. Althougn the IRB process was at times very disruptive to individuals because of .
. the time constraints (routine meetings usually required 2 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />), the l level of involvement was desirable in light of the variety of issues.
Que to extenuating circumstances, the Deputy Office Directors for NRR and t
NMSS were able to participate in only a few meetings. Consequently, NRR !
i
' and HMSS participation was generally at the Division Director level. !
i !
I Accordingly, a board made up of Si$ level managers could continue to provide the fanction of the IRS. i The IRS focused its attention on the i i
regulatory need and priority of each case. O! was invited to eacn !
, i
! meeting but never attenced. Scte O! field offices participated by 1
,l
telephone on occasion.
More active O! involvement in this process *oute have been beneficial because of their insights on what constitutes wrongdoing and their views of how far inspections can occur before they mignt interfere with a future investigation. Nonetheless, the IRB approach to reviewing each case was successful in that the regulatory need was more fully considered and prioriti:ation was more uniformly ano consistently. assigned in accordance with the Comission'$ guidelines. As 1
a result, there are two options that warrant consideration for the IR!:
Cotion A The IRB function could be transferred to the Program Offices. The function of the IRB of reviewing the priority and the adequacy complete-ness of the specific request could be reassi; ad to the respective program offices.
Prior to referrsi to 01, Re;ional reactor cases should be reviewed with NRR and materials cases with NM55. Each Program Office could establish a SES level board with OGC and/or OEORO participation.
For example, NRR could constitute a quorum with a 3 person board made uo of a Division Director 0GC, and O!DRO representatives. Similar restrie-
^
tions on timeliness, within two weeks of rectiet, shculd be stated for considering requests.
Program office referrals could be similarly referred to 01 by the program of fice af ter bea d review. TVA and Comanche Peak issues should similarly be censidered by a board; it is suggested that t,he Special Project Office have a participating me-ter on the NRR board.
. /:
s ,
i 7
~ '
j .
Cotten B Retain the IRB as constituted with representation from NMSS, NRR, CEORO i
and QGC. The IRB Charter could be retained but representation from the t 4
offices should not be limited to Deputy Office Directors;,metters could be Division Directors, or higher.
4 4
J .
i 4
i I
.i i 1
- 8 l
! I
) ,
l 4
I I
i i 1 j l I'
i 1
ENCt.0$URE 9 COMMENTS PROVIDE 0 ON PROPOSE 0 IRB RECOMMENSATIONS On April 10, 1987, 5 months af ter the inception of the IRB, proposed recommendations were developed by the IRS anc provided to the Regional Administrators, Program Of fice Directors, tne Director, Of fice of Scecial Projects (OSP), the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and ;ne Office of General Counsel for review anc comment. These comments,are attacned.
The commenters were in general agreement and supportive of the recommendations. i with some modifications. Disagreements however, were noted. The Director, OSP i does not agree that IRB should continue. The Administrator, Region 11 does not believe that each individual referral shoul d be reviewed in advance by an IRB. The proposed recommendations also identified the option of more direct program of fice review of each refearal in lieu of the IRB. This cotion was region. generally not supported due to the need for more interactions by eacn 1
The general benefits stated by the commenters include:
1.
The establishment of a national priority was reviewed as needed. As noted by Region 11, if panding cases are reduced so that 01 c.sn cetolete investigations more quickly, thCrt would be a better likelihood that appropriate regulatory action, such ds enforcement, could be taken more timely.
Concurrently, Region 111 also noted tr.at a major percentage i (80%) of the highest priority cases nationwice ere in Region 11!.
2.
There was agree.~ent that the IRB process provided a consistent application of the Commission's threshold for recuesting investigations.
3.
The IRB improved the staf f's appreciation for clearly stating the regulatory need for an investigation.
4 TheRegions the IRB premoted and 01.improved comunication and feedback among Headquar*,ers, Highlights from each commenter are provided.
Region i The Administrator, Region 1, supported the recommendations and indicated that they staff are andappropriately 01. The option aimed at encouraging better coordination between the
! of retaining a single boarc, weighing both reactor and material referrals from a national persptctive, was preferred.
f Recien !!
The Administrater, Region !!, highlighted a nutter of benefits achievec by the IRB process but did not telieve that the neec for a review board, .nics reviews referrals in advance of formal submittal to 01, is' warranted. h was stated that:
1 J
-2
(
1.
The IRB helped foster a better understanding of priorities from an agency wide perspective; 2.
Thefostered; be need for enhanced cooperation between O! and the regional staffs shoulc 3.
Program offices oversight role; should have more active participation in a passive i
4 !
Steps should be takan to review and reduce the oacklog of perrding O! i cases so as to provide more tirnely support to the regions for those cases that have a high probability of resulting in enforcement action; and 5.
A periodic cases shouldreview and updating of a national priority listing of pending be cor.tinued.
Recion III The Administrator, Region !!!, made a number of comments. There is agreement with attendthe concept board of a review boarc to prioritize investigations and 01 should meetings.
Selected comments include:
1.
Close coordination between regional staff and 01 is essential.
2.
Guidance should be provided to 01 field offices for providing assistance of a short term nature, as contrasted with an : sestigation. Use of 01 i to scope issues is beneficial;
- 3. 1 01 shouW not ce restricted from self triitiati ; investigative efforts; 4.
The concept of emergency referrals should be retained.
Regional Administrator for classifying emergencies should be providedGuidanc i referrals; and with senior headquarters officials shovid occur on emerge;ncy!
coordination 4
1
- 5. I i
Region III caseload af ter completion of the IRB srecess, including deveicoment of a national priority listing, included 80 percent of the i highest priority cases nationwide; it was ie:lte:
OI resources is warranted to deal with this. that reallocation of
[ Region IV The Administrator, Region IV, procesed a revision to tne modifications developed he su by the Co.?mssion relating to the cefinitica of wrongdoing.
"reck,ggests a definition less indifference". be deseloped for the terms "careless disregard" andFurthe r.
allegations. Another issue addressed deals with the treatrent of as to who is responsible for establishing whether the*e is for believing that an allegation coes in fact involve rongcoing . Finally, 3 Region listing of pendingIV endorses cases. the concept of maintaining and ucciting a nationa I
J
1 l
l QUESTION 26. (continued) l 1
1 (H) Why was the IRB "dis-established"?
l ANSWER:
The IRB served its purpose of providing senior nanagement oversight for the impirmentation of the Comnission's guidance on the thresholds for reque' sting investigations and priori.ies of investigations. The IRB served a quality assurance function for the referral process. The IRB was established on a trial basis and, after an evaluation of its operations by the EDO, it was decided that it was no longer needed. The consideration of priorities on a national basis has been continued through periodic meetin95 cf O! ar.d :taff officials in the Investigative Priority Review Group.
l l
l 1
l 1
1/27/88 EREAUX Q16
QUESTION 17: Alt. hough the IRB has been "dis-established," the NRC initicted the Investigation Priority Review Group.
(A) What is the charter of this body?
ANSWER:
The charter is attached. .
l I
I i
t l
l 1/27/80 BREAUX Q17
, Question 17A Attachtent I
/ 'o, UNITED STATES
! 7. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ j w AsuiNa to N, D. C. 20655
%,...../ SEP 151937 l MEMORANDUM FOR:
Those on Attached List FROM: Victor Stello, Jr. 1
- Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
SYSTEM FOR PERIODICALLY PRIORITIZING INVESTIGATIONS The Investigation Priority Review Group (IPRG) is being established to consider .
the priorities for investigations of wrongdoing oli a national basis. MatM rs I of wrongdoing involve varying degrees of potential or actual safety significance.
Therefore, NRC limited investigatory resources make a periodic agency wide
! review of investigation priorities necessary to assure that the investigatory I
resources are focused on the most important safety issues.
The cer@osition and responsibilities of the IPRG are set out in the attached Investigation Priority Review Group Chartar. Initial wrking arrangements for the IRPG are also attached to this Memorandurs. The IRPG Chairman may revise these initial working arrangements as necessary. The Office of Investigations I has been involved in developing the plans for the IPRG and the Director of OI supports this approach.
l The Investigation Priority Review Group and the system for periodically reviewing and prioritizing requests for investigatinns will be effective September 30, 1987. !
1 ,
Y ctor St '
Executive Director or Operations f I h Enc'Mures: As stated h j q y 9 cc: B. Hayes, O! '
S. Connelly, CIA i T. Rehm. EDO i
l Q1/^ m eg/yy- QR
- r
-<in w
l WORKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE INVESTIGATION PRIORITY REVIEW GROUP (IPRG) l The Director, OE, will provide staff support for the IPRG. This support will include (1) providing the reference and working materials necessary j ,
for the functioning of the Grcup, (2) preparing IPRG reports for the approval of the Group Chairman, and (3) performing such other IPRG functions as the Group Chairman ma'y direct. l The IPRG will meet during the first month of each calendar quarter as scheduled by the Deputy EDO. At least 30-days before the scheduled quarterly meeting. OE I will provide Regional Administrators and Office Directors a copy of the last l national ranking made by the IPRG and e Ifst of referrals made by the region or !
office since the last national ranking. The last national ranking developed by !
the IR8 will be used for the initial Group meeting. The list of referrals will l be grouped by the priorities designated in Manual Chapter 0517. Regional l Administrators and Office Directors will review the O! referrals made by them l on the list provided by CE and further rank the referrals using the following i guidance. Within the High priority, rank according to Upper, Medium, and j Lower. Within the Nonnal priority, rank according to Upper and Lower. No further ranking of cases within the Low rnority 's necessary. Outstanding 0! i case will also be reprioritized by the Regional Administrators and Office '
Directors who originally made the referral.
The Regior.41 Administrators and Office Directors' will also request from the I appropriate O! Field Office Director, a status for O! investigations re arding '
(1) whether the case is a full investigation or an inquiry (Q case) (2 the l percen', of field investigative work completed for all outstanding O! cases, (3) a Mst of the O! cases closed, and (4) cases opened since last IPRG meeting)with will (1 annotateassigned priority.ranking the national Regional Administrators lists provided by and Office OE with the Directorspriority-information regarding new referrals, (2) annotate the status of O! cases including the percent of field work completed, and (3) return the annotated lists to CE by the close of business,10 days before the scheduled IPRG meeting.
9 3 Frior to the IPRG meeting. OE will prepare a "straw man" new national ranking' A list using the annotated lists from the Regional Administrators and Office x
) Directers. In prepar.ing the straw een list. OE will include the percent of ' '
- the field investigative work e mplet-d. line out those cases that have been completed or administratively .ivs*: ince the last rational rarking, and include a brief 'one line" d seriet e of the cases. .
At the IPRG meeting, Group members will review the straw man national ranking list and develop a revised nattenal ranking. After the IPRG meeting, OE will prepare a report of the Group meeting, including the new national ranking, and issue a report, after approval by the IPRG Chairman, to the organizations indicated in the IPAG Charter.
I
lut M Attached List J. M. Taylor, DEDO
. E.' NR 5:ii:niteJ" J. N. Grace, RII A. B. Davis, RIII R. D. hartin,'RIY J. B. Martin, RY J. G. Xtppler, OSP -
W. Parler, OGC W G. Mcdonald, ARM H. Denton, GPA E. L. Jordan Af00
. ch k OG emuuluD b; I i '
i F.g k
i
- ..s-Charter for the Investigation Priority Review Group I. PURPOSE To review quarterly each open investigation
1.
The assigned priority (high, norral, low), and assure the priority is consistent with program anc overall agency needs, and
- 2. The schedule when the results of the investigation are needed to 4
support regulatory action.
II. Membership Deputy Executive Director for Operations (Group Chairman)
Office Director, NMSS Office Director, NRR Director. 01 Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, OGC (Advisory Member) 1 Director OE (Advisory Member)
I If Group members are unable to attend a meeting, they shculd appoint their deputics or acting office directors to substitute for them.
!!!. Meetincs j
Meetings will be conducted quarterly during the first month of each calendar quarter as scheduled by the Group Chairman. It 1:. expected that ,
' the meeting will includt Regicnal Administrators, Director, OSP, and 01 Field Office Directors representat'on, via conference call.
IV. Staff Succort .
j The Office of Enforcement will provide staff support for the Investigation Priority Review Group. This support will include (1) advising the Group
{ regarding the application of the policies in Manual Chapter 0517. Appendix, Part Ill, (2) providing the reference and working materials necessary fer
{-
the functicnirg of the Group. (3) preparing the Grcup quarterly report for the approval of the Group Chairman, and (4) performing such other IPRG functions as the Group Chairman may direct.
V. Reeert A quarterly report will bn provided to the EDO. The report will sunr.arize the prioriti.- den of opon investigations, 2umrart:e the status of outstanding investigatfer.; and identify any problems or potential ;
problem areas. Copies of the report to the ECO will be provided to the Commissioners, the Directors, NRR, hMSS, OGC, OE, 01, OSP, and the five Regional Acministrators. ,
1 i
i j
i
OVESTXON 17. (con %1nuad) (B) Is the O! Director a participating member of the new body? If so, what are his responsibilities?
ANSWER:
Yes. The Director of 01 has the same authority as any other member of the board.
i 1
d t
l l
i i
I i
\
I l
- 1/27/68 BREAUX Q17 1
L______________________._____.-___.._._____________-.-___..________. __
. . . . . _ -_ _ -. . . _ . . - ._ =
i i o
a f
I QUESTION 18. In April 1987, the O! Director submitted SECY 87-93 to the !
j Commission. ,
- r 1 (A) For what specific reasons did the 01 Director submit the :
, SECY paper to tt.c Comission? !
1 ,
. L 4
(B) Knat events led to submitting the document to the :
- Comission? -
t
! ANSWER i
j SECY-87-93 arose out of an Of concern that certain $taff and Comission actions taken frt=11985 on had the effect of creating confusion regarding the scope of 01 authority and responsibility. Two actions in particular -
- Cemission approval of SECY-85-369 regarding tha initiation, establishment of priorities, and the ta nination of investigations, and establishcent of an ,
4 !
] Investigation Referral Board - appeared to the Director. O! to conflict with ,
a long standing O! policies and procedures, particularly in such areas as the ;
i !
{ authority of the Director. 01, to initiate investigations, or the obligation l 1 ,
of MC employees to report wrcngdoing matters to 01. The need for clarification ;
i became evident to the Director. O!, in February 1987 when centruversy over O! i
! i self-initiation of an investigation over the objecticns of so,,e Sisff oyficials l l 1ed to at least one Comissioner severely critici:ing the OI actions.
l l
l i
)
j l 1/27/83 BREAUX Q18 i
QUEST 20f: 18.(c.onQinued) (C) What did the O! Director ask for in the SECY paper?
ANSWER O! asked. (1) that the Commission reaffirn Ol's authority and responsi-
) bilities, and (2) that the Conmission direct O! and the Staff to develop joint guidance to ensure that all NRC employees are inforced of the scope of O!
authority and responsibility so that all matters of wrongdoing are brought to Ol's attention. The paper was withdrawn without Commission action at Ol's request.
1 4
t u
i i
l I
l l
i 1/27/58 BREAUX Q18
QUESTION 18.(continued) l i
In April 1987, the O! Director submitted SECY 87-93 to the t
- Comission.
i-
[
{ (D) What arrangements were reached as a result of the manage-f i ment meeting held to discuss the SECY paper?
l !
,, ANSWER I !
I The Director. 01, and his staff met with the Comission on July 29, 1987, to l
! discuss SECY-87-93. During that meeting, the existing 27 O! Policy Statements l J !
j previously approved by the Comission and the authority of O! to self-initiate :
l investigations were discussed. Prior to that management meeting, but subsequent i
j to the submission of SECY-87-93, the Investigation Referral Board was f s
di established, and the Cornission announced that neither Comission nor Office !
of General Counsel review of proposed O! referrals to the Department of Justice j would be required. Of submitted SECY-87-93A which femally withdrew SECY-87-93.
Ol's withdrawal of SECY-87-93 was based on its understanding that 01's corcerr.s ;
j had been resolved.
I r i :
2 1
- t
).
i i
i l I i \
j i 4 i i
i 1
i 1/27/88 BREAUX Q18
)
i OUESTION 19. What NRC document (s) define the procedures for conducting investigations under Ol's jurisdiction?
(A) Define the thresholds for conducting O! investigations.
4 ANSWER The thresholds for conducting 0! investigations are found generally in Part III. B.I. of the Appendix to NRC Manual Chapter 0517. The threshold for a Staff investigative request is a reasonable basis for belief of wrongdeing and a Staff determination that an investigation is necessary for enforcement or other regulatory action. The Director. 01, may self-initiate an investigation based en reasonable belief of wrongdoing on a matter within NRC purview in I
accordance with 01 Policy 4 i
1 l
i i
I I l
! l 4
i 1/E7/88 BREAUX 019
QUESTION 19.(con %inued) ,
(B) Define the priorities for conducting O! investigations.
ANSWER Investigative priorities are initially assigned by the requestor of an investigation in accordance with the guidance in NRC Manual Chapter 0517.
O! normally accepts this assigned priority. Additionally, the Investigation Priority Review Group meett periodically to ensure that investigations have been properly prioritized frem a national perspective. The Comnission has formalized in NRC Manual Chapter 0517, Part III, guidance for establishment of priorities for, as well at initiation and termination of, investigations. A i copy is attached.
i I
I I
f i
l l
I l
! l f ,
1 l
1/27/E5 EREAUX Qi9 )
1 j
. . = _ - . -
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NRC Apowndix 0517 p.~
'
- PART lli GUIDANCE FOR INITIATION, ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES AND !'
TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATIONS i
A. General l t,
On January 10, 1986, 5taff and the Office of the Commission app Investigations 01)(roved the guidelines for initiation, proposed establishment of by the l
- priorities and termination of investigations. The Commission cone.luded that q
uniform guidelines should be used by both the Staff and 01 in stablishing priorities for Investigations and that staff views on the need for a d priority ,
of an investigation were an Integral part of the investigation pr ,:ess. The .
following procedures are to be followed in implementing the guidelines. ;
i B. Referral by the Staff of Matters for Investigation ,
) 1. Regional Administrster and Office Directors, the latter through the i EDO, shall refer to the Office of Investigations for possible investi-
- gation all matters where: (a) there ic a reasonable basis for belief of wrongdoing, as that term is defined elsewhere in this chapter; and l1 (b) the staff determines an investigation is necessary for it to decide i
- whether enforcement or other regulatory action is required. Matters !
l for which there is not a reasonable basis to believe wrongdoing is l Involved or matters which may involve wrongdoing but for which an ;
investigation would be unnecessary to determine the appropriate '
s course of action should not be referred to 01 for investigation. For i
example, where a licensee discovers that a low-level employee !
dellberately violatad a requirement or falsified a document, dis- l l
ciplines the employee and takes appropriate corrective action which !
j the Staff has reviewed, the Staff may conclude that further NRC !
{
action is unnecessary, i
- 2. All referrals to 01 shall be made using the Request for I Investigation" form (Exhibit 3). A priority of hiah, "normal or low l I j
- will be assigned to the requested investigation using the examples i
. set forth below as guidance. Each request to 01 arising from an l
' allegation should be coordinated with the OAC. OGC or Regional i
- Counsel should al4o be consulted to review the legal basis for the
], referral. Copies of the completed request forms shall be distributed i
1 as indicated on the form.
]
- 3. As Indicated above, the staff will recommend a high, normal or low priority for each matter referred to OI. The following examples may serve as guidance in assigning priorities. It should be recognized
' that these exampfws are Just that. Judgment must still be exercised l in each case to assure that the appropriate priority is established.
0 l
1 i
i 29 Approved: June 20,1987 1
NRC Appendix 0517 part 111 MANAGEMENT OF At. LEGATIONS
- a. nigh l1) Current manager, llconsed operator or other employee Involved in deliberate violation of requirements having high safety significance, g, continuing potential for .
unnecessary radiation exposure to employees or members of the public. '
(2) Suspened tampering with vital equlpment at a, power reactor. ;
(3) Allegations of falsification of records available for NRC ,
inspection or submittals to the NRC or deliberate .. i withholding of information required to be reported to the NRC, where the situation involved presents an irr. mediate '
and continuing health and safety concern, eA, (a) falsification of records having high sc'ety signif- !
Icance, such as falsifications which conceal a ;
repeated failure to perform a required test; (b) alleged withholding of significant design flaw or :
4 selsmic criteria information for an operating facility, -
4 or (c) level of Individual involved in the alleged withholding .
of information or falsification is such that a serious j cuest!on of the willingness of management to conduct ;
safe operations is raised.
) (4) Allegations of falsification of records available for NRC inspection or dellberate violations of NRC requirements concerning an area of significant safety concern for -
, licensing. ,
i I (5) Allegations of wrongdoing where immediate investigation is i necessary to ensure preservation and availability of evidence or which are in some other way time perishable.
- b. Normal -
j (1) Allegations of intimidation or harassment of QC Inspectors or workers on safety related equipment at a facility under i construction, j (2) Allegations of deliberate violations of NRC requirements j where there is no indication the vlotation is recurring or causing l' mediate and direct health and safety impact on the general public or employees.
I (3) Allegations of falsification of records available for NRC ;
insceetion or deliberate violation of NRC rerquirements of i
)
s 'y concern in the licensing process.
j j ,
Approved: June 20,1987 30 i
NRC Appendix 0517 Part til ,
MAN AGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS e g
- c. t.ow
- (1) Allegations of dellberate violations of NRC requiremerits, to NRC, or falsification of records or submittals
- harassment or intimidation of workers where the licensee
' is aware of the allegation and has already undertaken corrective action.
(2) Allegations of deliberate violation of NRC requiremer ts at !
an operating facility where there is no near-term safety concern; g, the reactor is in long term shutdown.
I .
- 4. Program offices are responsible to the EDO for assuring that within their areas of responsibilities necessary Investigations are conducted. ,
if the program office bel 19ves that a priority for a matter should be different than that requested by the Reglen, the Region should be contacted immediately to resolve the matter.
Once a matter htts been accepted by 01 for investigation, if the !
- 5. '
requester of the investigation determines that the necd for or
- priority of an investig,ation has changed, that information will be provided to the Director, 01, for his/her consideration.
4 C. Initiation of an Investication by 01 ,
- 1. Upon recolpt of the "Request for investigation" form, 01 will !
' evaluate the request and conduct consultations 4,s necessary with the !
requesting office. Oi will Initiate an investigation If:
! a. The staff has found that the alleged wrongdolng has had or could havw an impact on the public health and safety, the t common defense and security, protection of the envi*onment, or [
]
antitrust laws provided tnat these matters are within NRC jurisdiction; and ,
- b. The Director, 01, deterrnines that there is a reasonable basis to f o
believe that the mat %r involves wrongdoing; and
=
- c. The Director, 01, determines that there is sufficient information
- available to suvert the allegation to warrant initiation of an investigation.
- 2. If upon review of the request, there is a reasonable belief that the .
l alleged wrongdoing is *olely a product of careless disregard or reckless indifference, Oi teill not normslly conduct an investigation unless the requester ind;,.ates that the matter requires application of d Ol reseurces because there are major regulatory implications and the Director, 01, concurs with this judgment.
- 3. 01 will seek Commission guidance prior to initiating an investigation j
rstating to the character / integrity of an individual in those instances e ;
where the character or suitability aspects of the matter being 31 Approved: June 20,1937
NRC Appendix 0517 Part lli MAN AGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
~
considered for investigation are unrelated to a violation of NRC regulatory requirements. ,
- 4. 01 will notify the requester within 30 days of receipt of the request whether t5e matter has been accepted for investigation and, if so, '.
the priority assigned to the matter and the estima','d schedule for completion, if a matter is not accepted for investigation, Ol will ,
provide the requester with the basis for its decision. Copies of 01 correspondence on scheduling and priorities will be sent to.all those who received a copy of the original request as Indicated on the requ,st form. ,
i
- D. Resolution of Differences Between Staff and Of J
- 1. Following 01 notification of its action on a request for investigation, if the Regional Administrator has concerns about the priority or ;
schedule assigned to the matter or the declination of 01 to i
l investigate at all, he shall promptly notify the Director of the !
j appropriate program office of his concern.
- 2. The Director of the responsible program office will review disputed matters referred by the Regional Administrator and the priorities and f
- schedules assigned on matters referred to 01 directly by the ,
program office. if the Director determines that an investigation ;
l priority or schedule established by Ol or the lack thereof does not 4 4
!} meet regulatory needs, and the matter cannot be resolved with the 1 Director, 01, he/she will promptly notify the EDO.
i l 3. The EDO will attempt to resolve all differences over the need for and !
l priority and schedules for investigations with the Director, 01, and l if unsuccessful, seek Commission resolution, i
) E. Terminatlen of Investlantions l The decision by Ol to terminate an investigation which has been l i 1. '
1 initiated will normally be made outside the context of the 4
investigative priority /threshhold system. 01 will normally continue an investigation to its conclusion if there is a reasonable basis for a ,
belief that the matter being investigated involvss a deliberate
- i violation of NRC requirements. The decision to terminate an J investigation will be a case by case assessment by the Oirector, 01, '
of such issues as whether the relevant facts necessary to reso've the i l matter under investigation have been gathered, whether allegations J of events or conditions are so old that witnesses are unavailable or could no longer be expected to recall pertinent information, or whether continued investigation would be nonproductive or otherwise j not serve the agency's interests.
l 2. As indicated in section B.S., above, if the requester of an
] investigation determines that the need for or priority of an i investigation has changed, that information will be provided to the g l Director, 01, for his/her consideration.
Approved: June 20,1987 32
NRC Appendix 0517 Part lit, Exhibit 3 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
/
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR PUBLic DISCLOSURE
- Roquest No.
Region / Office-year No.)
' Allegation No.
To: ?
) FROM:
> REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION 2
~
Licensee /Vendcr/ Applicant Docket No.
l Facility er Site Locaticn ,
i . f i
- i 2
, Regional Acministrator/ Office Date i
i 1
A. Request
]
What is the matter that is being requested for investigation (be as j specific as possible regarding the underlying incident).
\ t d
t l
I l
l 1 l i LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUELIC DISCLOSURE W/O 01 APPROVAL 4
i i l I,
- 35 Approved: June 23,1987 l l 1
I
I 1
l 1
5 NRC Appendix 0517 Part lil, Exhibit 3 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 2- i B. Purpose of Investlaation .
1
- 1. What is the basis for the belief that the violation of a regulatory requirement is more likely to have been intentional or to have -
resulted from careless disregard or reckless Indifference than from
- error or oversight? (be as specific as possible).
i r
- 2. What are the potential regulatory requirements that may have been
- violated?
4 i
s
., 3. If no violation is suspected, what is the specific regulatory concern?
5 ,. ..
I l l
- 4. Why is an investigation needed for regulatory action and what is the ,
regulatory impact of this matter, if true?
i 7
, . . t l C. Requester's Priority :.. l i 1. Is the priority of the investigation nigh, normal, or low? l 1
, 2. What is tre estimate ' date when the results of the investigatien are
- l
. j j needed?
J
- 3. What is the basis for tho date and the impact of not meeting thit .
I j . date? (For example, is there an immediate safety issue that must be addressed or are the results ner.ess ary to resolve any ongoing j regulatory issue and if so, what actions are dependent on the out- l 1 come of the investigation?)
I I LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W/O 01 APPROVAL '
1 l i
l (~
{
i I Approved: June 20,1987 36 i
a l l l
NRC Appendix 0517 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGAYlONS Part lit, Exhibit 3 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 3
O. Contact
- 1. Staff members:
- 2. Allegers identification with address and telephone number if
! not confidential. (Indicate if any confidential sources are involved j and who may be contacted for the identifying details.) ,
) 5 i F. Other Relevant Information i
4 3 i ['. * ;
I a .
l Signapure I cc: 01 */ ,
l EDO NRR/NMSS/OSP as apprcpriate~*/ -
j OGC Regional Administrator **/ . I OE )
L l
- / if generated by reglen. .
"/ if generated by NRR/NMSS/OSP i LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W/O Cl APPROVAL i
i i 37 Approved: Juna 00,1987
.l d 4 i
QUESTION 20. Who has the ultimate authority, within HRC, to open a full-scale investigation under 01's jurisdiction? Who has the primary responsibility to deternir.: whether or not an O!
investigation is needed?
i ANSWER 1 :
Ultieate authority rests with the Commission. Although the EDO and Regional Administrators nay request investigations, only the Cornission may direct O! .
to open an investigation. Except where the Commission may direct *nitiation J
of an investigation, tSe Director. 01, deterninet whether or not to initiate an investigation. Authorized requestors have a responsibility to request O! !
investigattens when the threshold criteria of NRC Manual Chapter 0517 are met, i The autherity of the Director. 01, to self-initiate investigations is addrested in our respense to Questien 16(A).
1 i
l l
1 1
1
- 1 l
s j
J 1/27/50 BREAUX Q20 s
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - , . - . - _ _ - , _ . . _ - . . _ _ . - - ~ =
_y . , ,
QUESTION 21. Has the Comission ever denied an 01 request to initiate an investigation under its jurisdiction? If so, describe the specific incidences and why the request (s) were denied.
ANSWER The Comission has never denied an O! request to initiate an investigation under its jurisdiction.
J d
i i
J I i
^
l l
l 1
1
'/27/E3 BREAUX Q21 i
l
l l
r QUESTION 22 Please explain the relatinnship between wrongdoing and safety issues in the context of OI's responsibilities to investigate wrongdoing. In the Commission's view, does wrongdoing always have safety significance? Does 01 share the Comnission's view of the relationship between wrongdoing and l
safety issues? '
1 ,
ANSWER l
NRC prescribes requirements to protect public health and safety. Nomally, wrongdoing as it occurs under the purview of NRC involves a deliberate violatien of NRC requirements. Wrongdoing or deliberate violations are of l significance because they reach to the character, reliability, and integrity of l the licensee individuals involved. The potential significance to safety is !
also gauged by the position and responsibilities of the person involved. For exa ple, wrongdoing on the part of a nuclear plant manager is clearly more significant than wrongdoing by a firewatch.
1 The Cemission cannot prejudge the safety significance of each case of wrongdoing. The safety significance of wrongdoing also varies depending upon !
the specifte requirement violated. Each case is reviewed on its merits. For I exarple, wrongdoing could span deliberately concealing incapacitated systems l
l vital te reactor safety sll the way to falsification of logs used to record the i
l routine tours of fire watches.
l l 0: offers the fo11 ewing observations regarding the interrelationship of wrongdoir.g and safety:
l l 1/27/88 3REAUX 022 1
QU_EST80N22.(con %inued) i l
l The nuclear industry is largely self-regulating. For the most part, our i regulatory assumption is that most licensees will comply vcluntarily with NRC requirements, and that their comitnent to the protection of the public health and safety is as vigorous as that of the NRC. O! does not disagree with this assumption. But this is what makes character and integrity so important.
The NRC must be able to rely on persons in the industry to comply with.*not j circumvent VRC requirements. Industry employees who engage in deliberate
] violations el NRC requirements represent a potential safety threat in tems o' !
their unreliability.
i It is difficult enough for NRC inspectors to detect non-compliance when it is not deliberate given NRC resource censtraints. When such violations are done ;
j en purpsse, ar.d covered up, such non-compliance is highly unlikely to be i I j discovered during routine inspections. Whatever character traits that may !
I lead licensee employees to comit such violations render them untrustworthy
)
J for regulatory 52fety responsibilities, 1
I l
\
- Thus, it is Ol's view that wrongdoing, as defined by the NRC. ger.erally has l j safety
- Pr.ificance, j
1 l
l l
1 i
I i
, 1/27/83 SREAUX 022 I I
---____-_____-__.-_-_-_--___-_._-__1
b l QUESTION 24 In his October 8,1987, testimoay before the Subcomittee, ,
Mr. Hayes noted Ol's mission of providing thorough, objective, snd timely reports to the staff to assist them in making ;
regulatory decisions. What criteria is used to suspend an f investigation based upon a regulatory need? Who makes this I j
i decision? Please give specific examples of O! investigctions i t
! that have been suspended. [
ANSWER I l !
i The Director. 01, may elect to suspend an investigation based on A lack uf i regulatory need, but this would be an unusual action for the following reason.
I P
j Virtually all current OI investigations have been carefully reviewed by the ,
I j Staff and O! prior to initiation. At the time of a staff request for f i
j investigation there is a consensus that a regulatory need for it exists. l Example of factors that could lead to a decision that a regulatory need for
- investigation no longer exicts would be evidence supporting a reasonable belief f I
! that wrongdoing did not, in fact, exist or that the basis of regulatory need no l longer exists. Under those circur: stances, the assigned investigator would.
with the concurrence of his supervisor, discontinue the investigation and write J l
a final report of completed investigation work that would be issued in accordance (
1 q with standard procedures, s i i i
- I i !
a I
j i m /ss saEAux c2:
l l
QUESTION 24 0 (continued) Although the original requestor of an investigstion may assert that he or she no longer requires an investigation, the investigation may be~ discontinued only by the Director. 01, if there was a reasonable belief that there was no wrongdoing.
On the other hand, the Director. 01, may want to close a case due to a -
requestor's assignment of a lower priority to the investigation. For exarple, ,
the requester of an investigation initially assigned a high priority may, based on the belief that the investigative results no longer are necessary, request it be treated as a low priority case. Under those circumstances, the case could become a candidate for O! administrative closure if the priority of the case is such that the investigation will not commence within six months. The practical results of such a Staff action would'be to cause the natter to be closed adninistratively. At that pot-t the staff vould be notified and could take further action on its own or request O! to reopen the case with a higher priority if circumstances warrant.
As of December 31, 1987, O! has closed 39 cases administrative 1y.
1/27/83 BREA'JX Q24
- (
QUESTION 25. Please provide to the Subcomittee the following data by l fiscal year through 1987. 1 l
(a) the number of positions requested by O!. l (b) the number of positions requested for OI by the j Comission. -
i l
! (c) the number of positions allocated to 01. l (d) the number of positions allocated to OI by the Congress.
I i
ANSWER l
The Office of Investigations (01) was e*,tablished in mid 1982 and allocated a i t
personnel ceiling of 38 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. The FY 1983 l personnel ceiling for OI was also 38 FTE. The table belcw shows the !
Ccmmission's FY 1984-1968 budget requests to OMB, and the Congress and the Conrission's allocation of positions for 01.
l' Fiscal Comissien President's a Allocated Year R_qst to OMB Budget Rost Positions !
1982 - - 38 l 1983 - -
38 !
1984 42 38 38 !
D 1985 49 49 38 !
1986 38 44 44 1987 44 44 45 l
i a
Congressional Authorization Act and Appropriations Act did not reduce the [
Fresident's Budget request for the Office of Investigations. ;
b The Office cf Investigations personnel ceiling was held to 38 FTE's (
until FY 1986. (See attached 1/24/85 tema from C rwerer to '
J. Asselstine.) L 1/27/88 BREAU?. Q25 l i