ML19254B261
| ML19254B261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/23/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254B258 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-79-454, NUDOCS 7909270027 | |
| Download: ML19254B261 (4) | |
Text
9, ) V N
8l"1h9 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION July 23, 1979 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SECY-79-454 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM M:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Thru:
Executive Director for Operations
~
Subject:
AUTHORITY TO ACMINISTER OATHS Purcose:
To obtain Commission approval for delegation to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement authority to administer oaths with authority for redelegation Categorj:
This paper covers a minor policy question requiring Commission action.
Discussion:
One of the major functions of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement is to conduct investigations of irregularities uncovered during inspections as we?1 as incidents, accidents, allegations, or other information of direct interest to the NRC concerning or occurring at licensed facilities or activities.
This investigative pregram supports and complements the IE inspection program, and constitutes an imoortant and highly visible portion of NRC's role in assuring the public health and safety.
e The primary purpose of an investigation is to gather information in a systematic fashion regarding the situation or occurrence that is being investigated.
Although there q
4 i
are a variety of investigative techniques that could be t-used depending upon the nature of a scecific investigation, in practice IE relies primarily upon interviews of indi-viduals and examination or review of records to develop most of the information that is obtained during investiga-tions.
This paper deals w.ith the first of these two techniques - interviews kand reouests the Commission's assistance in improving tne ability of IE to cotain comcleta and accurate information during such interviews.
CONTACT:
W. J. Ward, IE 49-27246 1044 348 7909270C2.7^
2-p No matter what type of investigation is being conducted, substantive information obtained during interviews is q
presently handled in one of two ways.
The first is to 3I_
reduce such information to the form of a written statement to be signed by the interviewee.
The second occurs when tne individual declines to furnish a written statement.
In those instances the information cbtained during the interview is replicated to the extent possible by the investigator ead either is detailed in the investigation report itself or is paraphrased in a separate document called a Results of Interview that is appended to the repor'. in lieu of a written statement.
In each instance, the investigators attempt to convince the interviewee of the necessity for truthfulness and candor regarding the information that they provide.
Interviewees are not asked to swear to or affirm the veracity of the information because IE investigators have not been delegated the authority to administer oaths or affirmations.
In the absence of this authority, investigators have had to rely primarily upon their powers of persuasion to convince interviewees of the need for honesty and accuracy.
In situations where the investigator suspects that the interviewee may be providing false information, the inter-viewee is advised that knowingly providing false informa-tico during the interview is a potential violation of Federal law (18 USC 1001).
Although this admonition can be effectite, and may help to establish the grounds for subsequent prosecution under that statute, it is a tech-nique that must be used sparingly as reference to criminal proceedings tends to have a chilling or intimidating effect upon interviewees. In contrast, it is the experience of the IE Investigative Staff (gained through prior experi-ence with other investigative agencies) as well as other investigative personnel with whom this matter has been discussed that interviewees are not usually intimidated by the taking of sworn testimony, apparently as they perceive this to be a standard part of the investigative process.
Most Federal investigator 4.do have the authority to acminister oaths and routinely obtain sworn statements or testimony during their investigations.
As might be expected, criminal investigative agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Postal Inspection Service, Internal Revenue Service, Naval Investigative Service, and the Drug Enforcement Administration all use this authority.
More significantly, most of the Inspector General Offices in each of the Cabinet Level departments as well as the General Services Administration, Veterans Administration, 1044 349
s-National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration, and the Environmental Protection r]
Agency have authority to administer oaths and affirmations.
(
~,_b The Presidential Commission regarding the Three Mile Island Accident delayed holding hearings until they could s
obtain specific authority to administer oaths or affirma-tions as they felt (according to the Chairman as related in various press conferer.ces) that such authority was essential for the successful pursuit of their mandated investigation.
According to former officials of the Atomic Energy Commission's Division of Inspection and the Energy Research an Development Administration's Office of Internal Review, investigators of both offices were delegated authority to administer oaths or affirmations.
This authority was derived from Section 161c of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2201 (c)) which also extends such authority to the Commission.
At the same time the Commission has indicated that it intends to delegate its authority to administer oaths to a senior NRC ofricial assigned to the Three Mile Island Special Inquiry Group.
The thrust of the foregoing information is that most agencies or bodies recognize the value of this authority in the performance of their investigative responsibili-ties. As such, it appears to be perceived as a standard part of the investigative process, one which by all accounts is routin,ely employed.
IE is concerned that the lack of this authority may serve to limit the effectiveness of the increasing number of investigations that are being conducted by IE.
Another extremely important aspect of this issue is that the lack of this authority may tend to give the appearance that these investigations are being conducted less rigorously than those of other agencies or bodies.
The Three Mile Island investigation is one example of this, but there are other instances where IE pas conducted investigations of a matter at the same time thM. it was being investigated by another agency.
In these instances, as is now the case with Three Mile Island, the other agency possessed the authority to administer oaths but the NRC investigators did not.
This action involves no new resource requirements.
1044 350
- ~..
_, il m.
-]
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Commission:
1)
Delegate its statutory authority to administer oaths or affirmations to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enfercement with specific authority to redelegate.
2)
Note that this authority would be used immediately during the ongoing Three Mile Island Investigation.
s Coordination:
T'he Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection to the recommendation of this paper.
The Office of Inspector and Auditor concurs with the recommendations.
Victor Stello, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement T-
_ - - -c :.... -
~
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, Auoust 3,1979.
Commission Staff Office connents, if any. should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT July 30, 1979, with an information copy to the Office of.the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of August 6,1979.
Please refer to the a when published, for a specific date and time. ppr,opriate 'deekly Commission Schedule, DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS Secretariat 1044 351