ML20134B891
| ML20134B891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/10/1984 |
| From: | Meeks R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Shackleton O NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134B673 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-334 NUDOCS 8508160124 | |
| Download: ML20134B891 (4) | |
Text
j[ <, r UNITED STATES u e
- ' g ,, -
NUC, LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O g.5l 9
?
,g OFFICE oF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN V k '[
, 1450 M ARI A LANE. SUITE 210 WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA !4596 4,, .-
August 10, 1934
~
MEM3RANDUM FOR: Owen C. Shackleton Jr., Director, Office of
' Investigations Field Office, Region Y FROM: Ronald A. Meeks, Senior Investigator, Office of Investigations' Field Office, Region V
-SU5 JECT: ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION OF CRITERIA
.FOR PRIOR!TIZATION OF 01 RESOURCES Attached is the Criteria for Prioritization of 01 Resources that I feel Allegation Review Boards should incorporate into their allegation review orocess before reauesting 01 action. If the criteria were aoopted, it would previce the Field Office Directors a consistent threshold for initiating investigations. Implementation of the criteria into the allegation review process would also assist the Field Office Directors in prioritizing their
-lir.ited resources to those investigations which have potential for the highest severity level violation.
I would appreciate this information being passed on to 01:HQ for considera-tien as OI policy on a national versus regional level.
Attachment .'
O h
e ne s
e
~
8508160124 650723 PDR FOIA ADAT005-334 PDR.
a e; -
CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION OF O! RESOURCES
- 1. - Did a staff review and/or inspection in fact determine that the alleged ,
- condition (:) or violation (s) occurred or exists and is related to URC jurisdictional safety matters? What is the specific 10CFR section(s) violated?-
- 2. If the responses ^ to #1 above are affirmative, does the resultant condi- ;
- tion appear to benefit the licensee, cortractor/ subcontractor, or vender with respect to economy of manpower, material, or tim =? ;
. 3. If' the. facts developed by an 01 investigation were to substantiate the ncn-technical aspect of the allegation, would a NRC civil penalty likely te issued?
4 If-the response to!!3 above is affirmative, would the resultant civil per.alty,' when compared to assessed pena' ties of past similar violations, fail within the upper 10%, upper 50%, or. lower 50% of all penalties assessed by NRC?
5 t
. .i w
e I
k I
l 4
A m'
-lw.4-** & -
('
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS RESOURCES - 1984 l\
1 01 Field Office, Region I Field Office Director (1)
Investigations Assistant (1)
! Investigators (4) 4 01 Field Office, Region II Field Office Director (1)
Investigations Assistant (1)
Investigators (4) 01 Field Office, Region III Field Office Director (1)
' (1)
Investlyations Assistant 1
Investigators (4)
+ 01 Field Office, Region IV Field Office Director (1)
Invtstigations Assistant (1)
Investigators (2) 01 Field Office, Region V Field Office Director (1)
Investigations Assistant (1)
Investigators -(3).
4.-
N
- 'r>
b O OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS RESOURCES - 1984 OI Field Office, Region I Field Office Director (1)
Investigations Assistant (1)
Investigators (4) 01 Field Office, Region II Field Office Director (1)
Investigations Assistant (1)
Investigators (4) 01 Field Office, Region III Field Office Director (1)
Investigations Assistant (1) i Investigators (4)
OI Field Office, Region IV Field Office Director (1)
Investigations Assistant (1)
Investigators (2)
OI Field Office, Region V Field Office Director ~ (1)
Investigations Assistant (1)
Investigators (3)
Distribution:
/0I s/f PDV 5 OI c/f DW/198405/0IResources 10/22/84