ML20134B923
| ML20134B923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1985 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134B673 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-334 CCS, NUDOCS 8508160139 | |
| Download: ML20134B923 (5) | |
Text
6 r,
1 l
'f **
- g' - UNITED STATES
! T , .. f t.
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 r 'b .- l e 1 2,: Ei MEMORANDUM FOR: Comissioner JamM. Asse17 tine , /
y f. '
FROM: Carltor>'Kammerer, Direc 'rk '
Office'of Conpess %ffairs y-SUSJECT: RESOURCES F0E THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS Your memorandum dated January 17, 1985 asked that we provide a legislative history on the Concressional ceiling of 38 positions for the Office of Investigations (01). This review is provided in response to your request.
As hou are aware, the Comission advised our three authorization and two appropriations subcomittees in Congress of its intention to consolidate agency investigative functions in a new Office of Investigations by letter from Chaiman Palladino, dated June 10, ICS2 (Attachment A). The Chaiman's letter was transmitted during FY 1982 after the NRC's FY 1983 buoget had been submitted.
The Cossnission's FY 1982 budoet did not include a separate category for investigations. Resources for enforcement, investigations and special programs (including emergency preparedness activities) were identified as a subcategory of the budget for the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. In the FY 1982 budget submission, the request for this category was for 140 personnel. In the FY 1983 budget submission aiready before Congress, emergency preparedness activities were identified separately so that personnel reouirements fm enforcement, investigations and special programs were estimated,to be ac 107 people for both FY 1982 and FY 1983.
The Chaiman's June 10, 1982 letter did not specify the number of positions having investigative functions within this subcategory of OIE. It simply stated that present NRC investigative personnel were being transferred into the new office and that additional trained personnel.would be hired "within NRC's current personnel ceiling." However, a subsequent letter from Chaiman Palladino mentions a " total staff limit of 38 positions distributed among both headquarters and field offices" and this number was previously. comunicated to the Congressional oversight comittees by OCA in respecse to inquiries. .,
The House Appropriations Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development responded to the Chaiman's advisory letter with a letter, dated June 21, 1982 and signed by both Chaiman Bevill and Ranking Minority Member John
- Myers. The Bevill/Myers letter (Attachment B) acknowledges receipt of the June.10, 1982 letter and states the Subcomittee's view that " staffing levels and budgetary resources for this new office, in excess of levelsn b
~
~
8508160139 850723 PDR FOIA 3 ADATD85-334 PDR
Y .. -:
crevicut'y provicec 'or by tra C:mm tree, s m, c ne sur
- e 'or Cer - e+
-a .n ew through the usual reprcgram-ine tr::ecrei.'-
The Congress did net pass an Energy and Wate- Developmer.: Approprictior for FY '9E3.
- Durinc the fiscal year, the NRC anc otner affected agencies operated at FY 1982 levels uncer Continuir; Resolution. In January 19E3, the NRC submitted its budget recuest for FY 1984. That budget submissior.
was the first to identify resources for investigations (or 0I) as a
[ separate item under Program Technical Support rather than under Inspectior.
and Enforcement Programs.
The FY 1984 recuest estimated 38 people for 0; in FY 1984 anc again in FY 1985. The FY 1984 budget justification (Green Book) provided a brief description of 01 and indicated that all estimates of people were statec in tenns of full-time equivalents (FTEs).
The Hnuse Appropriations Comittee report on the FY 1984 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill (H.Rept.98-217) made no mention of staffing requirements for 01. It did, however, contain the following language relating to the investigations program:
"The Comittee is concerned with the relationship between the Office of Inspection and Enforcement anc the recently established Office of Investigations. The Committee is not convinced that there is any'need for a separate Office of Investigations and whether the existence of that separate office in fact is consistent with an integrated investigation and enforcement program.
"The Comittee has been advised that the Office of Investigations has not made public their policies and procecures. The Committee directs the NPC to make a report to the Consnittee regarding the interrelationship of these offices and what legal problems exist that might prevent the I publishing of the policie.s and procedures of the Office of Investigations."
On June 16, 1983, subsequent to the issuance of the House Appropriations Comittee report on May 24, 1983, Chaiman Palladino wrote to the l
Subcommittee. His letter (Attachment C) advised that after a year of experience with the new 01, the Comission had concluded that an additional eleven (11) full-time employee positions should be allocatec to 01. The following justification was provided in the letter:
"The number of allegations requiring NRC investigation is substantial and growing. " All of theft need at least a screening investigation. Our inability to complete investigations in a timely manner may result in a reduction in the level of public safety, licensing delay or both. Such delay is iminent in several complex cases before the Comission." -
o
.._w.
p*
ne C*r rrar's June If, 19E3 letter state: t r.t '. the o*ccesec reprograrr ~ t acticr. wouic core " free witnir. the overt 1' personnei levels already creviced for the NRC for Fi 19E3" anc reauestec eerly anc f avorable consideration of the Comission's request. Net long ef ter the Chairmer's letter was sent, OCA was askea to aavise the Subcomittee that the Comissior, was reducing the requested number of positions to be reprogrammed from eleven to six. This was comunicated orally to the Subcomittee staff by OCA.
The Subcommittee never provided a written response to the Commission's request and the reprograming was never implemented. The Congress enacted the FY 1984 Energy and Water Development Appropriation and the assumptior I on the part of both agency and Subcomittee was that a reprograming action f was required to increase the level of personnel for 01 above the FY 1982 level, continued in FY 1983 by Continuing Resolution and requested by the NRC in its budget submission for FY 1984 Throughout the remainder of FY 1983 and much of FY 1984, Subcomittee staff repe'atedly expressed the desire to receive the NRC report on 01 called for in the Comittee's May 24, 1983 report before taking any action on the Comission's reprograming request. The called-for report on 01's interrelationship with OIE and what legal problems might prevent publication of OI policies and procedures was not submitted to the Subcomittee until March 14, 1984 -- eight days before its hearing on the NRC's FY 1985 budget request.
The Comission's budget submission for FY 1985 included a sumary of estimates for Program Technical Support Programs by function which stated an actual figure for FY 1983 for OI of 36 people, an estimate for FY 1984 of 44 people (presumably reflecting expected acceptance of the Comission's pending reprograming request for an increase of six people) and an estimate of 49 people for 01 for FY 1985. The Chairman's statement made no mention of special needs for 01 and the related text in the FY 1985 Green Book was cursor;y: " Increases in staffing reflect greater emphasis placed on Investigations..."
In conjunction with the Subcomittee's hearing on the agency's budget submission, the Subcomittee asked a number of questions relating to 01.
These included a question about whether the Comission planned to move 01 under the direction of the Executive Director for Operations. However, there were.no questions relating to staffing requirements for the office.
~
Although both the House Comittee bill' and the appropriation finally enacted substantially reduced the agency's overall budget request, no :
specific language was incluced in either House or Senats Comittee report l or in the Conference Report that would specifically limit the number of people assigned to 01.
,- However, on November 7,.1984, the Comission transmitted the agency's initial FY 1985 Base Table (Attachment D) to the House Appropriations Subcommittee and other Congressional o'versight subcommittees. The Base'.
Table transmitted to Congress shows adjustments and reductions made in the
[
m I
{
bucgE- t5 c*ip'rf b suon n:et by the ; M cer.: r - '.e ve! a! *f.s cercr7 rl
- or oe:crriring reprogra = nc Ections unce- Reprog tr- rg p#ocecures previousb supplied b." the house Apc"opri2S on: Sutccmr'.ctee ( Attacnn.er:
E). Footnote I to the Base Iable describes FTE retliocations inciucint increases anc recuttions ir. Various prograrrs and "rc increase in the number of investigators.*
It shoulc-be noted that, with respect to the position allocation for 0:,
the Base Table. simply reflects the Commission's buoget as submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (and soon to be submitted to Congress by the President), which estimates 38 FTEs ir both FY 198E and FY 1986.
If the Comission wishes to revise this number for 01, it would be advisable to do so before the budget hearing cycle begins and to identify clearly the need for a staffing increase for OI in its budget presentations. In particular, the Comission needs te adcress the points maae in the original reprograming reauest of June 1983 in light of our additional experience over the lest eighteen months. For example, since the reallocation of staff was not perritted, is there any evidence of either licensing delay or a reduction in the level of public safety as a result?~
Last year's House Appropriations Comittee report made several references which could be construed as relating to 0I and its staffing reouirements.
These ought to be. taken into account in any Comission justification for further personnel for 01.
First, the Comittee expressed suppcrt for Chaiman Palladino's suggestion that NRC develop a policy for handling last minute allegations with a high threshold for the introduction of new allegations, for example, " supported by signed affidavits, and presented ir a disciplined way." One effect of such a policy woulc presumably be to reduce demands on the resources of OI.
Secend, the Comittee repeated previous " concerns over the NRC establishing duplicative and redundant staf;fs" noting that "Comission level staff, as opposed to the Agency staff, has now grown to 261 positions." The House report directed NRC to take imediate action to review this situation and take steps to streamline and improve the management process" stating, without recommending specific manpower ceiling redu'ttions, its expectation that the NRC would implement reductions to Comission level staff prior to ;
submission of the FY 1986 budget. Previous Committee comments have expressed concern about the overlapping duties of OGC and ELD. During the budget hearing, the Subcomittee asked about whether the Commission still .
planned to put OI under the direction of EDO, about the training 01 l investigators may have had in nuclear safety or nuclear operations, and about steps'NRC had taken to a'ssure the safety significance of any violation uncovered by 01. Taken together with the Committee's previous-request ~ for a study of the interrelationship between'01 and OIE, these questions reflect a continuing uneasiness on the part of the Committee about the a'pparent isolation of the OI investigative staff currently reporting to the Comission from NRC's inspection and enforcement activities under the supervision of the EDO.
A
-m-o - . - , . . - , ,,. . , . _ . . -e - . -. -
t ;; ; "*?
. - e .F r E.acir:
C G~~~ ' d: I Oper R O der;5
(,OriS5ioner Berr.;nal Cc=1ssioner Zech C.h %r OPE EDO O!
SECY
=
e
[ bus, c-8b c f. g
{ 4- c UNirED STATES
[' , [,j-* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- g^ Tv A.SMime0TOh. D. C 20$M
' % i
..... June 1C,19EI ,
cxami4a=
- . Q Tne Honorable Phrk Hetfield, Chairrar.
Subcastittee on Energy and Water Development Conmittee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear W. Chatman:
~
L In an effort to upgrade RC's investigative capabilities, the Commission is taking steps to consolidate NitC's investigatory functions in a new Office of P *. < Investigations (01). The new Office will, for the time being, report directly
~
L h. ;to the Courission and will be responsible for investigating all allegations of
-;p - 7 wrongdoing by . individuals or organizations other than NRC employees or con-c" tractors.- The Office will develop policy. procedures and ' quality cont-1 1 .
'~
.. standards for the conduct of all 01 investigations and will ensure that all O!
[- investigators are properly trained, w: .. ..
IT '. . .
Pre,ent at investigative personnel in the Office of Inspection and Enforce-j.8- .eent and in ;the Aegianal Offices are being transferred to the new Off. ice. It F' ;will lie hided temporarily by W. James Fitzgerald, an Assistant General DJ Counsel until a permanent director can be" hired. Additional trained person-
[ nel will be recruited for the new Office within NRC's current personnel ceil-i4 . :. j.
s, i ng .".
. The Commission believes that restructuring NRC investigative activities te b('fc_
i'
~
provide a more centralized and high-level focus is urgently needed. Our plans essentially involve the reorganizing and upgrading of existing activities
- . rather than an embarkation on any new programs or activities. We believe that i our objectives can be accomplished within existing NRC funding and personnel
! t,. levels for FY 1982.
! p We will, of course, continue to keep you apprised of significant Cennission l
efforts in this and other areas of interest and importance.
J . .' M D'
L. j y=
- r. .
a.9 W/ca y/gy$
o d p Sincerely. -
/,jf&
p'.. .
/[//
q '
minzio al adino s' cc: mumurneseenemme
~ ~
[ 2,l
. N M2 egg ro eusso