ML20154E481
| ML20154E481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/26/1988 |
| From: | Aech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Glenn J, Roth W SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D958 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-237 NUDOCS 8809190014 | |
| Download: ML20154E481 (7) | |
Text
38-oo6Y
\
g:t g
- f b, UNITED STATEc i3,gi NUCLE AR REGUL ATOR Y CO.'.1MISS10N 4 gj s .us e.c?cs o :e n K
3 kbf>l m . . .,
February 26, 1988 The Honorable John Glenn, Chairner Committee on F-c v e r n m e n t a l Affairs
[ - W[s _
United States Senate Washingten, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In your letter of January 28, 1988, received on February 1, you and Senator Roth asked a nutber of questions abnut the l
Commission's decision to direct the Office cf Investigations to i report to the Commission through the Executive Director for Operations rather than directly. Detailed answers to those ,
questions are enclosed.
Although partial implementation of the Comnission's directive began en February 1, full implerentation will not take place l
until the Commise. ion has an opportunity to review the I recommendations develcped by the recently established O!
l Organi:ational Review Croup. The review group is scheduled
! to present its recermendatichs for the placement of 0: within the ED0's organi:ational structure by March 1, 1988. The Commission is not likely to act en those recommendatiens before March 21, 198E. ;
We wish to ergnaside that the Commission is fully ecFnitted to the mcintenance of a strong, independent, professieral staff of j investigators. While a majority of the Commission believes 1 thet it is rost desirab'e 'or the C ice of Investigatier to j recor; directly to the Ccmmission, the Co"nission also believes that it is cessible for O! to exercise its investigatnev i f u n c t i u ri s ri f t h competence and ititegrity in an crgani:aticral j i
structure in which 0 is under the Office of the Executive Director 'or Operations, as the Cergress has directed, l Sincerely, I l
44dC bJ, LMg ,
t.ando W. Zecf, Jr.
Enclesuras:
v i Responses to Five Cuestions 8009190014 000G"'O P0R FOIA FEL10N00-237 PDR [ 0 / A - f' [ 3
d d ,. .'g UNITED STATES
/
!\I,,,/( ':i NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSIGN W ASHINGTON D. C. M555
{
\,,'~m . , l e, yens February 26, 1988 The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
RanF.ing ftirority Member Cenuittee on Governmentel Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Ddar Mr. Chairman:
In your letter of January 20, 1988, received on February 1, you and Senator Roth asked a number of Questions about the Commission's decision to direct the Office of Investigations to report to the Commiss4on through the Executive Director for Operations rather than directly. Detailed antwers to those questions are enclosed.
Although partial implementation cf the Commission's directive began on Februa ry 1, full implementatinn will not take place until the Commission has an opportunity to review the recommendations developed by the recently established 01 Organizational Review Group. The review group is scheduled to present its recentendations for the placenent of 01 within the E00's organizational structure by March 1, 1986. The Commission is not likely to act on those recemmendations before i March 21, 1988.
We wish to er.phasi:e tFat the Commission is fully committed to the maintenance of a strong, independent, professional staff of l in"estigatcrs. While a majority of the Commissier believes l that it is most desirfble for the Office of Inve:tigations te i report directly to the Commission, the Commissirn also believes i tt6t it is possible for Of to exercise its invest 4gatory functions with competence and integrity in er crqanizational I structure in which O! is urder the Office o' the Executive j Director for Opera;4ons, as the Congress has directed. l l
Sincerely.
W.4 OJ , 0k '
Lando W. Zech, or. j
/
Enclesures:
Respnnses to Fivt ruestions
i OVESTION 1: Absent the directive in the Statement of Panagers, dcas the Cema;ssion endorse as a matter of policy the concept of consolidating the Office of Investigations with other "inspection and examination" functions under the Executive Director of Operations? Is this Tpproach preferabis as a matter of policy to the existing recorting relationship of the Office of Investigations? ,
ANSWER: ,
--s 2 The Commission believes that it is possible to structure its activities in ;
! a variety of ways without adversely affecting its mission to protect the -1 public hcalth and safety. The Conferees have directed us to place the investigative functions under the supervision of the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. While a majority of the Commission !
a believes that OI reporting to the Commission is preferable, we beli2ve that ,
O! reporting to the Ccmmission via the EDO can result in the agency effectively carrying out its investigative functions. We are fin 71y committed to implementing this directive in a manner that will preserve our I. investigative competence ard will give our investigators the independence j needed to conduct thoroughs objective investigations. We are mindful that :
^
this new organization should be rarefully monitcred by the Comnission, and we intend to do just tha.. l r
1 a
l j
i a
]
i i
i s
4
}
l
t 5
1 ,
QUESTION 2 Please identify all of the "inspection and examinatfor, organizations" currently under the supervision of the Executive Director.
ANSWER:
The majority of the NRC inspection staff are located in the five NRC Regions. The Regional inspection staff conduct inspections at reactors, '
fuel facilitier, and materials licer. sees; initiate enforcerent actions; and provide technical support to the Office of Investigations. The vendor ,
inspection program and management of speci&lized headquarter,/ regional tean '
inspections are the responsibilit Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and they Office of headquarters sthif in Safety of Nuclear Material the Office of and Safeguards (hMSS). Res ponsibility for inspection policy development and oversight is vested in leadquarters staff by major progran area. The :
Office of Enforcement (OE) has responsibility for enforcement actions (
referred to it by the Regional Offices. [
The five Regicnal Offices, NRR, NMSS, and OE as well as the support offices l responsible for persor.nel, budget, and administrative matters all report to i the Executive Director for Operatiens (EDO) either directly or through the ;
Wputy Director for Regional Operations.
I I
L 1
o
- QUESTION 3
- Please explain the reascns why the Cornission chose to consolidata Ol's activities under the Deputy Director for Regional Operaticns, rather than placirg it directly under the Executive Director for Operations?
ANSWER:
The Deputy Director 'er Regional Operatioris directly oversees the other ;
i activities of the program staff which most closely relate to the activities of the Office cf Investigations (01). Accordingly, he is wel'i positioned to ceerdirste and inteorate the activitics of Of with those of the 3 inspection and enforcement staff. ,
For example, mcst of the interaction between the '02 investigations staff and the inspectien staff takes place at the Regional level. The Deputy J Director for Regional Operations oversees and coordinates the activities of the five Regional Offices. At the headquarters level, OI investigations >
2 are primarily used to support enforcement actions of the Commission. The Office of Enforcement also reports directly to the Deputy Directo-1 In addition, the Deputy Director serves as the Chairman of the !
j Investigation Priority Review Group (IPRG) and in that capacity is familiar ;
- with the workload and investigative priorities of O! and the Regional !
l Offices, ;
l l l I
T I
- i I f 4
}
! i i !
i !
i i
1 l
o OUESTION 4: Have the char,qet announced in your January 21st letter had an 'cract upon any cases pending before the Cepartment cf Justice for its review?
AtiSWERJ
?!o, and the Comission does not foresee any.
l l
1 1
1
r
! i
! i QUEST 10t1 5: Please provide a cost analysis of the two-stop i reorganization proposed in your January 21st letter, and all '
documents which discuss the effects of any such consolidation.
! ANSWER:
2 l
4 The ecsts of implementing phase one of the reorganization have been j s
negligible. They are principally the costs associated with providing ,
! notice to hRC staff, the Congress, and the public.
] The Comission has established an 01 Organization Review Group to prepare a .
- recomended crganization for Comission approval based on discussiens with .
j Ccemissioners, senior NRC management, and other personnel, as appropriate.
At the request of the Review Group the Comission has authorized them to ,
i obtain the services of several consultants to assist them in their review. l
- Obviously, there will be some costs invcived in the operation of the Review j j Group. However, we estimate that these ccsts also will be minimal, j i
j Enclosed are all documents concerning the Cemission's January 21, 1988 l decisien and its effects.
1 1
l 4 i 1
1 1 i 1 !
! 1 s i 1 !
I l i
j i
i 1
i
-. .