ML20195G055
| ML20195G055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/1987 |
| From: | Starostecki R NRC |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147E761 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-765 NUDOCS 8704300009 | |
| Download: ML20195G055 (6) | |
Text
[ i'.p..<<m),
. - m.,
WITED s7 ATts 1.
NUCLE AR RECULATORY COMmawvN
)
l a4 >.iwot w o e sotti
\\....../
MAR 2 0 447 i
VEMORAh0th FOR:
Victer Stelle. Jr.
Executive Director for Operations 1
FROM:
Richard W. Starcsteckt. Chairran Investigatten Referral Icarc 1
SUlJECT:
thvESTIC6ATICN REFERRA BOAR 0 i
On March 17 anc 18. ISE7. the IRE ret with Regicnal managers to discuss the backleg of 01 referrals anc ether issues.
On the basis of the IE! emperie.cc to date and these recent discussions, we are preparing a l'ecorrerdatice cc *e.
t to prcceed. Cerrents will te solicited from the program t ffices anc regie, as I
part of this effert.
The purpose of this mere is to provide the results of the Dint IRS.Regten 1 effert en the establishment of pricrities from a nattentl pe'spective. A11 01 referrals have been reevaluated in light of the Ccmistiion's January 10. 1986 i
guicelines. Scre cases have been reprioritizec. Encicture I grovides A tabu.
I 1stien of existing) cases, excluding these associated with TVA. by sticrity f
(high rer?41. Ics Within the high priority catege'y the Itsting is sub.
j diviced into 3 areas: u;;er, r4dium, and Icwer. Tre ;wrpest c' this sutcivi.
4 1
sten is to highlight relative pricrities, since we etc not feel that a strict nu erical ranking cculd be achieved in the time available and this ap;rcach covers the sir.tlar emphasis. The high. upper categcry incluces 4 cases the high mecium catescry includes 15 cases, and the hign. lever categcry includes 6 cases. A cer; arable effort with the normal priority cases resulted in a tub 4 i
4 division into 2 areast upper and Icwer.
Ten cases were censidered tc te 4
)
nomal ugper and 11 cases were to be considered ncrr41 1c=tr. Again, a strict j
nurtrical ranking was net possible. Based cn the volume of tre backleg. O!
pecgress to date in coepletteg cases, anc the staff reec fcr 01 to accress the d
higrer pricrity cases, a nuntrical ranking er fur *,her treakcewn cf low pricrity Cases was nnt derted to be constructive.
Encicture 2 tabulates all the existing O! referrals cealing with TV1 he te the unique prcblems asscciated w hh TVA and recogni:ir; the ferratsce,cf a j
ceticated task force within the staff. we cic P.ct heiteve that it was ac;re.
j priate or possible te irTegrate the TVA cases.
In '.nin regard, it ray ap; tar rcre accrepriat,e fCr Cl te cer$1dtr act; ting ar. ap;rcac*. fer TVA sittle.r tg
]
that cf the staff; the cecitatien Cf selectec Cl staf# tcaccressT}Acases.
1 l
l j
s N
g
(
M 2 0 lii?
ty ce;y of this meme I ar providir; this listing to O! anc the Regiers.
f i
a
/s j
i Richard W. Starcste:hi Chairete, investigation Ref erral Scard i
in:1ctures: As states cc:
I. Hayes. O!
Re
'I i
J.gienal Acministraters i
i Tayler. It i
H. Cer.ttn. hER J. $nie:ek, hER i
I J. Zerte. !RI Werter F. Miraglia
!RI Mer.ter j
Y. Mt11er. !v! Me-ter J. Lieberran. IR8 Meeter R. Iwenett 17.5 Metter
(
l I
f i
i 1
i
)
t i
1 l
l 1
i j
A i
I 1
b I
1
\\
j j
i 1
- ~ _.
m DUISTANDING (EFERRALS ll!Gil PRIORITY CAsrs OIE IVA)
I.
Cases of Utmost Japortance FACILITY I
01 CASE EtHRER REGIONAL OR PROGRAM OfflCE REFERRAL NtMBER I
WPArn 3-E6-12 Dresden III-86-10 3-87-02 Advanced Medical 3-8t -10 111-87-01 I11-86-09 US Testing 5-81-01 V-87-01 2.
Cases of liigher Importance IACILITY 01 CA E HIMCER REGIONAL OR PROGRAM OFFICE REFERRAL NUMBER St. Barnabas 1-86-14 1-86-07 NFS 2-86-01 11-85-09 Greenbrier 2-85-16 Alnes I
11-85-01 3-87-03 111-87-02 CIInton 3 -113 - 1 8 pre-Iorm 3-84-01 pre-form 3-84-10 pre-form 3-84-12 pre-form 3-85-04 pre-forr 3-85-09 pre-form 3-86-08 pre-form Braidwood 3-113-33 pre-form A-1 Investigatton 4-06-10 IV-86-06 Rancho Seco 5-86-10 V-86-10 Diablo Canyon 5-87-02 V-87-G2 3.
Cases of tower Importance FACIL!YY Of CASE NUMBER REGIONAL OR PROGRAst OFFIl:
-- J NteeGER shcreham I-86-03 I-86-03 Ferm1 3-85-19 III-85-192 Icrmi 3-86-02 III-86-02 Palo Verde 5-86-03 V-86-03 Pnser Inspertton 1-86-40 iE-86-01 N I ',
7-87-01 I 1 -116 - 2 7
\\
~. ~ -.
I
~
N06 PRi9RITy CA$[s i
I.
03Jes of fligher Importance FACIL ITY 01 CASE NUMBER REGIONAL OR PROGRAM OFFICE REFERRAL NUMBER Metro llealth I-86-15 Pesses I-86-09 1-35-75 farley 2-86-05 I-85-08 11-85-03 Kelsey-Hayes 3-86-09 l
Radition Sterlizers 3-86-09
!!I-86-06 111-86-03 Ogle Petroleum 4-85-40 IV-85-13 South Texas e
4-86-06 IV-86-06 Tagle 4-86-16 WNP IV-86-08 5-86-04 V-86-04 Telemecanique 1-86-50 I E-86-02 2.
Cases of Lower importance FACILITY 01 CASE NUMBER REGIONAL OR PROGRAM OFFICE REFERRAL NUMBER l
Susquehama 1-86-02 I-86-01 l
Surry 2-85-32 I;-RS-07 l
lirunswick 2-86-27 11-86-21 LaSalle recent case referral 111-87-03 firaidwood 3-85-18 111-85-142 Perry 3-83-23 pre-form Davis-Besse 3-83-08 pre-form Davis-Besse 3-85-16 111-85-140 I t. Calhoun 4-86-01 IV-86-01 l
Palo Verale 5-86-05 V-85-05 Rancho $rco 5-86-12 V-86-09 1
r l
2
1 PRIORITY CA5f5 FAClllTK Of CASE NilMBER REGIONAL DR PROGRAM OfflCf RfffRRAL NUMB NI S
?-85-07 LL 2-84-09 pre-form Braidwood 3-84-23 11-84-01 feral pre-form 3-86-06 Perry 111-86-04 3-85-10 Perry 3-85-17 pre-form Coranche Peak 4-86-13 111-85-171 H&G IV-86-05 4-116-15 River Bend IV-86-09 4-86-17 U of WY IV-86-Il recent case referral IV-87-01 Rocky Mountain recent case referral IV-h1-10 Rancho Seco 5-86-11 V-86-I?
5an Onofre 5-83-?!
pie-form San Onofre 5-85-44 pre-form San Onofre 5-85-50 pre-form Irojan 5-86-13 V-86-Il Palo Verde S-86-09 V-P;-08 Westinghouse 1-86-70 IE-86-01 NilTHIRM 3-86-03
![-86-04 Exosensors 5-8f-08 IE-86-07
~
d 3
00151ANDh
.i CASES (IVA ONLY; 111Q1 PHIORITY CASES 1
U1 CASE NUMBIR REGIONAL OR PROGRAM OfflCE REFERRAL NUM3fR 2-87-02 NRR-87-01 2-85-31 SMT/self-initia ted 2-86-16 NRR-86-02 2-86-15 NRR-86-01 2-86-02 11-86-06 2-86-25 SMT/scif-initiated 2-86-13 11-86-08 NORMAL PRIORITY CASES DI CASE NUMBER REGIONAL OR PROGRAM OFFICE REFFRRAL NUMBE 2-86-20 II-86-09 1 II-86-17 2-86-07 11-86-01 2-86-08 11-86-01 2-86-09 11-86-04 2-85-21 4
SMT/sel f-initia ted 7-85-29 SMT/sel f-initiated 2-85-185 SMT/self-initiated 10falR PRIORITY EA5t$
O_I CASE PUMBER REGIONAL OR PROGRAM OFFICE REFERRAL NUl6ER 2-86-11 Il-86-02 2-81-05 11-86-25 2-86-12 11-86-05 2-86-23 11-86-23 2-86-26 11-86-24 2-86-?!
11-86-19 4
CNCt.05tR E.
INVESTIGATION REFERRA1. B0420 HEW REFERRAL 01570SITION IRS RECOMMENDE1
/
O!SPOSITION :
/
/
APPROVED DEN!!O DEFE3CED
/
MONTH
/
NOVEMBER 1986
- 86-001 (R3-86-10):
1/:
- /
CECEMBER 1956
- 86-004 (R2-86-27): 86-0C6(8."86-197: 86-002 (<2 86 2s7 3/
- 86-005 (R3-86-11):
- 86-C03 (RS-86-15T 4/
JANUARY 1987
- 87-001 (R2-87-C'.T FEBRUARY 1987
- 87-002 (R3-87 02):
- 87-003 (R4-87-01):
1 5/
MARCH 1987
- 87-012 (RS-87-02):
- 87-004(R4-87-027 87 013 (R4-87 10):
- 87 005 (R4-87 C3)
- 87-014 (R3-87-03):
- 87-006 (Re-37 04)
- 87-007 (R4-87-05)
- 07-008 (R4 87-06)
- 87-009 (R4-87-07)
- 87-010 (R4-87 C8)
- 87-011 (Re-87-09
....................:..................:...................:,................)..
sj 47R11. 1987
- 87-015 (R1-87-01):
- 87-018 (05? 87 0!)
- 87-016 (R2-87-02):
- 87-017 (R2 87 03):
....................:..........,g,.......!..................
4...................
I#
Ne regulat:ry recuirement; sue: lea' ental infomatice devele:ed in rese:nse t3 1R incicated no violation had cccurred; no investigation neecec.
' /
Secuest fer assistance; O! su:ccet had alreacy teen initiated.
3, Su;plemental inf0matiCn to be obtained by region te assess licenset
- creective actions and effectiveness of program te eliminate "cnillinf e#fect of CC.9tacting SEC.
- 1' Su Cle? ental infer Sti0n tc te obtJinec by region
- assess regulat:'y need and status of asserti0n made in CCngressional testi."'Cny.
c.
~'
Issue deal; with materials license 2s that cannet be atacity locatec; i
d*v1:e Of pr:gra* Office to Oe scugat t0 deteeire s:Or0 rt ate acti: P arc level cf ef fort to De et ended tc 10cate -issirg licensees (37
~C' t* *N;n 67 C1 *. )
- l AllegatiCm dealing (with:a. tract 0r Oerfcr ance ic :e tubesitted t; M A
'.rs:ettor Geaeral lG); ucen c:mpletion of !G actti'ttes, staf f to rec:nsicer a;;reertateness of referral to 01.
4 ENCLOSURE 5 Review of O! Referrals Over Time respective 01 field office. Prior to the IRB, the Regions submitted o 01 directly to their In July 1985 the E00 promulgated guidance to th form was used to forward both requests for inqairi u m tting referrais to 01.
tions.
A clear basis for 01 referrals prior to Septemb The consistent or available among Regions And requests are no er 1985 is not availaole.
A tabulation of all 01 referrals from each Regioompi<te or rea September, 1985 to the IRB inception is attached listing, the rate of referrals by each Region variesAs can be seen in n, by month, from from Region to Region are of interest.
Based on the 14 1/2 month periodSimilar preceding the IRB, the cases referred to 01 are as f ll Region o ows:
II gi g
g (Excluding TVA)
Referrals 14 31 12 10 15' On an annualized basis these referrals are equivalent 17 since the number of Region !! cases was about double '9at to 72 cases.
- However, further review identified that 19 of the case Neglecting the TVA cases from Region II he other Re s were attributable to TVA. gions, equivalent to 57 cases on an annual basis., the rate of case referrals is during the 14 1/2 months preceding the IRB is In sumaa.. the rate of referrals In examinin on the rder of 57 to 72.
attention. g the cata in Enclosure 4, there is one anomaly that w dockets were involved.One Region submitted eight separate referra Region and recommended resubmittal as eight sepaPrior to the IR purposes, extrapolating the data from the IRB tria) p om tre rate cases.
For comparison this anomaly.
results in an annual rate of 60 cases being referred tA s for the anomaly lowars this rate on an annual b nclosure 4 o the IRB the rate of potential issues identified by th asis to 40 cases.,
Accounting period is on the order of 40 to 60.
e Regions curing the IRB t.rialIn sumary, Comparing referrals before and compared to historical recorcs.during the IRB shows statistics can be used to showallow a simple comparison that first five months (9/65-1/86) a variety of conclusions.
Soecifically, the formal O! refe*ral process instituted in the s mof available reco d h r example, the r s after it.itiation of the identified by the Regions.
For the first five months cf the IRBu mer of 1 a
2 (11/10/86-4/9/86)
These time intervalt reflect the imposition of newthe Regions id referrals).
requirements for the Regions and are provided solely to ascertain whether there is a dramatic difference attributable to either the E00 directive in July 1985 or to the IRB process.
The statistics presented in Enclosure 4 show the number of cases brought to the IRB and show the recommended disposition.
When adding the 11 cases referred to the IRB and the three emergency referrals from the Regions, there were 14 referrals fonvarded to GI either directly or following IRB reviewi On an annualized basis this is equivalent to 30 cases.
Comparing this value with the i
rate (s) previously discussed as being representative of potential issue identification during the IRB (40 to 60), one can conclude that IRB nominally reduced the caseload going to 01 by 25% to 50%.
A comparison of these statistics with those cases preceding the IRB must be viewed in perspective.
I 1/2 months prior to the IRB was on the order of 57 to 72.Specifically, the ra The disposition by 01 of these referrals is shown in Attachment C.
C shows that OI conducted investigations in about 30% of the cases referred.
Attachment Concurrently, the seven denials indicate that about 7% of the referrals were not appropriate for 01 consideration.
inquiries; this represents about 65% of the cases.The remainder (55 cases) were trea On an annualized basis, 01 conducted the equivalent of about 21 investigations prior to IRB and the equivale?. of 4Dout 46 inouiries annually prior to the IRS.
The data since IRB formation is not readily addressec because it is not fully in res;:ense to all the cases referred to 01 since 1*/10/86.known Assuming that all
}
14 cases are investigated, this would be equivalent to about 31 cases annually.
Consequently, recogni:ing the assumption noted above, since the IRB was formed about 31 investigations should be initiated annually compared to 21 investigations and 46 inquiries initiated prior to the IRB during the period of interest examined.
1 o
i i
ENCLOSURE 5 Attachment A Regional Referrals Provided to OI by Region (9/85 - 11/10/86) 11 11 III ly y
(Excluding TVA) 9/85 3
2 (2) 0 0
0 10/85 1
1 (1) 1 1
2 11/85 3
1 (0) 2 0
1 12/85 0
1 (1) o o
1 1/86 1
1 (1) o o
o 2/86 2
5 (0) 2 2
3 3/86 1
2 (0) 1 0
2 4/86 0
0 (0) 0 1
2 5/86 1
6 (4) 2 1
0 1
6/86 0
3 (1) 1 1
2 l
7/86 0
3 (0) 0 2
2 8/8e 2
4 (2) o o
o 9/86 0
0 (0) 0 1
1 10/86 0
1 (0) 1 4
1 11/10/86 0
1 (0) 0 2
0 6
t j
j 1
t ENCLOSURE 5 Attachment B Regional Referrals Provided to O! by Region *
(11/10/86 - 4/9/87) 11/10/86 0
0 1
0 0
s 12/86 0
1 1
0 0'
1/87 0
0 1
0 0
4 i
2/87 0
0 1
1 1
3/87 0
0 1
1 0
- I 4/29/87 2
2
_1 0
_0 TOTAL:
2 3
6
. 2 1
' Includes emergency referrals and those reviewed by IRB, E
4 4
i i
l a
w-.
_ -,, _ _ ~. - _ ~, _ _ -.,.. - -,. -,.. -,. - -.. _ _.
ENCLOSURE 5 Attachment C i
Disposition of Regional Referrals Provided to O! by Region (9/85 - 11/10/86)
Region I
II 11 111 IV V
(Excluding TVA)
Total 14 31 (12) 10 15 17 inquiries 12 24 (7) 2 5
12 Investigations 2
2 (1) 8 8
5 l
Denials 0
5 (4) 0 2
0
i ESCLost'RE 6 Tabulation of Selected Cases Closed Administratively by OI On March 13, 1987 closed 15 cases.
Region III Field Office Director (01) administratively referral date, and age:The following is a tabulation of the case number, original Of Case #
Orioinal Referral Date Ace (Months) 3-84-15 07/84 32 3-84-22 11/84 28 3-84-03 02/84 37 3 84-17 08/84 31 3 84 09 03/84 36 3 84-02 01/84 38 3-84-13 05/84 34 3-86 01 02/86 13 3-86-07 05/86 10 3-85-01 12/84 27 3-85 06 02/85 25 3-85-14 08/85 19 3-82-57 08/82 55 3 84-08 01/84 38 4
i
- - ~ - ~
ENCL.05URE 7 Summary of 13 Cases Not Re:ommended for Investigation Referral by IRS IRB 86-006 was the only IRB denial.
The case involved transportation of racioactive material licensed by an agreement state which the region believed was not performed in accordance with Federal statutes.
The information for the referral was provided by agreement states based on a license application.
The region was concerned that the radioactive material had been lost and that the applicant in cuestion had indicated it had been transferred outside the United States.
Consequently, the referral request was to establish facts associated with the apparent violation by an individual of Federal statutes preventing transfer outside the United States.
This case highi.ights the need to consider health and safety issues first.
In response to IRB questions, the region was not able to address:
(2) its location, or (3) remedial measures that would prevent inadverten releases.
As a result of IRB questions it was determined that the nature of Federal requirements.the radioactive material and associated transport were in acc Although the 01 field office had already initiated its own field work, facts brought to light as a result of the IRB questions and violated and, therefore, no regulation had been br:.en. subsequen Subsequent coordination among tne responsible program office, the headquarters enforcement staff, OGC, and the region established that there was no regulat:ry neec for an 01 investi-gation or incuiry.
Of orimary importance, this case nighlighted the need for the technical staff to thoroughly consider public health and safety impacts.
A previous experience with material lost in Mexico resulted in serious technical and political ramifications.
The case was denied as an investigation.
Subse-quently, tne staff and 01 working with the affected agreement states located the material.
identification of information that warrants an 01 referral, Circumstan It becomes the responsibility of either the region or 01 to initiate further action.
been identified to date.
None has IRB 86-002 involved potential falsificatien of QC inscection activities by a TVA quality control inspector.
the NRC TVA Senior Management Review Team had asked O! to ass of the IRB meeting, the region informed the IRB that its inspectors were in tne At the time field accomcanied 0y an O! investigator.
Consequently, the IRB recognited this as an 01 assist to the staff in the development of information that could result in a sufficient basis, other than an allegation base: on suspicion, to initiate subsequent investigation.
Consequently, the case -as deferred pendin o
additional information that would support a request for investigation. g field office nonetneless initiated an incuiry based on the region's recuest to The 0; the IRB, The results of that O! effort indicated that no wrongdete; could te found.
Altneugn the recuest to the IRB was revie ed in early Decetter 1956, the O!'s written report was not available until Maren 30, 1957.
[
~-
2 IRB 86-003 involved a contractor at a reactor site who claimec he was firec after raising safety concerns to the NRC.
It was not clear whether there as a need for regulatory action in this case because the matter was publicly known and the concerns raised did not deal with a safety matter.
The issue resultec from a 00L decision and the licensee was aware of it.
Consequently, the issue was not whether the licensee had intimidated the contractor ost whether the required corrective action was properly instituted.
The IRB asked the region (1) report on corrective actions the licensee had taken to aqdress the to:
so called chilling effect on contractor or licensee personnel who contact the NRC and (2) to assess the licensee program for informing contractor personnel of their rights to contact NRC.
This case highilghts the need to first establish whether or not a need for regulatory action exists since the IRB concern related to how the information developed by 01 would be usec.
The.
case was deferred.
IRB 87-001 involved a concern expressed by emoloyees at a licensed facility curing congressional testimony in August 1986 that, as a result of their testimony, the licensee would discriminate against them in the future.
O! had previousl hearings,y investigated the sama employees and others, before the congressional and concluded that there was no wrongdoing.
The regional request to the IRB was sent in January 1987.
In response to IRB questions about the basis for the concern and whether the resident inspectors or other NRC staff had observed or been approached by concerned employees, the region indicated that the sole basis for the request was the testimony behre a House subcommittee.
The IRB found no reasonable basis to conclude that *0ngcoing had occurred and encouraged the region to discuss the matter with its inspectors who were present at the site daily to find out if the emple;,ees' concerns expressed in the testimony about five months earlier had been re!'ized.
At the time of the IRB meeting, no one had yet talked to the individuals wno presented the testimony.
This case highlights the need for closer coordination between the regions and the program office to ensure some basis, other than speculation or suspicion, that potential wrongdoing existed or exists.
The case was ceferred pending the development of further infermation.
IRB 67 004 throuon 87-011 involved eight materials licensees who could net be their facilities without notifying the NRC.It was presumed that the licensees had ab locatec ey tne regional staff.
j regional office asked 01 to locate these licensees.Before the IRB was e nablished, the 01 had rejected this recuest anc recommended that the region resubmit a request for each cocket.
Hence, cne request was resubmitted as eight referrals during the IRB trial period.
In resconse, the responsible program office was contactec, t.o other regions.ith res:ensibility for more than 60% of materials cases nationwide.ere contac',ec, and the IRB establishec that the practice of using 01 investigations to locate missing materials licensets was not used in larger regions.
in tnis instance was that investigators had more crecibility with selettecThe reason gi Feceral and State agencies which could be presumed to have more complete cata l
The experience of smaller materials licensees not notifying the NRC. hen they sell or abandon their licensed materials is not unioue to one regicn.
This case hignlignted the need for closer coercination with the Oregram of fice to cevel :;
an 4;proach for unique pro 0lems tnat do not necessar'ly involve serious 55'et,
)
issues.
It beccmes tne Durcen of the staff to esta:Iish a reasonable basis f:*
i believing wrongdoing exists / existed.
In this case, the use of 01 investigators seemed premature unless a need for regulatory action existed.
The referral represented a request for resources rather than for an investigation.
Conse-quently, these cases were deferred pending development of a basis, in consultation with the program office.
IRB 87-018. involved a previous problem at a TVA facility.
for a contractor to TVA alleged that the contractor was not performing theAn indiv assigned safety review task.
The individual had been previously removed from his job, had appealed to the Department of Labor, and had lost his appeal.
information relating to this allegation is publicly avai'able.
In accordance Tne with the esta011shed NRC policy on allegations, the IRB recommended referral of the case to the licensee, is actively involved in similar cases.it was noted that the TVA Inspector General (IG)
The allegation related to contractor performance and did not apparently involve wrongdoing by licensee personnel.
Accordingly, the IRB recommended, and the Deputy Director, CSP, agreed, ceferral of the case pending further review by the TVA IG and the NRC followup.
4 a
3,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' ' ' ~
~
~^ ' ~ ~ '