ML20217A951
| ML20217A951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/15/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217A920 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-199-C, SECY-97-147-C, NUDOCS 9709230104 | |
| Download: ML20217A951 (4) | |
Text
. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _... _
N OT ATIO N VOT E RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY 97-147 RE EVALUATION OF SECY 96199 ISSUES; I
PLAN TO BETTER FOCUS RESOURCES ON HIGH PRIORITY DISCRIMINATION CASES Approved X 0
Disapproved R Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
l M kni SIGNATURE g60is E /5 Release Vote / v /
DATE Withhold Vote /
/
Entered on "AS" Yes V
No 7T>R' 28Ani 7AP CORRESPONDENCE PDR
CDmissioner McGaffiaan's Coments on SECY-97-147:
I approve, in part. and disapprove, in part, the proposals in SECY-97-14/.
In particular _
i 1.
I approve the proposal to modify the criteria for designating high priority 01 investigations. except for the last element of the proposed new criterion on cases involving " degraded or non-conforming conditions that, if true, would impact the operability of a safety related structure, system, or component, or safeguards equipment, or result in operation outside the desian basis "
Overall. this new criterion would, for the first time directly tie the priority given to an HI&D investigation to the safety significance of the concern raised by the employee.
While this is appropriate and could serve to encourage employees to raise concerns on very safety significant issues related to the operability of safety-related structures, systems and components (SSCs), its value with regard to allegations about operation outside of the design basis is questionable.
Many instances of operation outside the design basis may be trivial from a safety standpoint and allegations of operations outside the design basis Der se should not provde a basis for designating an investigation as high priority. The truly significant operations outside the odign basis will be captured by the portion of this criterion involving " degraded or non-conforming conditions that if true, i
would impact the operability of a safety related [S% )."
Consequently, I disapprove that portion of this criterion that involves " operation outside the design basis."
2.
I approve the proposed refinements to the investigation and enforcement process, but I am concerned that, even with these refinements. there will be many occasions in which NRC investigative activity duplicates the work of DOL.
I would urge the staf f implement its revised process in a manner that will i
minimize the NRC's duplication of D0L investigative activities.
3.
I recognize that both 01 and OE require a substantial increase in i
resources to. address HI&D issues and other investigation and i
enforcement matte"s, but I also believe that budget pressures must be taken into account in our consideration of these resource needs.
In this regard, I approve Ol's recuest for 4 additional FTEs for direct investigation work but I co not believe that we can justify the 1 sdministrative FTE to be used to redact the 01 reports for prompt public release.
Accordingly, I disapprove Ol's request for 1 additional administrative FTE.
OE's request for 4 additional FTEs to focus on HI&D must be considered in the context of its separate request (in the FY 1999
- 2001 budget submittal) for another 4 FTEs for non escalated enforcement action consistency reviews, severity level supplement revisions. and enforcement training. While OE will need a i
substantial increase in FTEs to deal with the increase in Hi&D cases. I believe that budget restraint considerations call for a lower overall increase in FTEs for OE, Specifically, I would J
f i
.,,..n,
, - -.. - - -. - -nn.,
,.--..--,_e
,.n.
- + -.
..,_~n
..,,,,n.
w-
2 approve an increase of 5. rather than 8. FTEs for OE with OE focussing those 5 FTEs. as needed, primarily on HI&D enforcement actions and, secondarily, on non-escalated action consistency i
reviews, severity level supplement revisions and enforcement training.
l 4.
I approve ti,e proposal to modify Section V of the Enforcement Policy as described in the August 7, 1997 Memorandum from the l
Assistant for Operations, and I suggest only a minor edit as noted on the attached marked up page.
5.
As to the suggestion that the staff should provide additional j
information on the need for incorporating Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) expertise into the HI&D investigative process, i
i I would note that under the refined plans proposed in SECY-97 147, the Office of the General Counsel will be involved in the early stages of Ol's HI&D investigations and should be able to advise 01 on the need for Title VII investigative expertise in each case.
Consequently. I believe that the need for Title VII investigative expertise can appropriately be determined on a case by-case basis.
Attachment:
As stated 1
,.---.-,_-4.....r
.-r.,w--
r.
- 1. m
..-vem r.-
-.,...--..~m.
,.w.
.,m-
,,w,.,-,
m
REPLACEMENT PARAGRAPH FOR SECTION V 0F THE ENFORCEMENT POLICY For a case in which an NRC Office of Investigations (01) report finds that discrimination as oefined under 10 CFR 50.7 (or similar provisions in Parts
- 30. 40. 60. 70, or 72) has occurred, the 01 report may be made public. subject to withholding certain informatiryn (i.e.
after appropriate redaction), in which case the associated predecisional enforcement conference will normally be open to public observation, in a conference where a carticular individual is being considered potentially responsible for the discrimination, the conference will remain closed. In either case (i.e.. whether the conference is open or closed), the employee or former employee who was the subject of the alleged discrimination (hereafter referred to as complainant) will normally be provided an op>ortunity to participate in the predecisional enfcrcement conferer.ce wit 1 the licensee / employer. This participation will normally be in the form of a complainant statement ar.d comment on the licensee's presentation, followed in turn by an opportunity for the licensee to res)ond to the complainant *s presentation. In cases where the complainant is una)le to attend in person, arrangements will be made for the complainant's participation by telephone or an opportunity given for the com)lainant to submit a written response to the licensee's presentation. If tie licensee chooses to forego an enforcement conference and. instead, responds to the NRC's findings in writing. the complainant will be provided t1e opportunity to submit written comments on the licensee's response. For cases involving potential d1scrimination by a contractor or vendor to the licensee, any i
associated predecisional enforcement conference with the contractor or vendor would be handled similarly. These arrangements for complainant participation in the predecisional enforcement conference are not to be conducted or viewed in any respect as an adjudicatory hearing.
The purpose of the c^mp'. tnt 5 participation is to provide information to the NRC to assist i in its enforcement deliberations.
y
'U$ v.f.1 si
p[N,?
4 UNITED STATLS NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
(
g wasumotos o c mnmoi
'E k,
[
september 10, 1997 OF FICI Of THE SE CM T ARY p,.
.L i
MEMORANDUM TO:
L.
Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-147 - RE-EVALUATION OF SECY-96-199 ISSUES; PLAN TO BETTER FOCUS RESOURCES ON HIGH PRIORITY DISCRIMINATION CASES The Commission has approved the staff's proposal for focusing resources on high priority discrimination cases subject to the specific comments provided below and approved clarifying the Enforcement policy as stated in Appendix D, Section 2(c) to add the word "normally" that OI reports involving discrimination will be made public.
The Commission has approved the proposal to modify the criteria for designating high priority OI investigations, except for the last element of the proposed new criterion on cases involving
" degraded or non-conforming conditions that, if true, would impact the operability of a safety-related structure, system, or component, or safeguards equipment, cr reruit in operation outside the desian basis."
The portion of this criterion that would " result in operation outside the design basis" should be deleted.
With that deletion, the Commission approves this new criterion.
The staff should implement its revised process in a way that will minimize NRC duplication of DOL investigative activities.
For each case in which the Allegation Review Board (ARB) determines that OI should conduct an independent investigation, the justification for that decision should be clearly documented.
The current guidance in Appendix B, Step 4A of the subject paper is somewhat vague, and may unduly restrict deferring to the DOL For cases in which the DOL is already pursuing an process.
investigation, the ARB should put the case on hold pending the DOL result unless the licensee has a recent history of adverse i
SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-97-147, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
Y 3g
l 2-discrimination findings, QI the case is particularly egregious, or the existence of related licensee performance issues indicating a deteriorating safety conscious work environment (e.g., the findings of other ongoing H&I investigations, or relevant licensee problems in identifying and resolving safety concerns) lends credibility and/or potential significance to the discrimination allegation under review and the ARB determines that an independent investigation is warranted.
The staff should consult the Commission prior to issuance of an order that a licensee obtain an independent evaluation and establish independent third-party oversight of their environment for raining safety concerns, as was done in the case of Millstone.
The Commission recognizes the importance of prompt resolution of issues involving discrimination allegations; however, budgetary i
realities do not allow assignment of all the requested resources.
In this regard, the Commission approves OI's request f or 4 additional FTEs for direct investigation work but disapproves OI's request for 1 additional administrative FTE.
The OE request for 4 additional FTEs to focus on harassment, intimidation and discrimination was considered in the context of its separate request (in the FY 1999 - 2001 budget submittal) for another 4 FTEs for non-escalated enforcement action consistency reviews, severity level supplement revisions, and enforcement trainir,g.
The Commission approves an increase of 5, rather than 8, FTEs for OE with OE focussing those 5 FTEs, as needed, primarily on harassment, intimidation and discrimination enforcement actions and, secondarily, on non-escalated action consistency reviews, severity level supplement revisions and enforcement training.
Given the limitation of resources, the Allegation Review Board, OI, and OE should all be prepared to utilize the factors discussed in the paper for designating high priority cases for making further decisions on which high priority cases will receive the attention of limited NRC resources.
The staff should provide additional information on the need for incorporating into the harassment and intimidation investigative process the development and use of expertise in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Consideration should be given to whether the need for Title VII investigative expertise can appropriately be determined on a case-by-case basis through the early involvement of the Office of the General Counsel.
The staff should provide the Commission with a summary of specific staff intentions in this regard.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
10/31/97)
The staff should note that this action does not predetermine Commission action in response to its recent request for public comment on establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work environment.
1 3
In the proposal to modify Section V of the Enforcement Policy as described in the August 7, 1997 Memorandum from the Assistant for Operations, the word " complaint's" in the last sentence should be replaced with " complainant's."
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACIM, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
mg-
---my---
m 3y=
yt_+m-u-
-w
rp--
---ww