ML20195G187
| ML20195G187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/21/1987 |
| From: | Starostecki R NRC |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D958 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-237 NUDOCS 8706120260 | |
| Download: ML20195G187 (13) | |
Text
_ - ~
QUESTION'16(G) Attachment ps %
f g} \
NUCLEAR R U OR COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20l$5 k, ./ May 21, 1987 t
- MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
~
FROM: Richard W. Starostecki, Chairman
< Investigation Referral Boarci
SUBJECT:
INVESTIGATION REFERRAL. BOARD The Investigation Referral Board (IRB) was established as an integrated senior I
management review board to examine proposed requests for investigation. The j purpose of the review is to assure priorities and needs for investigations are commensurat( with the agency mission regarding protection of public health and i safety. The IRB was composed of senior agency officials representing the three program offices [0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and Office of Inspection and Enforcement
+
(IET), the Director, Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Staff and the 1~ Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement OGC. Since establishment on November 10, 19B6, 24 proposed requests were forwarded to the IRB by the five Regional Administrators. In conducting reviews and prioritizing these cases the IRB used the previously issued, Cormission-approved, guidelines which defined the threshold and prioritization scheme for identifying matters warranting investigation. Within two weeks of receipt, each referral was considered by the IRB in consultation with the requesting region. The resulting i l IRB recomeendations were promptly provided in writing to the requesting region i for consideration prior to a referral of a case to the Office of Investigation l (01). t As af the end of April 1987, there were four emergency referrals provided l j directly to 01 in accordance with the IRB charter and which were not reviewed ;
in advance by the IRB. In addition 11 of the 24 referrals submitted to the !
4 IRB were subsequently forwarded by the Regional Administrators to 01. The '
I remaining 13 were recommended to the Regional Administrator by the IRB to be i deferred (12 cases) or denied (1 case). Reasons for these deferrals and one '
denial were that upon careful scrutiny of the available information there was
+
no violation of agency regulations, there was insufficient information to i understand whether or not there was a technical issue affecting safety, the staff and 01 were act'. rely devs1 ping additional information to establish j whether the matter warranted a referral for investigation, or there was not a 1 reasonable basis that wrongdoing may have occurreo. l l
l During the trial period, the IRB, in consultation with the regions, reassessec the back1cg of pending O! cases. As a result of this reassessment a natienal 1
- chcit, cac. king of pencing cases was ceveloped. Preparation for this effcrt '
i and the actual reassessment was resource intensive for senior 24nagers in the !
l regions anc on the IRB due to the time commitments. However, the collegial l 4 ,
l, peg _
l o ;
Victor Stello, Jr. . May 21, 1987 process of the IRB resulted in identification of issues warranting further resolution and highlighted the need for closer coordination among regions and between the regions and the program offices. The process clarified the threshold to be used in identifying potenti1' wrengdoing matters and provided ,
the invclved regional management a more uniform and consistent understanding i of how the guidelines should be applied to future cases. j Comparison e referral statistics before inception of the IRB and during the !
trial period does not show cignificant changes in the rate of cases the. regional '
offices identified as potential referrals for investigation. Therefore, the question is raised as to the role of the IRB and whether it should be continued ,
- or terminated. To addrese this question a brief discussion is warranted as to the accomplishments of the IRB and the role of such a review board in the future.
1
- One of the principal accomplisheents of the IRB was the development of a !
national priority for pending 01 cases. During this effort, the interaction '
among the regions, program uffices and the IRB resulted in some cases being dropped, som.t lowered in priority and others raised. Many of the older cases also were reassessed since documentation to allow comparison with current guidelines and standards had to be developed in order to properly assign them a ;
priority. As a result a better understanding was developed by the regions as to overall agency needs and the impact that Individual case needs, priorities '
and schedules have on the national ranking. Therefore, this ranking shoulo
) be of assistance to 01 in balancing its resources to match the needs of the i agency on a national lavel rather than 4ithin each region. There is greater assurance that more significant issues will receive appropriate piority since i it reflects the consensus views of the staff.
Another acceeplish. ment of the IRB was the identification of specific difficulties !
j impeding the timely and effective identification of technical matters affecting i j safety (i.e., regulatory need) that warranted remedial measures. In some l
- instances there has not been a close working relationship between 01 and the staff in all elements of the organization. Consequently, there is a perception ;
that inspections and investigations are mutually exclusive and that the conduct of one wi!! iepede the other. As a result of IRB discussions with the regions, j the need for closer working relationships was identified. The specific need
, for prompt O! assistance to the staff on certain inspections exists and guidance j needs to be developed for the 11 field offices. Similarly, more timely feed-
- back from 01 inquiries and investigations will enable the staff to make the
- appropriate regulatory decision for corrective actions. In some cases, delays j en the order of 1-3 years render certain issues n ot. Management involvement 3
from both 01, the regions and the program offices is needed to resolve the 1 perceptions that arise from a strict delineation between investigations and 1 inspections. This has at tiees resulted in sone friction between the staff l and 01, l
1 Historically, the staff has referred a variety of cases to 01. It is of 1
interest that about 30% of these were treated as investigations by 01 and the j majority were handle.1 as nquiries. Some of this eay have been due to regional i requests for inquiries rather than investigations. The issuance of the Cemission-approved guidelines in January 1936 fccused the staff more on the I l l
1
. Vince 5' allo, Jr. May 21. 1987 need for investigation referrals ar.d. as a result, the need for 01 assistance to the staff was not specifically addressed. Regicns have relied on 01 for assistance to help develop a matter, either through assistance to inspections or through an inquiry. In contrast, the IRB focused on requests for 01 investigation. Cetparison of the number of IRB-reviewed investigation referrals with the historical number of OI investigations shows that there is a continuing, if not increasing, need for 01 investigative support. The staff has the mandate to identify and resolve technical issues affecting safety, '
as well as mandate to identify to pursue potential wrongdoing the wrongdoing matters; concurrently, issue. A management perspective from 01 as t)boththe a
headquarters as well as a regional view, as to the regulatory need and basis for wrongdoing, is essential in resolving the competing interests for either an inspection or an investigation. In this regard I do not believe that within the staff there is a wide knowledge of or uniform understanding of the Commission approved guidelines. Modifying the referral form to require an identificationofthespecific,applicableguidelinebeingappliedineach case should hele. In addition, training in this area cou.d be of assistance in establishing uniformity. Similarly, periodic reassessments of the pending 01 cases wil'1 further improve the staff's understanding and application of the guidelines.
Cements solicited near the end of the trial period from the Program Office Directors, Regional Administrators, tne Director, Office of Special Projects, and CGC, are generally supportive of the need for some type of an IRB. Tnere were two ec = enters who suggested that the IRB either was not needed or it should have a passive overs 1ght role.
The attached report and its enclotures more fully discuss the above matters.
In su=ary, I believe that the IRB review process was timely and effective in identifying those issues warranting investigation as well as clearly stating a '
substantiated regulatory need In ey view, littic delay, if any, to initiating j investigations resulted from 1RB review. Also, such delay appears insignificant '
) when comoared to the backlog of pending 01 cases. In conclusion, the IRB perfor ec in an advisory capacity to the Regional Administrators and Program Office Directors. In practice the IRB has probed the rationale and technical underpinning for each investigation referral riquest. This may have resulted in the perception that the IRB is accountable for the assigned responsibilities regarding matters referred for investigation, the reasons for the referral and i the requested oriority, as set forth in the E00's directive of July 5,1935. l i In determining whether or not the IRB should be continued, or the IRB charter i modified, the accountability question has to be clarified. Benefits have !
derived froi, the six month trial period of the IRB; irproved participation !
on the part of regional and headcuarters ennagers in the referral process for 01 investigations, as reco=enced in the IRB report, would result in i reduced
, need for the IRB in its present confi;urttion.
RicMrc W. Staresbcki, Cnairm,n a Investigatica Referral Boded
0 (
Victor Stello, Jr. 4 May 21, 1987 '
ii
Enclosure:
Investigation. Referral Board Review of Six Month Trial Period ,
t !
cc w/encio:,ure:
J. Taylor, EDO *
- T. Murley, NRR *
! H. Thompson, NMSS E. Jordan, AE00 :
E.Beckjord,RES >
. J. Keppler, OSP .
l B. Hayes 0! *
- W. Russell, Region I <
- N. Grace, Re ion 11
- B. Davis, Re ion III
- R. Martin, R gion IV
) J. Martin, Region V 1
I I l 2
I '
f i
i 5
t .
l 1
l 1 :
l l
i
I l
l 4
(
INVESTIGATION REFERRAL SOARO Review of Six Montn Trial Perice The Investigation Referral Board (IRC) was established on November a memorancum cated October 20, 1986) for a 6 month trial perioc. The 10, 1986 (by IRB charter essentially required that two activities be performed:
(1) review each referral that NRC personnel in the regions or at heacquarters proposed to send In regard regarcing to the referrals to: first activity, tne IRB attempted to focus disc .
(1)
I ensure there is a regulatory need for the investigation; (2) cetermine wrongdoing; if there is a reasonable basis for belief of pctential (3) relate the referral to other referrals to 01 and to agencywice priorities; (4) ensureneeds; agency the suggestec and priority is consistent with program and overall (5) revie-the the schecule regulatory need. to ensure that the results suld be consistent with l
! These coints are important because they constitute ve test used by the IRB to
- ensure that tne Cotmission's minimum guicelines were met. On January 10, 1986 I
the Secretary issued a staf f reauirements tnemorancum (SRM) providing a j ce'initionfor priorities of concucting wrongcoinginvestigations.
as approved by the Ct.mmission, and establishing
- The appencix to the SRM
j (1) established the definitions to be used in determining whether there was a reasonable basis to conclude that wrongdoing may have occurred anc (2) proviced estaslish stancarcs (in the form of examples) tha*, should be usec to a priority.
i j IRB was established, and the NRC staff should have uncerstood
- them, it was viewed as essential that the IRB tely on them as well. During j the course of the IRB deliberations it became clear tnat not thealstaff were aware of the guidelines nor did staff members all understanc them in the same way.
4 The IRS charter and the guidelines as aper:vec by the Commission
- are attached as Enclosares 1 anc 2, respectively.
to review a referrcl within two weeks of its receipt,To corrply with the enarter i
acvance by wri', ten notices) the first and third T IRB met (notifite in i 1
]-
personnel participated by teleonone as necessary.uescays of each month; regi '
l At a meeting between the IRB meteers anc the Director <
i !
to tne Director of 01 tnat O! sta'f snovic be encoura;ec to '
i i
i
.g.
could benefit from their unique insights on wrongcoing and their perspectives on activities that warranted investigation.
IRB eembershio during the trial period generally consisted of the Deputy Director of IE as the Chairfoan, SES representatives from OGC anc the ECO office, a Division Director f rom NRR, and the Deputy Director from hMSS.
Becauseof'ofNRR Director conflicts and subseouent reassignment within the agency, the Decuty proposed, a senior NRR Division Director.and the IRB Chairman agreed to, the participation by The IRB established a system to obtain and review referrals. The requesting office or region sent a copy of each request to every IRB memoer and to botn the 01 field office and Ol: HQ. The request was reviewec at the next scheculte meeting and a recommendation made at the conclusion of the discussion allowed the region that was involved to respond promptly (by telephone). The IRB servec in an advisory role. In reaching its collective decision, the l'iB protec the technical basis for the request, seeking to understand, for exa.?ole, the safety significance of the matter. A writt.en remorancum to the Regional Acministrator recorced and confirmed the recommendation made on the telephone.
Except for two referrais (one cealing with TVA and the other ' rom the eccently established NRC Office of Special Projects), all IRB referrals came fram the regions; consequently, this report addresses the role of the i.T and its interaction with the regions.
Investigations that had been initiated before the IRE was establishec were revie ec on two occasions in orcer to establish a rational priority listing.
After the first zeeting (mic-Oecemner 1986) to revie. the pencing investi-gations, it became clear that in many cases criorit;. could not be determined without acditional cocumentation.
with pencing investigations focused only on high priority It cases.Thus, also IRB's became clear that (1) 'he Comission's guicelines for :scertaining thresholc and priority of investigations had not been uniformly appliec and (2) referrals made before January 1986 did not reflect Commission guicance in all cases. As a result, the regions were asked to verify information or provide new information, consistent with the Ccmmi:sion's guicelines. ,
A 18,meeting 1957. to ieview all pending cases was held in Bethesca, Mc. on March 17 anc Each region participated by sencing at least one SES manager. One Regional Administrator, three Division Directers, anc ene Oeouty Division 1
Director attenced. Because of the wice car',icipation enc cif f ering n. 3:ec-tives brought to the meeting, the meeting was procuctive anc pending cases =ere assigned a national priority. How the Commissie?'s quicance snoulc be a:cliec was a major topic.
For enamole, the IRB told the regions that the phrase "safety signt senstcon ern for licensing" was to be viewee creacly in a regul. story over-r and not to be limited to the prrcessing o' licensing a:olicatiers. i The resuit rg prioritication was formally o'ovicec to the EDO, 01, Regi:nal Acministra'. ors, anc Program Office Directe's on March 20, 1987 (see Enclosure 1 3).
{
fo essess listings .eretne activities of t9e IRB ca'ing the six-?o nh trial perice, sese ai cevelopec.
Enclosure a taeviates all n:nemergency referrals
3 submitted through April 29, 1987 of each referral. for IRB review and indicates the diseosition of these were recommended for referral to 01.As can be seen, 24 requests wer The remaining 13 referrals .ere deferred or denied because IRB found that: (1) based upon information orovicec by the region, there was no reasonable basis to believe that wrongcoing occurrec, (2) investigations were not necessary to permit approcriate a referral,was not necessary. regulatory action, or (3) because 01 support with the region on about one half of the referrals.These statistics indicate that the The 1 denial anc the 12 The insights developec from these cases and from the inform
, during IRB future of thedeliberations IRB. Althoughprovidt a basis for making a recommendation about tne
- the referring region or program office was free t to elevate a dispute or disagree with the IRB recommendation, the option was not exercised during the 6-month trial period.
There were five emergency referrals during the IRS trial period (four came ."'om Regional Administrators and one from a Program Office Director). After one emergency referral wasreferral was submitted and the IRB Chairman had been notified, the retracted.
concerns of the IRB: The reason for this retraction highlights one of the the relationship between allegations and investigations and the resconsibility of the region to determine whether a reascnable basis ixists for viewing the ailegation as valid and as a subject for referral. This n ecific retraction conduct of licensed involvec operators.an unsigned note sent to the region regarding the Since current 01 field practice is to recuest that tne region suomit an investigation referral to cetain 01 assi-tance, the region interviedid5. not rescily have available 01 assistance to conduct preliminary Director anc the ToOecuty resolveE00.
the matter promptly requirec the involvement of the 01 An 01 investigator accompanied regional staf f to assess the creciDility of the anonymous tip that constituted the allegation.
In order to assess whether or not the IRB process had a dramatic effect on cefore and after the IRB was established. regional referrals to 01, the s
- suemitted recuests for either investigations or inquiries directly to 01,Be The specific form to be used for iraestigation referrals to 01 was develoced and promulgated by the E00 in the sumer of 19B5. Cemecuently, recorcs for
- referrals to 01 and the bases fo,' them before the surmer of 1985 are not necessarily complete or readily available.
Using regional recorcs, referrals
- were tabulated by date and by month, by region, from Septemter 1985 to November 1985, a 14-1/2-month Enc'esure 5). period that prececed the existence of the IRB (see 4
As discussed in Enclosure 5, there are wide variations in the
- num:er and rate of referrals within and among regions. Although there is one anomaly resulting from tne large number of referrals attributec to TVA cases, the rate at wnich the regions identified cases (either inquiries or investi-gations) sent casesbefore the IRB existed is comparable to the rate at which the regions to tne IRS.
, Cc tsidered annually, 72 cases ::er year or 57 per year exclucing since the IRB TVA =asdata) were icentifiec pre-IRB and 60 cases per ye(ar =ere icentifiec formed.
tnat one into account =cule snow that the IRB hac consiceree ato i
1
4 on an annual basis.
Although the comoarison of 14 1/2 mon'.hs of data :revious to the existence of the IRB to 6 months of cata since tne IRB existed coe readily demonstrate a cranatic reduction in caseload, the examination of tne data raises other questions:
vs. investigations, and emergency referrals.the impact of T'IA issues, the issus of inquirie TVA Impact Before the IRB was set up, IRB was formed, there have been three cases regarcing Since TVA.19 of 31 c IRB consicered one case from7.the region in Decemoer 1986 and deferred it for rea.ons ciscussee in Enclosure in January 1987. There was an emergency referral from the program office director A third case involving TVA was referred in April 1987 by tre recently constituted staff; it was recommended Officefor of ceferral.
Special Projects in coordination with the fiele distinct organi:ations: trial period there were three potential referrals directly to OI and approvec by the E00.the Program Office submitted an emergency re Region !! statistics are comparable to those of the other regions.When Notwith- TVA re IRB anc the attendant rec.om.mendations were office. adopted still beingInpursuec.
one case there was no evicence of wrongdoing and the seconc is
_Incuiries vs. Investicatiens and Tieeliress 01 reports ceal with either incuirier or investiga : s. On the basis of historical records, 01 ap; ears to use incuiries tc a>:ertain whether or not potential wrongcoing exists anc whether further foll:-up is warranted. It has 1 been inquiry. O! practice to allo. 01 field offices to directly issue recorts of require 01 heacquarters review and issuance. Investigation re orts are i l
During referralsthe 14-1/2-r.onth period that preceded the IRB, the regions had mace 87 to 01.
Examination of the recores shews that 01 initiated (see Enclosure 5). 25 cases, and initiatec 55 incuiries, anc cented 7 referrals investigations in in less than 30% nf the cases referred to 01 tefore the IRB w; Concurrently, the backlog of pending cases was gr: wing.Absent a review for .
i priority, about regulatory where to spendneed or safety significance, 01 nas to make judgments their resources:
l inwestigations. For exaisle, on March to pursue incuiries or to concact j cases. Tht 13, 1957, one O! field office closee 15 date of August 1932 (Enclosure 6). average case =as 30 months olc, anc the olce
- ending the receipt of 01 results, any regulatory action centem
- lal staff is affected since the passage of time may rence* the issue moot. In !
the ecuivalent of about 21 investigations per year. sum.ary, based for= arced to 01 since the for .ation of tne IRE results in 01 investigatiersA O! should concuet to Enclosure 5.) tne ecuivalent of a::vt 31 investigations per year (refer ,
5-Emeroency Referrais In accordance with the IRS charter, emergency referrals could be made directly to 01 by either a Regional Administrator or an Office Director, througn ettablished channels, bypassing the IRB. The IRB Chairman was prometly advised of thest referrals. In this manner the IRB was kept informed as to the nature of the emergency event and the rationale for the referral. This process was used four times Director) during(three by Regional the trial period. Administrators and one by a Program Office The safety significance of the issue was used as the princioal factor in making an emergency referral. Therefore, a of the label15"emergency cases referred to 01 were of such significance that they warrantec the referral."
Denials /Deferrah As noted previously, the rate at which the regions identify cases is comparacle to that experienced historically during the 14 1/2 months before IRB existed.
However, as a result of the IRB review, 13 cases were recommended for eithet-denial or deferral. IRS adopted the term "deferral" to identify those cases that could be resubmitted if further staff effort identified information that could be used for assessing the appropriateness of a request consistent with the Commission's guidelines. That is, IRB reviews involved discussions with the initiating regional office about the bas,s for the referral; at times, gaps in information were identified so that there was no reasonable basis to conclude wrongdoing occurred.
If sufficient facts existed to clearly demonstt' denial. ate no regulatory need, then a case Could te subject to a recommended In any event, any case recommendec by IRB 'or either denial or {
deferral could be appealed and be resubmitted. None have teco appealed. ;
Furthermore, cases that the regions proposed fer I:5 review were available to 01 before IRB review.
did not concur with the IRB recemmendation.Thus, 01 had the flexibility to initiate IRB craft procedures provided to i l
the regions requested that written referral requests be concurrently provided to a standardized distribution which included 01, 4
~
O! Assistance In the course of IRB deliberations, the development of factual infermation during an inspection was raised as an issue in those cases where there was i
i potential wrongdoing. In numerous cases the regional staff expressed its perception of 01. that staff is expected to stop the inspection pending notification The IRB told the staff that it would be expected to develoo the facts I necessary to establish a reasonable basis and not to rely solely on suspicion or an anonymous allegation. Coincidentally, the 01 investigation staff has an 1 interest in preserving the facts associated with wrongdoing, There are
- occasions where prompt joint region /01 efforts are needed on a short-term basis ;
(a few days) to assess whether or not a regulatory safety problem exists and whether an O! referral is needed or appropriate. The IRE told the regions that 1 neither IRB nor 01 referral was needed for the OI to assist staff in support of an inspection to develop the facts surrounding a particular case. A formal 01 referral an issuereques'. to the IRB would delay any action neeced o pre ptly ice ti'y (e.g., interview of a licensee employee) and therefere was net vie =ec 5
i
(
- 6-
} by the IRB as necessary.
1 The IRB stated that it should review the case once the information is offort is warranted. obtainec to provice a reasonable basis that further investigative facts surrouncing a case; the regions should not be encumbered by of the IRB to obtain support from O! in such circumstances, Assistance from 01 field offices snould be coordinated between the regional staff and the C1 staff. ;
On the basis of feecback from regional managers, 01 field offices need guidance as to how such requests should be handled so as not to delay thi :
process and concurrently to effectively manage 01 resource commitments. . In 4
January 1987, the O! Oirector and the IRB Chairman agreed about th'e ceatrability e of such an approach; however, the IRS is not aware of any guidance te 01 field
- offices supporting this approach nor did O! offer an alternative response to a ,
i written proposal regarding O! assistance sent by the IRB in February 1987, Tne .
staff's role is to identify and ensure appropriate resolution of technical safety issues; once a safety problem is known to exist the staff cannot, condone its continued existence. Enforcement, management meetings, or written reports .
i q
are used to identify issues for the purpose of seeking corrective action. The '
, need for O! information is not less significant in those instances of potential wrongdoing.
l is needec to satisfyThere is a neec botn needs. to recognize those cases in which close cocoeration Historically, prior to the promulgation of
- the Commission's minimum guidelines for investigation in January 1986, the j regions occasionally used the referral process to request O! inquiries as a i
convenient form for soliciting 01 assistance. As discussed previously, this .
factor has affected the statistics of referrals for 01 investigatient since !
the referrals included requests for assistance and or inquiry.
i Recemcencations ;
- After five months of excerience, the IRB had preparec proposed recommencations (see Enclosure 3) and solicited coment from all of the Regional Administrators, Program Office Directors, OGC, and the Director of Special Projects. Inese coments if any, are and overview enclosed of them for9).
(Enclosure the purpose of identifying a common theme (s), ;
In general, the comments from the Regional ;
Administrators IRS. are favorable and supportive about the iesults achieved by the' However, tne Direct.or, Of fice of Special Projects, does not beleve that !
4 IRB shoule continue. Similarly, the Administrator, Region !! does not believe l that each request should be reviewed by the IRB in advance of refer.ral to 01.
The proposed recommendations were modified and, based on its experiences, the 1 1
1RB eakes the following recommendations: l (1) 01 all and the NRC staff should be encouraged to coercinate their activities at levels, i I
! it is the view of the IRB that the activities of the IRB woulc nave been expedited and enhanced by the carticipation of 01 staff.
Closer working relationships should be fosterec so that the agency's objectives their respective are attained roles. with a clear understancing by 01 and t.he staff of i Matters identified as potential wrongcoing nees j
j technical safety concerns. farThe to be followeo er pursued enough by the staff to adequately accress distinction bet een ".rongcoing' and j "tecnnical safety concerns" will not always be clearly icentifiec, not in so e cases can it ce. Consecuently, the rescettive staffs must = ors tcgether until the regulatory anc wrongcoing issues are clearly estaclisbec, i
i 1
l i
l 7 ,
(2)
NRC staff.staff inspections can sometimes benefit from the participatier. by O!
Such assistance from 01 is generally needed on short notice anc is not conducive to review by a board. There is a need to clearly ,
distinguish assistance. between requests for 01 investigations and requests for 01 01 assistance refers to those situations where there is a need for O! support (e.g., conduct of an ir,terview) in an inspection to t '
!~ collact additional data or information so that a reasonable cetermination ?
i can be made as to whether wrongdoing may be involved and whether there is
' a regulatory need for an 01 investigation. O! assistance acetars to be the type of 01 effort that may not be resource intensive anc for whien O!
may be able to provide prompt, veluable support to the staff.
to its field offices on this issue is needed to ensure a consistent 0! guicance response to regional requests for assistance. Similarly, guidance is needed for the regions as to how and when to request 01 assistance. ;
(3) To foster'cl6ser coordination between OI and staff, 01 staff shoulc be 1
- encouraged to sttend pertinrent regional enforcement conferences, allegation panel meetings, and management meetings. In those cases where j OI initiates its own inquiries or investigations, it shoulo coordinate i with the Regional Acministrator or the Program Office on the status of ,
the staff's deliberative process. !
The clear definition of the regulatory need evolves from the delibcrative process; to ensure that the appropriate regulatory need will be satisfied by the 01 effort, close coordination 1 between OI and the staff during initiation of, as well as during the ,
4 conduct of, the investigation should be encouraged. ;
(4) 01 and regional staff should te encouraged to : ovide feedback to eacn other rore routinely.
resulting from certain 01 Theinvestigative deveicomentefforts of acciticnal can betechnical infermation important in !
deciding on the aporocriate regulatory action. Consequently, when c
- technically knowledgeable individual works on selected OI efforts, the results can be more useful. Such presence would contribute to a more i meaningful feedback upon which changes could be considered in the priority, i i need for, and direction of the investigation. Conversely 01 presence on j
} certain staff inspections could provice additional perspec,tive to the staf f. t To ensure feedback is attained. 01 field offices and regional mantgers i
- should hold periodic briefings on status of activities in progress. These ;
briefings could also assist in the regional prioriti:ation of cases.
(5) j Efforts should continue to ensure that the Commission's guidelines of i
4 January 10, 1986interpreted.
are consistently for requesting and prioritt:ing investigation requests In this regard, tne form used by the staff !
4 to request an investigation should be modified in certain respects.
- First, the form shoulc be revised to require a snort statement of {
the safety significance of the issue. !
To enhance more consistent and !
uniform application of the guiceline(s), the form should also include in l
- the prioriti
- stion request a reference to the a:alicable su paragra:h of j i the guicelines wnich best matches the rationale for the priority, i
I i
1 I
l I
1
\
l
.g. 1
\
(6) The IRB process has fostered improved com.munication and coordination among the regions and between the regions and headcuarters. Particication of representatives from the Office of General Counsel (CGC) and the Staff Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements (DEDROGR) nas i been valuable in providing constructive suggestiens and reccmmendations, -
the synergism resulting from the IRB discussions has been most beneficial and tr)e consensus decisions of the IRS have resulted in no cases being contested by any requesting region or office. Although at times, t.he IR5 ,
i precess was resource intensive because of the time commitments on the 142 members troutine meetings usually required 2 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />), the level of involvement =as desfrable in light of the variety of issues. It is 1 recommended that the level of management and composition of the IRB ce reevaluated. In light of the recent reorganization, representation from '
the Office for Analysis anc Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00) is i recommended since that Of fice has increased invo.lvement in operational events at both reactor facilities and non-reactor licensees. Particioaticn j ty the newly created Office of Enforcement under the Deputy Executive >
Director for Regional Operations (CEORO) is recommended because the 1 enforcement function has been transferrec from IE to OEOR0. Accorcingly, l a reconstituted board made up of four SES-level senior managers could continue to provide the function of the IRS. .
(7) On the basis of the considerations listed above and tne comments provided l by the Regional Acministrators, the IRB in its present configurttien and '
its review process should be retained, unless c gional e and Headquarters SES-level managers become more involved in tre eferral process. If the IRB is retained, the memeership of the IRB shc.ld be modified, in li the reorganization, to include representation ' rom NMSS, NRR, AE00,and ght of i OEDRO. l Attendance by OGC and O! should be ee:: raged; their vie s on '
wrongeeing need to ce more fully considered cf the regional and J headquarters staffs.
(6) Retain updated.
the cencept of a national priority listing that is periccically At least every six months, all pending O! cases should be reevaluated for t. heir regulatory need and priority. The program offices I (NRR and hMSS) with participation of senior managers from eacn regier, in l uenjunction with the Deputy E00 for Regional 0:erations sneuld reassess all cases so as to provide a pricciti:ed tabulation to 01. Based on the initial ranking developed to date, O! sneule giwe consiceration to address i on a priority basis the large numeer of cending cases in Regicn 111 as = ell as to provide dedicated resources for the relatively large nutter of TVA cases.
(9) The concept of an emergency 01 refer al sm:ule ce retained. Guidanco needs to be cevelo:ed for the Regional Actinis'.rators as to tna tnresneld l of suen recuests and tre need for coordination =ith the respecthe Program Office. Emergency referrals are infrequent (fear in ttx montns) anc ce not ac: ear to impose a eurden on the staff. Ineie treatment reflects tne urgency of the matter and its immediate :otential in;act on public neilth an: safety. Emergency referrals from the regier seculd te ccercinate: u tn tne a:Dr:priate program of fice and the De:ut;. E:0 for Regional C;e-atic95. l l
l .I 2
a i
4 Acvising the IRB Chairman, in accordance with the charter, of the e referral describing the event and rationale for the referral nas .oese:
well.
to the IRS for information.A copy of tne final written request snould routin:
i Enclosures i 1.
E00 Memorandum dated October 20, 1986:
- i 4
! System for Coordinating, Reviewing, 't
! 2. ane Approving Recuests for Investigation
- l Staff Requirements Memorancus (SRM) catec :
j January 10, 1986 - SECY 45 369, !'
"Threshold and Priorities for Concuating Investigations" :
3.
Memorandum March 20, 1987 from re:IRBNational to the E00 catec i Priority :
i 4
t,isting of Pending 0! Cases e
- 5. IRB New Referral DisCCsition Table
! .~.eview of O! Referrals Over Time !
l with Attachments: i A. Regional Referrals Provided to '
i 01 by Region (9/85-11/10/86) i B. Re
! 0!gional Referrals Provided to (
i C.
ty Region (11/10/86-4/9/87) :
l Disposition of Regional !
1 Referrals Provicec to O! by :
j Region (9/85-11/10/86) :
6.
1 Tabulation of Selectec Cases Closec i t
Acministratively by O! !
7.
! Sum ary of 13 Cases Not Recommencee !
j S.
for InvestigaMon Referral by IRS ;
. Pro;osed IRB Recommencations datec 4
April 10, 1987 i i
- 9. '
Comments Previced on Procosec 1RB
- Rtee veneations i
)>
i
)
l j
1
}
l I
l 1
L_ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _