ML20154E214
| ML20154E214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/25/1988 |
| From: | Callahan M NRC |
| To: | Bradley Jones, Kagan C, Lopezotin M NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D958 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-237 NUDOCS 8809160258 | |
| Download: ML20154E214 (1) | |
Text
I
.4k.
I
/ %,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, [ ) s., g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55
- j
'1 a
?*, * * " * / -
February 25, 1988 :
L l
NOTE TO: Brad Jones l
Maria Lopez-Otin Carol Kagan Steve Burns i Jack Scarborough l Tom Rehm Jim Fitzgerald j FROM: MikeCallag I am enclosing revised answers to "Breaux-Simpson" questions 14-26 with the exception of 15(E) and 23. I'd appreciate your review today so they ,
can be ready for signature tomorrcw.
l i
. 1 1
i
\
\,
l 09091go2s eBo PDR @
NbTONSO237
/ %, UNITED STATES
! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssiNoToN o.c.nosas
{g jj
'** March 1, 1988 CHAIRMAN l
The Honorable John Breaux Chaiman Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation '
Comittee on Environment and Public Works ,
i United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chalman:
I I am encio,ing the remaining answers to your January 27, 1988 questions pertaining to the Office of Investigations (01), Training and Qualification l of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, the NRC Proposed Policy Statement on Maintenante, and the NRC Policy Statement on Enforcement (with the exception of 15(E) and 37) as follows: 14 through 22, 24 through 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 41 through 46.
The other answers in these areas were provided on February 24, 1988.
Remaining answers to questions concerning the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor and the NRC Material False Statement Rule, as well as 15(E) and 37, will be sent via separate letter.
Sincerely, i'
M w. /A A .
Lando W. Ze , Jr
Enclosures:
As stated cc: . ten. Alan X. Simpson i
I s
i L. #
, -;s.;: .
n .
Fo/A-fM31,c//r
s l
1 QUESTION 14 In testimony before the subcomittee on October G,1987, Chairman Zech stated that there were a number of reasons, other than the lack of trained investigators, for establishing OI.
i Please describe other reasons or specific. incidents which led ,
to establishing 01. l 1
\ >
ANSWER. ;
l In the face of Congressional criticism of the NRC investigative program in late 1981 and early 1982, the Comission elected to establish an Office of l Investigations that would report directly to the.Comission. The Comission announced that it was taking this step to improve NRC's capability to perform ,
credible, thorough, timely, and objective investigations. The staffing of the new office with trained investigators was an important step in achieving this r goal. The Comission at that time saw a need for a centralized and high-level j focus en investigations. The Connission decided to have O! report directly to !
the Comission.
l l
l i
l l
1/27/83 BREAUX Q14
r ' ~.
1
-6 l
l I
QUESTION 15. Please provide to the Comittee the following, since 1982, j by year:
'I (A) the total number of atleged violations of NRC rules and regulations referred to 01, i (B) the total number of the alieged violations.which resulted in the opening of O! cases. (
ANSWER.
O! has not kept records of the number of investigative requests that have been '
declined by 01. It is a rarity for 0! to decline ' investigative requests, f
especially since the formalization of investigative request procedures !
has increased over the past two years. Consequently, the below cited case initiation statistics also serve as a fairly accurate indication of all matters brought to OI's attention. '
l
(
YEAR NUMBER OF CASES OPENED !
1 1982 164 I 1983 186 i 1984 158 1985 150 1986 86 1 1987 _B.1 i
TOTAL TO DATE: 831 '
1/27/88 BREAUX Q15 '
QUEST 80N 150 (con %inued) 1 l
(C) the total number of cases O! referred to the Department of ;
i Justice.
l l ANSWER:
I YEAR _ CASES REFERRED DOJ .
l 4
1982 0 l
5 1983 12 2
1984 14 ,
l !
l 1985 15 l 1986 15 l
! 1987 25
\ l i 1 a TOTAL TO DATE: 81 I i
i I 4 -
Of the 81 cases that have been referred to DOJ,14 have been accepted by 00J for '
prosecutien and 25 are still pending prosecutive determination. l i
i i i i !
i i
i 1
}
4 1
l i
1 j 1/27/88 BREAUX Q15
l 00ESTION 15. (continued) i.
(D) the total number of cases referred to the Office of j Inspector and Auditor (OIA) by 01. ,
l
. i r
I' ANSWER.
I I
I l
- O! Referrals to O!A .
i J
i 1 1982 --- 0
- 4 i 1983 --- 0 I r
l 1
i 1984 --- 0 l ,
i i
! 1985 --- 2 -
4 i
l 1986 --- 7 s l
i l 1987 --- 3 I. i 1988 --- 1 (to be forwarded to OIA) i i
I !
I I
i ;
s ;
k !
t i i l
1 i I .I
\ l
! I i !
j 1/27/88 BREAUX Q15 l I
i !
_-_. . - - _ , - _ _ _ . - , . , _ _ _ . - _ - , _ _ . _ . . . . . . . , . . _ _ _ . _ . . . - . . _ . - - . ~ , _ . . . - , , , , _ , _ _ . . . - _ . - - ,
QUESTION 16. Since Ol's inception in 1982 there has been considerable discussion of OI authority to self-initiate investigations.
(A) Specifically describe the extent of authority to self-initiate investigations.
(B) What document identifies Ol's self-initiation authority?
l ANSWER. i The authority of Of to self-initiate investigations is set forth in O! Policy
- 4. This policy, which was approved by the Cornission, codifies the authority to self-initiate investigations that was granted 01 at the tire of its 1982 l l creation. A copy cf the Staff Requirements Memorandum with OI policy 4 from SECY endorsing that policy is attached.
Attachment:
1 Staff Requirerents Memo dated 3/4/83 l
l l t
l l
l 1
1/27/88 BREAUX Q16 l
-3?p ,,n%,
',. hk0 UNITED STITEs T j i. CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!Oiv SECREBRM RECORD COPf g .. j ., l ,
W ASHIN GToN. D.C. M55 s
g ..... j orpict oF THE March 4,1983 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigations ' ( i FRCM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary p ,
SUBJECT:
O! POLICIES ( .h This is to infom you that the Comission has unanimously adopted the Policies elaborated in your February 25, 1983 memorandum, with the following exceptions:
A. Policy 4 as adopted by the Chairman and Comissioners Ahearne and Roberts should read. "01 investigations may be initiated -
at the request of the Cortnicsion, the EDO, or a Regional Admin-istrator, or on the initiative of the Director. 01. The 01-rector. 01, will promptly inform the Chairman of all investi-gations comenced by 01."
Comissioners Gilinsky and Asselstine would have preferred to have allowed individual Coninissioners to initiate such investi-gations.
Co.missioner Roberts would have preferred to have limited the Director. 01's initiation of such investigations by requiring ' ,
the concurrence of the Chairman. .
B. Policy 6 should be held in abeyance pending receipt of the report of the Advisory Cortnittee on Rights of Licensee Employees Under Investigation and a Comission decision on this policy. ,
C. Policy 7 should be revised to read, "0! investigators may grant >
requests for confidentiality during the course of an investiga-tion. NRC will respect an O! investigator's promise of confi-dentiality unless and until the interviewee's testimony is re.
quired for an administrative or judicial proceeding or the inter- ,
viewee discloses the testimony. The identity of persons not subject to the re octing requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 who re- -
port to the Comission information addressed by that regulation will also be accorded confidentiality as required by 10 CFR 21.2."
4 I
l m . -
,~ m , ,
1 i
A final version of the adopted policies is attached.
cc: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky '
Comissioner Ahearne !
Comissioner Roberts i Comissioner Asselstine ,
Comission Staff Offices l' ASLBP ASLAP ACRS -
POR ECO ,
g ( W -f -
Attachment not provided. l l
r l
i l
I a
l QUEST 20N 16. (continued) l j' s l
l (C) Why was the Investigation Referral Board (IRB) established?
ANSWER:
The Investigation Referral Board (IRB) was established to assure that matters referred to 01 for investigatten met the dual threshold test established by the Comission of (1) a reasonable basis to believe that wrongdoing occurred, i.e.,
the violation at issue appears more likely to have been intentional or to have resulted from careless disregard or reckless indifference than from error or oversight, and (2) there is a regulatory need for an irvestigation. The first
! threshold is important to differentiate what cases should be handled by the staff inspection process in contrast to the investigation process. The second threshold is important because in some cases there may be sufficient evidence available to make a regulatory decision without the need for an investigation.
l l
I I
l t
l l
1 1/27/88 BREAUX Q16 j
QUESTION 16 (con %inued) (D) Who established the IRB7 ANSWER:
The Executive Director for Operations established the IRB on October 20, 1986 with the approval of the Cocinission. .
P W
I I
I i
i I
!/27/88 EREAUX Q16
)
.~ .. _ _ . _ _ .. _ . _ .
l p QUESTION 16.(continued) ,
(E) Did the Comission vote on establish'ng the IRB7 If not, why nott If the Comission voted on 3stablishing the IRB, !
how did each Comissioner vote?
i ANSWER: l l
Yes, the Comissioners voted to establish the IRB. Chaiman Zech proposed. :
with Comissioner Caer agreeing and Comissioner Roberts not objecting, to authori:e the EDO to establish th IRB for a six month trial period. !
I Cemissioner Bernthal belieYed that this was a ratter for the EDO to decide and saw no reason for Comission involvement. Cemissioner Asselstine did not approve the preposal to establish the IRB.
i l
l I
l 1/27/88 BREAUX Q16
OVESTION 16 (continued) (F) Explain why the O! Director was not a voting member of the IRB.
ANSWER:
The Director of O! was not a voting member of the IRB primarily because 0! did not want to participate as a voting member. The staff proposed that O! be invited to the IRB neetings as an observer and participant, but not as a voting nenber. Comissioner Asselstine proposed to have O! as a member of the IRB.
The Director of O! believed that it would be better for O! not to participate as a member of the Board to preserve OI's independence and to conserve Ol's resources, but O! should receive information cop.ies of all matters referred to the IRB. Information copies of all matters referred to the IRB were sent to O!
while the IRB was in operation, i
1/27/88 BREAUX Q16
@EST20N16.(continued) (G) What were the findings and recomendations of the IRB7 ANSWER:
The findings and recomendations of the IRB are found in the attached May 21, 1987 report of the IRB to the Commission. Enclosure 4 of that .
s report addresses IRB action on particular cases.
7 Attachtrent:
e 5/21/87 Femo from R. W. Starostecki to Victor Stello, Jr.
b 1/27/C8 BREAUX Q16
_ _