_ - ~

QUESTION'16(G) Attachmentps %.

f \ NUCLEAR R U OR COMMISSIONg} ! W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20l$5

k, ./*

May 21, 1987t

: MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.Executive Director for Operations

~

FROM: Richard W. Starostecki, ChairmanInvestigation Referral Boarci<

! SUBJECT: INVESTIGATION REFERRAL. BOARD

The Investigation Referral Board (IRB) was established as an integrated seniorI management review board to examine proposed requests for investigation. Thej purpose of the review is to assure priorities and needs for investigations are

commensurat( with the agency mission regarding protection of public health andi safety. The IRB was composed of senior agency officials representing the three

program offices [0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office of NuclearMaterial 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 onNovember 10, 19B6, 24 proposed requests were forwarded to the IRB by the fiveRegional Administrators. In conducting reviews and prioritizing these casesthe IRB used the previously issued, Cormission-approved, guidelines whichdefined the threshold and prioritization scheme for identifying matterswarranting investigation. Within two weeks of receipt, each referral was

- considered by the IRB in consultation with the requesting region. The resultingl IRB recomeendations were promptly provided in writing to the requesting region

i

i for consideration prior to a referral of a case to the Office of Investigation| (01).

t

As af the end of April 1987, there were four emergency referrals provided |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 !IRB were subsequently forwarded by the Regional Administrators to 01. The4 '

I remaining 13 were recommended to the Regional Administrator by the IRB to bei 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, thestaff and 01 were act'. rely devs1 ping additional information to establish

j whether the matter warranted a referral for investigation, or there was not a1 reasonable basis that wrongdoing may have occurreo.

|l| During the trial period, the IRB, in consultation with the regions, reassessec1 the back1cg of pending O! cases. As a result of this reassessment a natienal

,

i;chcit, cac. king of pencing cases was ceveloped. Preparation for this effcrt '

, and the actual reassessment was resource intensive for senior 24nagers in the !

| regions anc on the IRB due to the time commitments. However, the collegial |4

-,

| peg ;,

- _ -- - - -- - - .

- _ - - -- . .- __ . .

|*

;-o

Victor Stello, Jr. -2- May 21, 1987-.

process of the IRB resulted in identification of issues warranting furtherresolution and highlighted the need for closer coordination among regions andbetween the regions and the program offices. The process clarified thethreshold 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, thequestion 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 tothe 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 beingdropped, som.t lowered in priority and others raised. Many of the older casesalso were reassessed since documentation to allow comparison with currentguidelines 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 asto 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 thei agency on a national lavel rather than 4ithin each region. There is greater

assurance that more significant issues will receive appropriate piority sincei 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 |; 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 conductof one wi!! iepede the other. As a result of IRB discussions with the regions, jthe need for closer working relationships was identified. The specific needfor 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, delaysj en the order of 1-3 years render certain issues n ot. Management involvement3 from both 01, the regions and the program offices is needed to resolve the1 perceptions that arise from a strict delineation between investigations and1 inspections. This has at tiees resulted in sone friction between the staff| and 01,

l1 Historically, the staff has referred a variety of cases to 01. It is of1 interest that about 30% of these were treated as investigations by 01 and thej majority were handle.1 as nquiries. Some of this eay have been due to regionali requests for inquiries rather than investigations. The issuance of the

Cemission-approved guidelines in January 1936 fccused the staff more on the;

I ||1

_ - - _ _ - - - - . __ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ ___ .. ,

.

Vince 5' allo, Jr. -3- May 21. 1987.

need for investigation referrals ar.d. as a result, the need for 01 assistanceto the staff was not specifically addressed. Regicns have relied on 01 forassistance to help develop a matter, either through assistance to inspectionsor through an inquiry. In contrast, the IRB focused on requests for 01investigation. Cetparison of the number of IRB-reviewed investigationreferrals with the historical number of OI investigations shows that thereis a continuing, if not increasing, need for 01 investigative support. Thestaff has the mandate to identify and resolve technical issues affecting safety, '

as well as to identify potential wrongdoing matters; concurrently, 01 t)both aas themandate to pursue the wrongdoing issue. A management perspective fromheadquarters as well as a regional view, as to the regulatory need and basisfor wrongdoing, is essential in resolving the competing interests for eitheran inspection or an investigation. In this regard I do not believe that withinthe staff there is a wide knowledge of or uniform understanding of theCommission approved guidelines. Modifying the referral form to require anidentificationofthespecific,applicableguidelinebeingappliedineachcase should hele. In addition, training in this area cou.d be of assistancein establishing uniformity. Similarly, periodic reassessments of the pending01 cases wil'1 further improve the staff's understanding and application of theguidelines.

Cements solicited near the end of the trial period from the Program OfficeDirectors, Regional Administrators, tne Director, Office of Special Projects,and CGC, are generally supportive of the need for some type of an IRB. Tnerewere two ec = enters who suggested that the IRB either was not needed or itshould 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 inidentifying those issues warranting investigation as well as clearly stating a '|substantiated regulatory need In ey view, littic delay, if any, to initiating jinvestigations resulted from 1RB review. Also, such delay appears insignificant '

) when comoared to the backlog of pending 01 cases. In conclusion, the IRBperfor ec in an advisory capacity to the Regional Administrators and ProgramOffice Directors. In practice the IRB has probed the rationale and technicalunderpinning for each investigation referral riquest. This may have resultedin the perception that the IRB is accountable for the assigned responsibilitiesregarding 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. |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 for01 investigations, as reco=enced in the IRB report, would result in i reducedneed for the IRB in its present confi;urttion.,

RicMrc W. Staresbcki, Cnairm,na

Investigatica Referral Boded

_ _ _ . __ -- _ _. --. --

_ _ _ _ _ _ .__

.

.

0 (

'Victor Stello, Jr. 4 May 21, 1987

,

ii Enclosure:Investigation. Referral Board

Review of Six Month TrialPeriod ,

t !

cc w/encio:,ure:J. Taylor, EDO ;

*-

; T. Murley, NRR*

! H. Thompson, NMSSE. Jordan, AE00 :

-

E.Beckjord,RES >

J. Keppler, OSP. .

| 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 V1

I

'

I |

2

: ,

I '

f

,

!

!

i

i

5

: :!.t

.

,

|

1

l1 :

|

|:

i

_ . _ . . _ . _ _

;

I|

'

|

(4

INVESTIGATION REFERRAL SOARO

Review of Six Montn Trial Perice,

The Investigation Referral Board (IRC) was established on November 10, 1986 (bya memorancum cated October 20, 1986) for a 6 month trial perioc. The IRBcharter essentially required that two activities be performed: (1) review eachreferral that NRC personnel in the regions or at heacquarters proposed to sendIn regard to the first activity, tne IRB attempted to focus discussionsto OI anc (2) review on a quarterly basis the status of pending investigations.

regarcing referrals to:'

(1)I ensure there is a regulatory need for the investigation;

(2) cetermine if there is a reasonable basis for belief of pctentialwrongdoing;! (3) relate the referral to other referrals to 01 and to agencywicepriorities;

(4)ensure the suggestec priority is consistent with program and overallagency needs; and

(5)revie- the schecule to ensure that the results suld be consistent withthe regulatory need.

|These coints are important because they constitute ve test used by the IRB to!

Iensure that tne Cotmission's minimum guicelines were met.; On January 10, 1986the Secretary issued a staf f reauirements tnemorancum (SRM) providing a

'

ce'inition of wrongcoing as approved by the Ct.mmission, and establishingjpriorities for concucting investigations. The appencix to the SRM:;(1) established the definitions to be used in determining whether therejwas a reasonable basis to conclude that wrongdoing may have occurred anc(2) proviced stancarcs (in the form of examples) tha*, should be usec to

.

estaslish a priority.IRB was established, and the NRC staff should have uncerstood anc reliec onBecause these guicelines were in place long,before the

i

jthem, it was viewed as essential that the IRB tely on them as well.;

j the course of the IRB deliberations it became clear tnat not alDuring

were aware of the guidelines nor did staff members all understanc them in thethe staff

same way.The IRS charter and the guidelines as aper:vec by the Commission4

are attached as Enclosares 1 anc 2, respectively.a referrcl within two weeks of its receipt,To corrply with the enarterto review;

IRB met (notifite in ii acvance by wri', ten notices) the first and third T1

personnel participated by teleonone as necessary.uescays of each month; regional 01 personnel, both heaccuarters]

At a meeting between the IRB meteers anc the Director of 01 to ciscuss 01 staffand field, were invitec both orally and by memorancum to attene all IRS mettir;s.'

-

|<

to tne Director of 01 tnat O! sta'f snovic be encoura;ec to attene so snat IREattencance anc participatien at IR3 eeetings, tne IRE me-bers unanimously statec!i'

,

;

i

ii

___ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ .

..

.g.

could benefit from their unique insights on wrongcoing and their perspectiveson activities that warranted investigation.

IRB eembershio during the trial period generally consisted of the DeputyDirector of IE as the Chairfoan, SES representatives from OGC anc the ECOoffice, a Division Director f rom NRR, and the Deputy Director from hMSS.Because of conflicts and subseouent reassignment within the agency, the DecutyDirector of' NRR 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 requestingoffice or region sent a copy of each request to every IRB memoer and to botnthe 01 field office and Ol: HQ. The request was reviewec at the next schecultemeeting and a recommendation made at the conclusion of the discussion allowedthe region that was involved to respond promptly (by telephone). The IRBservec in an advisory role. In reaching its collective decision, the l'iBprotec 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 eccentlyestablished NRC Office of Special Projects), all IRB referrals came fram theregions; consequently, this report addresses the role of the i.T and itsinteraction with the regions.

Investigations that had been initiated before the IRE was establishec wererevie 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 determinedwithout acditional cocumentation.with pencing investigations focused only on high priority cases.Thus, IRB's 'irst cuarterly report cealingIt alsobecame clear that (1) 'he Comission's guicelines for :scertaining thresholcand priority of investigations had not been uniformly appliec and (2) referralsmade before January 1986 did not reflect Commission guicance in all cases. Asa result, the regions were asked to verify information or provide newinformation, consistent with the Ccmmi:sion's guicelines. ,

A meeting to ieview all pending cases was held in Bethesca, Mc. on March 17 anc18, 1957.Each region participated by sencing at least one SES manager.

Regional Administrator, three Division Directers, anc ene Oeouty Division One

Director attenced. Because of the wice car',icipation enc cif f ering n. 3:ec-1

tives brought to the meeting, the meeting was procuctive anc pending cases =ereassigned a national priority. How the Commissie?'s quicance snoulc be a:cliecwas a major topic. For enamole, the IRB told the regions that the phrase"safety con ern for licensing" was to be viewee creacly in a regul. story over-signt senst

and not to be limited to the prrcessing o' licensing a:olicatiers.r

The resuit rg prioritication was formally o'ovicec to the EDO, 01, Regi:nal i

Acministra'. ors, anc Program Office Directe's on March 1

3). 20, 1987 (see Enclosure

{fo essess tne activities of t9e IRB ca'ing the six-?o nh trial perice, sese ailistings .ere cevelopec. Enclosure a taeviates all n:nemergency referrals

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -

.

3

,

submitted through April 29, 1987of each referral. for IRB review and indicates the diseositionof these were recommended for referral to 01.As can be seen, 24 requests were submittee to the IRS ano 11

The remaining 13 referrals .eredeferred or denied because IRB found that: (1) based upon information orovicecby the region, there was no reasonable basis to believe that wrongcoingoccurrec, (2) investigations were not necessary to permit approcriatea referral,was not necessary. regulatory action, or (3) because 01 support to the staff was in progesss,with the region on about one half of the referrals.These statistics indicate that the IRB agreed

The 1 denial anc the 12The insights developec from these cases and from the information cevelopecdeferrals are discussed in Enclosure 7 to highlight the nature of tnase cases.during IRB deliberations providt a basis for making a recommendation about tnefuture of the IRB. Although the referring region or program office was free

,

;

to elevate a dispute or disagree with the IRB recommendation, the option wast

not exercised during the 6-month trial period.

There were five emergency referrals during the IRS trial period (four came ."'omRegional Administrators and one from a Program Office Director). After oneemergency referral was submitted and the IRB Chairman had been notified, thereferral was retracted. The reason for this retraction highlights one of theconcerns of the IRB: the relationship between allegations and investigationsand the resconsibility of the region to determine whether a reascnable basis!

ixists for viewing the ailegation as valid and as a subject for referral. Thisn ecific retraction involvec an unsigned note sent to the region regarding theconduct of licensed operators. Since current 01 field practice is to recuestthat tne region suomit an investigation referral to cetain 01 assi-tance, theregion did not rescily have available 01 assistance to conduct preliminaryintervie 5.

To resolve the matter promptly requirec the involvement of the 01Director anc the Oecuty E00.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 oncefore and after the IRB was established. regional referrals to 01, the staff comoared the referrals from the regionssuemitted recuests for either investigations or inquiries directly to 01,Before the IRB hxisted, the regionsspecific form to be used for iraestigation referrals to 01 was develoced andThe;

'

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 period that prececed the existence of the IRB (seeEnc'esure 5). As discussed in Enclosure 5, there are wide variations in the4

num:er and rate of referrals within and among regions.: Although there is oneanomaly resulting from tne large number of referrals attributec to TVA cases,;

the rate at wnich the regions identified cases (either inquiries or investi-gations) before the IRB existed is comparable to the rate at which the regionssent cases to tne IRS.

Cc tsidered annually, 72 cases ::er year or 57 per yearexclucing TVA data) were icentifiec pre-IRB and 60 cases per ye(ar =ere icentifiec

,'

since the IRB =as formed.tnat one into account =cule snow that the IRB hac consiceree atout 40 casesA recorc anomaly is ciscussed in Enclosure 5; ining

i<

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

,

4

on an annual basis. Although the comoarison of 14 1/2 mon'.hs of data :reviousto the existence of the IRB to 6 months of cata since tne IRB existed coes notreadily demonstrate a cranatic reduction in caseload, the examination of tnedata raises other questions:vs. investigations, and emergency referrals.the impact of T'IA issues, the issus of inquiries

TVA Impact

Before the IRB was set up,IRB was formed, there have been three cases regarcing TVA.19 of 31 cases in Region 11 cealt with .TVA.Since

IRB consicered onecase from the region in Decemoer 1986 and deferred it for rea.ons ciscussee inEnclosure 7.There was an emergency referral from the program office directorin January 1987.

A third case involving TVA was referred in April 1987 by trerecently constituted Office of Special Projects in coordination with the fielestaff; it was recommended for ceferral.distinct organi:ations: trial period there were three potential referrals in regard to TVA from inreeThe IRB notes that during the 6 eonindirectly to OI and approvec by the E00.the Program Office submitted an emergency referralRegion !! statistics are comparable to those of the other regions.When TVA referrals are exclucec, the

IRB anc the attendant rec.om.mendations were adopted by the referring region /stancing the importance of the TVA cases, the two ceferrals recommenced by theNotwith-

office.In one case there was no evicence of wrongdoing and the seconc isstill being pursuec.

_Incuiries vs. Investicatiens and Tieeliress

01 reports ceal with either incuirier or investiga : s. On the basis ofhistorical records, 01 ap; ears to use incuiries tc a>:ertain whether or notpotential wrongcoing exists anc whether further foll:-up is warranted. 1

been O! practice to allo. 01 field offices to directly issue recorts of It hasinquiry.require 01 heacquarters review and issuance. Investigation re orts are formel, fully cocumented issues which

i

|

During the 14-1/2-r.onth period that preceded the IRB, the regions had mace 87referrals to 01.Examination of the recores shews that 01 initiated

investigations in 25 cases, and initiatec 55 incuiries, anc cented 7 referrals(see Enclosure 5).in less than 30% nf the cases referred to 01 tefore the IRB was establishecThese statist.ics incicate that 01 conducted investigations

;

;

Concurrently, the backlog of pending cases was gr: wing. .

iAbsent a review for |priority, regulatory need or safety significance, 01 nas to make judgmentsabout where to spend their resources: to pursue incuiries or to concact jinwestigations. For exaisle, on March 13, 1957, one O! field office closee 15;

cases. Thtdate of August 1932 (Enclosure 6). average case =as 30 months olc, anc the olcest case had a refereal;ending the receipt of 01 results, any regulatory action centem: lated by theConseQuently, when the concern is ceferrec|

staff is affected since the passage of time may rence* the issue moot. !

the ecuivalent of about 21 investigations per year. sum.ary, based on t.he 14-1/2 month period that prececec the IRB, 01 conducte:In

for= arced to 01 since the for .ation of tne IRE results in 01 investigatiersAssuming that all casesO! should concuet tne ecuivalent of a::vt 31 investigations per year (refer,

to Enclosure 5.)

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

*.

5-

.

Emeroency Referrais

In accordance with the IRS charter, emergency referrals could be made directlyto 01 by either a Regional Administrator or an Office Director, througnettablished channels, bypassing the IRB. The IRB Chairman was prometly advised

.

'

of thest referrals. In this manner the IRB was kept informed as to the natureof the emergency event and the rationale for the referral. This process wasused four times (three by Regional Administrators and one by a Program OfficeDirector) during the trial period. The safety significance of the issue wasused as the princioal factor in making an emergency referral. Therefore, a of

,

the 15 cases referred to 01 were of such significance that they warrantec thelabel "emergency referral."

Denials /Deferrah

As noted previously, the rate at which the regions identify cases is comparacleto 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 casesthat could be resubmitted if further staff effort identified information thatcould be used for assessing the appropriateness of a request consistent withthe 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 toconclude wrongdoing occurred. If sufficient facts existed to clearlydemonstt' ate no regulatory need, then a case Could te subject to a recommended

{denial. In any event, any case recommendec by IRB 'or either denial ordeferral could be appealed and be resubmitted. None have teco appealed. ;

Furthermore, cases that the regions proposed fer I:5 review were available to01 before IRB review.did not concur with the IRB recemmendation.Thus, 01 had the flexibility to initiate a case if 01IRB craft procedures provided to l

i

the regions requested that written referral requests be concurrently providedto a standardized distribution which included 01,4

~

O! Assistance .

In the course of IRB deliberations, the development of factual infermationduring an inspection was raised as an issue in those cases where there was

i potential wrongdoing. In numerous cases the regional staff expressed itsi

perception that staff is expected to stop the inspection pending notificationof 01. The IRB told the staff that it would be expected to develoo the factsnecessary to establish a reasonable basis and not to rely solely on suspicion

1

I

or an anonymous allegation. Coincidentally, the 01 investigation staff has aninterest in preserving the facts associated with wrongdoing, There areoccasions 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,

;neither IRB nor 01 referral was needed for the OI to assist staff in support of1

an inspection to develop the facts surrounding a particular case. A formal 01referral reques'. to the IRB would delay any action neeced o pre ptly ice ti'yan issue (e.g., interview of a licensee employee) and therefere was net vie =ec

,

5

:

i

_

,

*.

(*6-

'

;

} by the IRB as necessary.The IRB stated that it should review the case once the1

information is obtainec to provice a reasonable basis that further investigativeoffort is warranted.facts surrouncing a case; the regions should not be encumbered by the existenceTimely assistance from 01 may be crucial in developing tneof the IRB to obtain support from O! in such circumstances, Assistance from01 field offices snould be coordinated between the regional staff and the C1staff. 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. . InJanuary 1987, the O! Oirector and the IRB Chairman agreed about th'e ceatrability

,

4

of such an approach; however, the IRS is not aware of any guidance te 01 fielde

offices supporting this approach nor did O! offer an alternative response to a; ,

written proposal regarding O! assistance sent by the IRB in February 1987,;

i Tne .staff's role is to identify and ensure appropriate resolution of technicalsafety issues; once a safety problem is known to exist the staff cannot, condone

.its continued existence. Enforcement, management meetings, or written reports;

i

are used to identify issues for the purpose of seeking corrective action. Theneed for O! information is not less significant in those instances of potentialq '

wrongdoing. There is a neec to recognize those cases in which close cocoeration,

| is needec to satisfy botn needs. Historically, prior to the promulgation ofthe Commission's minimum guidelines for investigation in January 1986, theregions occasionally used the referral process to request O! inquiries as a

.

-

j convenient form for soliciting 01 assistance. As discussed previously, this 'i

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. Inesecoments and overview of them for the purpose of identifying a common theme (s),if any, are enclosed (Enclosure 9). In general, the comments from the Regional ;

;

Administrators are favorable and supportive about the iesults achieved by the'IRS. However, tne Direct.or, Of fice of Special Projects, does not beleve that !

IRB shoule continue. Similarly, the Administrator, Region !! does not believethat each request should be reviewed by the IRB in advance of refer.ral to 01.

4

lThe proposed recommendations were modified and, based on its experiences, the 1'

1RB eakes the following recommendations: |1 '

(1) 01 and the NRC staff should be encouraged to coercinate their activities at I

all levels,it is the view of the IRB that the activities of the IRB

i

! woulc nave been expedited and enhanced by the carticipation of 01 staff.Closer working relationships should be fosterec so that the agency's

,

objectives are attained with a clear understancing by 01 and t.he staff oftheir respective roles.Matters identified as potential wrongcoing neesi to be followeo er pursued far enough by the staff to adequately accressj technical safety concerns. The distinction bet een ".rongcoing' andj

"tecnnical safety concerns" will not always be clearly icentifiec, notj in so e cases can it ce. Consecuently, the rescettive staffs must = orstcgether until the regulatory anc wrongcoing issues are clearly estaclisbec,;

i

i'

1

;-. . - - . - .- - . _ -

- - - . .. .- . - - -

|'

;.

i

|

7,

(2)NRC staff inspections can sometimes benefit from the participatier. by O!staff. Such assistance from 01 is generally needed on short notice ancis not conducive to review by a board. There is a need to clearly ,

distinguish between requests for 01 investigations and requests for 01assistance.01 assistance refers to those situations where there is a.

need for O! support (e.g., conduct of an ir,terview) in an inspection tot '

!~ collact additional data or information so that a reasonable ceterminationcan be made as to whether wrongdoing may be involved and whether there is ?i

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! guicanceresponse to regional requests for assistance. Similarly, guidance isneeded 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 whereOI initiates its own inquiries or investigations, it shoulo coordinatejwith the Regional Acministrator or the Program Office on the status ofi

,

the staff's deliberative process. The clear definition of the regulatory!

*

need evolves from the delibcrative process; to ensure that the appropriateregulatory need will be satisfied by the 01 effort, close coordination >

between OI and the staff during initiation of, as well as during the1,

conduct of, the investigation should be encouraged. ;4

; (4) 01 and regional staff should te encouraged to : ovide feedback to eacnother rore routinely.The deveicoment of acciticnal technical infermationresulting from certain 01 investigative efforts can be important in

-

!

deciding on the aporocriate regulatory action.,

Consequently, when ctechnically knowledgeable individual works on selected OI efforts, the

;

:

results can be more useful. Such presence would contribute to a moremeaningful feedback upon which changes could be considered in the priority,i need for, and direction of the investigation. ii Conversely 01 presence oncertain staff inspections could provice additional perspec,tive to the staf f. j

}To ensure feedback is attained. 01 field offices and regional mantgers t

should hold periodic briefings on status of activities in progress.i

These ;briefings could also assist in the regional prioriti:ation of cases.;

'

(5) Efforts should continue to ensure that the Commission's guidelines ofjJanuary 10, 1986 for requesting and prioritt:ing investigation requests i

4

are consistently interpreted. In this regard, tne form used by the staff!to request an investigation should be modified in certain respects.4

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 !,

the prioriti:stion request a reference to the a:alicable su paragra:h of |;

i the guicelines wnich best matches the rationale for the priority, ji

Ii1

!

.

I!

l:

. _-_I

_

1

\.

|\.g.

1

(6) The IRB process has fostered improved com.munication and coordination among,

the regions and between the regions and headcuarters. Particication ofrepresentatives from the Office of General Counsel (CGC) and the StaffDirector 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 beingcontested by any requesting region or office. Although at times, t.he IR5 i

,

precess was resource intensive because of the time commitments on the 142members troutine meetings usually required 2 3 hours), the level ofinvolvement =as desfrable in light of the variety of issues. It is

1recommended that the level of management and composition of the IRB cereevaluated. In light of the recent reorganization, representation from '

the Office for Analysis anc Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00) is irecommended since that Of fice has increased invo.lvement in operationalevents at both reactor facilities and non-reactor licensees. Particioaticn jty the newly created Office of Enforcement under the Deputy ExecutiveDirector for Regional Operations (CEORO) is recommended because the

>

enforcement function has been transferrec from IE to OEOR0. Accorcingly, |

1

a reconstituted board made up of four SES-level senior managers couldcontinue to provide the function of the IRS. .

(7) On the basis of the considerations listed above and tne comments provided |by the Regional Acministrators, the IRB in its present configurttien and '

its review process should be retained, unless c gional and HeadquarterseSES-level managers become more involved in tre eferral process. If the !IRB is retained, the memeership of the IRB shc.ld be modified, in lithe reorganization, to include representation ' rom NMSS, NRR, AE00, ght of i

and|OEDRO. 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 the cencept of a national priority listing that is periccicallyupdated. At least every six months, all pending O! cases should bereevaluated for t. heir regulatory need and priority. The program offices I

(NRR and hMSS) with participation of senior managers from eacn regier, in |uenjunction with the Deputy E00 for Regional 0:erations sneuld reassessall cases so as to provide a pricciti:ed tabulation to 01. Based on theinitial 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 = ellas to provide dedicated resources for the relatively large nutter of TVAcases.

(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

of suen recuests and tre need for coordination =ith the respecthe ProgramOffice. Emergency referrals are infrequent (fear in ttx montns) anc cenot ac: ear to impose a eurden on the staff. Ineie treatment reflects tneurgency of the matter and its immediate :otential in;act on public neilthan: 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 .I: -9-

,

'2a :

Acvising the IRB Chairman, in accordance with the charter, of the eter;ency,

i

referral describing the event and rationale for the referral nas .oese:4

well.to the IRS for information.A copy of tne final written request snould routinely ca for.arces:

*>

i Enclosures,

:ii 1. E00 Memorandum dated October 20, 1986:! System for Coordinating, Reviewing,4

't

ane Approving Recuests for Investigation |! 2. Staff Requirements Memorancus (SRM) catec

*:

January 10, 1986 - SECY 45 369, !j"Threshold and Priorities for '

<

Concuating Investigations" :: 3.Memorandum from IRB to the E00 catec! iMarch 20, 1987 re: National Priority :

'

t,isting of Pending 0! Casesi

4! IRB New Referral DisCCsition Table

e'

5.! .~.eview of O! Referrals Over Time !l with Attachments: iA.! Regional Referrals Provided to '

01 by Region (9/85-11/10/86) iiB. Re

! 0!gional Referrals Provided to (ty Region (11/10/86-4/9/87)i :C. Disposition of Regional !|

Referrals Provicec to O! by1 :Region (9/85-11/10/86)j 6. :

Tabulation of Selectec Cases Closec i1 Acministratively by O! !t 7. Sum ary of 13 Cases Not Recommencee !!for InvestigaMon Referral by IRS ;j S. Pro;osed IRB Recommencations datec

iApril 10, 1987.

4 9.i

Comments Previced on Procosec 1RB '

Rtee veneations *i

) i

)>

, ,

l;

j

:

1

}!

l,

I

|1

L_ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _