Review of Laboratory Press Releases

The ETEC and the Laboratory of Radiobiology and Environmental Health M&O contracts contained a provision concerning press releases; however, M&O laboratory press releases were not routinely reviewed and approved by SAN.

DOE Order 1200.1 states that operations office Managers are to review contractor news media materials and activities involving DOE-funded programs. The order also states that the Department expects contractors to submit for advance review (1) materials intended for the news media and (2) plans for news media activities involving DOE-funded programs.

SAN'S M&O contracts with ETEC and the Laboratory of Radiobiology and Environmental Health contain clauses allowing SAN review of press releases, as specified by the order. However, the M&O contracts with University of California laboratories do not require SAN review of press releases. The Director of External Affairs said that, even if the laboratories submitted press releases for review, he did not have enough staff to review them. In commenting on the report, the SAN Manager said that an advance press release review requirement is appropriate and necessary for laboratory activities that generate substantial community interest and are publicly sensitive. The Manager said that written guidance is being prepared for laboratories to submit such press releases for review. While the Manager agrees that the DOE order requires advance review of press releases, the Manager believes that press releases on routine laboratory activities do not require advance review.

We believe that SAN review of laboratory press releases is a necessary oversight function and that, unless the DOE order is revised, the operations office should comply with it.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Manager of the San Francisco Operations
Office:

1. Modify contracts, as necessary, to require submission of press releases for review in advance of publication.

2. Request that M&O contractors submit, per DOE order, press releases to SAN for review and approval prior to release.

46-913 0 - 91 - 7

The SAN Manager partially concurred with these recommendations. The Manager believes that written guidance concerning selective press release review obviates the need for contract modification.

In this inspection we did not focus on a paricular program or functional area or management issue. Rather we focused on the characteristics and performance of an organizational element--the San Francisco Operations Office.

In having an organizational focus we sought to provide information, identify issues, and make recommendations that might not result from a review of a program or function. In this report we make 65 recommendations to management.

Management generally agreed with 61 of the recommendations in the report. Their comments on the specific findings and recommendations are included in the chapters where the findings and recommendations are presented. Some of the Managers provided general comments and observations, which are summarized below.

1. The SAN Manager stated that the report accurately depicts the responsibilities and roles of SAN and identifies areas of concern which impact not only SAN but DOE as a whole. The Manager concurred with most of the recommendations addressed to SAN and stated that implementing them will improve SAN operations. The Manager also reiterated his commitment to ensure that the suggestions for improvement are realized, but stated that full implementation of recommendations will require additional staff and resources.

2. The Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy stated that the report is generally consistent with NE's view of SAN's operational mode. The Assistant Secretary also observed that SAN is not adequately staffing a number of assignments. This is particularly apparent at the Energy Technology Engineering Center. Over the years SAN has withdrawn staffing from what was at one time a substantial site office. This loss has hindered both the contractor and NE, and possibly SAN's internal operations.

3. The Director, Office of Management and Review, Conservation and Renewable Energy stated that while CE will probably benefit from the implementation of recommendations in the report, they did not have any specific comments. The Director did state that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) should be complemented for its effort in what must have been a difficult undertaking. It is in such efforts, however, that the OIG is undoubtedly able to make the greatest contribution in assisting the Department to achieve its goals and objectives.

4. The Deputy General Counsel for Programs stated that the number of major deviations from the standard DEAR clauses in the UC contracts are due to the fact that the Department is dealing with the State of California on a non-profit basis; and these contracts in several respects are unique among M&O contracts.

The Deputy General Counsel also commented that it should be noted that there will have to be major staff increases at both Headquarters and the Operations Office to comply with many (if not most) of the recommendations. The body of the report appears to recognize this, but the list of recommendations does not recommend or even address specific numbers. In addition to the significant increases in staffing at SAN, which has difficultly in maintaining staff at current levels, significant increases in the number of full time equivalents will have to be provided at Headquarters to meet the new requirements.

Finally, the Deputy General Counsel commented that it appears that other than raising questions of philosophy and concern about lack of DOE oversight, in general, the report is sparse in discussion of actual examples of poor program performance or misuse of funds under the system. The extensive recommendations would be more supportable if the report contained more of such specific examples.

5. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Resource Management, Defense Programs stated that one of the purposes of the inspection was to "determine San Francisco's (SAN) responsibilities, authorities, and resources." Although the report discusses the mission and functions of specific organizations, the report would be strengthened if it included a discussion of SAN's roles, missions, authorities, and responsibilities vis-a-vis Headquarters (HQ) organizations. The report states "... the Department is ultimately responsible for the operation of its facilities and proper expenditure of its funds," but the report does not explain the Department of Energy Operations Office system and the philosophical role of the operations office in that system. A review and update of the Management Agreement between SAN and DP/HQ might serve to clarify the HQS/SAN roles.

6. The Acting Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health stated that much of the material in the report parallels, or in some cases duplicates, findings presented in functional safety appraisals, technical safety appraisals, and Tiger Team

Assessments.

The Acting Assistant Secretary recommended that, to the extent possible, future reports seek to reference existing information.

The Acting Assistant Secretary also stated that they had found that SAN's "mutuality" conclusions also extend to verifying safety related aspects of a quality assurance program at the new LLNL High Explosive Assembly Facility has not been accomplished because of an apparent reluctance by UC to cooperate, and a failure by SAN to press the issue on contract commitment grounds.

7. The Deputy Director of Procurement and Assistance Management stated that although the report generally covered its stated objectives, it does not tie these points together to show how they interrelate; does not show the impact of their findings; nor does the report come to any cohesive conclusion as to how SAN performed its management responsibilities or contract administration.