ML19257B888
| ML19257B888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/28/1979 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-79-508, NUDOCS 8001210152 | |
| Download: ML19257B888 (12) | |
Text
.;a..
r-
/
'w
/,
. J SECY-79-508 August 28, 1( _
COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Commissioners From:
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
General Counsel Sbb.j ect :
Improving Cottission Procedures Discussien:
At the Chairman's request, we have prepared this memorandum on the Cetmission's procedures for taking action on matters before it.
We believe that the Cc==ission's efficiency could be significantly improved by providing es a general rule that actions can proceed after three Cennissioners agree on a proposed course of action rather than allowing matters to be greatly delayed in a quest for unanimity.
Of course, any such modification to the Cottis-sion's operating procedures should also provide adequate time for the Commissioners to consider tatters before them and a reasonable opportunity "for the members of the =inority to discuss tatters with the majority if that is desired, or to provide separate or dissenting views.
Furthermore, staff should also be delegated authority to handle certain matters presently acted upon by Ccanissicners.
Co implement these principles we are recommend-ing changes in current Commissien procedures en matters which require formal Comnission votes, matters which are handled by notation voting, and on some matters unrelated to providing views.
This paper augments the OGC memorandum to you dated July 12, 1979 Our recommendations provide a general framework for expediting the Cen=ission's decisional process, but does not attempt to address every possible contigency.
We would appreciate receiving your views on the tatters enumerated in this paper at your earliest convenience.
Contact:
1774 038 2
Trip Rothschild, CGC 633-14o5
.gy
~
8 0 01240 M hen S. Ostrach, 0GC y
i
_~: w s.+, diDW
[9 amnuu
\\
?,
. ~. /
j
-2 I.
Matters on Which Formal Commission Votes are Reouired OGC recommends the following procedures for all matters requiring a formal Commission meeting, or for which meetings have regu3arly been held in the past, such as issuance of adjudicatary or enforcement orders, adoption of final rules, adoption of significant pro-posed rules, and FOIA denials.
1.
Generally, the initial staff paper request-ing Commission views on matters requiring formal Com=ission votes, whether submitted by a Commission-level or staff cffice, should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary for circulation to the Commission and appropriate Commission-level and staff offices.
- However, when necessary or appropriate, offices may submit the initial paper directly to the Commission with a copy to SECY.
SECY will determine whether the paper initially should be handled as a meeting or affirmation item.
Normally, SECY will adopt the recommendation of the office which originated the paper but
- may discuss the matter with the Commissioners or any appropriate office.
SECY will attach to each paper comment and vote sheets for Commissioner use.
SECY will also collect all votes and comments and transmit these views to each Commissioner and appropriate Commission-level and staff offices.
Yes No Comments:
2.
The Secretariat will assign three tentative action dates to the paper: (Al The first will govern comments by Cctmission level offices and, where appropriate, staff offices.
Generally, the present practice of affording these offices four working days to provide 1774 039
i.-
/
/
,J 3
comments would-be continued.
If an office wishes to com=ent, but cannot meet the dead-line, the office should inform the Commissioners and SECY of the approximate date upon which comments will be submitted.
Where appropriate the Secretariat will adjust the other deadline dates described in this paper to accommodate the delay.
Yes No Comments:
(b)
The second deadline will govern Commis-sioner comments.
The present practice of providing Commissioners 5 working days on export matters and 8 working days on other matters would be continued.
Commissioners should indicate either approval (with or without comment), disapproval (with or without
,, comment), noted without objection (which will be counted for all purposes as an affirmative vote in favor of the recommendations contained in the paper), abstention or position reserved pending discussion.
At this stage, a Commis-sioner should also indicate whether he believes an item categorized as an affirmation item should be scheduled for a discussion session; whether an item categorized as a discussion item should be treated as an affirmatic7 item; or whether the paper should be held in abeyance or withdrawn pending resolution of issues raised by the Commissioner or receipt of additional information from the NRC staff, executive branch agencies, or some other source.
A meeting will be held if one Commissioner requests a meeting.
A paper will be held in abeyance or withdrawn only if a maj ority of. the Co==ission subscribes to that course of action.
Yes No Comments:
1774 040
/
f-
"f -
4 (C)
The third date would be the tentative affirmation or discussion session date which SECY will set on the basis of calendar con-siderations and the recommendation of the originating office.
It will generally be approximately ten working dayr after the deadline for Commi ssioner comments.
If SECY
.has categorized the item as a meeting item, or if by the deadline date for Commissioner comment i Commissioner has requested discussion on the matter, a meeting will be scheduled and the Commission will either vote on the matter at that time, or if the majority of the Commissioners present at the meeting so decides, schedule another meeting or agree to vote at subsequent affirmation session.
Yes No Comments:
". 3 If (a) SECY has categorized the item for affirmation, (b) no Commissioner has requested a meeting by the Commissioner comment deadline, and (c) SECY has received the views of three Co=missioners either indicating approval of the recommendations or noting without objec-tion, the item will be placed on the affirmation schedule and will be affirmed at the next affirmation session. 1/
An item will not be affirmed until Commissioners not agreeing with the majority position or not yet providing
'ews have been given two working days to p_
.ide separate or dissenting views.
If one or more of the Commissioners making up the majority on a paper has comments on the paper requiring its modification, the matter will not be scheduled for affirmation until a majority of the Commission agrees on a final text.
Because of the requirements of 1774 041
-1/
All scheduling must comply with the notice provisions of the Sunshine Act. *However, SECY should be free to publish a Sunshine notice-for an affirmation provided it has reason to believe the necessary three affirmation votes will be received prior to the meeting.
5 the Sunshine Act, there will usually be several days between the day the third concur-rence is obtained and the affirmation session, affording the other Commissioners ample opportunity to prepare separate or dissenting views.
Yes No Comments:
4 Once the conditions for the scheduling of an affirmation session are met, affirmation will be delayed only if a maj ority of the Commission agrees to provide a Commissioner (s) additional time: to prepare dissenting or separate views; to obtain additional informa-tion before action; or to try to convince Commissioners to modify the position tentatively' agreed to by the Commission majority; or to
. meet on the matter.
The Commission will
-continue its practice of not permitting discussion at affirmation sessions.
Yes No Comments:
II.
Matters on Which Affirmation is Not Recuired and Upon Which the Commission Votes by Notation 1.
Many items do not reouire formal votes
.at Commission meetings and Commissioner votes / comments are received by notation voting, (e.g. most proposed rules, export / import applications, Congressional testimony, Congres-sional correspondence, appointment of members to the Licensing Boards and ACRS, waiver cf 1774 042
x.
/~
/
- 6 the security clearance requirement, and withholding of Sunshine Act transcripts).
Procedures which are described in Section I for items requiring votes at Co==1ssion meetings could be used for these matters, but with two modificavions.
As described above, items requiring a formal Commissioner vote wo.uld be scheduled for affirmation after three Commissioners have agreed on a course of action.
There normally will be several days between the date tentative agreement is reached and.the date of the affirmation meeting which will afford the other Ccamis-sioners an opportunity to seek to change the maj ority's views or to prepare separate or dissenting views.
On notational items where no affirmation is required, a cetparable procedure would be established to provide that once three Cctrissioners have agreed on a course of action, and the time for Ccamis-sioner comments has passed, the other Commis-sioners would be given twc working days to provide dissenting or separate views or to
- try to convince the =ajority to alter its
- views.
This two working day period will be extended if a Commissioner seeking the exten-sion is able to convince two other Cottissioners to suppcrt the request for additional time to provide views or to delay action for some other reason.
Yes No Comments:
1774 043 2.
We also recommend that for routine, non-controversial, Con ~4ssioner action papers not raising significant policy issues, the staff recommendation would automatically be adopted if eight working days passes without a Commis-sioner dissenting from the recommendation or requesting that action be delayed.
If during the eight working days any Commissioner dissents or requests the paper be handled
./
-T i
like more significant Commissioner action papers, che procedure described in Section II.l. above would be observed.
The process would work as follows.
SECY, in consultation with the appropriate staff offices would determine whether a Commis-sioner action paper should be treated as a routine action item.
To differentiate these papers from the more significant Commissioner action items, we suggest that green-bordered covers be used instead of the traditional red-bordered covers.
This concept originated in the October 23, 1978 memorandum from the Secretary to the Commission, but was not adopted by the Commission at that time.
Yes No Comments:
~III.
Authorising the Staff to Handle More Routine Matters 1.
There are two areas where it is recommended that authority to take action without prior consultation with the Commission be delegated to staff.
A.
Export / Imports The Office of Policy Evaluation submitted a paper to the Commission on July 2, 1979 (classified) stagesting that the Commission may wish to permit staff to act on certain export licensing matters without securing Commissioner views.
CGC recommends prompt Conmission action on that paper.
3.
Conzressional Correscondence Congressional correspondence addressed to the Chairman or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is received in the Office of the Secretary.
Incoming letters are assigned to the appropriate 1774 044
/
-f
_8 staff office (EDO, OGC, OPA, or CCA) either for preparation of a response for the signa-ture of the Chairman or for direct response'.
Significant incoming Congressional correspon-dence-is included in the Commission Reading File which is circulated to all Commissioners daily.
Some incoming mail addressed to the Commission is routinely sent to EDO, OGC, OPA or OCA for direct response.
This includes all ex carte correspondence and " bucked" Congressional referrals of constituent requests.
- However, a large portion of the incoming Congressional tail addressed to the Chairman is routinely assigned for preparation of a response to be signed by the Chairman.
Draft responses for the Chairman's signature are first circulated to Commission staff (OGC, OPE, OCA) and then to Commissioner offices for views and concur-rence prior to going to the Chairman for signature.
Because of the large volume of such correspondence and the need to achieve consensus, the process is a time-consuming
.one for Commissioners and staf'f and often
.results in long delays in URC responses.
The amount of time and attention given to responding to Congress can be significantly reduced if the number of responses requiring circulation to all Commissioner offices is reduced.
We believe this is possible as a number of responses now being circulated do not involve any maj or policy questions which should require the attention-of each Cctais-sioner.
For example, the Chairman recently received an inquiry from an Illinois Congres-s=an asking for information on nuclear waste disposal at three military sites in Illinois.
(Congressmen often address such inquiries to the head of an agency in the belief that this will assure a faster response.)
A response to this inquiry will consist entirely of factual information.
No Commission position is required.
Yet, because it is for the Chairman's signature, this response will be circulated to all Commissioner offices, CCA, CPE and OGC prior to signature.
In eight offices a secretary will have to log in the 1774 045
../_ /
f
_.>9 document and assign it to someone for action.
A legal or technical assistant will spend ten minutes, perhaps longer, familiarizing himself with the incoming request and reading the proposed response.
Someone in the Secretary's Office will have to spend time checking with each office to verify concurrence.
Commissioner involvement in Congressional correspondence could be significantly reduced if the Commissioners would agree to limit their review and concurrence to responses addressing major policy issues on which the Co-~dssion is to take a position.
Inquiries not involving major policy questions, such as the one mentioned above, could be handled in one of two ways.
The Secretary could be directed to assign all incoming Congressional correspondence not raising a major policy issue to NRC staff for direc.t response.
This would take all five Commissioners out of the loop for a significant amount of routine correspondence.
Yes No Comments:
In the alternative, such correspondence could continue to be signed by the Chairman but without prior circulation to Commission staff and Cor~dssioner offices.
Significant incoming correspondence, including all letters addressed to the Chairman, would continue to be included as incoming correspondence in the Commissioner
. Reading File.
Where the answer is to be signed by the Chairman, in addition to the current information, the Secretary would indicate whether or not it is intended that the answer be circulated in draft to other Cc=missioner offices for concurrence prior to signature.
Something like "this letter raises one or more major policy questions and will be circulated to Commissioner offices for review prior to signature" might be appropriate.
If any Ccmmissioner believes
~
1774 046
/
_. ~
f
/
10 that an item not so designated ought to be circulated for review, he would advise the Secretary who would then redesignate the letter and see that it was circulated.
A
~
signed copy of all outgoing responses to Congressional letters addressed to the Chairman, whether signed by the Chairman or staff, would continue to be circulated to all Commis-sioner offices in the Commission Reading File.
Yes No 1
Comments:
TV.
Other Areas of Potential Procedural Improvements t
A.
Use of administrative meetings
-On several occasions the Commission has pro-
. posed to schedule regular administrative meetings.
At such neetings, normally open to the public, the Commissioners could monitor staff work in progress, obtain direct responses to cuestions of immediate concern and resolve differences in proposed wording of Commission correspondence.
These administrative sessions wculd not be_ designed to reach final votes on matters discussed and thus would be exempt from the prior notice provision of the Sunshine Act.
Rather, they would be used to resolve impasses that sometimes delay resolution of matters indefinitely.
This subject is more fully discussed in SECY 78-455 Yes No Cc= cents:
1774 047 B.
Starting meetings on time We recommend that the Commission should make an effort to start meetings at the time announced.
Two approaches should be considered.
/
j' 41 Since a quorum is only necessary for voting purposes, one approach would be to authorize the Chairman or the senior Commissioner present to start the meeting at the designated hour, even if a quorum is not present.
Yes No Comments:
An alternative approach wou_d be to start the meeting as soon as a quorum is present.
Yes No Comments:
C.
Personnel Decisions In our July 12, 1979 memorandum, we suggested that procedures be adopted which would reduce the amount of time senior positions remain vacant and are filled with " acting" heads.
Having discussed this matter with the EDO staff, we now believe that the Executive Resources Board recently established by the Con =ission pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 should help resolve this problem.
Coordination:
OPE, OCA, EDO and ELD conments are incorporated.
SECY believes the procedures recommended in this paper are workable.
,f ;
,- o Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
General Counsel 1774 048
.:...r
,/
/
Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, Seotember 12, 1979.*
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT September 5,1979, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
- NOTE:
Commissioners are requested to ccmplete a normal type of Response Sheet with a. attached copy of this paper, signifying a notation vote and/or 1
comment on each procedure.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat i
1774 049 l
.