ML19260D709
| ML19260D709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/30/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8002110637 | |
| Download: ML19260D709 (65) | |
Text
s
/
o,,
(tYM
%._exj UNITED STATES N UCLE AR R EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION in the matter of:
DISCUSSION OF DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY P I a c e : washinton, o.c.
Date:
January 30. 1980 Pages:
1 through 64 1941 001 INTERNATIONAL VERLATIM RE*CRTERS. INC.
499 SOUTH CAPITCL STRr.r.4, S. W. SdITE 107 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 202 444-3550
[1d6RWD(,3 7
~
1 UNITED STATES 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
x 4
In the Matter of:
5 DISCUSSION OF DELEGATION 6
OF AUTHORITY 7
_______________________________x 8
9 10 Room 1130, Eleventh Floor 1717 H Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C.
12 Wednesday, January 30, 1980 13 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, for 15 presentation of the above-entitled matter, at 9:30 a.m.,
16 John F. Ahearne, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
17 BEFORE:
18 JOHN F. AHEARNE, CHAIRMAN 19 JOSEPH HENDRIE, COMMISSIONER gg RICHARD KENNEDY, COMMISSIONER 21 VICTOR GILINSKY, COMMISSIONER 22 PETER A. BRADFORD, COMMISSIONER 23 LEONARD BICKWIT, OGC EDWARD HANRAHAN, OPE 1?A1 002 ROBERT MINOGUE, SD 25 GEORGE SEGE WILLIAM SHIELDS
2 1
PR0CEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Good morning.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What happened to the strong 4
hand of the Chairman?
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I pointed out that it 6
vibrates into various microphones.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Boy, I was kind of 8
enjoying it over here.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Was it keeping you awake?
I 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
Sorry, go ahead.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This morning we meet to 12 consider a fairly itcge study; it is a review of Delegations I
13 of Authority within the NRC.
14 It had its origin sometime in the dark past, I j
15 think it was over a year ago, in which Commissioner Gilinsky 16 as I recall, had requested a review of the Delegations of 17 Authority.
OPE and OGC combined to do the work as they 18 both have tne fortune of, not only having the report, but the!
l.
19 authors are still with us.
And, so therefore, we cannot j;
20 only--
)9AI Obb l
e 5:jg 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Increasingly rare.
'I g
$o!ij 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, yes.
We can address the 35i
}dj 23 report which has some interesting recommendations.
We also d5a gwe h'
24 have a decision memo from Mr. Hanrahan on the subject.
I'm
- i l 53 25 not sure which of you gentlemen is going to be the lead, but i
l
3 1
Whoever it is, speak up and say your piece.
2 MR. HANRAHAN:
Well, the study, as you know, was 3
commissioned sometime ago.
It's been before the Commission 4
since October.
Mr. George and Mr. Shields will present the 5
results of that study.
6 MR. SHIELDS:
I'll just review very briefly what I
we did and how the study progressed.
It was suggested back in 8
October of 1978, work moved fairly slow on it during the 9
first few months.
We really got underway, George and I 10 got underway, basically in May of 1979 and we worked through 11 September of 1979.
The report was transmitted on October 4.
12 Since that time, as everyone is aware, a number U
of other studies and reports have been received by the 14 Commission and some other events have passed by certain 15 proportions of our recommendations, but some of them, I 16 think, are still outstanding.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oh, really?
18 MR. SHIELDS:
The aim of the study was to review, 19 principally, where and what manner major substantive 20 decisions, principally, those affecting public health and 21 safety are made within the NRC.
We therefore concentrated m
on licensing and enforcement and our principal emphasis was 23 on decisions that affect the licensing of nuclear power 04 plants.
O41 Q]d 25 To some extent, we considered other related matters,
4 i
i 1
in research and so on, and gave some incidental attention to 2
personnel and management matters.
3 We had to place some limitations on the study, 4
it's impossible to consider where all the major decisions 5
are made and all the pieces that fit into those decisions.
l I
6 We therefore, first of all, tucused on the major decisions 1
7 and in order to do so, we have focused on what we regarded 8
as the major Delegations of Authority.
Our view focused on 9
the office level and we also had time to move down to the la division level and sometimes a little bit further than that.
11 We didn't really study certain areas of NRC a4%l 12 business, such as antitrust indemity financialqualification]
j 13 legislative drafting and other areas such as emergency 1
14 planning, the appellate process and the immediate effect on 15 this were already being studied by other groups. 4,??1 005l 16 The study was divided into three phases by an 17 agreement with the Commission when it was begun.
The first 18 phase we looked at written delegations, what was in our l
19 regulations and the statutes and so on.
That was included in j;
20 the first threc sections of the report.
In the second 21 g
phase we reviewed policy options for possible Commission i *. (
gg 22 action and this report really represents the sum of the
- 35
${l 23 first and second phases.
The third phase was intended to j3i sj" 24 be--was intended to follow Commission review of the option la I
25 presented.
At which time, our offices could present to the i
5 l
i 1
Commission spect.;.c changes to the delegation structure 2
in order to address the problems.
3 The organization of the report, itself, and it is 4
quite long, follows basically, the method by which we pro-5 ceeded.
The first section indicates some of the points that 1
6 I am making now.
The second section reviews written l
7 delegations; the third section covers the results of our j
8 interview program which was conducted last su=mer.
The 9
fourth section studies delegations from the standpoint of i
10 functions, such as licensing and rulemaking.
The fifth l
11 section focused on the problem areas that we had uncovered l
12 in ou-work and the sixth section develops options for 13 possible Cocmission action in some of the problem areas.
l 14 There are a number of--large part of the large I
13 volume of the study consists of appendicies, in which not f i
16 only the written aaterial that we have developed is contained' 17 but, also the interview reports and some other related 18 materials.
ina1 00b l
19 I would just like to say a few things about what l
i li 20 is contained in Sections 2 and 3, for which I am principally l II I
llg 21 responsible.
In Section 2 we review the written delegations l i '4
[ j o, 22 which begins, of course, with the Atomic ' Energy Act, the Enegg
- sl
$ll 23 Reorganization Act, and NRC Authorization Acts.
And, next t a.i gu-l*
24 in order of legal authority are the NRC regulations, which la 3
23 contain some important delegations, principally to the
g i
i i
l 1
licensing boards and some to the major office directors.
j 2
The bulk of Section 2 is really devoted to the NRC manual 3
which contains most of the formal delegations made throughout 4
the Commission from the Commission to the major office heads,
5 and some cases to deputies and to division directors.
I 6
There are--and, also, we review, very briefly, 7
some related materials, such as the ICLO International 8
Case which delegates certain export licensing authority to 9
the Staff and also certain memoranda agreement between Staff 10 offices which divide responsibility for certain decisions 11 that are delegated to both offices.
I 12 In Section 3, we review the results of our l
13 interview program, which as I said was conducted last summer.
14 We interviewed 16 officials of the NRC, most of them at the l
t 15 office level and the division level; we also conducted an I
i 16 interview program in Region 2, where we interviewed the 17 regional director, a branch director in that region, and i
18 a proj ect inspector.
pq 7 l
i u
+
19 Section 3 reviews the results of that interview i
};
20 program in several ways.
First of all, trying to draw i
6x ffg 21 some general co= mon threads from the interviewa,then going l
its yjq 22 interview by interview indicating specific comments that were;
- sl
$ll 23 made by each official, suggestions for possible change, in-
!!8
!j' 24 dications of problem areas in there, and areas of decision la 3
25 and so on.
y i
1 The Appendix E to our report contains complete 2
su=maries of all those interviews, which were reviewed by 3
the interviewees and corrected and included here.
4 As I indicated, the interview program was what 5
we really used to lead us into problem areas.
We had some w
6 ideas of our own when we started, but we certainly got a l
I 7
lot of information from senior officials and some suggestions 8
for solutions.
9 Section 4 of the report then, proceeds on from 10 the interview program and reviews some of the functions that 11 we had studied, as I said licensing, rulemaking, enforcement, 12 and so on.
13 And, Section 5 then moves on to develop more a
i 14 fully the problem areas that had been mentioned to us by j
i 15 persons that we had interviewed and also that came out of 16 the--our own analysis of the interview program and the i
1, 17 comparison of the results of the. interview program with what 18 appears in writing in the NRC manual and the regulations.
l i
19 And, finally, we move onto Section 6 which would l
1; 20 nresent options for Co= mission consideration in the problem I
f:
21 g
areas that we have discussed.
Some of these areas have been !
W
.a
!j, 22 somewhat bypassed by thcc.ce; but, I will pass onto George, i
- zI fll!
23 now, who will review the principal areas that remain for g1 24 Commission consideration and some of the options that we af I
25 present for your consideration.
}0o1 COO
8 i
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
By the ones bypassed by 2
I gather you mean such things as the export area and the 3
exporting--
4 MR. SHIELDS:
Export.
The EDO and research re-5 quirements that basically moved along since we have submitted 6
this report.
So, what remains are whether you would--
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thank you, Bill.
8 MR. SEGE:
I will focus my remarks on the three 9
groups of options for ' change that remain available for 10 Comission action at this time.
These options address 11 three problem areas--
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
George, before we go ahead, 13 I wonder if it's a matter of clarification, Mr. Chairman, 14 I want to get some notion of the purpose of this meeting.
i 15 I'm saying this because I have this nagging feeling that l
1 16 We may be going through this today so that we can go through 17 it again next week.
Since the whole exercise was generated 18 by a Comissioner, who is not present, and 9 ts it would 19 seem to me has a sort of a proprietary interest inthematterf J;
20 We are in no position, that would seem to me in the l
er i
5g i
21 jgj circumstances, to make a decision, and I'm wondering how i
22 much to add.
It is as though thunder has struck.
- Really,
- si fjj 23 I withdraw the question.
We may come to it later, but js!
009
- E' 24 in a different context.
3 o61 l
(%. a + ]b-O s >
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Cor:missioner Kennedy had just j
l l
l
9 1
begun the suggestion that in your absence, since you were the 2
instigator of this study, that perhaps the meeting would be 3
fruitless.
But, you have arrived in the nick of time.
4 Bill had just summarized the background of the study 5
and the process they went through and George was just about to 6
discuss the options that they had proposed.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why would you say it was 8
fruitless?
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It just seemed to me that 10 you would have more of an opposing interest in the subject, and 11 certainly would not wish to make decisions in your absence 12 on the subject which you initiated.
I recognize that's a L3 foolish sort of fairness in this body.
A COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I appreciate it.
There 15 was--actually, I must say I apologize for being this late, 16 but it was unavoidable.
But, I did want to say I felt this 17 was one of the more interesting if not the most interesting reportony[ousorganizationthatI'veseenandIwouldlike T co 18 19 to hear more of what you have to say.
T CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
George, why don't you--
21 MR. SEGE:
Thank you for the observation from Commissioner Gilinsky.
- 941 010 5
23 As I began to say, I will focus m' remarks on three S%
croups of optiens for change that remain available for 3
Commission action at this time.
The options address
10 I
I 1
three problem areas that we identify and discuss in our i
2 report.
3 First, the disparate delegations of. authority 4
for generic rulemaking and case decisions, and the conse-I 5
quences entailed by the present arrangements.
Second, the
+
l 6
relation between management and tcchnical decisions.
- And, 7
third, authority in the regions.
8 With respect to Generic and Case Decisions there 9
is a dichotomy between the amount of delegated authority 1
10 for licensing decisions in specific cases and for making i
11 generic rules; and there are significant gaps in the l
12 de facto authority for setting generic standards.
The 13 dichotomy consists in the contrast between a rather full i
14 delegation of licensing authority to the NRR and NMSS staff l
1 15 and to the Bos.rds and the reservation of rulemaking l
1G authority to the Cammission.
i i
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can I just stop you 18 for a moment.
In reading this report I didn't see any 19 suggestions that there would be any changes in the licensing l J-20 authority Nh
- ., o A i
[ *t I j
ig i'
21 MR. SEGE:
No, Commissioner Gilinsky, the reason i
Esi l
'g { {
22 for that is that the licensing aspects were being treated j
$ll
- s
?El!
23 in two studies according to progress parallel with ours.
!?'
24 That was the study of construction adjudication II
- I 25 and, the OGC study of the appellate process.
And those l
I l
11 1
studies were expected to yield results in terms of possible j
2 changes and the degree of Commission involvement in licensing,l I
i 3
We duly remark, in our study report, that increased j
4 Commission involvement in licensing coula be--could, in l
5 ot.s sense diminish the gap between how cases and rules are i
6 handled.
And, on the other hand, it could also,by exposing 7
the Commission to hcw rules are applied in specific cases, i
8 aid the Commission in their rulemaking capacity.
9 But, beyond that we are deferred to the other l
10 studies, with respect to the licensing process i
11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I might note tha we I
12 keep out of licensing and although much is complained about in 13 that area, it does in more normal tLnes move along.
We 14 engage heavily in rulemaking and that moves very slowly.
l 15 Now, I guess if we dive core deeply into the licensing l
16 we will create a balance between the two by slowing the 17 rulemaking.
As slowing the licensing down, another way to 18 go, which you seem to be scirting at here is, that we ought 19 to get at least part way out of rulemaking, too.
In which j
1; 20 case, it would speed up; and I think that's your conclusion l
.=
ffg 21 on this interesting thrust.
.o33
))}
i '. s s
I j.,
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Although, it's not--I realize i35
>((
23 you have empirical data to support your case; it's not
~
l5!
si 24 absolutely, theoretically necessary.
Is
'I 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think they need l
l i
12 l
i
-y 1
empirical data; I don't think licenses will bc i
.au
.huI4.4.,
2 oe-ca-**e*4 g --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I can only suggest that I 4
realize there is not that much empirical data, there is only 5
five years worth. But, it has been five years and I don't j
w 6
think there is any question about it and I think the data l
7 which our colleagues who have prepared what. commissioner S
Gilinsky rightly characterizes as a first rate pie _qe of i
9 work were able to ascertain that rather
.learly and I 10 would be pleased to testify to that fact, there is no 11 question about it from my own experience from the past 12 five years.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That being what?
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That whatever the j
15 Commission, itself, engages in, tends to slow down by a l
16 factor of twe; and not necessarily to increase quality of i
17 product.
l 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, perhaps--
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Sorry I diverted the dis-j j;
20 cussion on a nonprofitable line; I'll try to watch this.
l g:
l 21 Please go ahead.
i *. a[
! j e.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I wasn't sure Joe was
- si fll!
23 making an apology.
3 n,3 3 g 1, 73 is
!i' 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
George, just very quickly--
15 3
25 MR. SEGE:
At which time I will also make I
13 i
i I
constructive aspects of the--to the options that you would be j 2
suggesting beside the ones that they wanted to be mentioned 3
to the Commissioners on the subject.
4 The effect of the dichotomy, as I mentioned, the 1
5 effects include these, that decisions on issues of similar j
6 nature and significance are made at greatly different organ-7 izational levels.
There is no clear organizational dockets 8
for originating recommendations, and new generic rules seldom 9
get made and obsolete rules seldom gat updated.
I 10 The three options that we present share the under-11 lying objectives of providing an effective locus for 12 initiatives, improving mechanisms for deciding issues in 13 absence of consensus, facilitating needed generic rulemaking i 14 and standard-setting and, doing so in a way that relates l
1 15 well to licensing decisions.
l 16 The option that we have labeled 1A is to delegate 17 substantial rulemaking powers to the Office of Standards 13 Development.
}9AI Ol0 19 The delegation would be subj ect to some important l
j; 20 conditions.
SD would be required to be responsive to generali
.=
Is 21 policy guidance m the Commission and to take the j"
i '. a[
g
! ! a.
22 initiative in seesing policy guidance 5 an necessary.
d{5l 23 SD would have to solicit and consider the views of the
- 3
'55 lE 24 licensing offices and to get that concurrence in order to t
EE issue an effective rule, though it could recccmend that the i
I
14 1
Commission issue the rule in absence of such concurrence.
2 The Commission would retain supervisory control 3
over rulemaking by principally three devices.
SD would be 4
required to keep the Commission informed of rulemaking I
5 activities in progress; second, absent unusual urgency, j
i 6
effectiveness of rules could be delayed by a set number of l
7 days, to allow for C< rmission review--
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can I interj ect a
question 9
there, George?
It wasn't clear to me in those cases where 10 there is that much urgency.
Wouldn't that be a kind of 11 an instance where you would think the Commission ought to 12 at least be involved?
Isn't it something that is so urgent 13 must be done immediately. Does that mean it is a high i
14 priority item?
15 MR. SEGE:
I would think so, Mr. Chairman.
And I f
i 16 must say that in suggesting these options for Commission j
17 consideration there are details we have not' thought through 18 that fully and we thought that once an option is generally j
i 19 favored by the Commission, you would--we would work it out.
l 4
j; 20 I must say that I cannot offhand think of a sit-I e=
i 5s 11
[{[
uation where it would be tremendously urgent to make a
}h'f'016 e :. *
'2 rule.
!!g 125
$fj 23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
To make a rule?
15:
gu~
,,n.e
- j' 24 MR. SEGE
To--to 'inddre an effective rule.
- a I
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We have all kinds of i
15 1
allocations.
2 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Joe, my question--
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think, you know, we have 4
before us a stack like that called an action plan.
And as we l
5 focus on things there that really ought to be done and put j
6 in place, we are going to face the prospec'c that if we don't move to a very rapid rulemaking, probably immediately effect I
7 8
ive rulemaking on some of that, then sometime down the line I
9 we are going to find ourselves litigating each of those 10 upgrade points in 30 hearings across the land.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe, my question wasn't are l
12 there any cases where you needn't meet a defective rule.
It 13 is more that if it is really urgent that you need it done I
14 immediately, it would seem to me that would be the most i
i 1
'i likely kind of case where we would want to know about it.
16 That was my point.
l 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You did say watted to know l
w 18 about it?
]9A1 Q]6 l
i l
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I draw back from --
};
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Not necessarily do it, but er 5s 21 look at it.
j;g 2 ". s 15.
22 MR. SEGE:
Third, the Commission would retain l
ii i
}lil 23 concurrent authority to make rules without regard to SD.
{!"
24 Accompanying the delegations of rulemaking authority 11 3
25 there would be accountability for initiative in recognizing i
2
16 I
I I
1 needs and in bringing needed rulemaking actions to timely l
2 completion.
3 Option lA probably would require a considerable 4
strengthening of SD in total numbers and in numbers of 5
professionals of the highest caliber.
If improvement of the I
i 6
licensing process results, there could be long-term manpower j
I 7
savings in the licensing offices.
8 CHAIPMAN AHEARNE.
George, in reading the dis-9 cussion that you have in here, I didn't get that clear a I
10 picture as to whether you saw any kind of threshold rules.
11 You say--you centioned that the Commission would retain the 12 ability to make rules, itself.
Is that just a retention 13 of an authority that you would see seldom used or did you i
i 14 have some category of rules that you would see would be made i 15 by the Commission and the remainder made by standards or l
16 vice versa?
Some category rules that should be made by l
17 standards and then the Commission.
18 MR. SEGE:
I would expect the Commission's making 19 authority to be used systematically in a limited number of l Jg 20 cases and otherwise by exception.
i?'1 0i7 i
ij 21 I can think of rules which are so basic to the l*g 5 ". o
! j.,
22 philosophy underlying regulation of the nuclear industry
- si
${j 23 state that the Commission itself would want to make the iEi l!*
24 rule.
Otherwise, it would be a question of acting by I
"t
"' 5 exception only.
l
17 1
MR. SHIELDS:
I would draw the distinction, if I 2
had to, I guess, between, at least to a certain extent, 3
between rules that are highly technical in nature and rules 4
that are not.
Certainly, things like the Rules of Practice, I
5 Rules Governing Ethics, things like the Clearance Rule, and l
6 so on that are really very policy oriented rules or deal 7
with Commission practice procedure and so on, operation of 3
the Boards, matters o# that kind.
I would think it would 9
be appropriate for
..e Commission to address and by the same !
10 token I would think that rules that are mainly technical 11 in centent, then I would just cite it as an example for the 12 rule that we are considering in fire protection, which has 13 many, many parts and has been worked on for years by a lot 14 of technical people.
It is probably an area where 15 Commission involvement is not as fruitful, and in fact, tends i
16 to slow things up.
So, at least one distinction you could 17 draw, would be the degree of technical complexity of this j
CO l
18 subject that is being addressed.
- O^i i
i l
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, in any case, the 1!
20 Commission could monitor the process and decide which should !
ti i
l[{
21 of the ongoing rulemakings it would like to select.
f i:$
22 MR. SHIELDS:
I would think so and it is--
l$
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: f>'c Al..k U tgl 23 k,*
m h ui-t-h.
s:
I-24
' IR. SHIELDS:
Yes.
And, there are areas where the ii3
- I
'5{
Commission simply would be--I think in the area of Procedural!
l
18 1
Rules, for example, the Commission would be dealing pretty 2
exclusively.
That would not be something that Standards 3
Development would be involved in.
4 MR. SJGE:
In the substantive rule area, for 5
example, if the Commission wanted to establish a policy 6
by rule on the principles on which adequacy of safety is to 7
be judged, that would be of some of the basic significance 8
and so much a peculiar province of the head of the agency 9
that I would think that might be an area in which the 10 Commission would want to act itself and take the initiative 11 itself.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I certainly would concede U
the general point about technical rules, I don't think 14 fire protection is a very good example for the Commission 15 slowing of the rules.
16 MR. SHIELDS:
I wasn't citing that as an example 17 of slowing up the rule I was citing that as an example 18 of the rule which is highly technical that has been developed 19 over a long period of time.
In fact, it isn't even here yet, 20 so I didn't mean to apply that.
3 MR. SEGE:
I believe that is done--
9!
bl 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did you consider, I didn't 23 see this in my reviewing of the report, a kind of half-way lAv M
house where standards could put out pr_pccetyonitsown, S
you know, without going to the Commission.
But, not
19 1
issue final rules.
O MR. SEGE:
Yes, that could be considered sort of 3
a half-way house on a somewhat different sort in that if 4
standards got the concurrence of the licensing office and 5
would be re 'ecting-the rule, then they could proceed all A
6 the way without such concurrence.
It would propose a rule 7
for allocation by the Commisssion.
We have not specifically 8
considered that taking it to a proposed rule stage and getting 9
the Commission concurrence for making it effective.
It is 10 certainly something that would be a reasoning option, I 11 would think.
MR. SH1 ELDS:
There are a number of combinations 13 here, I think that you could make between involving con-14 currences, issuance of proposed rules--what point you want 15 Commission involvement, and what kinds of rules and so on.
16 I think we haven't gone into that detail, yet.
I think 17 we are trying to get at the general subject of whether 18 or not more Delegation of Authority is appropriate.
If there 19 is a general feeling that there are areas where more dele-gation can be exercised, I think what we would want to do then 21 is sit down and consider some of the different ways that you can provide, for example, issuance of proposed rules 23 without Commission involvement at a later stage with iOA1 G90 i,
Uuu M
concurrences with a licensing office and so on.
3 I think there are at least three or four different
t 20 1
commutations of that.
2 MR. SEGE:
I believe that substantial delegation 3
on rulemaking authority offers the direct advantage of 4
providing an organizational arm for fulfilling a more 5
effective use of generic rulemaking.
Also, it places 6
responsibility for results at a point close to the place 7
where the subsequent technical decisions are in fact 8
necessarily made; resolution of internal controversary should 9
be facilitated because of a decision made ago and not need 10 to refer the matter to a higher authority of the Commission, 11 which has not formed its views yet.
12 On the negative side, in connection with the U
Delegation of Authority Standards, some organizational 14 separation between licensing and rulemaking would remain 15 because NRR and NMSS would continue to make licensing case 16 decisions.
The second option is Option 1B, is to delegate 18 substantial rulemaking power to NRR and NMSS.
Correspo, ding 19 authorities could also be delegated to IE.
Conditions 20 and limitations similar to those that we discussed in 21 connection with option 1A would apply.
22 We doubt that rulemaking delegations to NRR and 23 NMSS would be organizationally viable without collocation 24 of informal standard-setting work with the rulemaking 25 authority.
This would mean either breaking up the Office 1or1 071 U c-
0a 21 1
of Standards Development into two separate sub-offices, to 2
serve NRR and NMSS respectively; or continuing Standards 3
Development as a separate office, but having it function as 4
a dependent service organization to NRR and NMSS.
5 The second alternative appears undesirable to us 6
because of the problems associated with having the highly 7
demanding professional work involved done in one organization 8
and decisions concerning it made in another.
9 Option la, by collocating licensing and rulemaking 10 authorities, would have the advantages of helping to 11 coordinate policies embodied in generic and case decisions 12 and of facilitating rational choice of regulatory approach 13 on the various.icensing issues namely, whether to 14 decide generica11.7 by rule or informal standard, or on a 15 case-by-case basis.
16 A disadvantage of this option is that the 17 Directors of NRR and NMSS would be subject to strong 18 temptations to use people assigned to rulemaking and standard-19 setting efforts for urgent day-to-day licensing.
T The third option, that we present, Option 1C, 21 is to establish one or more inter-office committees charged 22 with systematically initiating recommendations for generic 23. rulemaking and standard-setting.
24 This could be a single committee for
. q,1 1 n '3 7 ue w
22 21 1
the whole agency, or separate committees for NRR and for 2
This would be a less radical 3
change than the other two options, but probably also less 4
effective.
5 The second group of options involves the relation 6
between Management and Technical Decisions.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Before you move into the second, 8
I wonder if I could get any discussion from the Commissioners 9
from the first set, the possible approach of 10 delegating some of the rulemaking to Standards or the 11 ultinate approach.
12 CO!1MISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it is an interest-D ing idea, and I think we ought to pursue it.
14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think it is worth pur-15 suing at the particular line of pursuit that I would 16 like to take for the moment is to look into the first row 17 and see what Bob Minoque's concents are.
4 nr1
~9X 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bob?
19 MR. MINO UE:
I generally agree that the issues 20 and the policies are very well laid out. This is a good 3
study.
Either Option lA or 1B would do the trick, as far 22 as I am concerned.
I think if la were selected, the office of 23 SD should be split up and the IB operation and that is the one 24 where NRR and NMSS would have the rulemaking authority.
z; It would be very important to set that authority up within those offices as a -- as a division by a rather
23 1
independent group.
I think it is important whichever option
??
2 is selected to maintain enough independence that the 3
status quo doesn't automatically get institutionalized; that 4
there is some room for the identification of problems and people 5
working on problems, without being dominated by the 6
people doing the licensing interview saying, " Hey, don't 7
make any waves."
We don't look at that now, let's not 8
look at it.
9 I think either of these approaches as there have been 10 laid out and I think that the right issues have been identi-11 fled.
Either of these approaches could work.
What is 12 important now, is tt keep enough independence.
Not so much D
that it becomes irrelevant to the licensing process, but enough 14 independence that there is some room within the institutional-15 ised framework for discussion, identification, work on new 16 issues that often surface very, very early long before they 17 get to the Comnission level.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bob or Bill or George, one 19 of you.
.How would you answer the question of criticism that M
we have now been subjected both to the Presidential Conmission 21 and our special inquiry group, both saying that one of the dif S
ficulties in the current way that the agency operates is the d
23 Commissioners do not get involved enough in the subc;quea.
,i 24 issues -- important issues in the agency.
J5 iOA1
[', 7 d i,
s<
24 1
This delegation of rulemaking down into standards 2
or into this split function could be seen as another attempt 3
not to change that, but to continue that.
In fact, to remove 23 4
the Commissioners more from the substantive --
5 MR. SEGE:
Let me respond to that.
6 Mr. Chairman, I believe that the effect would be exact I
the opposite.
With the present setup, the Commission has fairly 8
little say about the basis of which plants get licensed.
9 The Commission is very lightly involved in licens-10 ing case decisions and for rulemaking the Commission depends 11 on massive Staff support, for which the organizational 12 framework at this time is inadequate.
And the Cornission U
has great difficulty making rules, so much difficulty that that 14 difficulty is seldom overcome.
It seems to me that 15 by delegating substantial substantive rulemaking authority 16 to an organizational arm, that is set up and directed for the 17 purpose with the knowledge that the Commission is purposeful in 18 what it wants done, by their rulemaking would then free the 19 Commission to exercise its retained supervisory powers and its 20 retained concurrent rulemaking authority.
To set general policy 21 that governs the making of most specific rules and provide 22 general guidance in a basic policy sense of the sort that is 23 the appropriate functicn of the agency and had the actual rules 24 inA1
- f
25 i,
1 most of them, made by the organization set up for that i
2 Purpose.
3 It seems to me that the Commission would gain 4
rather than lose control over how the industries would I
I 5
regulate health and safety administration.
I 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
George, in theory, t
7 that sounds fine, but when you look at the most recent 3
experience we've had, at least, with rulemaking, that is 9
the emergency preparedness rule.
In fact, the i
10 Commission substantially changed what went out for il comment.
So, that for the process to work the way that 12 you are taudng about, there would have to be some way 13 for the Commission to be more confident that I would be j
i 14 based, at least on that experience; that the rules that 15 actually went into place would be rules that the I
16 Commission was comfortable with.
17 I'm not sure that I see any way through a general is policy guidance process, that is PPPG or what have you to 19 solve the kinds of specific difficulties some of us had ja 20 with the proposed rule that came up on the emergency l
<=
i El 21 Preparedness.
l lil
.q1
' O,)
l t.
ou j!$
22 CHAIRMAN AREARSE:
Could I ask Bob p'erhaps to j
III jsj 23 respond because that gets into a lot closer into his area.
- !!fj' 24 M1. MIN 0GUE:
I think the question that you 8
a 1 3 25 raise is one that clearly needs to be focused; for a resi i
26 I
1 concern.
I share George's view that a proper implementation !
2 wonid have a positive effect if it is done correctly,there 3
really is a substative policy.
Rulemaking is done by SD 4
or the other when the other difference is appropriate l
5 whatever option is selected as a 6
i 1
7 8
9 10 4
11 12 j!
13 14 I
15 s
16 17 18 i
i 19 l
13 20 g:
"I-21 4 03i P. 9 7 l
I s.1 i
it:
22
-c
- s3
$si 23
< s !.
$E' 24 53 25 3
I
cape 2 27 30.jan.80 jrs 1
Staff to the Commission to lay out policy alternatives.
2 A rule like the one remissioner Bradford cites on the 3
emergency planning is the kind v' rulemaking that clearly 4
would come to the Commission.
I think the key element in I
S this is that whoever is in charge of this delegated function l
t i
6 has to have the Commission's confidence; there has to be a l
7 basis for that confidence that he has the judgment to know 8
what's the bread-and-butter or engineering stuff that could 9
be processed efficiently and effectively down at the Staff 10 level and what are the rulemaking actions that involve the 11 kind of policy issue that the Commission should focus on.
12 I think if you have got that right differentiation 13 then the process would be strenghtened, because what would 14 come up to the Commission would be the kind of stuff that l
15 was in that emergency plan rule that was a very solid, in-l l
16 volved real policy issues and one of the points that was 17 made in the discussion earlier was that for that kind of 18 rulemaking, that there would be more of an effort for l
19 dialogue.
SD would then become the other group, a Staff to I
j; 20 the Commission.
There would be earlier dialogue as the j;g 21 rule was being developed because thcy would now be primarily l I($
22 working as a Staff to the Commission in the policy-type l
i$i
$dj 23 rulemaking.
t5a.
gu
- 3" 24 I think that, in summary, what would happen is i$
53 25 that the Commission's role in rulemaking would be strengthened i
f
- O51 a
h.
19
28 1
because it would be focused on the stuff that's really 2
important and that requires the decisionr'.aking at your 3
level; it would get you out of looking at a lot of details tha 4
really are far too minor for you gentlemen to be taking your 5
time with.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Could you give a few exampld 7
of those details, Bob?
8 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes.
I think the best example is one 9
not seen.
We have in the regulations a mish-mash, Part 50 10 is an excellent example; it's "reng by accretion over the 4
11 years.
There's a lot of store-minding that could be done 12 in terms of sharpening and refining the regulations, making 13 the relationship between sections clearer, picking Ju 6.u-m 14 technical 1:: sues, many of the ones that are in the Lic;nse
$2 &
15 Sarm 42-), for example, involve specific changes in regul story i 16 wording that really is an engineering decision.
17 Much of that we do sort of through the backdoor now1 1
18 with regulatory guides, and I think that these have been --
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see; what are you j;
20 saying is inhibiting you from doing it through the frontdoor?!
s
!I MR. MINOGUE:
Because, quite frank?.y, the amount 21 bl
-ajpj 22 of Staff time to write a Commission paper with 18,000 attach-II$
jdj 23 ments to it with a very large element of education in the 8!!
24 process, because when you get into these J.atai1*,, there's 1
}I 25 a lot of education required.
So, we would burn enormous l
son, pq j
6, j
29 1
amounts of Staff time just writing what amounted to a primer 2
on some engineering subject.
That is a very strong inhibiting 3
effect on an office that has very limited resources, so we 4
just don't -- we tend not to do that kind of stuff.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The primer for the Commis-6 sion?
7 MR. MINOGUE:
The primer for the Commission.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But, how much of that would 9
you have to do anyway in the rulemaking process?
10 MR. MINOGUE:
Any rule that comes before you --
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I'm sorry.
Assuming 1
12 that it was delegated.
13 MR. MINOGUE:
Oh, we would do very little of it.
14 The best example is stuff that is now delegated.
Let me talk ;
15 about the actions on the Boiler Code, for example.
We take f
i 16 action on the addenda for the Boiler Code tact often involve 17 very complex, technical issues; this is now delegated to 18 EDO, which is an alternative that I actually had suggested.
19 We go to EDO because of its technical background, l
jg 20 its closer involvement in the issues.
The issues are laid j
ee fg 21 out in straight-out engineering terms; the amount of work l
i*u a54 22 involved in writing a Staff paper like that is much, much l
iig 23 less, and there's a lot more room for a dialogue where we dc0 1 I gF 24 get right to heart of some of the technical questions 3E il 5I 25 might pass on the rule.
j
- ion, 030 l
i, i
30 1
Now, when we write something to the Commission, 2
although, and I mean no disrespect by this, there are 3
individual Commissioners who would un.erstand some of this 4
stuff.
But, I have to write something that all five of you 5
understand on any subject that comes up, and that's a hell 6
of a job.
It has a tremendously inhibiting effect, except 7
when you get into the policy-type rulemaking; then it's 8
not inhibiting at all, because now we're at a level that you 9
gentlemen can really focus on.
A good example is the one 10 that just came through here on emergency planning.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On that point, that came at 12 a time when Commission thinking was changing rapidly, so it's 13 not surprising -- the Staff thinking wasn't in se'cret and 14 I think that you'll always find that whenever Commission 15 thinking is undergoing rapid change at those times, those 16 are rules that we'll want to look at carefully.
17 MR. MINOGUE:
Of course, if we had a delegated j
18 set up on the policy stuff, I would regard that -- we would 19 be Staff to the Commission and we would seek earlier di-l r
.I! !
20 alogue on specific points.
I think part of the problem therei er sg 21
[gj was that we didn't sense accurately how far you were willing s *b
!!d 22 to go, and that's fairly easy to resolve with some dialogue.
>l!l']
23 You know, I try to deliver you a product that I think is li!
24 what you want; sometimes I'm not that good at guessing, that'
- .i :
25 ;
the right word, on how far you want to go on some particular
}QAl 03l I
31 1
issue.
2 So, if the split were made, the policy-type rule, 3
I would see whoever did that as being strictly Staff to the 4
Commission with a need for dialogue as the work proceeded.
J& kc<,
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:3 Occ; it mention in here, George, 6
increased resources being required, larger Standards office, 7
if we went to option lA?
8 MR. SEGE:
The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is 9
that the Standards Office would presumably need to continue 10 to do what they are doing now.
11 And, in addition to that, there would be required 12 attention to those generic issues on which rules for in-13 formal standards are needed, but where there is controversy 14 and where now, rules don't get made.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Did you see any place in the i
16 agency where those resources could be acquired, or did you 17 see this as an additional requirement for new resources that 18 are on top of the agency?
19 MR. SEGE:
My estimate at the moment, Mr. Chairman,
.1 ;
20 would be that there would probably be a net increase in per-it fg 21 sonnel resource requirements in the short-term in order to e*a
!d 22 get rules and standards made.
But that in the longer-term, aIi
}dj 23 by facilitating the making of case decisions, there would be
- $t 1->
24 a net decrease in money needed by the agency.
."5 I 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Mr. Parkinson has voted for this,!
- ?e' 032 i
32 1
in fact, and is counting on net decreases.
2 MR. SEGE:
I would be glad to debate that point with 3
Mr. Parkinson.
4 MR. MINOGUE:
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like 5
to comment on that.
I think that we now use a great deal 6
of Staff time in a manner that I have to characterize as 7
unprccuctive.
Much of that could be eliminated.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's what I was wondering.
9 MR. MINOGUE:
I could give you a good example of 10 something that is already --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could you descrice that a 12 little bit, Bob?
13 MR. MINOGUE:
I'm going to do it by giving you 14 an example.
15 One thing that is now delegated after endless Staff 16 papers is the regulatory action on the addenda to the Code I
cases.
In the old system, that used a lot of Staff time, tu because every amendment, which is twice a year, had to be made 19 the subject of an extensive Staff paper with a lot of back-T ground and explanatory material.
I now do that job with the 21 total manpower allocation that I would guess off the top of i
22 my head is probably no more than one manyear per year, because 23 we do it entirely witi.in a process that acts as Code cases 24 are developed, we act oc them in consultation with the 25 people in Licensing and I&E.
And as the addenda comes out, 17}
iO41 u3 i,
33 1
I'm not talking about the resources that go into the technical 2
issues.
You understand, I am talking about the rulemaking 3
resources.
The development of the Staff pacer is very much 4
to the point; they see much shorter papers, so there is a very 5
large net saving.
I think we probably reduce the amount of 6
mancower that goes into acting on the Boiler Code by a factor 7
of four or five because of that delegation.
8 CHAIR!iAN AHEARNE:
Nould it then be fair to say that 9
you would not automatically conclude i f we tried to develop 10 this Option lA that that would need to require substantially 11 more resources?
12 MR. MINOGUE:
I do not automatically conclude that.
13 With either lA or 1 B, though, I think that a bynroduct of 14 that that ought to be taken advantage of is an effort to bring 15 our technical regulations into more coherent order.
16 CHAIR'iAN AHEARNE:
Sure.
I MR. MINOGUE:
So, I think there's a new job that 18 one would get on with given the adoption of either one of 19 those alternatives; either one c' them would work.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think there's a good deal 21 to what George and Bob are saying.
The established wisdom in 22 administrative law, the little bit I know about it, is 23 that Commissions ought to nake the rules and Staffs ought to 24 deal with the particular cases, application of the rules.
.!5 But I think that comes from exoerience with jO$1 O)'k
34 1
agencies where there are many, many, many, many cases with --
2 CHAIRMAN AHE UNE:
Fewer rules.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Fewer rules.
We have lots 4
and lots of rules, or rules that ought to be written, and 5
a relatively small number of cases.
I don't think I
i 6
we ought to hesitate to think of new approaches in which 7
may not be in accordance with the established wisdom.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Len?
9 MR. BICKWIT:
I'd like to make one point on a some-10 what controversial
-- we've talked about, as one of our 11 reasons for delegating increased authority in rulemaking that 12 the present arrangement provides a strong disincentive to 13 rulemaking, that Staf f when they look at the eroblem realize 14 that the licensing processes, primarily delegated in rule-15 making processes, primarily are not delegated.
l l
16 By the same token, I think there is a disincentive 17 to rulemaking when the choice is between rulemaking on the 18 one hand and Reg guides and review plans on the other.
I don'tthinkthat'sfromthestandpointofadministrativelaw,l 19 jg 20 that's a good idea.
l if i
j g I think that the Commission ought to focus on the 21 e n, gj 22 possibility of evening things out a bit, that the choice i4 5ll 23 between going by rulemaking or something less formal should j:t 3'
24 not be made on the basis of the institutional arrangement.
11
- 3 25 It should b e made on the question that Commissioner Kennedy j
.E l
l?
035
35 1
1 raised:
do you or do you not want to litigate these things?
2 As a result, I think the Commission ought to think 3
about expanding its role in areas such as review plans and 4
conceivably, important regulatory guides, while at the same 5
time, lessening its role in the area of rulemaking.
6 CHAI1UGN AHEARNE:
Ed, did you have anything?
7 MR. HANR,dN:
What I had to say was very much along 8
the lines of what Len said.
I think what office here is --
9 perhaps, what's missing is a locus for the originating of 10 rules which doesn't seem to exist very well under the present 11 system.
Nobody is really responsible for generating r11es 12 and having an organization like Standard with that charter 13 will, I think, encourage bringing rules through the system t
14 and there has been a number of suggestions that the Commission I
15 deal ' by more rulemaking in its processes, i
l 16 That, Ithink,bringsefficiencyintheprocessthatl l
17 wouldn't exist now, which'I think would give, cerhaos, the 18 Commission as much if not more participation in rulemaking 19 by having a well-focused effort in an ongoing organization t
j; 20 with procedures for bringing at the Board energy and a dealing l we 5g 21
[g of conflict in the Staff on that that would allow the E ". g[
! ! n.
22 Commission, through efficiency and its lesser participation,
$l!
is l
23 to do the sorts of things that Len suggests in the Licensing
- 3!
I' 24 area.
.a
.5 25 I think it, in the long run, should have the effectl i
l i
,n'1 036-s.-
36 1
of putting the Commission -- increasingly into the process and 2
not really removing it from the process.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it would also 4
enhance the status of Standards to make it a certainly more 5
potent organization.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Certainly, lA would --
7 MR. HANRAHAN:
lA would certainly be more attractive 8
to the role of a new organization, I think, which may well be 9
important.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I favor LA coupled with 1C.
11 I do not think they are mutually exclusive.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEA2NE:
How would you envision setting up D
these committees?
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Committees?
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Concerning the rule.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's not what --
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I mean that lA says that you 18 are trying to delegate to Standards, lc --
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Right, 1C is an advisory W-20 group to Standards and it provides theArelationship among 21 Staff which is long needed in this institution.
It also 22 could provide a source of advice to the Commission.
23 CHAIR!iAN AHEARNE:
We11, let's see, one last --
n Ray, are you sitting there as -- are you, perchance, recre-5 senting EDO's office?
}
- s MR. SMITH
I'm covering for the EDO, yes.
37 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay, from the EDO's standpoint, 2
do ycu have any c-
,# 7 3
ha, SM12E4 I don't know how the EDO feels about 4
'his --
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And, Bob, perhaps, don't listen. l 6
MR. SMITH:
I would like to make a comment from my 7
own personal Perspective.
8 In 1967, there was a division established to do 9
Standard's -- to develop Standards, including Rules.
They 10 also were given a charter to assist in technical areas in 11 the Licensing process.
That went on for some four or five 12 years and in '72, I think it was, whenever, just before it 13 was abolished, they were down to like 12 percent of their l'
14 manpower for developing Standards and Rules.
In other i
15 words, they were eaten-up by the Licensing process. Now, even' 16 with a completely separate Standards organization, twice 17 in the last two years we have been rated by the Licensing people pretty substantailly because of the ?,rerence ofearlyl 18 g,
t 19 bus.iness.
l j;
20 So, whatever your decision is you should make sure f
et 5g 21 gg that the Standards business is sufficiently separated from z "I o a g 4, 22 the Licensing business that it doesn' t get eaten-up.
353
$dl 23 CHAIRMAN UIEARNE:
But, you don't want it so 45a.
!u!
24 separated that you lose Commissioner Kennedy's point that you 8
11 II need the integration of the Licensing business and --
i su i
i i941 0'B i
ao 1
MR. SMITH:
Oh, yes, it's separate questions.
It's 2
a matter of what the people do and clear separation of 3
assignment of duties.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, did you have anything?
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no conceptual diffi-6 culty with LA and perhaps with IC overtones.
I have to say, 7
in this context though, that it's not a decision that 8
I would make or will make nyself, apart from knowing how the 9
agency functions; that is, I would delegate very little to Sta,ff,thatfourofthefiveCommissionershavenorole.[s 10 entsr 1 As a practical matter, there is what a delegation 12 like this is, is a statement of confidence that the Staff will U
differentiate between what seems important from a policy stand--
14 point and what is it carrying out the policy as it's laid down.
15 If the Commission, in its policymaking role, has 16 no way to correct that imbalance, then I'd be nuch more 17 reluctant to resort to delegation.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me say that I agree with 19 that entirely.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And, I guess let me say that 21 I disagree with it fundamentally.
I think that no matter 2
who is hiring, I think that the people who end up getting 23 hired will be very sound people and trustworthy, and if we M
establish policy relative to that, then I think I'll have 3
confidence that they will carry out the policy.
L 9,
17
- O41 i,
39 1
But, putting that part aside --
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me say that I would agree 3
with that as a basic principle; I cannot imagine anyone 4
being hired, no matter who is doing the hiring, who is not 5
of the first quality.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But, in this particular instance,i 7
I think 1A would be an excellent option to pursue further.
8 I think we do have a general agreement in that.
And, I 9
think that you ought to try to then develop that in more de-10 tail and focus on, I would say, two things:
one, if you can !
11 be a littla clearer on how it would actually work in the 12 procesa d a Commission review; and then secondly, the point l'
13 that Commissioner Kennedy had raised about trying to get the 14 coordination aspect.
15 For my own, I would say that when I first came i
16 here I really thought that the Standards did do that and I j
l 17 was quite surprised to find out that they didn't, actually.
18 I had, on the outside, thought that the role of Standards 19 was to develop the rules and had the same level of authority i j;
20 and I think they ought to.
21 Okay, George, why don't you move on to the next --
ii *. g o
a56 22 MR. BICKWIT:
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Could I i$I
}fj 23 ask the Commission to address the point that I made.
I mean, t5a go.
- 3" 24 I'm perfectly willing for the Commission to reject it, but 5I 25 I think it's a very substantial point.
- ?
0A0
40
{
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It is a substantial point, Len, but I would say that we den't really quite have enough de-2 3
tail in front of us to address that issue.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
Would you like it?
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you just sharpen that I 7
point because I'm not sure that it was something, it was a 8
sort of proposition to which --
9 MR. BICKWIT:
It's something that we've 10 talked about only this morning.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There are a lot of decisions 12 that are made in the agency which --
13 MR. BICKWIT:
Some would argue the most 14 important decisions that are made in the agency.
I 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
-- which end up bei'ig told to 16 the licensees on how they should develop their applications 17 and how should they operate their plants and their branch 18 l
technical positions and regulatory guides such a<
2a t, and 19 they never come up to the Commission for review.
i I think j
jg 20 what Len is saying is that there are a vast number of those fE 21 that he's suggesting ought to in some sense be reviewed by 22 g!,
the
'mmission; the Commission ought to approve theml;O#1 OA d!l 23 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, I don't have a good
!E" 24 feel for this area, but I have been told by some that the i!'3 25 Standard review plan is the most important document that the
41 1
Commission-- the most important policy document operating in 2
the Commission today.
And, if there's any truth te that, the 3
question is that while you're thinking about moving toward 4
rulemaking and at the same time increasing Commission 5
control of the operation, that you ought to be thinking of --
l 6
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you know, these are 7
the kinds of things that OPE is set up to think about.
In 8
other words, to bring to the table here what you think is 9
important and really ought to have our attention.
And if, in 10 fact, that document or some other document or a practice 11 is, lies at the core of what we do and has not received 12 Commission blessing or maybe continue in a way that they 13 Commission might not approve of, that's something that OPE 14 ought to be, certainly OGC, too, ought --
I 13 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, we made the suggestion, i
16 I should say.
There's a reference to it on the last page of 17 our Appeal Board study which has just gone out for comment 18 and that we talk about Commission involvement in policy and 19 in the Appeal Board study, we were talking primarily about
};
20 licensing.
And the conclusion we drew was that it may be more l
t E, 21 j((
important than getting the Commission more deeply into the I.* e I i n.
licensing system, per se, was to have the Commission focus
- sI 23 more thoroughly on the review of licenses.
qpg g..
u1 o 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm not disagreeing with Ix'3 23 you, I'm --
l
16 42 t
I MR. BICKWIT:
I'm disagreeing if your sug-2 l gestion was that this hasn't been brought to the attention --
l 3 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, no.
I'm just saying i
{ that if there are such matters -- now, what I was wondering 4
I 5
about is whether beyond your statement of the point where you I
6 i had some mechanism in mind.
7 l MR. BICKWIT:
In mind?
Yes, a mechanism tha I
8 would be very similar to the mechanisn -- the reason I bring h
9 it up today is that I'm talking about a mechanism that 10 would be very similar to the mechanism we have -- we proposed i
II with respect to rulemaking.
I'm saying why not treat rule-12 making, an important, informal setting of generic policy, the 13 same way as far as division of responsibility between i
fStaffandCommissionisconcerned?
14 15 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I'm still not clear 16 just --
17 i
MR. BICKWIT.
Some generic policies --
1 I8 CHAIREN AHEARNE:
What you're really saying is 19 that there, if I could say it again in a different way, 20 we're just saying here that we ought to aJ. low the staff to 21 i handle many of the rulemakings except for the major policy i
{rulemakings.
22 23 And your point is there are a number of nonformal 24 requirements that are developed --
25 MR. BICKWIT:
Generic requirements, yes.
+
OA\\
0h I
u A,
41 i
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And at t he present time, all of
~
2 l those are done by the Staff; and you're suggesting a similar 3 I
! type of separation to have the more important policy ones I
4
! of those reviewed by the Commission.
5 l
I think that's a fine idea, but c.y point was that 6
we need something more than just a concept; we have to 7
flush that out a little bit.
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I would point out --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It's the identification of 10 I
which of the various decisions of processes or practices 11 really need Commission attention.
That is the key to doing 12 something about the problem that you're raising.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You're shifting from theory to --
14 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what we need is a 15 I
l mechanism for identifying those sorts of issues.
I think 16 l something beyond just OPE, I suppose, and OGC being charged 17 l
j with bringing matters to our attention.
18 CHAIRMAN AICARNE:
You wouldn't want to automatical-19 ly bring up all of them?
20 MR. BICKWIT:
No, just as we wouldn't 21
!j automatically want to bring all rules up to the Commission.
22 l
c j
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, right.)
I 23 MR. BICKWIT:
I just don't see any basis 24 for distinguishing institutionally between how these different 25
' methods of handling generic problems are --
}9Ai OAb
44 18 1 l l
MR. SHIELDS:
One of the intended sffects of this 2 ;
- whole proposal is that more be done by Rule, and I think 3 !
l that one of the things that lead us to this suggestion was 4 \\
l that because there is a certain deterrent to rulemaking that 5 !
many things that might be appropriately done by Rule are 6
i now done by Branch technical positions, and so on.
i 7
So that I guess --
l 8
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I remember having this dis-8 l
cussion a good many years ago when concern was being ex-10 pressed then that, in fact, we were relying more heavily 11 on Reg guides, technical positions, et cetera, than perhaps 12 l was desirable.
We were not going to rulemaking as often and i
13 l as in great depth as we should have.
14 i
MR. SHIELDS:
So, one of the intended effects is 15 l
l to, I hope, to bring the important issues that are now 16 l
i
! addressed in Branch technical positions, and so on, which 17 i
might appropriately be in Rules to be made in Rules.
i i
CHAIR N AHEARNE:
Fine.
But I still think --
19 MR. BICKWIT:
It Non't be --
20 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We need something developed 21 l in that --
22 l
MR. BICKWIT:
My point is that it won't be 23 i made in Rules so long as you have the disincentive to rulemak-24 ing that is inherent in a difference in treatment between the tw 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So, you will develop something?
i iOAi v
a
45 Yes.
1 MR. BICKWIT:
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
George, why don't you move on 3
to this second of the three.
I think we can probably handle 4
the second and third much faster than we handled the first.
5 MR. SEGE:
The second group of options involves i
6 the relation between management and technical positions.
7 Division directors, assistant directors, and branch chiefs 8
generally function both as managers in a traditional sense 9
and as technical decision makers.
10 Sometimes a combination of the two functions in a 11 same individual creates excessive demands on the time and 12 energy of the individual.
It also places a turden on the 13 personnel selection processes since there must be an assurance 14 that the individual selected is strong in both managerial 15 and technical functions.
16 A related problem is that of assuring adequate i
17 integration of reviews and overall review of safety analyses 18 in NRR.
There is some ambiguity in the role of the project l
19 manager in the Division of Project Management between his i
jg 20 possible functions as a strong, overall technical reviewer i
fE l
- E-21 and integrater of reviews on the one hand, and as manager l#1 j -f j 22 and coordinator in obtaining and assembling : analyses of ISI
$fj 23 others.
24 The options that we present are alternative il 53 25 mechanisms intended to strengthen both the managerial and
- oe' QA6
4a 1
technical leadership functions, especially the capacity of l
2 the Staff for technical integration and innovation.
3 Option 2A is to strengthen administrative manage-4 ment support services for the technical divisions:
status-5 keeping, paper-flow coordination, planning assistance, and 6
work on administrative matters by a supporting Staff within 7
the major technical divisions wou3d leave division directors 8
and assistant directors and branch chiefs freer to con-9 centrate on technical leadership while allcwing them to main-10 tain managerial control.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm not sure, when I read that, 12 and I reread it and reread it.
It wasn't clear to me, there 13 is a distinction between administrative processes and 14 manageme.nt.
And, freeing a manager of administrative processe 15 doesn't free him of management.
16 MR. SEGE:
No, it does not.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ar.d, so, your point was when 18 you choose these leaders at current structure, we have to look 19 for someone who is both strong technically and a good managerg l
This option doesn't alleviate the problem.
j; 20 i'I 21 MR. SEGE:
No, sir, it doesn't.
bl
-a$pj 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Because the management function 3Si l-d j 23 is not too heavily involved with the paper-fica.
!E" 24 MR. SEGE:
No, this does nothing to alleviate per-Il l
53 25 sonnel selection process.
These people would still hsve to 10A1 ri/7 i,
u
47 1
be strong in both functions and they would function both as 2
managers and technical leaders.
The administrative support 3
would relieve them of some limited but significant faction 4
of the more routine aspects of management work so as to make 5
the combination of the two functions more easily manageable 6
This is the least radical of the suggestions -- of l 1
l 7
the options that we are suggesting.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
At least in theory, most of the 9
offices, at least certainly at the director level and the 10 Staff office, has got -- they've got administrative people 11 who in theory do that.
12 Are you saying that the administrative support that 13 the managers have is inadequate?
l 14 MR. SEGE:
It is a matter of degree that the ex-15 pressions to us of a sense that supplementation of the i'
16 supporting services would be helpful in freeing the managerr, 17 of a greater faction of routine administrative burdens.
18 It's a question of degree rather than a question I
19 of qualitative innovation.
};
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm a little puzzled IE
~3 21 how this gets into a report in delegation of authority.
til
$e$$
22 Not that it is an interesting and important subject.
II$
$dj 23 MR. SEGE:
Well, it is perhaps least central to Wfa
!!I 24 the issue of traditional delegations.
53 25 But, with delegation, it's important that an i9A1 000
48 I
organization receiving a delegation is, in fact, capable of 2
carrying it out, and it is in connection with viewing how 3
delegations are accepted and carried out in practice that t
4 this difficulty was brought to our attention quite forcibly 5
by some of the people we interviewed and that we thought would 6
be a reasonable corollary to the options that we are presen-7 ting to the Commission today.
8 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It is less a case of division 9
level than it is at the AD level, isn't it, George?
Or is it?
10 MR. SEGE:
I would think that is probably correct.
11 We would not suggest administrative suppor+. organizations 12 at lower levels because that could be -- if it's available U
in the division, the AD's and the branch chief s could share 14 the services.
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No, they can't.
16 Let me tell you:
One of tile most important 17 contributions I made to moving things in the '72 timeframe 18 was to get the AD's a technical assistant.
And the reason tha t 19 was important was the Director of Regulation and the Director 20 of Licensing kept asking me for, make a report on this, you 3
know, how many widgets have been counted on the left, hind 22 toe of each reviewer in the past seven days, you know, good.
23 I turn around and send out a note to each AD, count the 24 widgets on the left, hind toes and they in turn, turn around 3
to the branch chiefs and say, count the widgets, and the 19^!
OA9
44 1
branch chiefs turn around and discover there's nobody but l
2 them.
So, they say, all right, line up, you guys.
One, two, 3
three, four -- they start counting the widgets.
4 Each layer in the organization turns to the lower 5
layers and demands a reporting of assorted things, okay.
6 This is true all the way through to the Chairman of the 7
Commission who gets this call from the Oversight Committees 8
and so on and OMB.
As you go down in the organization, the 9
number of layers above increases, you know, a fundamental 10 proposition of human organization.
Hence, the lowest layers 11 bear the heaviest burdens in this kind of upward flow of i
12 information and at the branch chief and AD level it would be, l
13 in fact, very valuable if those officers of the Staff have
}
14 somebody that they can lay this kind of -- let's see --
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Request, request.
I 16 COMMISS10NJR HENDRIE:
Request -- off on and so 17 somebody else goes a'd. counts the widget and presumably the 18 branch chief can then get back to worrying about whether, 19 in fact, the fracture mechanics analysis that he's trying j
l
];
20 to draft, that he's trying to go through is valid and indeed, '
lE2 i
21 the crack size for propogation is yea or whether he needs l
lil hhj 22 to go and get another consultant to run through it and it's i$i jdj 23 twice as big and so on.
via v.
.5" 24 So, I think --
11 5I 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I gather that wnat you're saying iOM1 050
24 50 1
is down at the lowest levels, you have a suspicion that they 2
do need the AD administrative help.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I've got a suspicion that 4
the administrative help at the present time at the division 5
level is not as good. as I billed the technical review because 6
they are now more divisions then there used to be in those 7
days.
And, that below that level, it's practically non-8 existent.
My understanding is the fact that the AD's turned 9
sn their technical assistants a couple years ago, in effect, 10 is that right that throughout the organization; does anybody 11 know?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're talking about U
temporary assistance --
14 CHAIRMA.N AHEARNE:
Irv?
15 MR. BERKOW:
We still have test assistants at the 16 DAD level in many cases.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're talking about tech 18 assistance and administrative help.
19 MR. BERKOW:
They're cominbations, really.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's a combination.
What 21 the AD's needed, I found, was somebody who was a professional 22 and understood the work in the office and was able to take, 23 you know, this flow of garbage from above and simply go and 34 do those jobs without burdening the principals.3 gg) atj oJ s,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You're saying technically quali-AE k~a2.._-y what you're asking for fied administrative assistants,f i
-s 51 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
The kind of assistance 2
that you need is from somebody who's able to understand 3
the work of the office and deal with that kind of thing with-4 out burdening the principal guy.
Andwa,theprincipalguys,f,ce.
e 5
then to con-aa g
6 centrate more on the technical leadership.
7 guess if I would -- if CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Well, 7
8 that is a real need, that's something that we ought to 9
identify and call it into our budget --
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the effect the 11 officers ought to make to their --
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think that ought to come up in D
the budget process, and I really think it's a delegation 14 of authority.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's my feeling.
16 MR. HANRAHAN:
You delegate the problem to the 17 division director.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, we do have, in theory, a 19 budget process in which they are supposed to identify with 20 every year, what their needs are.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If we think that's a con-22 7
comitant of a' rational delegation of authority, then it 23 would seem to me it's incumbent upon us to say so in order M
that the office directors and the division directors under-5 stand that that's essentially what we have in mind and then ioMi O C. ?
i u=
q \\d 52 g
/7 they can go ahead and do their budget planning and come 2 !
', forward and say, "This is what it would take to do it."
3 i l
Whereupon, we would probably reverse our view.
i 4
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I presume this study is 5
made available to the various division directors.
6 ;
j MR. SEGE:
Yes, we have sent a dozen of all copies 7
to the EDO who, in turn, distributed them to the offices.
l 8
MR. BICKWIT:
Some sort of planning state-9 g
ment in the PPP/ document sense.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Each office director s.bould 11 I develop his plans to make sure that this duties are carried 12 out somewhere in the statement.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Check with Jce before turn-ling in a budget plan.
14 l
15 i
f COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I'll tell you what, the 16 j
! one thing which is useful here that I think, if you are minded 17 i
that way, I think it might be helpful to make clear is that 18 i
l the propositions occasionally have been advanced that, you 19 j
know, we have technical people and so cn, and maybe there's 20 some magical way to separate technical leadership and 21
. managerial function.
22 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I didn't like that idea.
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And, I want to assure you 24 that you can't do that.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Good, thank you.
a t
- O
53 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And I think if there is 2
some guidance in this area that might ce helpful, I'd say 3
just put a line tit 4~;gh that.
i 4
And the business about strengthening administrative 5
support so that the chiefs can concentrate on the important i
6 problems in their areas; I would agree, this is not something i i
7 which is particulcrly to be dealt with here, but I think 8
it's fair enough to note that as people develop budgets, 9
why, you know, if an AD thinks he is hurting in terms of 10 his ability to function effectively for lack of administra-11 tive support and technical aid or whatever, let him holler l
12 and let's encourage the work to come up the line so that l
13 we can perceive that in the budget portion of the process.
l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
For sure, but it has to be l
15 well supported in the sense that everybody usually wants to l
16 get more people.
17 COMMISSIONER EENDRIE:
Yea, that's true.
That's 18 another fundamental thporem of the way human affairs work.
Mba.e f I
19 CCMMIIS;Gach KENNEDY:
But, I would suggest that j;
20 if you are saying you don't have any options to considered
'I 21 very good, I would agree with that.
.g l
22 COMMISSIONER EENDRIE:
You find nothing but dif-I$$
$di 23 ficulty.
- d!
hE" 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Option 2C is --
si
- I:
25 l
,g,)
qq4 i
u-
54 1
I had some difficulty understanding how it related 2
to the others.
It is a totally different kind of subject.
3 Explain to me Option 2C related to the prob).em being addressed 4
by 2A, 2B, and the do nothing option.
It is a different 5
subject altogether, I thought.
6 MR. SEGE:
Well, it 7
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I had even greater difficulty 8
understanding how it related to the delegation of authority 9
business or any of the others.
10 MR. SEGE:
If I may, I would like to taka up a 11 minute to Option 2C --
12 CHAIILMAN AHEARNE:
I think what we are suggesting i
D is, why don't we proceed to Option 3.
hwe /, t i
14 I think that was the general statement.
Before 15 you leave, I would like to go back to option 2C as a separate 16 subject and not as an option, but the subject that it poses 17 which is an interesting notion, it is completely separate 18 from this discussion, it seems to me.
19 MR. SEGE:
I would like to say just one more thing 20 about Option 2A before we go to Option 3, if I may.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I will give you one minute, M
Georga, and then you are going to move down to Option 3.
23 MR. SEGE:
We are suggesting similar support to 24 project managers to strengthen their ability to function as 25 technical integrators.
Ob i
', ] #
55 1
I was going to say about Option 2B and 2C, under I
2 the circumstances, at least for the moment.
3 The last group of options that I wanted to 4
recapitulate involves authority in the regions.
l 5
The optiona proceed from the thesis that --
l I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
These are the ones marked i
7 under 5 because w already dealt with research, and experts, 8
other contracts.
9 MR. SEGE:
Right, you are in the process of acting 10 on exports and on such.
- 1 These options proceed.from the thesis that the l
12 vigor and offectiveness of entorcement and relate.d activities 13 in connection with the increased number of reactors in 14 operation or being built could be enhanced.by granting 15 increased powers to Regional Offices.
16 Option SA is to delegate limited civil penalty
- 7 8
authority to Regional Directors.
l
- S I.imits on penalty amounts could be Kept low.
f II The visibility of a penalty wou.i often achieve much of O
its purpose even when the amounts involved are relat..vely f
-e{
small.
E.e 3
l I *t Civil penalty actions by Regional Directors could
..sg-jgl be reasonably swift, and recognition of the Regions' penalty I;i j,i powers could assist in rigorous enforcement.
Penalty deci-
.I 25 i
sions, except for major transgressions, would be made close-oe1 (2b i
4 1
l
56 4
1 to the source of detailed information.
2 To assure coordination and uniform use of penalty 3
authority on the basis of recognized agency-wide standards, i
4 effectiveness of Region-imposed penalties could be delayed 5
by some fixed period (perhaps 10 or 20 days) to allow time 6
for a possible decision to take headquarters review.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It strikes me as the swiftness 8
of action is particularly important.
9 MR. SEGE:
I t. takes many months now to get action 10 under each recommendation.
11 A further option, SB, is to delegate to ReJional 12 Directors authority to order shutdowns in limited categories 13 of cases.
14 We particularly have in mind authority o order 15 partial shutdom of construction, as may be required to 16 preveni construction work that would hide evidence, or make 17 known or suspected error harder to correct shutdown of small 18 material licensees operations.
19 These limited shutdown authorities could be 8
stuctured so that they apply when knowledge of the detailed 21 local situation is important, action is urgent, and the impacts of shutdown are relatively limited.
On the other 23 hand, a decision to order shutdown of an operating nuclear 24 power plant would be a matter of such moment that delegation 25 of such shutdown authority below the level of the Directors sn8 1
?G7
57 l
1 of IZ, NRR, and NMSS would be neither necessary nor l
2 j
appropriate.
3 We also sugcast, as Option SC, that the Commission 4
consider delegating to Regional Directors authority to issue 1
5 operator licenses.
l 6
Exercise of this authority would be subject to 7
standards established by headquarters.
9 The local presence of Region personnel could be 9
particularly valuable to the extent that maintenance of 10 continued competence becomes a factor in continuation or 11 renewal of operator licenses.
The licensing of operators I
- 2 1
i would be entrusted to groups closest to reactor operation.
13 This activity could become a major function of Regional i
14 Offices, commanding substantial management attention.
13 I
We believe, however, it is best for the Commission 16 to defer consideration of the operator licensing option 37 pending completion of its evaluation of relevant recom-8 mendations of the Presidential and NRC TMI inquiries.
l t
19 This completes our prepared remarks.
l t
f-20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can I ask Dudley what IE's 2*'
-j view is?
l ii 4 np3 a E, ]
E.g i
u-
!i*8.
MR. THOMPSON:
We Yeel it is a little premature f f f.
all three of these options to reach any decision on m.
1: 1
.,~4 jj the limitation.
Furthermore, with' regard to to Options 5A I
3
~
and B,
we think it would probably be more appropriate should I l
58 1
the Commission be inclined to authorize redelegation by the 2
Office Director for either of these types of elevated pro-3 portion sections rather than man made by direct allegation 4
to Regional Directors that need to be taken.
5 With regard to SA and 5B, we think it is premature 6
to do this because of our re-examination of the enforcement 7
policy as a matter of course which is now on the way.
8 With regard to SC, we think it is a little premature 9
to do this now until decisions that will be reported to the 10 Commission within the next few weeks, are addressed a little 11 more clearly with regard to organizational things.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Certainly, we will be evaluating D
operating licenses.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
As a general proposition, 15 do you think Regional Directors ought to have more authority?
16 MR. THOMPSON:
We see no particular disadvantage 17 to status quo with regard to their authority.
There is some 18 limited value to the enhancement of their prestige within 19 their geographical regions.
But, that is a rather marginal 20 increase.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would some of your problems 22 with that concept be solved if you went to the approach as 23 reccmmended in the study of one option would be for the St Region imposed penalty be delayed by some fixed period they 5
say, perhaps 10 or 20 days?
Oh9 4 0 4 i i
59
.,n 1
MR. THOMPSON:
That, I think, would be a very 2
positive incentive on the headquarter's staff.
3 However, I think there are other equivalent 4
incentives available and being applied with some recent 5
management emphasis.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think the Regional Office 7
ought to be enhanced in status, probably in authority.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I share that strongly.
9 MR. SHIELDS:
If I could just mention in this 10 regard, some of the suggestions we had here came from our 11 interview program that we conducted in Region 2, and the 1
interviews are contained in the report here and summarized D
in Section 3.
The civil penalty authority, the reasoning 14 that was given for that, is that first of all, the amount is no 15 important, that a thousand dollar or a five-hundred dollar 16 fine, if imposed swiftly and without an anticipated ten or 17 twelve-month delay, has a very substantial effect on the 18 licensee carrying out a corrective program.
19 The amount of the penalty not being important, 20 but it is a sufficient slap in the face and that publicity that 21 licensees would, if they knew that that authority resided in the region, might be considerably more cooperative or speedy 23 in taking corrective actions when they are suggested.
E' The same thing I think is true with a limited 3
shutdown authority.
The point was made that it simply
,n44 060 i s
A0 r;
L 1
strengthens the authority of the onsite inspector or the 2
resident inspector, in that case, because they know he is in 3
t' very close touch with the Regional authorities but perhaps 4
not so close touch with headquarters.
It would tend to strengthen our onsite authority and the authority of the 6
region to control licensee's conduct and his response to 7
request by the regional people to take certain actions.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On the question of direct 9
delegation, the authority by the Commission for redelegation 10 through the Director, I am not sure how it would come out, but 11 I think we ought to keep clear that these are Commission 12 offices, they are not merely IE offices.
O MR. THOMPSON:
That is clear, and strongly endorsed 14 by all elements of the Staff.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Nevertheless, I think, it is my 16 own feeling, would be on the sense of this particular function, 17 I would think would be redelegated through the Director of IE 18 because the enforcement function, we should not muddy that.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It seems to me that there were 3) other things that could be considered for substantial roles 21 on the part of these regional offices.
The materials licensing business, which has been looked at before, relation-23 ships with the agreement states that indeed other States have a much closer relationship with State activities.
jO^l ij h )
25 There ought to be, I think, a role in emergency planning.
There is a whole range of activities out there that
01 are things that have to go on in the local areas, they are not things that can be managed all that well from here.
They can b a managed a lot better by people who are close to them or closer I
to them.
4 I think that is worth a separate study.
What can --
we have done this before and the conventional wisdom always 6
7 seems to prevail, whatever was, is, and therefore, should be.
MR. THOMPSON:
My comments, Commissioner Kennedy, g
9 were addressed to the very limited scope of the recommendations here.
10 31 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I understand that.
MR. THOMPSON:
The inctances we cite of activities 12 g
that might more appropriately be regionalized, we would like 14 very much to re-examine again, and I think our inf;=.sLou, at 15 this stage, is highly favorable.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could we suggest then that the 17 Staff undertake a look at this and another look at it?
At b 18 CHAIR N AHEARNE:
Could I ask Ray first/' f~z& so o.
39 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, sure.
MR. SMITH:
Well, I think -- I guess I agree with 3
Dudley that you should keep the IE Director in the loop.
3 3
I also agree that it is an administrative function, too, the people actually do report to IE, but I do think they g
have much broader functions than just an IE function and I think that especially the emergency planning role and
.nA1 OI9
\\i
~
I some things like that ought to be brought.
We have the I
~~1:
2 State programs for people now, in;tw of the areas and they are adding 3
a third, so that sort of thing should be strengthened.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe, did you have anything?
i l
I would agree with both Commissioners Gilinsky and f
5 i
6 Kennedy, I think that the Regional Offices ought to continue i
7 and Dudley is also supporting that, ought to continue to grow 8
and be more Regional NRC Offices rather then Regional 9
IE Offices.
10 I am in favor of the delegating of some of the 11 civil penalty authority through the Director of IE into 12 the Regional Director.
But, I guess -- I rhink it is time 13 as Commissioner Kennedy suggested, for another re-examination I
l 14 of what additional roles can be put out there to make them j
I 13 truly Regional NRC Offices.
i 16 f
MR. SHIELDS:
In that regard, I would mention that I think the viewpoint certainly was at the region, that they nl 17 18 would appreciate and would fully support mere involvement l
19 by other branches of the NRC and their activities.
This
{;
was made quite clear.
f 20
,g,3 gg-
?
ag i
v fg[
21 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess, what we are saying is c..e
.* *3 i j a.
that we are retasking another study and wonld have to be i
125 l
5
>gi g;
done in conjunction with the EEO's office because of the is:
a=s
-44
- i heavy impact on IE but it really says that these offices la
'l 23 should be more than IE offices and we have a number of changesj i
' 'E 61
~'
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I recall when we struck 2
that line out in January 1975.
We just took it off the 3
chart, we did not take it off the world, the rer.1 world.
t 4
MR. HANRAHAN:
I think that Options A and B is Z+G 'u 3
sufficient interest in SI-% development of their enforcement 6
policy, these ought to get serious attention in that develop-7 ment.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
9 MR. SHIELDS:
Commissioner, are you saying then, 10 that you would prefer to have the options we suggest here 11 considered as part of that study which will take some time 12 or would you like these options represented as --
U CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would like -- IE is developing 14 a re-examination of its enforcement policy, my own view is 15 that I would be in favor of that authority being delegated 16 outthroughtheDirectorofIEfbdwouldcertainlyhopethat 17 to be included as one of the options in their enforcement 18 development.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When will that be coming up 0
to us?
U MR. THOMPSON:
I am sorry, I did not understand the 23 question.
U COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When will that study on
- r~ A A
enforcement be ccming up to us?
}9#1 du 5
MR. THOMPSON:
I hesitate to give you a firm date.
64 1
Commissioner, because of the impact of all the other priority 2
tasks that seem to divert our attention day by day.
The 3
review is under active work right now, and we are due to 4
take a look at an early draf t proposal from the writers this 5
weekend and the management we need.
I would anticipate, 6
however, we are probably a month to six weeks away from 7
when we would be prepared to put our preliminary thoughts 8
on it.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Preliminary?
10 MR. THOMPSON:
I don't think we will have a paper A
11 for you in that time but we certainly might have something 12 for your consideration and feedback.
U COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On paper?
14 MR. THOMPSON:
With fingers crossed, yes.
/
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
With these, perhaps, folded 16 in this is the least option.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I am certainly in 18 favor of the Regional Directors having this sort of authority.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So am I.
Treb 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: JLs the paper easier to write?
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
At least one aspect of it.
Thank 22 you very much.
It is a good study and I think we have made 23 good.
M COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I must say that I think this 25 v.as one of the better discussions that we had.
q(ru3 3 n31 (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.)
___