ML19262B858
| ML19262B858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/03/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Simpson A SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262B859 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-79-082, SECY-79-82, NUDOCS 8001150453 | |
| Download: ML19262B858 (3) | |
Text
/*
o 8
g UNITED STATES h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (Dg n
4 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 (D[2 Q December 3, 1979 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Alan K. Simpson Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20 10
=
Dear Senator impson:
I I am responding to your November 6,1979 letter regarding the Commission's implementation of subsection 4 (a) of Public Law 95-601, which amended Section 209(b) of the Encrgy Reorganization Act to read as follows:
"The Executive Director shall perform such ftnctions as the
~
Commission may direct, except that the Executive Director shall not limit the authority of the director of any com-ponent organization provided in this Act to communicate with or report diractly to the Commission when such director of a component organization deems it necessary to carry out
=
his responsibilities.
Notwithstandina the preceding sentence, each such director shall keep the Executive Director fully and
, currently informed concernino the content of_all such direct communications with the Commission."
underscored.)
(Amencing language Specifically, you have asked for (1) a summary of staff proposals to satisfy the amendment which were forwarded to the Commission, and (2) a description of Commission actions, both individual and collegial, to satisfy the amendment.
r.
You also asked for tlie dates of relevant proposals and actions, and for an F
explanation of their timing.
Subsequent to your letter, your staff has re-E quested a chronology of events and copies of all relevant Commission docu-ments.
These documents are enclosures to my letter.
?
~
On November 8, 1.979, the Commission unanimously approved a directive to the staff and amendments to the NRC Manual which require the directors of all offices reporting to the Executive Director for Operations, including the offices provided for in the Energy Reorganization Act, and currently informed of substantive communications with the Commission on"to k matters involving the agency."
This action, which completes Commission work mentation of subsection 4.(a) of Public Law 95-601.on a staff proposal su
=c The February 1 proposal was submitted and summarized by the ED0 as follows:
1.
A memo from the Chairman to the EDO expressing the Commission's direction that the staff's business with the Commission be conducted through the ED0 and, where thr.t is impracticable, that the EDO be informed of any direct communica'fons.
1921 002 3001150 3
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson 2
2.
A new Manual Chapter codifying this requirement.
3.
Proposed changes to the " Supervision" section of the Manual Chapters on the Organization and Functions of NRR, RES, and NHSS to show simply that these offices are "under the supervision of a Director who reports to the Executive Director for Operations." Chapters for the other program and staff offices reporting to the ED0 already include this one-sentence statement.
4.
Section 031 of NRC Chapter 0103, " Organization and Functions, Office of the. Executive Director for Operations," will also be amended to include the underscored sentence:
"The Executive Director for Operations shall perform such functions as the Commission may direct except that the Executive Director shall not limit the authority of the director of any component organization as provided in the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, to comm-unicate with or report directly to the Commission when such director of a component organization deems it necessary to carry out his responsibilities.
Each such director shall keep the Executive Director for Operations fully and currently infomed concerning the content of all such direct communica-tions with the Commission.
The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Commission and shall serve at the pleasure of and be removable by the Commission (ref. section 209(a) and (b) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended)."
Three Commissioners (myself, and Commissioners Kennedy and Ahearne) approved the proposal and Commissioner Gilinsky requested a Commission meeting to discuss it.
Commissioner Ahearne subsequently requested a report on the status of an ongoing study about delegation of authority within the agency, for consideration by the Commission in conjunction with the EDO proposal.
On March 15, 1979, the Commission held an open meeting on the subject, with all Commissioners and most senior staff officials in attendance.
At the meeting, concern was expressed that the specific language of the staff proposal could inhibit communications between the staff and the Commission, thus re:Miting in an undesirable consequence not intended by the drafters of the amendment to subsection 4.(a).
The view was also expressed at the meeting that formal implementation of subsection 4.(a) was intertwined with larger organizational matters and delegations of authority within the agency. On March 21, 1979, the Commission informed the staff af its decision to defer final action on the staff proposal pending further discussion of the larger matters.
The " larger matters" have never been explicitly defined by the Commission, but infomally we understood them to include items such as the role of the EDO, the desirability of existing delegations of authority, the usefulness of conducting a management study of the agency, and the need for reform of decisionmaking roles in emergency response.
On July 2, 1979, the EDO subnitted a revised proposal to implement subsection 4.(a).
The 1921 003
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson 3
draft memorandum of staff requirements and revisions to the NRC Manual which constituted the revised staff proposals eliminated the troublesome language of the earlier proposal and delineated the office directors' responsibility to be "to keep the ED0 fully and currently informed of substantive communications with the Commission on matters involving the agency." This was the language ultimately approved by the Commission.
Copies of individual Commissioner comments on this proposal are enclosed.
The delay associated with the formal implementation of subsection 4.(a) results from two factors. First, some Commissioners viewed the formal implementation of 4.(a) as linked to the larger management and organizational issues I have already mentioned.
This tended to slow Commission action on the staff proposals to fonnally incorporate subsection 4.(a) into the NRC Ma nual.
Second, some Commissioners were reluctant to adopt the proposed implementing procedures in light of serious reservations that such procedures might inhibit Commission access to staff offices on important matters.
As far a.s the consequences of delay are concerned, I would point out that the intent underlying subs-tion 4.(a) was already at least in major part a general ingredient of staff practice. During the period of our deliberations, there may have been a few exceptions, although I do not know of any.
- incerely, i
s MN Joseph M. Hendrie enclosures:
As stated 1921 004