ML19291C628
| ML19291C628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/20/1980 |
| From: | Bickwit L, Hanrahan E NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250J298 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-93, TASK-CA, TASK-SE SECY-80-230B, NUDOCS 8009160065 | |
| Download: ML19291C628 (36) | |
Text
'
June 20, 1980 SECY-80-230B COMMISSIONER ACTION FOR:
The omissioners y
g A-3 dward J.,Ha han, Director FROM:
Office of Polic4 valuation E
b S1 k.
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
,\\
General Counsel
SUBJECT:
UPDATE OF CHAPTER V 0F TMI ACTION PLAN: NRC POLICY, ORGANIZATION, AND MANAGEMENT PURPOSE:
To update the TMI Action Plan Chapter V draft issued May 1980, including subject identifications, status, and remaining needs and opportunities, with special attention to reccmendations for near-term Comission actions.
BACKGROUND:
Chapter V of the TMI Act:on Plan (SECY-80-230), addressing NRC policy, organization, and management, is in a unique category:
it is not, like the other chapters, primarily a detailing of plans for NRC staff or licensee action.
- Rather, it delineates intentions of the Comission itself.
The special status of Chapter V is recognized by a statement in its introduction that the items in the chapter will be decided by the Comission, and that the Ccmission staff will review the status of the various items and prepare necessary decision papers.
At its May 21, 1980 discussion of the Action Plan, the Comission requested OPE and OGC to prepare the present paper.
(Memo, Secretary to EDO, GC, and PE, 6/4/80 --
item 8.)
DISCUSSION:
1.
General In recognition of interrelationships that call for correlated planning, we have grouped the seventeen items of Chapter V into seven subject areas, as follows:
A.
Development of Safety Policy (Item 1 of Chapter V)
B.
Possible Elimination of Nonsafety Responsibilities (Item 2 of Chapter V)
C.
Advisory Comittees (Items 3, 4, and 8) f e, CPE, 634-3295
, OGC, 634-1465 0
8009160 9
. D.
Licensing Process (Items 5, 6, 9, and 17)
E.
Legislation Needs (Item 7)
F.
Organization and Management (Items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14)
G.
Consolidation of NRC Locations (Items 15 and 16)
The information developed for each of these subjects is presented in Enclosure 1.
For each of the seven subject areas the enclosure presents, in turn, (a) a sumary of the plan; (b) status; and (c) remaining needs and opportunities for action, with special attention to specific near-term actions that, in our view, warrant Comission consideration.
We have defined near-term actions to mean matters or items in need of imediate Comission attentior ?nd decision.
As noted under " Status" in each of the subject areas, actions have already been taken, set in motion, or reccmmended by the Comission on a number of the original Chapter V items (e.g., item #6, construction during adjudication (in group 0); #12, delegations of authority (F); #15 and 16, consoli-dation of locations (G)). Decisions concerning some are reflected in the President's reorganization plan for NRC (e.g., #2, elimination of non-safety responsibilities; #13,
~
roles of Chairman, Comission, ED0; #14, authority to delegate emergency response (Groups B and F)). However, new or additional initiatives remain available for Comission consideration in some areas.
2.
Near-Tem Actions Warranting Comission Consideration In Subject Area A, Development of Safety Policy, the most imediate need iTfor formulation of a general plan for development and articulation of NRC safety objectives, notably -- but not exclusively -- with respect to reactors.
The development of a safety goal for reactor regulation may be required by legislation: the Senate Environment Com-mittee's NRC Authorization bill for FY 1981 (S. 2358) includes such a provision -- with a June 30, 1981 due date for a report to Congress. However, regardless of a possible future legislative requirement, the Ccmission itself has expressed its intent to seek to define more clearly the level of protection it believes adequate.
(FY 1982-86 Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance.) The plan formu-lation should include analysis of the extent to which articulation is possible and practical in the near term, such as the one-year time scale in S. 2358, and subsequently (e.g., two-three years). The major elements and disciplines of the issue, including activities beyond those already in
. Completion of action on the Cannission's decision to delegate substantial rulemaking authority to the Office of Standards Development is already in progress.
(The draft delegation instrument is being revised as directed by the Commission.)
On G, Consolidation of NRC Locations, required near-term actions are already in progress.
3.
Further Steos As noted above and detailed in Enclosure 1, most of the necessary specific Chapter V actions have already been taken or started. However, with respect to the few remaining items of Chapter V (apart from the near-term actions here recommended), the Commission should, we suggest, direct conduct of specific projects ad hoc as needed.
It would be understood that the Commission was committed to using its best efferts to take a hard look at the areas and specific items encompassed by Chapter V, as staff resources become available and consistent with the priorities of other business.
Necessary status reports and decision papers would be prepared by the Commission staff.
RECOMMENDED To recapitulate, we recommend that the Commission undertake NEAR-TERM the following:
ACTIONS:
(a) Direct OPE /0GC to prepare a program plan for develooing safety goals.
(b) Direct the EDO to prepare a scope of work for a contract study of NRC management (on the assumption that S. 562, Sec. 302 will become law).
ENCLOSURE 1:
Details of Plans and Status Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b.
Tuesday, July 8,1980.
Commission Staff Office. comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT June 30, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLSP ASLAP Secratariat progress need to be identified. The Comission should, we recomend, assign the plan preparation to CPE/0GC using internal (NRC) and outside consultation and assistance.
Subject Area h Possible Elimination of Nonsafety Responsi-bilities, has received consiceration, including Comissioner views, in connection with the President's NRC Reorganization Plan, without any such elimination being proposed by the Administration. Further consideration by NRC would not, in our judgment, warrant the expenditure of the required staff and other resources.
In connection with C_, Advisory Comittees, no imediate further action is requirec.
However, Congressman Udall's licensing reform bill (H.R. 6390) offers a context for continuing efforts to obtain legislative relief from mandatory ACRS reviews.
In Subject Area D, Licensing Process, no imediate action is necessary. OE 1s embarking on preparation of a paper addressing the scope and merits of a possible cmnibus NRC bill.
Other licensing-process items calling for near-term Com-mission action are already on course:
they include com-pletion of rulemaking on possible change of the imediate effectiveness rule and decision on the appellate-process study results (SECY-80-262).
With respect to E LegisTation, we see no near-term Comission 2
action requirements.
In connection with F, Organization and Management, it should be noted that the NE Authorization bill for FY 1980, which at this writing appears likely to become law, contains (as Sec. 302) a requirement for NRC to enter into a contract for an independent review of the Comission's management structure, processes, procedures and operations. The bill calls for the study to be completed within a year of enact-ment.
(Conference Report on S. 562,6/4/80.) The study would address the management issues under the new circum-stances to be created by the Reorganization Plan.
Procurement of a similar, though narrower, study was canceled early this month, as a result of changing needs, notably to await scope definition in emergent legislation. We reccmend that the Comission direct EDO to prepare the necessary scope of work for a management study, conforming to the terms of S. 562, under the assumption that S. 562 will beccme law.
DETAILS OF PLANS AND STATUS Contents:
A.
Development of Safety Policy (Item 1 of Chapter V)
B.
Possible Elimination of Nonsafety Responsibilities (Item 2 of Chapter V)
C.
Advisory Committees (Items 3, 4, and 8)
D.
Licensing Process (Items 5, 6, 9, and 17)
E.
Legislation Needs (Item 7)
F.
Organization and Management (Items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14)
G.
Consolidation of NRC Locations (Items 15 and 16)
A.
DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY POLICY (Item 1 of Chapter V)
Summary The Commission will endeavor to develop more explicit articulation of policy with respect to the fundamental issues of public health and safety.
This will include some general approach to risk acceptability and safety-cost trade-offs, and, to the extent that these reasonably lend themselves to articulation, quantitative safety goals, safety improvement goals, and standards for review of past actions in light of new rules and improved practices.
Status In its FY 1982-86 Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance (PPPG) (Memo, Secretary to EDO, 5/1/80), the Commission stated its intent to seek to define more clearly the level of protection of the public health a'-
safety that it believes is adequate.
In its letter to Dr. Press commenting on the Kemeny report, the Commission stated that it is prepared to move forward with an explicit policy statement on safety philosophy and on the role of safety-cost tradeoffs in NRC safety decisions (A-3).
0GC has submitted for the Commission's information a legal analysis of NRC's present requirements and practices with respect to safety adequacy.
(" Adequate Protection of the Health and Safety of the Public," memo to the Commission from L. Bickwit, GC, 10/18/79.)
A-2 Pertinent current lines of endeavor include work by the ACRS, work done and sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, and a pending legis-lative proposal. Their status is as follows:
ACRS:
In May 1979 the ACRS recome.ded to the Comission that NRC consider the establishment of quantitative safety goals for nuclear power reactors.
(Letter to NRC Chairman Hendrie from ACRS Chairman Carbon, 5/16/79.)
After expression of interest by Commissioner Ahearne (letter to Chairman Carbon, 6/11/79), the ACRS undertook to develop the concept further and assigned the project to its Subcomittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Assessment. In August 1979 the ACRS wrote that it would take up to a year to arrive a recomendation that the Comittee would find appropriate.
(Letter to Comissioner Ahearne from ACRS Chairman Carbon, 8/14/79.) After a series of meetings which included consideration of a number of domestic and foreign risk-analysis and criteria-development programs, the Subcomittee presented a tentative framework for risk management decision-making to the Comittee at its June 1980 meeting.
RES:
The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research has in progress a program to expand research on quantification of safety decision-making. The work is being done as part of another task of the TMI Action Plans (Task IV.E, Part 1). The specific activities involved and their status are as follows:
1.
A Comparative Risk Assessment and Acceptable Risk Criteria project is being conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to develop methods for addressing unacceptable and acceptable risk, and to compare public
A-3 and occupational risk associated with the coal and nuclear fuel cycles.
A preliminary draft of a report on Approaches to Acceptable Risk is presently being reviewed, and a draft report on the risk associated with the coal and nuclear fuel cycles is being finalized for distribution in July 1980.
2.
A research task force of a variety of professional disciplines has been established to formulate several possible sets of numerical criteria, using different technical approaches. The formation of the research task force and the conduct of its meetings are being coordinated through the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE), with cooperation from other professional engineering societies. The task force has been established in the IEEE SC-5 Reliability Committee, and has completed several working group meetings as of June 1980.
3.
Brookhaven National Laboratory has been contracted to independently formulate criteria in order to investigate the implications of such criteria and to determine the impact of attempting to satisfy such criteria.
Information on risk exposure and risk acceptance criteria from other societal activities is being collected. Also, baseline calculations of WASH-1400 accident sequence probabilities are being revised by using hardware and human error failure rates.
Criteria validation is scheduled for completion in 3rd Quarter FY 1982.
4.
As means of peer review during the BNL project, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Science, and the American Statistical Association have been contacted to set up peer review functions.
A-4 Negotiations are underway to define the specific mechanisms for these peer reviews. The ACRS Subcommittee on Probabilistic Analysis are carrying out independent reviews and formulating their own recem-mendations. RES has agreed to provide limd financial support to the Forum conducted by the NAS in May 1980 on the subject " Nuclear Reactors: How Safe Are They?"
4.
Several meetings are scheduled to accomplish an integration of these activities. A meeting of nuclear industry representatives was held in Washington, D.C., on March 18, 1980 to discuss fundamental issues involved in establishing risk criteria.
It is anticipated that one or more of these meetings will be sponscred by the CECD or the CSNI Sub-comittee on Licensing.
Legislation:
S. 2358, the Senate Environment Committee's NRC Authorization bill for FY 1981, calls for NRC, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to develop a safety goal for reactor regulation.
The goal would be required to delineate subjective criteria, supplemented to the extent possible by quantitative criteria. The bill calls for consideration of retroactive --
as well as prospective -- application of the goal.
It specifies a June 30, 1981, deadline for a report to Congress.
(Section 5 of S. 2358, 2/28/80.) This bill has not yet passed the Senate. There is no corre-spending provision in H.R. 6628, the House version of the NRC FY 1981 authorization, as reported by either che Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs or the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
A-5 Remaining Needs and Opportunities The most imediate need is for formulation of a general plan for development and articulation of NRC safety objectives, notably -- but not exclusively --
with respect to reactors. The formulation should include analysis of the extent to which articulation is possible and practical in the near term, such as the one-year time scale in S. 2358, and subsequently (e.g., two-three years).
It should identify the major elements and disciplines of the issue, including activities beyond those already in progress.
Recomendation: That the Comission assign responsibility to prepare a program plan to CPE/0GC, using internal (NRC) and outside consultation and assistance.
B.
POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF NON-SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (Item 2 of Chapter V)
Summary The Comission will review non-safety and non-safeguards regulatory review responsibilities, including antitrust, NEPA, and exports.
The Comission will examine whether removal of these responsibilities would leave gaps in Federal regulation, and whether they may be advantageously transferred to other agencies.
Depending on conclusions, legislation may be recommended.
Status The Ccmmission has approached this issue on several recent occasions.
The possible transfer of export licensing rasponsibilities was considered at some length in connection with development of a Commission position on the President's NRC Reorganization Plan.
The President's Reorganization Plan did not include any changes in NRC's substantive regulatory jurisdiction.
After several discussions concerning the advantages and disadvantages of transferring export licensing responsibility to the Executive Branch, the Comission expressed its views on this issue in a letter dated February 6,1980 to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Three of the Commissioners (Chairman Ahearne, and Comissioners Kennedy and Hendrie) supported transfer of export licensing functions from NRC to the Executive Branch.
Commissioners Bradford and Gilinsky opposed such a change in NRC responsibilities.
B-2 Brief consideration has also been,given in this context to the possible transfer of NEPA and antitrust review responsibilities to other agencies, although no detailed analysis was performed. On NEPA the Commission reached a judgment during discussions on the Administration's reorganization plan that environmental issues were so closely linked to health and safety matters in the nuclear licensing process that it would be difficult to remove the agency's NEPA responsibilities without fundamentally altering the structure and content of NRC's regulatory activities.
Therefore, the Commission decided that further consideration of its NEPA role is probably better pursued in the context of legislative proposals for conprehensive refonn of the nuclear siting and licensing process (for example, H.R. 6390 introduced earlier this year by Congressman Udall in the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
The Commission also gave brief consideration to the transfer of NRC antitrust review responsibilities to the Justice Department.
It was concludcd that such a transfer would have no significant effect on NRC safety regulation because review resources would be only marginally affected, and resources requirements for future antitrust reviews will likely decrease since a major portion of the electric utility industry has already been subjected to NRC antitrust review.
Also, it was noted that a transfer to another agency could result in licensing delays since the review schedule and allocation of review resources would no longer be within NRC control.
B-3 Remainino Needs and Opportunities There is no immediate need for any Commission action.
Further, we believe that nothing useful would be gained by pursuing these items further except to the extent that some reallocations of NRC NEPA functions might be considered as one part of some comprehensive nuclear licensing refonn legislation.
Specifically with respect to the transfer of export licensing, we recognize that a majority of the Commission could decide to seek legislation to transfer exports to the Executive Branch. We have not recommended this course, principally because the prospects of such a proposal at this time seem dim, and the drafting of it could be a significant resource drain.
Apart from NEPA, exports, and antitrust, we can identify no other significant area of non-safety, non-safeguards NRC activities that could be transferred from NRC to another agency. We recommend that any future reccmmendation that NRC undertake some new non-safety and non-safeguards function include an analysis why the function should not be exercised by some agency other than NRC.
Recommendation: There is no need for further Commission action.
C.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES (Items 3, 4, and 8 of Chapter V)
Summa ry The Commission will undertake several actions concerning advisory committees --
o
- entinue efforts to strengthen the role of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), including support for legislation to eliminate mandatory ACRS case reviews, to free up Committee time for broad -- as well as case-specific -- safety issues (item 3 of ChapterV).
o detennine whether to establish additional advisory committees, such as a citizen's advisory committee or a general advisory committee similar to that of the Atomic Energy Commission, after examining the possible functions of such bodies and their relationship to the ACRS, or a nuclear safety board (itent 4 of Chapter V) o study the need to establish a nuclear safety board to independently investigate nuclear accidents and important incidents, and to monitor and evaluate the quality of NRC's regult Mry process (item 8 of Chapter V; since this study involves the relation of such a board to the ACRS, it is included under this heading)
C-2 Status With respect to strengthening the ACRS, --
o The ACRS is meeting with the Commission co a monthly basis and the ACRS' recommendations are receiving increased interest and attention from the Commission.
o The Commission requested OGC to propose procedures for ACRS invcivement in NRC rulemaking activities.
On April 22, 1980, the Commission approved the general methods proposed by OGC for the ACRS to participate in rulemaking, noting that the procedures required further development.
o The ACRS has implemented a procedure to focus NRC staff's attention on its recommendations and requests.
The ACRS is presently receiving more frequent and more direct responses to its recommendations from NRC regulatory staff, particularly from NRR.
o The Commission has authorized two additional technical staff positions for the ACRS for 1981. The ACRS is requesting eight additional staff positions for 1982.
o The ACRS' principal move to expand its activities into fuel cycle issues has been made in connection with technical assistance on the waste confidence rulemaking.
C-3 o
Pursuant to the House Authorization legislation for FY 1981, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has authorized the ACRS to expend sums necessary to furnish tecMical assistance and advice on decontamination of TMI-2 to the proposed Three Mile Island Advisory Panel.
o H.R. 6390 (the Udall bill) introduced on January 31, 1980, includes Sec. 304 which amends Sec.182b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to pemit the ACRS to review only cases that it selects, including, to the extent practicable, applications referred to it by the Commission.
With respect to studying the need for further advisory committees, OPE submitted a report to the Commission on February 6,1980, which assessed the strengths and weaknesses of alternative proposals and presented considerations to maximize the effectiveness of advisory boards. A provision in NRC's FY 1981 authorization bill would establish a TMI Advisory Panel to make recommendations on the decontamination of TMI.
and the Comission has decided to create such a body.
Finally, as to the establishment of an independent nuclear safety board, no actions are presently pending within NRC.
However, there have been some recent related activities:
C-4 o
H.R. 6390 would establish a 3-member, independent Nuclear Safety Board in the Executive Branch to investigate events at facilities regulated by NRC, analyze operational data at such facilities, conduct special studies, assess the effectiveness of NRC in monitoring facilities and in resolving safety issues, and report periodically to Congress, o
By Executive Order 12202 the President created a 5-person Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee to advise him on the progress of Federal, State and industry organizations to improve nuclear safety.
o The industry established an Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and Nuclear Safety Analysis Center (NSAC), both of which have safety-related functions.
o NRC created its Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, whose functions include evaluating past incidents.
Remainino Needs and 00portunities We do not reccmmend further Commission action for any of the items included in this category. Ongoing Commission-ACRS activities respond to the objective of a strengthened ACRS.
The OPE Report on advisory
C-5 committees addresses the questions associated with additional committees; we perceive no pressing need for new NRC advisory committees.
- Finally, the existing NRC organizations (e.g., I&E, ACRS, AE00) address a number of the would-be objectives of an independent safety board, thus reducing the urgency of the need to study the desirability of such a board.
Recommendation:
No further Commission action, apart from ongoing activities, is needed.
D.
LICENSING PROCESS (Item 5, 6, 9,17 of Chapter V)
Summary The Commission will assess alternative methods to enhance public and intervenor participation in the hearing process, by undertaking a pilot program for intervenor funding ~and by studying the concept of an Office of Hearing Counsel, as described by the President's Commission recommendation, and other concepts of Public Counsel (such as the Office of Public Counsel recommended by the NRC Special Inquiry Group or concepts 2 sed by some Public Service Commissions).
If desirable, the Commission will propose appropriate legislation.
(Item 5 of Chapter V)
Rulemaking will be completed on possible changes to the immediate effectiveness rule which pemits a construction pennit to be issued in effective form while NRC administrative appeals are still pending.
(Item 6 of Chapter V)
The Commission will study alternatives to refom the nuclear power reactor licensing process.
Possible refoms include replacing the present two-step licensing process with a one-step process with increased public involvement prior to the hearing, and with continued NRC jurisdiction after issuance of the single pemit to verify that plant construction confams with plans and pennit specifications, and refoms related to s tandardization. The Commission will consider surg:nding reviews and proceedings for CP's and LWA's until the refonn usues are resolved.
(Item 9 of Chapter V)
D-2 The Commission will review its role in adjudica,tions to examine the extent of Comitsion involvement in licensing proceedings and to eliminate any undesirable and unnecessary insulation of the Commission from decisionmaking activities of the staff.
(Item 17 of Chapter V)
Status With respect to public participation refoms, a majority of the Ccmmission has expressed an intention to proceed with a pilot program for inter /enor funding in FY 1981 if Congress approves such a program.
For FY 1980, the Comission has decided not to fund public participation expenses because of the legislative history associated with the FY 1980 appropriations legislation. No action is ongoing within NRC on the Office of Hearing Counsel /Offke of Public Counsel proposals.
Regarding the rulemaking to address changes to the Commission's rules on construction during adjudication, a Federd Register notice requesting public comments on alternative courses for Commission action was published in May,1980 (the Commission did not identify a preferred course); the comment period expires on July 7,1980. A decision paper will be sent to the Commission about August 1, 1980. The immediate effectiveness rule is presently suspended as a result of Commission action following TMI.
As for refonns to the licensing process, a comprehensive licensing refonn bill was introduced by Congressman Udall in January 1980 (H.R. 6390).
The Subcommittee held hearings in March, but no final action
0-3 on the bill is likely until next session.
No administrative measures to improve the NRC's present licensing process are pending within NRC. A May 1978 study of NRC standardization policy (NUREG-0427) led te publication of a Commission statement of policy on August 31, 1978 (43 FR 38954).
No specific consideration has been given to suspending CP and LWA proceedings pending licensing process reforms.
With respect to the Commission's role in adjudication, a decision paper is pending before the Commission on the Appeal Board Study which addresses the avenues for increasing Commission involvement in licensing adjudications (SECY-80-262). NRC activities are also pending on the Ex Parte Study (SECY-80-130; NUREG 0670). While the outcome of Congressional proposals to amend the Administrative Procedure Act -- including separation of functions provisions -- cannot be foreseen, it now appears that Congress will not enact a regulatory reform measure in this session, thus leaving present ex parte /separatica of functions law intact.
Remaining Needs and Oncortunities Ongoing NRC activities address all items under this heading except the study c? an Office of Public Counsel and the study of licensing process refonns. A study of an Office of Public Counsel is desirable, but is not a pressing item.
D-4 A new look at licensing refonns also has some merit because such reforms could be instituted now, given the absence of new construction pemit.
applications and the forecast that this situation will likely persist for some time.
Past studies of licensing refonn have been extensive, and this reduces the attractiveness and urgency o" a new study of licensing refo nn.
However, past studies have largely centered on how refonns might contribute to the efficiency of the licensing process, whereas post-TMI calls for licensing refonn appear to be premised on the belief that refonn can improve the adecuacy of the process.
Opportunities for further Commission consideration of one-step licensing and increased standardi:ation are (1) further Commission deliberations on H.R. 6390 this Congressional session and next, and ~(2) Commission consideration of its comprehensive legislative needs in preparation for the next Congressional session (a paper on omnibus legislation is early in preparation by OGC).
We do not recommend immediate Commission action on a study of the licensing process because. of these separate opportunities for further deliberations, because of the knowledge already gained frem earlier studies, and because of the other management and organizational changes post-TMI, which should be given scxnetime to take h^1d before a study of the licensing process is commenced.
If licensing reform is not now to be actively pursued, then the Commission does not need to consider suspending CP and LWA proceedings.
A more persuasive case can be made for suspending issuance of new cps and LWAs pending articulation of a safety philosophy and safety goals (item A).
D-5 We reccrnmend, however, that this issue be taken up in connection with development of the list of new CP requirements derived from the TMI Action Plan.
Recommendation: We recommend no new or additional actions at this time.
E.
LEGISLATIVE NEEDS (Item 7) summa ry The Comission will study the need for legislation with respect to the following TMI-related issues:
(1) Clarification of NRC authority to issue a license amendment prior to a hearing when necessary to ensure the health and safety of the public.
(2)
Detemination of whether NRC should seek an amendment to the Sunshine Act to reduce the Act's requirements for Comission meetings during an emergency.
(3)
Deteminations with respect to NRC's current legal authority to take over and conduct cleanup actions at a nuclear facility and with respect to the Federal government's (a) liability for damages occurring during a cleanup conducted by NRC and (b) entitlement to reimbursement for cleanup costs.
(4) The continuing desirability of the current Price-Anderson Act provisions in two areas:
(a) extraordinary nuclear occurrence and (b) limitation on liability.
(5) Desirability of creating a new category of license to be issued in place of an operating license for a facility during an extended recovery period following a major accident.
(5)
The need for new or modified NRC authority to address the establishment of a chartered national operating comany or consortium.
E-2 Status We have evaluated the items listed above.
No legislation is being drafted. Our specific view for each item is coatained in the next subdivision.
Remainino Needs and Occortunities (1) The Commission has noted that a longstanding provision in the NRC regulations,10 CFR 2.204, clearly provides that an amendment to a license may be made effective immediately when "the public health, safety, or interest so requires...." This provision, along with the language of Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act allowing license amendments not needing a significant hazards consideration to be issued effective immediately, gives adequate flexibility with regard to issuing license amendments without delay when necessary to ensure health and safety. Legislative correction or clarification is not needed. The matter would be reconsidered if some judicial decision cast doubt or. cur authority.
(2) The Commission's new emergency planning procedures, tcgether with the Reorganization Plan's provisions which transfer emergency management functions to the Chairman and pennit delegation of authority to an individual Commissioner, have to a large extent removed the Commission as a whole from real-time emergency management.
It is therefore less likely that the Ccmmission would be faced with Sunshine Act problems during a crisis.
However, the Commission has brought this problem to the attention of Congressional committees responsible for oversight of the Sunshine Act.
E-3 (3) During its response to the TMI accident, the Comission has taken the position that it possesses adequate legal authority to direct the licensee to obtain hRC review and approval of all activities that are taken which affect offsite radiological releases, onsite containment of radioactivity, the reactor core shutdown and the cooling of the reactor core.
In short, the present regulatory system provides the Commission with the final word on all activit'ics of a licensee which may be detennined to affect the public health and safety. The Commission has not identified a need to alter this basic framework by having NRC assume the role of implementing, rather than reviewing, cleanup activities.
The issue here is not basically one of legal authority, but rather one of institutional capabilities and the advisability of removing NRC as a regulator to place it in an operational role which it lacks the resources and personnel to undertake.
Because of the lack of any present Commission policy which would place NRC in an operational cleanup role, no additional studies are anticipated in this area.
If proposals for an NRC cleanup capability are raised in the Congress, or elsewhere, the need for legislation to implement such concrete proposals will be addressed.
(4)
The Comission expressed its views on proposed revisions to the Price-Anderson Act in testimony on Section 303 of H.R. 6390.
Regarding the increase in the limitation on liability from $560 million to 55 billion proposed in that bill, the Commission stated that it pas " reluctant" to take a position on this question because it involved "value judgments about proper allocation of financial
E-4 burdens betwee the nuclear industry and other interested persons."
The Comission expressed the view that the ENO (Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence) concept has been difficult to apply in the case of TMI, and that elimination of the concept from the Act would not adversely affect the Comission's administration of the Price-Anderson system.
The Ccmission will continue to follow the progress of this and other legislation concerning the Price-Anderson Act.
(Mr. Bingham recently introduced the Nuclear Liability Reform Act of 1980, which, inter alia, would increase Price-Anderson coverage to $7 billion and would remove all limits on liability for reactors still in the construction stage.)
(5) Although it might be convenient to have a special category of license for a facility engaged in extended recovery operations, it has been the Comission's experience with the TMI-2 recovery phase that NRC's authority to issue orders and license amendments provides adequate flexibility for conducting recovery operations within the framework of the preexisting facility license.
Accordingly, there it no need to develop a new license category.
(6) This ite1 derives from the Special Inquiry Group's recommendation that an industry-wide consortium be chartered to operate the nuclear plants of utilities that are unable to meet the increased regulatory demands brought on by TMI. The item is not new under active consideration within NRC.
Consideration would be in order if industry were tar develop serious initiatives respecting the Rogovin recommendation.
E-5 In sum, based on our evaluation of each legislative item as set out more fully above, our conclusion is that, in no instance, is legislation necessa ry.
We will continue to monitor related pending proposals (e.g.,
H.R. 6390).
Also, OGC is preparing a paper for the Commission looking to the Commission's comprehensive legislative needs.
Recommendation: No further action is recommended.
F.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT (Items 10,11,12,13., and 14 ef Chapter V)
Summa ry The Comission will hire an outside management consulting finn to examine the current internal management approaches and procedures used by the Comission to execute its responsibilities and to examine possible improvements in the Comission's efficiency and effectiveness (item 10).
The Commission will examine the current organization and functions of the NRC offices to identify possible improvements in the overall efficiency and effectiveness of NRC, including (1) an evaluation of the consolidation of all NRC resources and activities for monitoring operating reactors in a single office; (2) follow-through on the recent reorganization of NRR to elevate human factors in criteria development and systems evaluation to a level of prominence equivalent to that of the safety equipment; (3) the reorganization of IE to increase inspection and enforcement effectiveness; (4) the establishment of an integrated program for modifying regulatory requirements based on systematic identification and assessment of safety issues; and (5) the use of technical consultants to increase staff capability in discrete technical areas (item 11).
The Comission will improve NRC's organizational and management capabilities for effective pursuit of safety goals by clarifying and, as necessary, revising delegations of authority to the staff. The Cor: mission has recently decided to delegate substantial rulemaking authority to SD, subject to Commission policy guidance and reservation of concurrent authority (item 12).
F-2 The Commission will clarify and strengthen the respective roles and authorities of the Chaiman as prine.ipal executive officer, the Comission as head of the agency, and the Executive Director for Operations as chief staff officer. The Commission will also seek authority to delegate specific responsibilities to an individual Comissioner in the event of defined emergencies (items 13 and 14).
Status With respect to the management study, the Ccmission solicited and received proposals early in 1980, from management consulting firms, for an analysis of Comission functions, processes, and procedures, and its relationship with the Executive Director for Operations and principal Commission staff offices (RS-0PE-80-471). Tne study was to examine the current internal management approaches and identify and examine possible improvements. The solicitation was canceled on June 3,1980, upon Commission decision.
The cancellation followed introduction of a provision in the FY 1980 authorization bill that would require a broader study.
At this writing, the authori:ation bill is not yet law.
Mcwever, when enacted it will likely require NRC to " contract for an independent review of the Commission's management structure, processes, procedures and operations.... at all levels cf agency management" (Section 302 of S. 562). The required study is to be completed for the Comission within one year of enactment of the authorization bill, and transmitted promptly thereafter to the Congress.
F-3 As to the plan for the Commission's examination of current organization and functions of NRC Offices to identify areas for improvement, the following represents the status of the enumerated matters surmiarized above for this item (Item 11):
(1)
Consolidating resources / activities resoectina coeratino reactors.
The ECO is conducting a "regionalization study," that will explore whether more monitoring of OR's can be done at the regicnal office level. This study should be completed by about June 30, 1980. Also, the Commission is considering Commissioner proposals for (1) a " unit-team concept", under which a team would be established for each operating reactor, composed of the NRR project manager (and NRR backup) and the principal resident inspector for the plant (and another inspector) and (2) alternative organizational concepts for regrouping NRC functions. The Secretary is currently polling Ccemissioners with respect to these suggestions.
(2) NRR Reorcanization to elevate human factors.
NRR has been reorganized, and a Division of Human Factors Safety has been created.
(3)
Reorcanize IE. A preliminary draft plan has been prepared for EDO review which now concentrates on (i) increasing agency visibility in the area of enforcement, accompanied by increased civil penalty authority and creation of an Enforcement Division; (ii) expanding regionalization to help centralize control over the Resident Inspector Program; (iii) creating a new Division of Emergency Preparedness, to encompass management of the proposed Operations Center with the planned Nuclear Data Link.
F-4 (4)
Integrated Proaram for Modifyinc Regulatory Recuirements.
The reorganization of NRR created a Division of Safety Technology for this purpose.
(5)
Use of Technical Consultants.
This item is viewed by Staff as an option it has always used to some extent (e.g., NRR has used technical consultants in such areas as Human Factors Engineering, Fire Protection, and Operating Reactor amendment reviews, and also contracts for the use of various technical skills from the national labs).
As for the clarification and revisions of Comission delegations to staff, the Comission is nearing completion of its work on the OGC-0PE Delegation Study which addresses this item.
Finally, respecting clarification of the roles of the Comission and Chaiman, the Ccmmission developed statements during late 1979 and early 1980, (1) to detail the respective roles of the Commission, Chairnan and Executive Director for Operations; and (2) to set out revised structures and guidance for emergency response management, including a description of the roles of the Comission and the Chairman.
Also during that period, the President submitted a reorganization plan for NRC that enconpasses these subjects.
The effective date of the plan will be no later than October 1,1980; the President may fix an earlier effective date. Several offices are individually examining the implications of the Reorganization Plan (e.g., CGC, SECY, ACM).
However no office has been tasked by the Comission to comprehensively examine the effect of the Plan on agency authorities and responsibilities.
F-5 Remainino Needs and Oooortunities Imminent enactment of the FY 1980 NRC Authorization bill and its required management study underscores the need for the Commission to direct the undertaking of a reoriented management study that satisfies the terms of Section 302 of the bill. We recommend no other near-tenn actions.
Recommendation: Direct the ED0 to prepare a scope of work and request for proposals for the rinagement study.
G.
CONSOLIDATION OF NRC LOCATIONS (Items 15 and 16 of Chapter V)
Sumary Following up on recent OM5 guidance, the Comission will continue to work with appropriate comittees of the Congress and with GSA to achieve a single location for its headquarters offices and to take interim consolidation measures pending achievement of that goal.
Status Interim consolidaticn:
By a letter of April 22, 1980, James F. McIntyre of CMB directed GSA.to plan and implement an interim consolidation at 1717 H Street and in NRC's present Bethesda location. GSA estimated in May 2 testimony before the Senate Cemittee on Environment and Public Works that this consolidation, involving moving NRC offices to H Street, would be completed in 540 days or by November 1, 1981.
This may be delayed because of difficulties in preparing space and the opposition of agencies moving out of the Matomic Building to their new locations. GSA has yet to direct any of the current tenants to move out of the Matemic Building.
In a letter of May 23 to the Director, CMB, four senators expressed their concern about the interim plan for consolidation and requested reasons '- the CMB decision, an evaluation of comparative costs of consolidation in the District and Maryland, and an evaluation of whether a reassessment of the OMB decision was advisaule in light of the space availability in Maryland and the Comittee's approval of the Silver Spring site. Maryland officials have met with CMB to express their concern about the effect of NRC's move on Montgcmery County and on NRC employees. CMB apparently maintains the view that the H Street /
Bethesda consolidation is the best interim mov2 for NRC.
G-2 Long-term consolidation:
In May both the House and Senate took up the matter of long-term consoli-dation of NRC. On May 2,1980, Comissicners testified before the Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works. They endorsed the interim con-solidation at the Matomic Building and Bethesda proposed by CMB and urged the Comittee to act on the Comission's long-standing request for a new building to house the entire NRC headquarters.
Several witnesses, including Maryland's senators and Congressman Barnes, submitted testimony opposing the interim consolidation. Subsequently, the Comittee adopted a resolution approving the construction of a federally-owned building in Silver Spring and requiring that GSA conduct a design competition to select an ar;hitect for it.
On May 29, 1980, before the House Subcomittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Comittee on Public Works and Transportation, the Comissioners and others advanced positions previously taken before the Senate Comittee.
The Subcomittee hearing was continued on June 3 to hear from GSA.
Unlike the Senate Comittee which is on record as favoring a federally-owned structure, the House so far has been operating on the assumption of leased space to a policy of owning Federal buildings as set forth in S. 2080.
If no problems are encountered, the House Subcomittee could get the matter on the Comittee's schedule shortly. Additional hearings before the full Comittee are possible. Thereafter, if the House and Senate Comittees' resolutions are compatible, long-term consolidation could move ahead, pending Congressional appropriation. Some method of financing of a
G-3 federally-owned building must be worked out, either through the provisions of S. 2080 if it beccmes law, or through some separate legislation.
Remaining Needs and Cooortunities Continued active support and cooperation with Congressional, CMB, and GSA efforts at long-term and near-term consolidation remain in order. Little scope is available for any further NRC initiatives beyond such support and cooperation.
Recomendation:
No additional actions required at this time.
.