ML19296B070
| ML19296B070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Manrehan E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296B071 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8002190829 | |
| Download: ML19296B070 (6) | |
Text
.-
[
g UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATO3Y COMMISSION o
5 E
WASHIWGTON, D. C. 20555
,/
January 24, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford FROM:
Edward J. Hanrahan
SUBJECT:
DECISION MEMORANDUM ON " REVIEW 0F DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY WITHIN NRC" (Ref.: OPE /0GC Memo, 10/4/79) 1.
INTRODUCTION This decision memorandum and checklist, prepared at the Chairman's request, is intended to facilitate Comission action on the cited OPE /0GC report.
A briefing on that report has been scheduled for January 30.
The report pro.vided options for change for your consideration in connection with six identified problem areas.
The options are sumarized on pages (ii) to (v) of the report, and detailed and discussed on pp. 62-78.
According to the study's general plan, the next phase, Phase III, will involve drafting, for your approval, specific recommendations for change based on your comments on the OPE /0GC report, including your decisions concerning the options presented there.
The options that are still available for Commission action at this time are covered in the report in Subsections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.6; and the problems that these options address, in Subsections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.6.
We suggest concentrating your review particularly on those passages.
2.
THE DECISION OPTIONS 2.3 Generic and Case Decisions The underlying issue here is that there is a dichotomy between the amount of delegated authority for licensing decisions in specific cases and for making generic rules.
The Commission has delegated licensing authority rather fully, but has reserved rulemaking authority to itself.
The system results
Contact:
George Sege, OPE 63-43302 A
3 90
Commission in difficulties in getting needed rules made -- difficulties which are often not surmounted. Also, there are serious gaps in de facto authority for setting generic standards by processes less formal tiian rulemaking.
The Commission could remedy the difficulty by various mechanisms of dele-gation of substantial rulemaking authority, with review and concurrent authority retained.
The report outlines and discusses three different options, involving delegation to SD, to NRR and NMSS (and perhaps IE),
and to inter-office committees, respectively.
Notes:
Problem area is discussed in report on pages 53-56.
Options are described and discussed on pp. 62-68.
Options lA,18, and 1C are mutually exclusive.
Option lA:. Delegate rulemaking to SD.
This option would probably require a considerable strengthening of SD - in total numbers and in numbers of professionals of the highest caliber, but could result in a long-term man-power saving in the licensing offices.
Places responsibility where the substantive technical decisions are made.
Some organizational separation between licensing and rulemaking would re,ain.
Option 1B:
Delegate substantial rulemaking powers to NRR and NMSS. ;
This option would mean either (a) breaking up SD into two separate sub-offices to serve NRR and NMSS respectively or (b) having SD serve as a dependent service organization to NRR and NMSS.
This would have the advantage of helping coordinate policies embodied in generic and case decisions and of facilitating choice of regulatory approach on various licensing issues. However, people assigned to rulemaking and standard setting efforts could be diverted to urgent day-to-day licensing work.
Option IC: Establish one or more inter-office committees charged with systematically initiating recommendations for generic rulemaking and standard setting.
This would maintain the wide organizational separation of licensing case decisions from rulemaking.
Commission Keep pr esent system.
Same drawback as Option 1C.
Present problems of obstacles to generic rulemaking and gaps in standard setting would remain.
2.2 Manacement and Technical Decisions The options presented under this heading are designed to deal with problems posed by confusion and conflict between the technical and managerial decisionmaking roles of line officers and project managers, to the detriment of one or both aspects of their roles.
Notes:
Problem area discussed in report on p. 57; options described and discussed on pp. 69-71.
Options 2A, 2B, and 2C are not mutually exclusive.
Option 2A: Strengthen administrative support in technical divisions.
This would leave division directors, assistant directors, and branch chiefs freer to concentrate on technical leader-ship while allowing them to maintain managerial control. There would probably be a minor augmentation of personnel.
Option 2B: Separate managerial and technical functions between directors and deputies.
This could help focus more effectively on both functions.
Future personnel selections for director and deputy positions could be made with such separation of principal duties in mind.
Option 2C:
Establish a senior scientific and technical service.
This would be analogous to the Senior Executive Service and would provide senior professionals a career path for advancement as individual contributors providing technical leadership. The new career opportunities could holp attract and retain pro-fessionals of high caliber, while a smaller number of managers concentrating more fully on managerial functions would suffice.
The new service could be created as a full. agency-wide program, or started from a limited pilot program.
Commission Keep present system.
Difficulties in the effective leadership of major technical divisions would remain to be dealt with ad _ hoc in each organi-zational element.
2.3 Determination of Research Requirements (pp. 57-58 and 72-75)
The options presented here would grant RES considerable authority to sponsor research programs.
This area of delegation was also the subject of SECY-79-635, " Revised Procedures for Endorsement of RES Research," which had referenced the Delegations of Authority study, and on which you were completing action at the time of this writing.
In view of that situation, we shall assume (absent comment to the contrary) that you will not wish to take any further action in this area at this time.
Recapitulation of options in the Delegations of Authority study:
Option 3A: Authorize RES to sponsor programs with $ and budget % limits.
Option 3B: Authorize RES to sponsor programs without pre-set $ and % limits.
Option 3C: Assign primary responsibility to RES.
2.4 Exports (pp. 59 and 75)
Option 4 calls for increased delegations, absent sensitive issues.
Since you have already decided on certain added delegations (a Federal Register notice was circulating for your final review at the time of this writing),
the decision before you now is whether you wish to have additional specific delegations recommended to you.
Develop additional delegations.
No further changes.
2.5 Regions The vigor and effectiveness of enforcement End related activities in connection with the increased number of reaci: ors in operation or being built could be enhanced by granting increased powers to the Regional Offices.
Notes:
Ref.:
pp. 59-60 and 75-77.
Commission Options 5A, SB, and SC are not mutually exclusive.
Option SA:
Delegate limited civil penalty authority.
Civil penalty actions by Regional Directors could be reasonably swift, and recognition of the Regions' penalty powers could assist in rigorous enforcement. Agency-wide standards and short fixed delay times for possible headquarters review could help assure uniformity.
Option 5B:
Delecate limited shutdown authority.
Could include (a) partial shutdown of construction when con-tinuation could hide evidence or create obstacles to remedy and (b) small material license operations.
Shutdown authorities would be structured to apply when action is urgent, detailed local knowledge is important, and impact is not so great as to demand headquarters attention.
Regional Offices' prestige would be enhanced, aiding effectiveness, in addition to efficiency gains.
Option SC:
Evaluate possible delegation of operator licensing.
Delegation would be subject to standards established by head-quarters. This delegation would entrust licensing of operators to groups closest to reactor operation.
As a major function of Regional Offices, this activity would command substantial management attention.
No changes.
Regions would continue relying on voluntary cooperation of licensees, with their persuasion efforts backed up by formal powers only at headquarters, without actual and visible authori-ties locally.
In operator licensing, benefits of at-location reactor-operation knowledge could not be as readily increased.
Commission 2.6 Role of EDO (p. 78)
Option 6 calls for letting a contract to study the role of the ED0 and make recommendations.
Events since submittal of the delegation study report -- Mr. Gossick's resignation and deliberations in connection with the President's proposals for NRC reorganization -- have brought into question whether results of such a study could still be timely.
Option 6:
Institute contract study of proper role of EDO.
Forego study.
3.
NEXT STEPS OPE /0GC to consolidate Commissioner responses and submit draft guidance memo for Commission approval, cc:
Leonard Bickwit Sam Chilk
- p nneco #o, UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
[,,,. **
October 4, 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford Fommissioner Ahearne
..g FROM:
bert P. Kenneke, Acting Director, OPE c,
eonard Bickwit, Jr., General Counsel
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY WITHIN NRC We submit the enclosed report in response to your request that our offices review delegations of authority to staff offices within the NRC.
The purpose of this review was to describe and examine such delegations considering the mission of the agency and the policy issues bearing on that mission.
In accordance with the plan that we had submitted, the report represents completion of the first two phases of the study.
Phase I, devoted to background information and research, is covered by Sections 1 to 4 of the report and includes review of formal delegations and review of delegations in practice, with office-by-office and function-by-function analyses.
Phase II, involving discussion of problems and factors sug-gestive of the need for changes in the present process and a review of options available to the Commission, is the subject of Sections 5 and 6.
You will note that the study suggests increased Commission delegation of authority to the staff in two areas:
generic rulemaking and export licensing.
The basic thrust of the suggested options is to permit increased Commission attention to matters of overriding significance, namely, key issues in licensing and regulatory policy, and long-range planning in all areas of the NRC mission.
In our view, such delegations, by focusing the Commission's resources on major policy and planning concerns, would actually result in more--not less--
Commission control over the agency's course in the coming years.
Contacts:
George Sege, OPE 63-43302 William Shields, OGC 63-43215 James Fitzgerald, OGC 63-43224 O
8 00 I / 6 0 II 2
Commission The next p h a.e e, Phase III, which would consist in drafting recommendations for change has been deferred in accordance with your instructions, and awaits your review and comment on the present report.
In arriving at decisions concerning possible changes in dele-gations, the Commission will undoubtedly want to take into account not only the results of this study, but also the results of other work such as the Presidential and NRC TMI inquiries, the study of construcLion during adjudication (report due November 1), the CGC study of the appellate process (report expected to be submitted mid-October), the statutory GAO study of'NRC management performance (comment draft expected mid to late October), and the results of a " management study" which the Commission may undertake.
We do not, however, believe that it is necessary to delay formulating Commission guidance initiating Phase III of the OPE /CGC delegation study to await results of those studies.
As new information and advice become available, review and modification of this guidance, as necessary, can be considered.
Enclosure:
Study report, as stated
.