ML19296E033
| ML19296E033 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1980 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Wellford H OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003140080 | |
| Download: ML19296E033 (3) | |
Text
I
['
o UNITED STATES
[b bb 8
/g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
p WASHIN GT ON, D.C. 20555 h
\\..... /
February 19, 1980 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Mr. Harrison Wellford Executive Associate Director for Reorganization & Management Office of Management & Budget Room 246 Old Executive Office Building Washington, D. C.
20503
Dear Mr. Wellford:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the early working draft, dated February 15, 1980, of the NRC reorganization plan.
As a general comment, the draft plan will certainly acccmplish the aim of strengthening the Chairman. Whether it goes a step too far is a debatable point on which I will comment further below.
By way of comments on specific points:
1.
The " functions... concerned with... policy formulation for...the licensing aad related regulatory functions of the Commission..."
(Sec. 1.(a)), I would take to include such matters as the agency's policy, planning, and program guidance documents, the budget, and any significant changes in the way the staff carries out its regulatory duties or in the organization of the staff for those duties.
If I am mistaken in this intent, then further definition of " policy formulation" should be provided in the draft plan.
Also, I would expect that in cases of dispute as to whether a particular matter of agency business constituted such " policy formulation," a majority vote of the Commission would determine the matter.
If the intent of the draft plan is to have the Chairman make such determinations, then the draft plan should say so.
2.
I advise removing the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards from the list of officers appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission (Sec. 1.(b)).
That would leave the ACRS chairmanship to the vote of ACRS itself, as under present law.
The present system has worked well:
"i t ain' t broke--don' t fix it."
8003140o80
Mr. Harrison Wellford Also, does naming of specific nonstatutory officers in Sec.1.(b) fix those offic.es in the statute so that the Conmission has no future flexibility with regard, e.g., to reorganization of the Commission-level office functions? I would hope not.
3.
The provision (Sec. 3.(a)) that the head of any component office may communicate directly with the Conmission or individual Conmissioners about a " critical safety problem" that "is not being adequately addressed" could be read to replace the present "Open Door" policy of the Connission.
An additional sentence to the effect that "this provision is not intended to effect the right of the Conmission to establish and maintain an Open Door policy giving all employees access to the Conmission or any individual Commissioner" would settle any possible misunderstanding.
4.
There are some other specific conments arising from our General Counsel's review of the draf t plan and discussions with my colleagues that will be forwarded to you later.
I understand we will have an opportunity to discuss the draf t plan with you.
On the more general matter of the powers of the Chairman vis-a-vis those of the collegial Commission, the draft plan does not reflect my earlier recommendation that the collegial Conmission should continue to be the fundamental authority of the agency.
I had proposed that this principle could be maintained by giving a majority of Commissioners so voting the power to call any matter of agency business, including personnel matters, before the collegial body for decision.
My assumption was that with the normal scope of Commission and Chairman functions defined as they are in the draf t plan, the exercise of this ultimate collegial authority in matters normally handled by the Chairman would be rare, and would occur only in cases where a majority felt the Chairman was abusing his prerogatives.
It seemed to me a useful check on the powers of the Chairman, and one with which a reasonable Chairman would have no great problem.
I recognize the counter arguments and am unable to claim that they do not have merit.. Choosing precisely the right balance point between the Chairman and the Conmission is a difficult matter at best.
The draft plan does, properly I think, give the collegial body approval rights on the appointment of the principal officers.
With the understanding that the Commission, rather than the Chairman, would determine when a matter
Mr. Harrison Wellford was " policy formulation" under the terms of Sec.1.(a), in cases of dispute, the draft plan may represent as workable a scheme as the one I have recommended.
S Sincerely,
'\\
\\
,)'y UlNWr AqQ L
' ~ Joseph M. Hendrie Commissioner cc:
Chairman Ahearne Conmissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford
.