ML19309C062
| ML19309C062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/14/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Oneill T HOUSE OF REP., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309C063 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004080108 | |
| Download: ML19309C062 (26) | |
Text
%'49
[
o' [7 UNITED STATES s
PIg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555
\\
8
- .*,o March 14, 1980 CFFICE OF THE CHAtRMAN v
The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill
\\
The Speaker of the United Stues House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by the General Accounting Office within 60 days of publication, we hereby submit our comments on the GA0 report entitled "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
More Aggressive Leadership Needed." The GA0 report is required by Section 306(b) of th] Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) which directs the Comptroller General to evaluate the implementation of Title II of the ERA 60 months after the effective date of the Act.
.We found the report to be particularly relevant to NRC at this time, dealing as it does with the history, the full scope, and the fundamental nature and responsibilities of the agency.
As evidenced by individual Commissioner comments on the draft version of the GA0 report (Appendices III-VII of the final report), individual Commissioners differ somewhat on GA0's findings with respect to the Commission's past performance and the implications of those findings.
Nevertheless we agree with the GA0's broad recommendation that the Commissioners must exercise increased leadership and direction in nuclear regulation.
In general (with the important exceptions noted in the enclosures), the Com-
' mission believes that the report provides a reasonable overview of the nature of NRC's organizational and regulatory problems and their status at the time of the GA0 audits and interviews.
It should be noted that the h C's structure, policies and practices have been, and continue to be, revised to reflect the-evolving nature of NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
In addition, in the last six months the NRC has largely implemented or begun to implement many of the recommendations made by the GA0.
We have already taken a number of steps and are planning to intensify our efforts to improve Commission leadership in the specific areas recommended by GAO:
The Commissioners are examining existing NRC policies and formulating new policies to reemphasize safety's paramount importance in all NRC activities.
The renewed emphasis on NRC's primary mission of protecting the public health and safety is being codified by the Commissioners in a new docu-ment, the Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance (PPPG), which will be the primary mech.anism for disseminating basic policy throughout the agency.
Over the last year, the Commission has worked to develop the PPPG in order to improve NRC's previous methods of setting goals and measuring progress.
In the future, we expect ~this effort to coi.ncide 8004080
Th.e Honorable Thomas P..0'Neill -
with the development of our annual budget.
The final PPPG for the current budget cycle will be considered'by the Commission in late March and is expected to be issued in April.
The PPPG process described above will be instrumental in identifying areas in which new Commission policy is needed or in which existing policy requires clarification.
The staff has in place a system for tracking progress on all tasks of policy significance identified as decision units in the budget. The staff's decision unit
tracking system (DUTS) and the Commission's PPPG are the key elements of the Commission's new integrated system for establishing agency goals and measuring agency progress.
The Comission has taken several steps that will increase the Commission's control over the agency's policy-making.
The Commission intends to make greater use of Commission-level offices in policy development, in part by having the staff coordinate more closely with Commission offices at an earlier stage of policy development than has heretofore been the case.
Examples of increased use of Commission-level offices include the recent study of delegations of authority by the Offices of General Counsel and Policy Evaluation and studies by OGC of the Commission's ex parte rules and practices and of the role of the NRC appeal board.
Rejiresentatives of OPE and OGC have served on agency-wide task forces such as those which studied construction during adjudication, the use of part-time members on the licensing panel, and cleanup of the Three Mile Island plant.
To meet these needs as well as maintain its other statutory responsibilities, the OGC staff has been increased. The Office of Policy Evaluation has been directed to give increased emphasis to longer-range matters.
The net result of these efforts will be a substantial increase in Commission leadership in and control over agency policy development.
The Commission has also addressed the urgent matter of clarifying its roles and those of key staff.
Although the Commissioners differ on the degree of authority the Chairman should have relative to other Commissioners and the best means of providing it, we do agree that the Chairman should exercise supervision of the staff, at least in matters on which the Commission policy is established.
With respect to the role of the Executive Director, we have made it clear to the Office Directors that, notwithstanding their rights to communicate with the Commission directly, the EDO is the agent of the Commission in supervising the staff's implementation of Commission policy.
As you know, the President is developing a reorganization plan for the NRC.
Copies of our comments on elements of that plan relevant to these points are attached in Enclosure 1.
In sum, we agree with the GA0's report that the Commission must exercise in-creased letdership in nuclear regulation.
Our principal focus is the agency's present performance and the need to continue to identify and implement the improvements consistent with the agency's primary mission of protecting the public health and safety in the future.
We believe the record of the recent past.and our plans for the future provide a strong basis for confidence that we can and will meet that need.
'me.
The-Honorable Thomas P. 0'Neill -
Responses to the recommendations of the report are in Enclosure 1 and comments 3
. on the findings are in Enclosure 2.
, Sincerely,
\\
2 John F. Ahearne Chairman i
Enclosures:
As stated s
cc:
Elmer B. Staats
/
Comptroller General of the United States 1
s 9-1 i
e a
g 7
4 6
T I-
,m.
Responses to Recommendations Chapter 2 l.
Take the initiative in formalizing a relationship between NRC and 00E which permits the agencies to coordinate their high-level waste programs without compromising NRC's ability to independently license and regulate future DOE high-level waste storage and/or disposal facilities (page 23).
NRC. agrees that there should be a continuing relationship between NRC and DOE for the purpose of coordinating the high-level waste programs.
The NRC staff initiated such a relationship with DOE during the early part of 1979.
Regularly scheduled joint meetings are convened to discuss major high-level waste management issuas.
The meeting schedules are published in the Federal Register and the public is invited to attend. Any mat'erial and substantive comments presented at these meetings are placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Based on the GA0 recomniendation described above, the NRC will take the initiative to formalize the procedures pre-sently being used with DOE. The Waste Management Program Area Manager has been assigned lead responsibility for this action and the Commission will actively oversee it.
2.
Decide whether or not, and if so how much, NRC should rely on DOE high-level' nuclear waste programmatic environmental statements in discharging NRC's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (page 23).
In its decision to publish the Policy Statement on Licensing Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High Level Waste (11/17/78), the Commission explicitly decided to prepare its own environmental statements for site-specific applications. The Commission agrees that it must decide whether and to what extent NRC should rely on DOE's programmatic statement.
The i
Waste Management Program Area Manager has been assigned lead responsi-bility for this action and the Commission will actively oversee it.
3.
Track research projects from inception through incorporation into licensing and related regulatory processes to insure that research results are incorporated to the fullest possible extent into nuclear regulation (page 23).
i i
Improvement is necessary both in the means of linking research programs into the licensing programs and in developing a long-range research program.
There are currently two tracking systems in the agency which monitor the results of research programs.
One system, which tracks research projects from the user office request for research, is based pn research infor-mation letters prepared and issued (about two per month in FY 79) by the Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and transmitted to NRC user i
offices.
Each letter reports on the completion of a substantial body of research (which may involve more than one project). A summary report on
.the utilization of the research results is issued quarterly and includes
a discussion of the potential applicability of each research information letter to the regulatory process, as well as comments from the cognizant user and RES staff.
At present, the system tracks the more significant programs from the viewpoint of regulatory impact but does not track every
-research project.
However, the system is being improved to track every program which has been requested by a program office. All research programs are currently being reexamined to note how they impact on the licensing and regulatory process. This reexamination is to improve the utilization of research results in the regulatory process.
Also, RES is directly involved in the development of an agency action plan, one element of which addresses how research programs provide information on licensing or regulatory issues.
The agency has also recently established an upper management tracking system to monitor major or significant program areas based upon decision units.
This Decision Unit Tracking System (DUTS) covers RES's 15 decision units and monitors research results (research information letters, major test completions, computer code releases) and provides management with resource (obligation of funds, manpower utilization, etc.) information.
Although DUTS does not cover research programs from inception, almost all of our programs are endorsed by a user prior to contract initiation.
This requirement, combined with the two tracking systems, has improved control over NRC's research activities. Additionally, both the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards review work performed by RES for them at Research Review Group meetings and through review of RES publications.
The Commission has J
recently t_ asked the ED0 and RES to develop a long-range research plan to be reviewed annually by the Commission, the major staff offices, and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
Procedures for notifying Licensing Boards and Appeal Boards of significant new research results that are relevant to cases and issues under adjudication are being stream-lined to better assure effective and timely communication of the appropriate information.
Chapter 3 1.
Develop measurable NRC goals, objectives, and systems for evaluting NRC's performance in meeting goals and objectives.
The Commissioners are developing the policy, planning, and program guidance (PPPG) system which is expected to be published in April.
The guidance is intended to provide the staff with explicit statements of the Commission's policies, plans, and priorities for major programs.
The establishment of explicit goals will permit more effective continuous measurement of Commission performance.
The PPPG sets and measures overall Commission policies while progress on specific programs is monitored through the Decision Unit Tracking System (DUTS) which complements the PPPG and measures accomplishments and resource
,needs of NRC programs.
2.
Increase the Commissioners' use of the Office of Inspector and Auditor in evaluating the NRC staff's performance in meeting NRC goals and objectives.
We concur fully in this recommendation. As an initial step, the Commission will take a more active role in the development of OIA's audit plan and in establishing priorities for areas in which evaluations are to be carried out.
The Commission is now considering which audit areas should be con-sidered the highest priorities for this year and is scheduled to hold a public meeting on this subject soon.
3.
Elevate policy-making activities to the Commissioner level.
A logical place for these activities would be the Commissioners' present Office of Policy Evaluation.
The Commission agrees that it must take a more direct role in the formu-lation of regulatory policy than it has in the past and has already taken a number of steps to do so. The policy, planning and program guidance will develop a stronger role for the Commissioners in policy-making by focusing their attention on the major issues facing NRC. The early and continuing involvement of Commission-level offices in major policy develop-ment activities will also draw the Commissioners into a closer working relationship with the staff. The staff of the Office of General Counsel has been increased and both the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Policy Evaluation have been given increased responsibilities for policy development.
4.
Define the NRC Chairman's authority and duties as NRC's principal executive officer and place the Executive Director for Operations in charge of all URC staff-level day-to-day operations.
If necessary to implement this recommendation, the Commissioners should seek appropriate legislation from the Congress.
The Commission has delineated the respective authorities and duties of the Commission, the Chairman, and the Executive Director and suggested legislative language to confirm its position in the attached January 7 letter to James McIntyre of the Office of Management and Budget.
(Chairman Ahearne's differing opinion on these matters is also set forth in that letter.) Further, the Commission has spelled out to the staff the responsi-bilities and authorities of the Executive Director and his relationship to the Commission, the Chairman, and staff offices (see Attachment 2).
Chapter 5 With reference to your discussion of alternative forms of organization, four of the five Commissioners hold the view that the Commission form is preferable for-regulation to an agency headed by one person.
Chairman Ahearne continues
^:,
A_
. to hold the view, expressed in his letter to GA0 of.0ctober 26, 1979, that
.th'e single administrator form is preferable.
t Attachments:
1.
Letter, to. James T. McIntyre, Jr.,
dated 1/7/80 2.
Role of the Executive Director for Operations, dated 1/24/80 e
l '
F j
l t
i l
l
-l l
- FTpw
' LMM9&MlNGULATORY COMMISSIOW 4
j!
- WASHINGTON, D. C.20555
(%.
6 January 7, 1980 CHAIRMAN Ihc Honorable James T. mci'ntyre, Jr.
t Director. Office of Management and Budget-
' Room 255 Old Executive Office Building -
~
Washington, D.C., 29593
Dear Mr. McIntyre:
'In his December.7,1979 statement, the' President said he would shortly sufEait to the Congress a reorganization plan for NRC.
He further stated that the plan, 4
would (1) strengthen the role of the Chairman as the chief executive officer, (2) empower th'e Chairman to select key personnel, and (3) authorize the Chairman to act on 'the Commission's behalf in an emergency.
The Commission understands that the Office of Management' and Budget is to prepare the plan, and wants to submit to OM3 its v.iews on the topics to be addressed in the plan.
' The Commission agrees that the central premise of any reorganization plan hould
.be the retention of the collegial body.
I would have personally preferred -the course of a single-head, Executive branch agency, as proposed by the President's Commission on the Accident at Tlree Mile Island.
However, the Presidents decision was to retain the collegial structure, and that decision clearly has wide support both inside and outside this Commission.
It is the view of the Commission that retention of the Commission structdre logically requires the Commissioners as a collegial body to possess the basic authority typically held by the heads 6f other adminis.trative agencies.
The Commission believes that this authority must inexorably extend to any matter that the Commission, acting in its collegial role as head'of the agency, deter-mines to be impo'rtant to the mission of the agency.
Only then can it ensure the proper di.scharge of the agency's statutory responsibilities".
Since I am
.not fully in accord wi.th this principle, my views differ i.n some respects from tiie position of the Commission.
I will provide those views to you at 4
the end of this letter.
Tur'ning to the specific items to be addressed in the plan, the Commissions
,posi, tion is as follows:.
- 1.,
The Resoective Roles of the Commission as 'a Colleoial Body, the Chair
- Mii, 'and the Executive Director for Ooerations.
The collegial Commission shou.1d deal with all adjudicatory matters, rulemaking' decisions, significant regulatory policy matters as determined'~by the Ccamission, and such other 8hmenu
...1 L
I J
.g
" to m$tters as a majority of the Commissioners wants to consider.The Comission should establish the basic policy, planning and program guidance for the agency and should review and approve the agency's budget proposals.
Major.
reorganizations of the staff should be reviawed and approved 'by the Comis-sion.
.The Chairman should be the Chief Executive Officer of the agency
.'As^such,
~!
he should manage the affairs of the. agency and be responsible for its day-to-day operations.
He should carry out the decisions of the Comission and deal with all matters of agency business not assigned to the Commi'ssion as coll.egial functions, in accordance with the Commission's policies and deci-sions.
He should act through the EDO to manage the staff and the resources of the agency in accordance with the decisions of the Commission.
The EDO should be the Chief Staff Officer and sliould act as the Comission' agent, under the -general supervision.of the Chairman, in managing the day-to-day operations of the agency.
He should develop for the Ccenission the j
planning and program guidance and the budget.
~
business on track, keep the Commission properly informed, control theHe sho
.l quality,of the staff's submissions in the Comission's decisionmaking process, and act as the representative of the Commissio,n as directed.
- 2.
The Selection of Key Personnel.
The Commission should appoint the EDO, the directors of the five principf. program offices (the Office of Nuclear Reictor Regulation,.the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, the Office of.Inspec-tion and Enforcement, and the Office of Standards Development), the Execti-tive Legal Director, the heads of the Comission-level offices (the Office of Gen'eral Counsel, Office of Policy Evaluation, Office of the Secretary, j
Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of Inspector and Auditor, and Office of Public Affairs)', members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing
{
App 6al Board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and the Advisory Ccmmittee on. Reactor Safeguards, and such other agenci officials as the 1
'1 l
Commission may.s or hi.s des,ignee.pecify. Other appointments should be made by the Chairman
(
Few.' subordinate officia s of the agency possess solely admihistrative or
~
. executive functions, an[d none of them is amo,ng the specifi I.
the Commission would appoint under the above arrangement.
The work of the f
Commission-level offices relates predominantly to the commission as a '
3 collegial body, and each of the specified staff officials has. substantial
- esponsibilities with respect to the Commission's collegial f. unctions, If.,
r
~
~
.such officials weie to be appointed by the Ghairman, then they.would.no long'er be accountable to the Commission even though they would continue to influence and be involved in its collegia 1 functions. '
n V
I
9
, to 3
Excluding the appoint [$ents for tiie Licensing and Appeal Boards and the ACRS, the Commission's proposed structure should reduce the number of appointments in which the Commission is involved from 43 to 13, assuming a majority of the Commiss. ion did not choose to go beyond the number specified.
- 3. *
- Emeroency Resoonse. The Commission flas recognized the potentialli i
serious shortcomings of collegial actions during an emergency and the need to designate.a single agency official to act on its behalf when time,is of the essence.
However, the Chairman may not be the best qualified person to handle the technical complexities of an emergency in all instances.
The Commission's preferred approach,would be a'. statutory provision authorir-ing delegation of most Commission functions, including those relating te -
emergency response, to individial Commissioners including the Chairman.
Such delegation authority would comport with that of most other independent Commissions.
The Commission also recommends giving the Chairman authority to delegate h,is functions, as a logical extension of giv.ing similar authority to the Commission.
At a minimum, authority should be provided for delegation of emergency management functions alone.
Current law does not provide for
- either,this broad or this narrow authority.
4.
Other Matters.
There are other changes in the Commission structure" which might be effected by a reorganization plan.but which the President did not propose in his statem.ent.
The Commission will me'et shortly to
. consider which if any of these changes it may wish to recommend.
So that you may have our views as early as possible on those subjects mentioned by' the President, we have chosen not to delay this submission until we ar.e i
able to present a position on these other matters.
As soon as we are able to meet to discuss them, we will for. ward any additional recommendations
. that we may have. -
5 My own view is that a stronger executive structure is called' for and that the Chairman must be responsible for the operation of the staff.
Although some of -
the positions above are steps in this direction, I do not believe they go far-enough to. piovid'e significant improvement in the ef.ficie'ncy of Commission opera-M/. positions en these points, where they differ from those ' stated above, tion.
are as. fo. ll.ows :
1.
The collegial Commission should deal.with all adjudicatory matters','
rulemaking decisions.and significant policy matters.
I do not believe its'
/-
charter should include the bioader definition 'of '.'such other matters as. a
' majority.of the Co:rhissioners wants to consider."
This phrase kould i.n effect leave op'en any and all issues, actions, and day-to-day operations
.c for the coll.egial Commission to decide.
j e
o
.e i
.~o.
ga 4 to The EDO sh'ould be Ch'ief Staff Officer and should act as the Chairman's agent in managing the day-to-day operations of the agency.
It is critical to set up a single-line of authority if an operating agency is to be run effectively.
'The Chairman should appoint the EDO and directors of the five princi-
'2.
pal program offices and approve all other staff appointments he chooses to review.
To establish clearly the single line of authority, the Chairman should be designated by statute as the appointing official for staff other
~
than the Commission level staff.
The full Commission should. appoint the heads of the Commission level offices (Office of General Counsel, Office of Policy Evaluatign, Office of the Secretary Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of Inspector and Auditor, and Office of Public Affairs), members of the Atomic Safetf and Licensing Appeal Board, the Atomic Safety and I.icens-
.,ing Board Panel and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
3.
Emergency response is the most demanding function in terms of rapid decision making of an operational agency..The line of authority must be clear and set up to allow incisive decision making.
I believe placing such authority in a single person is much wiser than placing it in a group.
In addition, emergency response is a highly technical operations problem.
It must be directed by that. person most familiar with the technical capabilities of key members of the staff.
Therefore, I support the' proposal. to make the Chairman solely responsible for emergency response.
He should also have authority to delegate any functions he sees fit to anyone, including other Commissioners.
The Commission is uncertain whether the President now intends to address all of th above matters in the reorganization plan or whether some may be addressed by a statutory amendment.
Accordingly, the Commission has attached amended language
+
for the Energy Reorganization Act (42 U.S.C. I 5801 et seo.) which it believes would' formalize the structure it proposes under the above headings.
I have also 1
, attached amendatory language which embodies my own views.
We remain available
'lto provide any assistance we can.
Sin _relyt.
~
h s-J obn F. Ahearne Attac,$aents as stated '
e 1
6
wr-
'(1)
RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE COMMISSION AS A to COLLEGIAL BODY, THE CHAIRMAN, AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
, Commission's crocosal:
Amend the ' Energy : Reorganization Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
55801 ot sec,.) --
t
~
1.
By amanding the f,if th sentence of section 2al(a) (1) to read as follows:
~
Each member' of the Commission, includ'ing the Chai man, shall have equal responsibility and authority in all decisions and actions of the Commission in the exercise of its functions under~p'aragraph (3) of this subsection, shall have full access to all information relating to the performance of his duties or responsibilities, and shall have one vote.
2.
By repealing paragraphs (2), (3), (4 ),' and (5 ) of section 201(a), and by substituting the following new paragraphs (2) and (3,) to that section:
~
,"(2) The Chairman of the Commissio.3 shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission and shall exercise
)
1 all of the executive and administrat.ive functions of die Commission.
The Chairman shall have authority with respect to ahd be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the
. Commission including (a) the supervision of personnel employed under the Commission (other than personnel employed regularly and full time in the immediate offices of Commissioners other than the Chairman, and-except as otherwise provided in the Energy Reorgani=ation. Act of 1974 as amended), (b) the distrib.ution of business among such personnel and among administrative units of the Commisison, and (c) the use and expenditure of funds, and for' all matters not within th,e authetity and responsibility of the Commission 'under paragraph (3) of this subsection.
The Chairman shall act through the Executive Director for Operations to exercise management control over all offices reporting to or through the Executive Director, and.over the resources of the Commission.
The Chairman shall exercise his functions in accordance with the policies and decisions of the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 1
~
- to
"(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this su'bsection, there are reserved to' the Commission authority with respect to and responsibility for all adjudicatory matters, rulemaking decisions, significant, regulatory policy matters as determined by the Commission, and such other matters as the commission votes to consider.
The Commission shall establish the basic policy, planning and program guidance for the Commissicn and its staff, and should review and approve the Commission's b,udget and major reorganizations of its staff.
~
3.
By repealing the first twelve (12) words of subsection
-(b) *of section 209 and by substituting the following words:
The Executive Director shall be the Chief Staff
~
Officer of. the Commission and shall act as the agent of the Commission under the general supervision of the Chairman.
(2) SELECTION OF KEY PERSONNEL Commission's orcoosal,:
~
Amend the ' Energy Reorganization Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
S5810 et sec.) by adding a new paragraph (4)' to section. 201(a)'
to read as follows:
"(4) The Commission shall have the' authority to appoint and remove the Executive Difector for operations, the Directors of the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, the Office of Inspection,and Enforcement and the office of Standards Development,- She Executive Legal Director, the General Counsel, the Directors of th5 Office of Policy Evaluation, the office of congressional Aff ai,rs, l
the. office of Inspector and Auditor and the office 'of Publire Affairs, the. secretary of the commission, and such other '
~
officials a,s the Commission may specify.
The chairman.shall
.. have the authority to appoint and remove all other personnel -
'of the Commission
~
m e.
e o
s*
~
~
' Attachment 1 to-3 Enclosur,e 1 t
(3) EMERGENCE RESPONSE A.
Version which the commission erefers:
Amend the. Energy Reorgani::ation Act as amended (42 U.S.C. S 5801' et_sec.) by adding the following new section 201(i):
i
"(i)
Except for those functions. which may not be
- delegated under section 161n of the Atomic Energy Act as amended, the commission shall have the authority to delegate any of its functions,to one or more individual commissioners, including. the chairman, or to any officer or employee of the commission
, and the chairman shall have the authority to delegate any of his functions to one or mord individual Commissioners or to any officer or employee of the Commission.
3 Version which is acceotable to, but not oreferred by,~
_the commission Amend the Energy Reorganization Act as amended (42 U.S.C. S 5801, ot _sec.) by adding the following new section 201(i):
"(i). Except for tho'se functions.which may not be delegated under section 161n of the Atomic Energy Act as amended, the commission shall have the authority to delegate any of its functions concerning emergency response management to one or more individual commissioners, including the chairman, or to any officer or employee of the commission.
e 3
e vm
""~ to Enclosur.e 1
~ (1)
RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE COMMISSION AS A COLLEGIAL BODI, THE CHAIRMAN, AND THE EXECU.TIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
- Chairman Ahearne's prooosal:
Amend the Energy Reorganization Act as amended (4 2 U.S.C. S 5801 ot sec.)
1.
By amending the 'fifth sentence of section 201(a)(1) to coad'as foll6ws:
J Each member of the Commission, including the C,hairman, s
shall have ecual responsibility and authority.in all decisions and actions of the Qommission in the exercise of its functions under paragraph (3) of this subsection and shall have one vote.
2.
By repealing paragraphs (2), ( 3, ), (4)', and (5) of section 201(a), and by substituting the following new paragraphs (2) and (3) to that section:
"(2)
The Chairman of the Commissi'o,n shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission and shall exercise all of the executive and administrative func-tions of Cae Commission.
The Chairman shall have author, ity Qith respect to and be responsible for the day-to-day
~
', operations of the Commission and for all matters not within the authority and responsibility of the commission under, paragraph '(3) of this subsection.
The Chairman shall 'act through the Executive Director for Operations to exercise management control over all offices report-
. ing to or through the Executive Director, and over the resourc'es of the Commission.
The Chairman shall exercise his functions in accordance with the role of the Commission as described in paragraph (3) of this subsection.
."(3)
Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsec' tion, there are reserved to the Commission authority with respect to and responsibility for all adjudicatory matters, rulemaking decisions, and significant regulatory policy matters as derermined by the Commission.
Tne Commission shall establish the -basic policy,. planning and program guidance for the
. ', Commission and its staff, and should review and approve the Commission's budget and inajor reorgani:ations of its staff.
w-
- 3 Attachment I to
.3.
By repealing subsection (b) of section 209 and by substituting the following new subsection:
"(b)
The Executive Director shall be the Chief
~
Staff Officer of the Commission and shall act as the agent 'of-the Chairman under the. general supervision of
.the Chairman.
The director of each component organiza g
tion of the. commission, ~ other than the General Counsel, the Directors of the Office of Policy Evaluation,.the
,0ffice of Congressional Affairs, the Office of Inspector
..{
.and Auditor and the Office of Public Affairs, and the, Secretary of the Commission, shall report through the Executive Director.
4.
By repealing from the first sentence of each of sections 203(d), 204(d), and 205(d) the words ", who may report directly to 4
- the Commission, as provided in. section 209,".
\\
(2)
SELECTION OF KEY PERSONNEL t
Chairman Ahearne's crocosal:
\\
Amend the Energy Reorganization Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
S 5801 og sec.)--
1, By' repealing from the first sentence,of each of sections 203(a),.204(a), and 205(a) all after the first comma, by substi-tuting a period therefo're and by adding a new pa$agraph (4 ) 'to s
i
' sectio'n 201(a) to read as'follows:
i
"(4)
The Commission shall have the authority to i
appoint and remove the General Counsel, the Directors of Cae Office of Poli.cy Evaluation,.the office of -
)
- ' Congressional. Affairs, the office of Inspector and-d Auditor and the Office of Public Af f airs, and the Se'cretary 'of the Commission.
The Chairman shall have of the' Commission.ppoint and remo.ve all other personnel the. authority to a
.I
-2.', By repea. ling subsection (a.) of section 209 and by substi-tuting 'the foll.owing new subsection:
'i
"(a)
.There is hereby established in the Commission l
' an Executive Director for Operations.
- w.. *
~
t@
3
'[ to i
~
~
s (3)
EMERGENCY RESPONSE s
.Chairmkn 'Ahearne's crocosal:
- (Note:
Chairman Aheaine believes that the Commission',s versio^n "A" would be a desirable change 1.n the law for the Commiss. ion's day-to-day functioning.
However, neither version "A" nor version "3" represents his position for emergency response.)
. Amand the Energy Reorganization Act as amended (42 U.S.C. S 5801
.et ses.) by adding a new paragraph (5) to section 201(a) to read.
as follows:
"(5)
Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of thi,s subsection, the Chairman shall have the exclusive authority to exercise any function concerning emergency response management during an emergency, and the auth-ority to delegate any such function other than those functions which may not be delegated under section 161n of the Atomic Energy Act as amended, to one or more.
individ.ual Commissioners' or to any officer or employee of the Commission.
E e
I a
e f
O a
O e
.g e
.: 6 " %
(
~'
('.'CREI ARIAI KtLunu ous i o e m tosre,rss
.[ ',....
..UCLE A R R EG U L ATO R Y CO.*."!FC*'".'
~
j, 4f;.gy.y* i E
Assir.c;cn.o.c. :sss to M,,;.,p/
.e January 22, i550 ct:4:rst.uu t'
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ThoseonAttachedLisp f
f,/
{
FROM:
John Ahearne
SUBJECT:
ROLE OF THE EXEC.UTIVE DIRECTOR.FOR OPEPATIONS Over the past few months the Commissioners have developed an agreed upon description of the role of the Executive Director for Operations.
This document describes how the current Commissich believes the Executive Director should function under the existing statutes.
It describes the -
. responsibilities and the authorities we believe the Executive Director has and the role the Executive Director should have with respect to the major NRC offices.-
This description has been approved unanimously.
4 Attachment
.i i
e D
O N
Nc.'
\\
M O
,b L to o
Executive' Di rector The Executive Director is the chief officer of the staff and acts as the Commission's agent in directing and ' coordinating staff activities, under
.the general. supervision of the Chairman, in the day-to-day running of
-the agency.
The.ED will:
Receive directions from the Commission, by memoranda from the Secretary.
'r -
Receive directions from the Chairman, acting pursuant to i
Commission decisions or in accordance with the Chairman's*
function as chief executive officer of the agency.
Receive requests for information from individual ~ Commissioners, by memoranda.
The ED is responsible for and has authority to perform the following functions:
1.
Plan and direct the agency's operational activities and develop and' execute the agency budget, consistent with Comission policies and guidance.
Require office directors to develop proposed office policies,
' objectives, and milestones.
Review and bring significant questions of policy to the attention of the Commission for its resolution.
Upon such resolution, the ED would direct the office directors to carry out Commission approved policies and meet approved objectives.
Recommend to the Commissioners a budget (with alternatives) consistent with the Commission's planning and programming guidance.
j 2.
Keep agency business on track:
Track performance of offices in carrying out Commission policies and objectives and milestones.
Fo' llow petitions, rulemakings, hearings, Commissioner informa- -
tion requests.
Oversee allocation of agency staff resources among offices.
Identify resource problems and direct reallocation of staff and funds where necessary to achieve Commission objectives.
3.
Inform the Commission:
Bring to the Commissioners' attention important developments and agency business in a timely manner, and make regular
~
progress reports on approved objectives and programs.
e
httachment2to.
~.
Enclosura 1 Identify items that require additional cuidance from the Commission necessary to ensure Co:..ission's policies are implemented.
4.
Make administrative decisions:
Supervisory and routine personnel decisions:
hiring, fi. ring, promotion, salary, and training of agency sta.ff apart.from major office heads.
Budget control and execution to implement Congressional and '
Commission decisions.
Chair the Executive Resources Board and direct its subcommittees.
Resolve EE0 and grievance matters.
Ensure adequate support services for the agency in the areas of transportation, supply, communications, contractural matters, office space, etc.
Other matters as appropriate.
)
5.
Advise on major staff appointments:
Advise and assist the Commission in'the selection and performance evaluation of major office heads (the five major pr.ogram office directors, and the ELD) and such other staff officers ~.
s as the Commission may specify.
~
Review and approve, after consultation with the Chairman, recommendations of the program office directors for selection of deputy office directors, division directors, and equivalent rank senior officers and recommendations for ED-level office di rectors.
6.
Represent the Commission:
Among other functions, serve as final review and signatory for responses to State and Federal officials where major new policy questions are not involved (with selected exceptions, such as responses to the President and Chairmen of oversight committees).
7.
Control quality of HRC staff input to the agency decisionmaking process; review all major items coming to the Commission:
1 Ensure that papers and briefings to the Commission are clear, succinct, complete and timely.
Ensure that issues affecting several offices are suitably coordinated and that all major views are presented to' the Commission.
The ED need not resolve these interoffice positions, but rather ensure that they are presented clearly and promptly.
i f
ttachment 2 to
.e s
4-
.D STRIBUT10'! LIST:
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Comissioner Hendrie Comissioner Bradford t
ufhe Secretary Executive Director for Operations Office Directors ED0 Staff Offices Commission Staff Offices Regional Directors e
e g
e e
- s a
4 9
4 m
o Coments on. Findings.
Chapter 2 l.
In nuclear power plant regulation NRC has relied too much on the basic regulatory philosophy it inherited from AEC'(page 6). NRC accepted and continued nuclear regulation as it found it (page 44).
The Commission agrees that there was a resistance to change attributable in large part to the carryover of both management and staff from the AEC and to reluctance to change a licensing system which appeared to provide adequately for public health and safety and which allowed prompt, uncon-tentious licensing. NRC's regulatory mandate had been expanded over that of the AEC so that the Comission necessarily devoted a good deal of its time and attention initially to development of-programs and policies 'in new or expanded areas of regulatory responsibility, such as nuclear materials safeguards, waste management, research, and export licensing.
Also the influence of the Congressional -Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy which had closely supervised the AEC and its regulatory activities for many years, may have created a climate in which substantial changes in regulation were difficult. With time the Commission has undertaken new initiatives in siting, emergency planning, data analysis, and other key areas even before TMI. The TMI accident has accelerated such efforts, and resulted in still further proposals for change.
2.
NRC relied on licensees to identify and correct deficiencies without enough emphasis on independent NRC inspection and analysis (page 7).
The Comission agrees that direct verification is desirable and has been steadily increasing independent verification of licensee activities with the emphasis on reducing auditing of licensee paperwork and placing inspectors at reactor sites so that more of their time can be devoted to direct observation and analysis of licensee actions.
There is, however, 1
a resource limit on independent verification; without vastly expanded resources, NRC cannot possibly directly monitor more than a small fraction l
of licensee work.
NRC's expanded resident inspector program, which we are now accelerating, represents an appropriate balancing of these considerations.
3.
NRC needs to be tougher and more aggressive in enforcing compliance with its recomendations (page 7).
)
The Commission recognized long before the TMI accident that its enforce-ment policy required revision and took two major steps:
(1) asking Congress to raise the statutory limit on civil penalties and,(2) a complete review of the approach of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to enforce-ment actions and'the use of civil penalties.
The staff has conducted a
. comprehensive review of the enforcement program and policy. A Commission meeting-is scheduled for March to discuss the results of the staff's
, review.
4.
NRC did not attach sufficient importance to comprehensive evaluations of operating experiences (page 10).
'The Commission agrees and has established a new Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, reporting to the Executive Director, to-accord this function the importance it deserves. The new office serves as a focal point for NRC's expanded activities in this area which include work by groups in each of the major offices and cooperative work with industry groups.
In addition, we have under consideration alternative structures for better integrating licensing and inspection efforts on operating reactors.
5.
NRC did not recognize the need for sound off-site emergency preparedness (page 11).
The Commission has decided, as the GA0 report recognizes, that emergency
~
plans are basic to sound regulation.
To implement this view, the Commission is requiring upgrading of licensee emergency plans and is considering requiring acceptable State plans to be in place before new licenses are issued.
It is also relevant to note that the primary responsibility for review of State emergency plans has been transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, although NRC retains important responsibilities for emergency preparedness.
6.
The Commissioners have been indecisive on the proper scope of NRC's nuclear waste activities (page 13).
7.
NRC nuclear waste activities have been unfocused, underfunded, and unco-ordinated (page 13).
The Commission agrees that the waste management program lacked definition until early 1979.
This was due in large measure to NRC's adoption of a reactive role, awaiting the results of initiatives being undertaken by DOE (and ERDA), the agencies primarily responsible for developing a national waste management policy, rather than helping more actively to frame the national program by issuing early regulatory guidance.
The Commission issued a policy statement on licensing of high-level waste repositories in November, 1978. The Commission has approved program plans in the waste area and has directed the increase in resources and the improvement in program planning as well as the more active role of NRC in waste management.
NRC has also greatly improved its relationship with DOE, although many issues remain to be resolved because the national program involves many other partie's (other Federal agencies, States, Congress, etc.). The NRC staff was not largely ignorant of DOE's activities until January 1, 1979,
.as the report. suggests, though there was no formal relationship and co-ordination was clearly inadequate.
The designation of a program area
~
,e manager'(the Director, Division of Waste Management) has greatly improved general program coordination and particularly the use of research in the program.
8.
NRC has been slow to upgrade safeguards regulations (page 15).
The Comission agrees that it has been slow in some instances to upgrade safeguards, but this upgrading has in fact taken place and is taking place, although perhaps at a slower pace than is desirable.
Safeguards is an area of great controversy since it is largely driven by hypothetical i
threats. The extensive efforts to define these threats and to establ'ish '
regulations based on hypotheses has tended to slow the pace.
- However, recent efforts have resulted in issuance of a number of effective rules l
covering upgrades in physical protection of material at fuel facilities and in transportation, sabotage at power reactors, protection of material of intermediate and low strategic importance, and protection of spent fuel shipments.
9.
NRC has been slow to establish firm control over research at DOE laboratories (page 18).
10.,NRC has not established controls to track research through incorporation into regulatory requirements (page 19).
The Commission agrees that formal controls on the research program were not as extensive as is desirable, but the program controls described in the cover letter have since been put into place to accomplish both objectives.
The new measures have given NRC better control of its research work and the results, although work is continuing.
Chapter 3
]
1.
The Commissioners have not developed measurable goals, objectives, and evaluation systems (page 27).
The Commission agrees that past attempts to characterize and track regu-latory objectives have been deficient. The new policy, planning, and program guidance document and decision unit trackin with the agency's budgeting and allocation process,g system, in combinatior.
will be the vehicles for the development of goals and objectives and the evaluation of agency progress.
Commissioners will decide on explicit goals for the agency and will be apprised of progress and accomplishments.
9 i
- ,, o
~ Enclosure 2 '
2.
The ComrJissioners have accepted regulatory practice without critical analysis (page 29).
The Commission is reassessing its regulatory practices in light of the' lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident.
If there is a common flaw revealed in the events that have led to this reassessment, it is a complacency that served to undercut the many conscientious efforts within the agency to assure nuclear safety.
The Commission agrees that past regulatory practices were generally accepted without a complete and systematic review which might have led to wideranging change. The reasons for this are discussed in response 1. of Chapter 2.
The Commissioners intend to take a more direct role in basic safety decisions and have instituted a systematic review of all of the Commission's regulations.
. These and other actions resulting from TMI will provide an appropriate critical analysis of the NRC's regulatory practices, j
3.
The Comissioners have not fully used their inspection office to evaluate NRC performance (page 29).
The Commission agrees that more efficient use of the Office of Inspector and Auditor (0IA) will make evaluation of NRC performance easier and will help to direct management attention to areas which need improvement.
Consequently, the Commission will review OIA's audit plan with a view to establishing priorities.
4.
The Commissioners have not controlled policy-making (page 30).
The Commission agrees that it needs to take a more active role in policy-making and is taking steps to ensure that clear Commission directives are provided to the staff and that they are acted on. Among the steps con-templated are more direct involvement in safety and licensing decisions, greater use of rulemaking to resolve generic questions, the Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance system, and strengthening of the role of the Commission-level Office of Policy Evaluation.
(OPE). With regard to the first of these steps, the Commissioners are making decisions on applications for_ operating licenses, at least for those plants now ready or almost ready to operate.
5.
NRC has been slow to recognize policy needs (page 31).
The Commission agrees that its policy has often been set in an ad hoc fashion and policy on some issues has been redefined a number of times with reference to individual licensing cases.
The Commission intends to use rulemaking to a greater extent and has given increased responsibility
' to the Office of Standards Development for that purpose.
Greater responsi-l bility for policymaking will also devolve on the Commission-level offices.
The Commission is also contemplating means for surfacing and resolving 5
i I
.. o 1._ -
policy issues which emerge from staff licensing, research, and other activities; from licensing and appeal board proceedings; and from outside sources such as other agencies, the industry, and petitions from the public. The means may include an interoffice group to advise the Commis-sioners on the extent to which~various. issues need to be dealt with by; Commission policy.
6.
NRC has taken too long to develop proposed policies (page 32).
The Commission agrees that both the process for developing policies and the mechanisms for recognizing issues have been inadequate. Much of'the delay._is attributable to attempts to reconcile divergent viewpoints before the proposed policy is presented to the Commissioners.
By giving direction to the staff early in the process of policy development and by requiring that important differences of opinion be brought before them, the Commissioners intend to speed this process.
Similarly, significant delays have resulted from the lack of effective procedures at the Commission level to ensure
~
~
that Commissioners' views are obtained and reconciled in a timely fashion.
The Commissioners recently instituted procedures in this regard which should, in large measure, correct this situation.
- 7..The Commissioners have not defined their roles and relationships with staff offices (page 35).
8.
The role of the Executive Director for Operations should be clarified and strengthened (page 37).
i Each of the Comissioners commented extensively on this point in their letters concerning the draft version of the report.
Their individual views have not changed in the interim, but they have arrived at a collegial position which is expressed in a letter of January 7, 1980 from Chairman Ahearne to James T. McIntyre, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The letter, which is attached to Enclosure 1, delineates the Commission view and the Chairman's separate view on these questions, and proposes legislation to implement the Commission view.
\\
1
.