ML20150D682
| ML20150D682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/01/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Burdick Q SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803250015 | |
| Download: ML20150D682 (3) | |
Text
,,
b po ngo UNITED STATES o
S")#
',h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555 E
g?
k.".... o#
March 1, 1988 CH AIRM AN The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works tlnited States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In October 29, 1987 testimony presented to the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, a majority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expressed support for legislation which would replace the NRC with an agency headed by a single administrator.
Thereafter, the Subcommittee solicited our comments on a specific legislative proposal which would establish a single administrator agency -- the "Nuclear Regulation Reorganization and Reform Act of 1987".
On December 8, 1987, the Commission, after reviewing the draft legislation, reiterated its conceptual support for such legislation, but for specified reasons concluded that the draft bill was unacceptable.
Subsequently, the Subcommittee revised its proposal and on February 22 reported a bill out of Subcommittee.
While that bill is an improvement over the prior draft, it still contains provisions which are of concern to us.
A majority of the 1
Commission could, however, support the bill if the suggestions outlined below are adopted.
First, Section 142 would establish within the Nuclear Safety Agency a three-member Nuclear Reactor Safety Investigations i
Board.
The Chairman of the Board would be nominated by :he
/
Prasident and confirmed by the Senate; the other two mem>ers would be appointed by the Administrator.
Only the Presijent could remove the members.
It would seem that, if these three members are to have equal status, they should all be appointed by and removed by the Administrator.
Second, our fundamental concern with the Board, as envisaged in the bill, is that, while the Board should have complete independence during its deliberations, the Administrator should have considerable input into the matters being investigateG a r.d the'r priorities because of his ultimate regulatory responsibilities.
In addition, the Administrator should have sufficient supervisory authority over the Board so that its efforts do not unne:essarily duplicate the agency's efforts, and to assure that its reports are presented to the agency in a timely fashion for use in the regulatory process.
8803250015 880301 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PDR
i 4 We would also suggest that the employees of the Board (and also those employed by the Inspector General) should be in the excepted service, rather than in the competitive service as provided by the Bill.
All current NRC employees are in the excepted service, and, therefore, if this legislation is enacted, the restructured agency would be required to have a dual personnel system.
This would create an administrative burden and could lead to unequal treatment of employees.
Third, we are also concerned that the legislation should more clearly delineate the relationship between the Nuclear Safety Agency and the Executive Branch.
This is important because it is essential that the agency have independence to make the necessary health and safety judgments.
This can only be Essured if, as is now the case, its non-budgetary actions, in particular its generic regulatory policy determinations, are not subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approval.
If the restructured agency is not given this independence from OMB on its non-budgetary actions, this would mean that OMB would have to approve our proposed and final rules and our submissions to Congress, including all testimony and responses to Congressional conmittees.
Our prime objection to 0MB review of proposed and final rules is that this review would not enhance, and could detract from, the proposed Nuclear Safety Agency's ability to carry out its public health and safety mission.
The NRC's successor agency would be the only federal age?cy with the technical expertise to determ-ir.c what regulatory requirements mus t be imposed on its licensees to protect the public health and safety.
OMB lacks sufficient technical resources in the nuclear safety area to exercise oversight over the development of the agency's technical rules.
Considering OMB's lack of technical resources on nuclear safety matters and the potential for additional delays, OMB review would likely lead to unwarranted delays without providing a corresponding benefit in improved rules.
The OMB clearance process is also inconsistent with the principle that the agency must be independent in fact and perception.
The proposed legislation offers little benefit if decision-making authority currently spread among five Commissioners would simply be spread among the agency, OMB, ard other Executive Branch agencies that participate in the OMB review process.
x s Furthermore, OMB review.of proposed Congressional testimony and correspondence could hinder the Nuclear Safety Agency from communicating fully, frankly, and on a timely basis with Congress on important public health and safety issues.
In Congressional testimony, the agency usually presents its views on highly techrical policy issues.
Therefore, the Nuclear Safety Agency should retain control over the substance of its testimony.
Fourth, our final concern relates to the proposed elimination of the position of Executive Director for Operations.
We believe it would be desirable that the statute pro.'ide for the appointment of a senior career civil servant to assist the administrator in the supervision of day-to-day staff activities.
We appreciate the Committee's consideration of the Commission's comments on this important matter.
Ccmmissioners Bernthal and Rogers do not concur in this letter.
Sincerely, W.
Lando W. Zech Jr. )
cc:
Senator Robert T. Stafford o
,m.
--