ML20154E339
| ML20154E339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Breaux J, Burdick Q, Simpson A, Stafford R SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D958 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-237 NUDOCS 8809160291 | |
| Download: ML20154E339 (8) | |
Text
.
/ Meg #og
~
UNITED STATES g
.t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C,20545 g/,
%, . . . . . p January 29, 1988 '
CHAIRMAN 1
The Honorable Robert T. Stafford 1
Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington. DC 20510
Dear Senator Stafford:
1 !
This is in response to the several cuestions contained in the January 21, 1988 letter from you and several of your colleagues 4
on the Committee on Environment and Public Works. As you are
- aware from previous correspondence with the Congress, the '
Office of Investigations will be reporting as a unit to the <
i Executive Director for Operations beginning on February 1 1988. This means that, rather than reporting directly to the 1
Commission. O! will report to us through the Office of the
! Executive Director for Operatiors. Full compliance with the Congressio,a1 directive contained in the Committee of Con- l forence Report. Statement of Managers. Accompanying House Joint j
Resolution 395 will not occur untti the Commission has i developed a permanent organizational plan for integrating the O! investigative functions within the Office of the Executive !
) Director for Operations. Our goal for accomplishing this is March 21, 1986. !
I w. int to assure you that in taking this action, the Commission
- has beeri mindft1 of its mission to protect the public health and rafety. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions in i testimony before Congress, our ability to carry out this I
c.ission is enhanced by the existence of a strong. independent '
professional staff of investigators focused on issues central to our licensing and enforcement processes. The conferees j directed us to adopt a different organizational means for i
addressing the investigati,ve needs of this agency. Your l
questions relate to events leading up to that Congressional
] directive and the Commission's response to that directive.
/
4 With regard to your first question, the NRC had no official i
)
notice of the proposed language in the Statement of Hanagers ;
accompanying House Jcint Resolution 395. The NRC Cor.gressional
)'
1 Affairs Office had roceived information after the Statement of Managers wat developed that some unspecified language was being
! cons 4dered concerning O! and its relationship to the NRC i Organization. The Office of Congressional Affairs informed me ;
! of these last minute developments. However, the Commission was i q not asked for any comments on that issue prior to the passage l x of House Joint Resolution 395. l 1
f I
I '
888'2$8?!$88*PDR re / A- r t-2 37, ejt, s/
! FELTON88-237
- ' l 4,
l l
! With respect to your second question, the Commission has not
)
changed its views on the reporting respons-ibility for the
! Office of Investigations. While an O! office reporting to the !
l Commission is preferable, it is not the only organizational structure for O! that can result in the agency effectively i carrying out its investigative functions. It is the {
- Commission's belief that the Office of Investigations will have l 1
adequate independenco and can function eff'ect.tvely under a j
- structure where 01 reports to the Office of the Executive .
! Director for Operations. We are mindful that this new I
- organization should be carefully monitored by the Commission I and we intend to do just that. l l With respect to your third question, the directive in the !
j Committee of Conference Report does not have the force of law. i
) However, when the will of Congress is expresded in such strong i i
terms as in the Report, we be 1 eve the Commission has an ;
j obligation to comply with such a directive as long as it can be j i
done in a manner consistent with the agency's mission to !
4 protect the public health and safety. In this particular case, l
} secause the Commission believes that the Office of Investiga- l 1 tions can effectively function while reparting to the Office of !
I the e.ecutive v Director for Operatione, there was no reason not, 1 to comply with the Congressional directive.
4 The Commission will be pleased to provide any additional l information that you desire on this matter. We will keep you 1 l informed of our progrr,ss in implementing the second phase of !
- the consolidation. l 1
j Sincerely, t
4 UJ. .
}
' t.ando W. Ze ,J l 1
l !
t l
l l
l i
)
el6003f Y o
- , UNITED STATES r#13, )M e i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w Asm NG TON, D, C, '0555
,,,,, January 29, 1988 CH AIR MAN
/wcmg. ;-
The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick, Chairman Conmittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to the several questions contained in the January 21, 1988 letter from you and several of your colleagues on the Committee on Environment and rublic Works. As you are aware from previous correspondence with the Congress, the Office of Investigations will be reporting as a unit to the Executive Director for Operations beginning on February 1, 1988. This means that, rather than reporting directly to the Commission. O! will report to us through the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. Full compliance with the Congressional directive contained in the Committee of Con-ference Report, Statement of Hanagers. Accompanying House Joint Resolution 395 will not occur until the Commission has developed a permanent organizational plan for integrating the O! investigative functions within the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. Our goal for accomplishing this is March 21, 1988.
I want to assure you that in taking this action, the Commission has been mindful of its mission to protect the public health and safety. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions in testimony before Congress, our ability to carry out this mission is enhanced by the existence of a strong, independent professional staff of investigators focused on issues central to our licensing and enforcement processes. The conferees d'rected us to adopt a different organizational means for addrassing the investigative needs of this agency. Your questions relate to events leading up to that Congressional directive and the Commission's response to that directive.
With regard to your first question, the NRC had no official notice of the proposed language in the Statement of Managers j acccmpanying House Joint Resolution 395. The NRC Congressional Affairs Office had received information after the Statement of Hanagers was developed that some unspecified language was being considered concerning O! and its relation
- hip to the NRC Organization. The Office of tongressional Affairs ',nformed me of these last minute developments. However, the Commission was not asked for any comments on that issue prior to the passage of House Joint Resolution 395.
1 Fo/A f (- ? S b cll 7 l
el With respect to your second question, the Commission has not changed its views on the reporting responsibility for the Office of Investigations. While an O! office reporting to the Commission is preferable, it is not the only organizatLonal i
- structure for O! that can result in the agency effectively I carrying out its investigative functions. It is the Commission's belief that the Office of Investigations will have adequate independence and can function effectively under a ,
structure where O! reports to the Office of the Executive i Director for Operations. We are mindful that this new l organization siculd be carefully monitored by the Commission j and we intend to do just that.
) With respect to your third question, the directive in the Committee of Conference Report does not have the force of law. ,
i However, when the will of Congress is expressed in such strong '
! terms as in the Report, we be love the Commission has an !
I obligation to comply with such a directive as long as it can be ;
1 done in a manner consistent with the agency's mission to l protect the public health and safety. In this particular case, j secause the Commission believes that the Office of Investiga-tions can effectively function while reporting to the Office of j the Executive Director for Operations, there was no reason not to comply with the Congressional directive. t The Commission will be pleased to provide any additional i information that you desire on this matter. We will keep you informed of our progress in implementing the second phase of i
the consolidation.
Sincerely, r
I i W.
LandoV.Ifch,J. j i
a !
j i
- i I I l
l i
i l
1 J l 1
s f e
' ,S UNITED STATts
! ;, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g .- wAssmoros. o. c. roses t
%, ,,,,,/ January 29, 1988 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Alan K. Simpsun Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Simpson:
This is in response to the several questions contained in the January 21, 1988 letter from you and several of your colleagues on the Comrittee on Environment and public Works. As you are aware from previous correspondence,< with the Congress, the Office of Invostigations will be reporting as a unit to the Executive Director for Operations beginning on February 1, 1988. This means that, rather than reporting directly to the Commission. O! will report to us through the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. Full compliance with the Congressional directive contained in the Committee of Con-ference Rsport, Statement of Managers, Accompanying House Joint Resolution 395 will not occur until the Commission has developed a permanent organizational plan for integrating the O! investigative functions within the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. Our goal for accomplishing this is March 21, 1988.
I want to assure you that in taking this action, the Commission has been mindful of its mission to protect the public health and safety. As we have pointed out on numerous ocensions in testimony before Congress, our ability to carry out this mission is enhanced by the existence of a strong, independent professional staff of investigators focused on issues central to our licensing and enforcement processes. The conferees directed us to adopt a different organizational means for addressing the investigative needs of this agency. Your questions relate to events leading up to that Congressional directive and the Commission's response to that directive.
With regard to your first question, the NRC had no official notice of the proposed languaga in the Statement of Hanagers accompanying House Joint Resolution 395. The NRC Congressional Affairs Office had received informat,on after the Statement of Hanagers was developed that some unspecified language was being considered concerning O! and its relationship to the NRC Organtastion. The Office of Congressional Affairs informed me of these last minute developments. However, the Cornission was not asked for any comments on that issue prior to the passage of House Joint Resolutien 395.
fr a / A Y ?-;3 z C,/)L
. p With respect to your second questiotr. the Commission has not i
! changed its views on the reporting responsibility for the t i Office of Investigations. While an O! office reporting to the ,
Commission is preferable, it is not the only organizational i structure for O! that car result in the agency effectively l j carrying out its investigative functions. It is the i
Commission's belief that the Office of Investigations will have ;
adequate independence and can function effectively under a structure where O! reports to the Office of the Executive l r
i Director for Operations. We are mindful that this new l
] organization should be carefully monitored by the Commission l j and we intend to do just that. !
l With respect to your third question, the directive in the I
4 Committee of Conference Report does not have the force of law.
However, when the will of Congress is expressed in such strong '
i terms as in the Report, we believe the Commission has an .
i obligation to comply with such a directive as long as it can be !
l done in a manner consistent with the agency's mission to I
{ protect the public health and safety. In this particular case, '
! because the Commission believes that the Office of Investiga- ,
i tions can effectively function while reporting to the Office of ;
i the Executive Director for Operations, there was no reason not j to comply with the Congressional directive. i 1 i
! The Commission will be pleased to provide any additional 4
information that you desire on this matter. We will keep you !
l informed of our pro the consolidation. gress in implementing the second phase of l
t Sincerely,
! i
\
l i
w.
Lando W. Zec MJr.
- m. j t
)
- 1 i l i
l
) '
)
i l
l l
1 l
4
- /" 4
- , UNITED STATES O
! % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 .I WASHINGTON. D. C. 2M85
- January 29, 1988 CH M RM A N The Honorable John Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Enviro 3eent and Public Works United States Senate Washington DC 20510
Dear Hr. Chairman:
This is in response to the several questions contained in the January 21, 1988 letter from you and several of your colleagues on the Committee on Environment and Pubite Works. As you are aware from previous correspondence with the Congress, the Office of Investigations will be reporting as a unit to the Executive Director for Operations beginning on February 1 1988. This means that, rather than reporting directly to the Commission. 01 will report to us through the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. Full compliance with the Congressional directive contained in the Cor.nittee of Con-i fet'ence Report. Statement of Managers. Acconpanying House Joint Resciution 395 will not occur until the Commission has developed a permanent organizational plan for integrating the 0! investigative functions within the Office of the Executive
! Director for Operations. Our goal for accomplishing this is
{ Harch 21, 1988.
j ! want to assure you that in taking this action, the Commission has been mindful of its mission to protect the public health l
and safety. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions in testimony before Congress, our ability to carry out this mission is enhanced by the existence of a strong, independent professional staff of investigators focused on issues central to our licensing and enforcement processes. The conferees directed us to adopt a different organizational means for addressing the investigative needs of this agency. Your l questions relate to events leading up to that Congressional directive and the Commission's response to that directive.
With regard to your first question, the NRC had no official l notice of the proposed language in the Statement of Hanagers !
accompanying House Joint Resolution 395. The NRC Congressional '
Affairs Office had received information after the Statement of Managers was developed that some unspecified language was being considered concerning O! and its relationship to the NRC i
Organization. The Office of Congressional Affairs informed me of these last minute developments. However, the Commission was i not asked for any comments on that issue prior to the passage 1 of House Joint Resolution 395.
N
i l
I a , I a
With respect to your second question, the Commission has not changed its views on the reporting responsibility for the !
- Office of Investigations. While an O! office reporting to the '
, Commission is preferable, it is not the only organizational
! structure for 0! that can result in the agency effectively j carrying out its investigative functions. It is the
! Commission's belief that the Office of Inve:tigations will have
) adequate independence and can function effectively under a i structure where O! reports to the Office of the Executive Director for Operattens. We are mindful that this new ,
l organization should be carefully monitored by the Commission '
and we intend to do just that. i With respect to your third question, the directive in the Committee of Conference Report does not have the force of law. !
However, when the will of Congress is expressed in such strong !
i terms as in the Report, we bciTeve the Commission has an I
obligation to comply with such a directive as long as it can be ;
I done in a manner consistent with the agency's mission to protect the public health and safety. In this particular case, i because the Commission believes that the Office of Investiga- !
tions can effectively function while reporting to the Office of
- the Executive Director for Operations, there was no reason not to comply with the Congressional directive. ;
- The Commission will be pleased to provide any additional i information that you desire on this matter. We will keep you informed of our pro
- the consolidation. gress in implementing the second phase of ;
1
$1ncerely, s
LandoW.Zeff,Jr.
l t
4 l
l 1
l
.