ML20236W376
| ML20236W376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Breaux J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712070427 | |
| Download: ML20236W376 (2) | |
Text
_
l b
j tlNITED STATES 5 )% cN NUCLEAR HF.GULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 b
/:*
s y***** /
November 9, 1987 CHAIRMAN 1
The Honorable John B. Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation i
Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 j
i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On October 29, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified before your Subcommittee on various legislative proposals that would significantly restructure the NRC. The majority of the Commission supported enactment of legislation which would restructure the agency so that it is headed by a i
single administrator. The majority also indicated that as part of a comprehensive legislative package that included the single administrator proposal, the Commission could support legislation that created a nuclear safety board if the board were part of the regulatory agency headed by the single administrator. The. majority of the Commission opposed the establishment of a nuclear safety board as an independent federal agency.
The Commission did not express views on how the restructured regulatory agency should be organized.
In this letter, we set forth our position in greater detail.
The majority of the Commission supports single administrator legislation; however, a restructured agency must have the independence to make the necessary public health and safety judgments.
Thus, we believe that the agency should have a limited number of Presidential appointees and not be subject to Office of Management and Budget (0MB) regulatory oversicht.
1 Consistent with these views, the majority of the Commission would oppose single administrator legislation if the agency were made part of another federal agency, or had more than three Presidential appointees (the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator and the Inspector General).
It is also imperative that the agency maintain the same relationship with OMB that the NPC now has. OMB would submit our budget to Congress, but would not review proposed agency Congressional testimony or correspondence and i
would not review draft proposed or final rules.
In other words, the agency would continue to carry out its regulatory mission as an independent i
agency.
The majority of the Commission also would oppose single administrator f
legislation that would include establishment of a nuclear safety board independent of the agency. Creation of a separate federal agency to investigate nuclear incidents would take away many of the benefits to be gained by creation of a single administrator agency.
First of all, responsibility and authority for evaluating incfdents at nuclear facilities 8712070427 871109 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PDR
a,
and making safety recommendations would be. diffused. 'Second, there would inevitably be a duplication of functions as' both the nuclear safety _ board and the nuclear regulatory agency would be reouired to investigate and-evaluate incidents in order to carry out their respective responsibilities.
This would likely result in_ confusion because representatives of both the nuclear regulatory agency and the nuclear safety board would be on site trying to gather identical information following an incident or accident.
There is also the potential for conflicting reports to the public on the nature of the accident, undermining the credibility of both agencies and creating confusion. Third, establishment of.a nuclear. safety board as a separate agency wov?d result in an additional budgetary burden to tho federal government because the_ regulatory agency would still need to maintain its accident investigation and evaluation capabilities to make regulatory decisions. Therefore, we do not believe that creation of. a separate nuclear safety board agency would necessarily enhance nuclear safety.
If Congress believes a nuclear ' safety board is an important component of a restructured nuclear regulatory agency, this ob,iective can be achieved by creating the board as a part of the agency itself. We do not believe this structure would be detrimental. to the independence of the board's functions. The Commission. currently has an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel which, though they report to the Commission, independently arrive at decisions based on evidence presented to them in NRC adjudicatory proceedings.
A. safety. board could be similarly structured to ensure its independence, while not _having' some of the management and budgetary disadvantages of creating a wholly q
separate agency. Moreover, maintaining the safety. board within the-l regulatory agency would ensure close communication and enable.the administrator to easily assign additional resources to the board if necessary in a particular case. Thus, a nuclear safety board within the
]
nuclear regulatory agency would be a preferred approach.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide additional views for your l
consideration on this important matter.
Commissioner Bernthal was on official travel and did not participate in drafting this letter. Commissioner Bernthal's views on the above matters were previously presented.to you in his statement before the subcommittee.
Sincerely, i
Lando~W.
h, Jr.
cc: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson 1
_ _ _ _ _