of staffers; it is the authority of the people who are in those offices now and the lack of clarity about who does what.

Mr. HORTON. How about talking about efficiencies and economies for just a minute. Are there any economies or efficiencies in this proposalas a result of the proposal?

Mr. WELLFORD. Not that you can easily quantify, Mr. Horton.

If we have a more efficient system, if there is less unnecessary delay because people are performing their roles more coherently, then obviously the regulated industry and the public may gain in a financial sense, but it is very difficult to quantify that.

Mr. HORTON. It is hard sometimes to distinguish between policy and administration-what might be an administrative problem to one person might be a policy question to someone else. Who is going to decide on that type of question? Would that be the full Commission or just the Chairman?

Mr. WELLFORD. We expect that the question of whether an issue is one of policy or administration will not come up very often. If it does, and the Commission majority, acting as a majority, decides that an administrative issue does have some important policy principle involved, then they can act to bring that before the Commission. Mr. HORTON. I have one other question.

With regard to merit raise increases, would that be something to be determined by the full Commission, or would that be determined by the Chairman or the Executive Director for Operations?

Mr. WELLFORD. Depending on the office involved, it would be determined by the heads of those offices, by the EDO, and in some cases with consultation by the Chairman. It is not a situation where you would want to encourage the Commission as a whole to get deeply involved in that kind of personnel issue.

But again, there might be an extraordinary circumstance where there was some policy issue hidden within a personnel issue, and if the Commission as a whole, by majority vote, decides to get involved in it, the plan provides for that. But I would not think that would happen.

Mr. HORTON. In other words, the Chairman would and probably should consult with the Commission when he gets into some difficult question of employment policy?

Mr. WELLFORD. In a rare case, yes.

Mr. HORTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much; we appreciate your testimony. Mr. WELLFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Our next witness is Chairman John F. Ahearne who was sworn in as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 31, 1978, to serve a 5-year term. He was named Chairman of the Commission by President Carter on December 7, 1979.

Before joining the Commission, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resource Applications in the Department of Energy and held various positions in the Department of Defense and the White House. Prior to entering Government service, he was a professor of physics.

He is accompanied by Victor Gilinsky, Peter A. Bradford, and Joseph M. Hendrie, Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

We are delighted to have you all, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. AHEARNE, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGU-
LATORY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY VICTOR GILINSKY,
PETER A. BRADFORD, AND JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, COMMISSIONERS

Mr. AHEARNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. I understand your written statements address the original plan, and without objection, we will include these statements in the record.

Chairman Ahearne, you have some prepared comments on the amended version as it was transmitted to the Congress yesterday with which I think you and the Commission are now fairly familiar. Mr. AHEARNE. Yes, Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Commission appreciates the opportunity to state its views on Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, as amended by the President.

As you mentioned, the prepared statements which were earlier provided to the committee represent the views of the Commission and the individual Commissioners on the unamended plan.

We have had an opportunity only to give a very quick review of the amendments to the plan submitted to the Congress just yesterday. On the basis of that cursory examination, the majority of the Commission, that is, Commissioners Gilinsky, Kennedy, and Bradford, believes that the amendment moves well down the road in addressing and at least in some measure alleviating the concerns which the majority addressed in its testimony on the original plan.

The Commission would like the opportunity, however, to review the effects of the amendments more carefully before commenting in any great detail or reaching any final conclusion on them. Accordingly, the Commission requests the opportunity to submit to the committee additional views after completing a thorough analysis.

Mr. BROOKS. Without objection, they will be included in the record at this point.

[The material follows:]

(5) The provisions in subsection 4(a) which authorize direct communications to the Commission or a Commissioner by an NRC officer or employee are not intended to prevent the Commission from establishing other policies relating to direct communications such as its "open door" policy. These communications are to be encouraged, when necessary, and the Plan is not intended to erect barriers to them.

(6) Although the Plan does not explicitly so provide, its intent is that the Staff of the Commission (other than the officer and Staff referred to in sections 1(b)(4), 1(c) and 2(a) of the Plan) shall report to the EDO.

My comments are attached.

The Commission appreciates the careful scrutiny which the Congress has given to the NRC Reorganization Plan. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on us.

Chairman Ahearne's Separate Comments

I personally agree that the Plan will assist the agency in the performance of its duties. I also agree that some legislative clarification may be helpful in guiding the NRC in its implementation. However, I do not believe that the Plan itself has any great inherent danger of becoming a stumbling block or source of conflict. The responsibility for the effective implementation of this Plan rests with the five members of this Commission. The intent of the President's Reorganization Plan is very clear: the Commission must devote its energies to the development of policy, handle rulemakings, and address adjudications. These policies and rules, and then interpretations through the adjudicatory process, provide guidance to the staff. It is equally clear that it is the intent of the Plan that the details of the management of the NRC staff in the implementation of Commission policy shall be the responsibility of the Chairman acting through the Executive Director. Any clarification in the legislative record should be consistent with these goals of the Plan.

My specific comments on the suggested clarifications follow:

While there is no argument that the Commission has the final authority to interpret the Plan within the NRC, the Plan places well defined limits on the scope of that authority in Section 1(a).

I agree with the Commission comment.

I do not believe there is any ambiguity in Section 1(d). The
Commissioners shall have equal votes, authority and access to
information pertaining to those areas for which they are responsible
as described in Section 1(a) and 1(b). Commissioners should not as
a matter of course be receiving information outside of these areas,
and the Chairman would be justified in insisting that a Commissioner
show why such a request related to his other Commission duties.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the EDO or any other employee of the
Commission in this paragraph implies that the Commission would make
requests without going through the Chairman. This would be a clear
violation of the intent and letter (Section 2(c)) of the Plan.

As principal executive officer of the Commission, the Chairman is
ultimately responsible for the performance of the staff, including
the EDO. There is adequate protection already in the Plan against
the arbitrary suppression of safety related information (see next
suggestion).

I agree with the Commission comment.

The intent of the Plan is that the staff will report to the EDO,
subject to the direction and supervision of the Chairman (Section 2(b)).