the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reorganization, May 6, 1980 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to convey to you my views on the Administration's reorganization plan for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As you know, I have for several months expressed concern about the direction of this plan. In four letters to Mr. Harrison Wellford at OMB, in personal conversations with him and in my recent testimony to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I expressed my fear that the plan originally submitted to the Congress would result in the demolition in fact, although not in form, of the Commission concept for the NRC. In its place, in my view, the plan unnecessarily and unwisely created the potential for a "runaway" Chairman, a Chairman not truly accountable to the policy direction of the majority of the NRC Commissioners. (85) 63-201 O - 80 - 7 I am pleased to be able to say to you today that the amendments submitted to Congress just yesterday have gone a considerable distance toward resolving these problems I have cited in my previous statements. To be blunt, there still is little in this plan which I find affirmatively attractive. The job of making the NRC a better agency, an agency that can truly insure the safety of the nuclear power industry, must go on far beyond this reorganization plan. I can pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, that I and the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources which I chair will continue to contribute all that we can to that goal as we fulfill our oversight responsibilities. And I know that we can depend on your strong support in that effort, just as we have in the past. The reorganization plan as amended does, however, represent a useful effort to improve the administration of the NRC. As amended, it places additional administrative authority in the hands of the top staff person, the Executive Director for Operations. The plan now makes clear that the EDO is to be accountable to the full Commission rather than largely to the Chairman. The EDO, under Section 1. (b)(1), is to be hired and fired only by action of the full Commission. As that section makes clear, any single Commissioner who perceives that the EDO is not fulfilling Commission policy or is otherwise performing unsatisfactorily can initiate an action for his or her removal. That vital safeguard is considerably preferable to the situation potentially created by the plan originally submitted. The EDO is accountable to the full Commission in a way that a Presidentially-appointed Chairman realistically would never be. Again, the plan as amended now makes clear that the Commission, acting by majority vote, is the ultimate arbiter of its own role in discharging the Commission's statutory functions. In any situation where there is any question or dissention about whether a particular agency program or action is within the reserved powers of the full Commission, Section 1. (a) now explicitly states that the Commission by majority vote will determine that question. This equally vital safeguard likewise means that any single Commissioner who believes a particular matter should be subject to full Commission consideration can place that matter before the Commission, as provided by the plan. One area of the plan continues to cause me some concern, as I know it has others who have appeared before you. That is the matter of the flow of information within the agency. I believe, however, that on balance the language changes contained in the amended plan make clear the Presidential intention to comply with Congressional concerns in that regard. I believe the plan as amended is meant to insure that no Commissioner will ever in the future be deprived of any information from within the Commission which he or she feels necessary to discharge the responsibilities of an NRC Commissioner. Section 1. (d) now states without limitation that the Commission shall act according to Subsection 201(a)(1) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. That subsection, as you recall, contains explicit language that "Each member of the Commission...shall have full access to all information relating to the performance of his duties or responsibilities...." In sum, Mr. Chairman, what we have here is an excellent example of the capacity of the two Branches to work together in reorganization matters to avoid new structures that are unpalatable to either the Executive or the Legislative Branch. The people at OMB, led by Mr. Wellford, have endeavored to be responsive to the views of the Congress, as they should by law and under our Constitution. In return, Members of this Subcommittee, Members of the Subcommittee I chair, and our colleagues on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee have all worked diligently to understand the proposed reorganization and to improve it. I believe Congress has improved this plan considerably, and we can all be proud of that accomplishment. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. |