satisfactorily with the information question in my view. It preserves the Commissioners' right to all information in the agency. The difficulty is that the language of the Reorganization Plan itself in Section 1(c) leaves open the possibility of a future reversal of the thrust of the section-by-section analysis. Section 1(c) should be amended to read "The Commission shall act as provided by subsection 201(a)(1) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (43 U.S.C. 5841 (a)(1)) in the performance of functions of the Commission described in subsection (a) and (b) of this section." This change removes the word "solely" and "direct" and the final phrase of the section. With this change and with the sectionby-section analysis as it now reads, I believe that the 1 problems with access to information for Commissioners that had appeared in earlier drafts would be satisfactorily resolved. There is one more change in the language of Reorganization Reactor Safeguards...." This change would keep the Chairman from unilaterally terminating the membership of one of the committee members even though a majority of the Commission felt that member should continue to serve. For our senior safety committee, reporting directly to the collegial Commission, this appears to be a reasonable provision to me. There are two other matters that ought to be dealt with in the legislative history to clarify the intent of the Reorganization Plan. The first of these is that in connection with Section 4, the section-by-section analysis should note that there is no intent here to deny to the Commission the right to establish and maintain the sort of Open Door Policy that has long been in effect at NRC. The Open Door Policy allows any member of the staff to privately discuss with any member of the Commission any matter that the staff member wants to bring up. It is not limited to safety matters but can cover all sorts of personnel problems and is an important safety valve for our staff. This right of access to any Commissioner is also an important feature of our newly developed policy on the treatment of differing professional opinions in the agency. Finally, again in connection with Section 4, the section-bysection analysis should note that in having the staff officers report to the Chairman, it is not intended that the Commission would thereby lose its oversight responsibility and authority or access to information for staff activities related to the functions of the collegial Commission. With the modifications I have detailed here for Reorganization Plan No. 1, I think that that plan becomes a workable arrangement and one under which I believe I could function effectively as a Commissioner. I would continue to recommend to you the NRC draft reorganization plan, however. Thank you. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A Testimony of Rep. Toby Moffett (D-Conn.), Chairman of the House Subcommittee Legislation and National Security Subcommittee Regarding 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 0 - 80 - 7 |