ML20029E687
| ML20029E687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/11/1994 |
| From: | Wilkins J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029E675 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405190317 | |
| Download: ML20029E687 (2) | |
Text
-
~
4 90 C800 g
fg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS o,,
8 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,..../
April 11, 1994 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Selin:
SUBJECT:
EXPANDED INPUT IN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SELECTIONS The ACRS has received an early version of your proposal for modification of the process by which members of the NRC advisory committees are chosen, and we have a few comments about itsg application to the ACRS.
Our committee differs from the othersg of course, in being statutory as well as directly advisory to the-Commission, and therefore in having a more policy-oriented focus, but we recognize that there are problems common to all.
Even so, this letter is directed specifically to the process for selecting ACRS members.
We have to say at the outset that we are delighted that the Commission proposes more direct and earlier involvement in the process-we have often felt a disconnect between the early screening and rating, which we have done, and the final selection, which is of course the province of the Commission. There are times when we would have wished for more guidance, and times when we have been uncomfortable with the guid ance we have had, but we know of no case in which better communication would not have been a benefit.
With our present arrangement, you have no way to know our rating criteria, and we receive your input only very late in the process.
So we do welcome a proposal for change in which the Commission takes part earlier and more directly.
First it is important to know what kind of people ought to be sought for ACRS membership, and here the difference mentioned above is relevant.
There is a prerequisite requirement that a member have a solid technical expertise in an area of importance to nuclear safety, but there are so many areas that there is no hope of having them all represented on the committee.
(We frequently make use of consultants to cover specialized technical areas.)
We therefore cannot just prescribe a specialty, and then seek the best available candidate in that specialty (the proposal as we have it),
l but also seek enough breadth and wisdom to promise contributions outside of the candidate's specific field.
That aspect is not i
mentioned in the version we have, nor is the equally desirable 1
94051903'1Y 940506 l
PDR COMMS NRCC l
CORRESPONDENCE PDR I
~.
e The Honorable Ivan Selin 2
April 11, 1994 attribute of professional stature, which lends credibility to the advice you will receive from the Committee.
We therefore believe that your proposal for change could be improved in several ways, and still serve the desirable purpose of enhancing Commission input into the early phases of the process, while assuring the best possible selections for the Committee.
First (and this goes beyond the application to ACRS) we think that the prescription for benchmarking candidates for committee membership is too narrow and precise as stated. While expertise in a specific discipline is essential for all committees, we think it unwise to use it as the only criterion for rating potential members.
It is particularly constrictive to specify the field first, and then look for the member.
One could need an expert on radiofrequency interference (RFI), but still prefer a first-rate electrical engineer who can deal with RFI to an RFI expert.
The proposed procedure is not likely to find one.
In our own case, the other requirements mentioned above are important (some might say dominantly so), and in any case it would seem appropriate to work out the desired qualifications on a committee-by-committee basis.
Second, we believe that the ACRS representation on the screening panel should be through the Chairman of ACRS or his/her designee, rather than one of the ACRS staff.
He or she will be better informed on the Committee's needs, and on the qualifications of the candidates, than will any member of the ACRS staff.
Similarly, the outside member of the screening panel need not be a full-time Federal employee, and we could see great merit in involving senior members of the nuclear community from universities, national laboratories, professional societies, or the like.
We hope you will take these suggestions as constructive, and as directed at implementing the best possible plan for restructuring an admittedly deficient current set of procedures for member selection.
Sincerely, J.
Ernest Wilkins, r.
Chairman