ML20135C937
| ML20135C937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/27/1996 |
| From: | Acker D NRC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| DSI-20-00023, DSI-20-23, NUDOCS 9612090166 | |
| Download: ML20135C937 (3) | |
Text
,
D S I o2 D From: Dyle Acker To: WND1.WNP2.SECY Date: 11/27/96 4:22pm
Subject:
strategic assessment comments A S PLEASE SEE ATTACHED. g4 #
s i CC: WND1.WNP1. STRATEGIC -
NOV 2 719?E
)
ogoe 04 W %
s Soestasy 1
!! g\
I l
I f
I f
'f l l 1
1 9612090166 961127 PDR NRCSA I 20 PDR T)h / 3
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT COMMENTS l
Comment 1 - Uncertainty in Future of the Commission
! It appears to us that the Strategic Assessment papers released to date do not directly l address two critical issues facing the NRC. We believe these issues need to be I l addressed as part of any decision about the future of the agency.
Immue A. Deregulation ,
, Deregulation of the electrical power industry is beginning. It is unclear how many nuclear sites will be able to survive in a deregulated marketplace; therefore, the potential for shutdown of a significant number of power reactors needs to be addressed.
lasue B. NMSS Funding Fun'd ing for NMSS needs to be addressed. Since more states are becoming agreement i states, we will have far fewer materials licensees. These licensees and power reactors should not be required to pay for maintaining a national program for materials, l
including training and oversight of agreement states. We believe that the Commission needs to ask Congress to fund this program.
Potential Effect on NRC Emolovens of immuns A and B lt is clear that we could be a much smaller agency in the future. There may be significant reductions in workload, requiring the Commission to RIF personnel.
Potential Effect of the Strategic Annessment it appears that the Commission is considering organizational changes, including requiring personnel to locate to different areas of the country.
Discussion I
There are few things worse than first being required to uproot your family and move to l
a new location, and shortly thereafter be RIFed.
i l Given the uncertainty that the agency faces, we suggest that to sustain regulatory excellence and to minimize impacts on personnel, decisions on relocating staff be held j l
l in abeyance until a clearer picture emerges of how the nuclear industry will fare in a i l deregulated electrical market. Similarly, we believe it prudent to suspend such !
! personnel decisions until it becomes clear to what extent the agency will assume j external oversight of the DOE.
i
f .s e
i We believe that with the recent improvements in communications, including videoconferencing and the internet, relocation of personnelis generally unnecessary in performing the Commission's duties.
Conclusions Due to uncertainties in the future size of the Commission and improved I communications capabilities, the Commission's Strategic Assessment decisions should include consideration for utilizing employees in their current job locations. i Comment 2 - DSI 20: International Activities Recommendation :
Accomplish only those activities funded by Congress. With competition, power reactor licensees can not afford to pay for international programs. '
Comment 3 - DSI 2: Oversight of DOE Discussion All our personal contacts inside DOE inform us that DOE's safety program would benefit from independent oversight.
Recommendation i
Take over as much DOE oversight as possible. !
Comments Provided by the following Region IV NRC Emolovees Dyle Acker (DGA)
Cliff Clark (CAC2)
Dave Corporandy (DEC)
Mark Hammond (MFH2)
Chuck Hooker (CAH6)
JoAnn Hooker (JAH)
Jack Horner (JWH3)
Dean Kunihiro (DMK1)
Dave Pereira (DBP)
Kent Prendergast (KMP)
Phil Qualls (PMQ)
William Wagner (WJW) l l