ML20135D969

Comments on DSI-G2 Re Oversight of DOE

ML20135D969
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/27/1996
From:	Acker D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
DSI-G-2-00007, DSI-G-2-7, NUDOCS 9612100289
Download: ML20135D969 (3)

Text

._. - _

D3.~L-G- x l

From:

Dyle Acker l

To:

WND1.WNP2.SECY 4

3

/N j

l Date:

11/27/96 4:22pm

Subject:

strategic assessment comments g

'\\

fr i

l PLEASE SEE ATTACHED.

'. -d fl0V 2 7 79% W

~t CC:

WND1.WNP1. STRATEGIC 1 m CR4Wto 4

f "Q[ g l

l I

l l

l J

l 9612100289 961127 PDR NRCSA I OEN PDR 1

DS/3 I

l

I e

4 i

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT COMMENTS 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 j

addressed as part of any decision about the future of the agency.

' Issue A. Deregulation 1

I Deregulation of the electrical power ' industry is beginning. It is unclear how many I

i nuclear sites will be able to survive in a deregulated marketplace; therefore, the l

potential for shutdown of a significant number of power reactors needs to be l

addressed.

i l

1ssue B. NMSS Funding Funding for NMSS needs to be addressed. Since more states are becoming agreement l

states, we will have far fewer materials licensees. These licensees and power reactors j

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.

B Eotential Effect on NRC Emoloyees of Issues A and B f

it is clear that we could be a much srnaller agency in the future. There may be l

significant reductions in workload, requiring the Commission to RIF personnel.

Potential Effect of the Strateoic Assessment it appears that the Commission is considering organizational changes, including l

requiring personnel to locate to different areas of the country.

Discussion There are few things worse than first being required to uproot your family and move to a new location, and shortly thereafter be RIFed.

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 in abeyance until a clearer picture emerges of how the nuclear industry will fare in a deregulated electrical market. Similarly, we believe it prudent to suspend such personnel decisions untilit becomes clear to what extent the agency will assume j

external oversight of the DOE.

I

l.

^*

J i

We believe that with the recent improvements in communications, including videoconferencing and the Internet, relocation of personnel is generally unnecessary in 1

performing the Commission's duties.

1 Conclusions Due to uncertainties in the future size of the Commission and improved communications capabilities, the Commission's Strategic Assessment decisions should include consideration for utilizing employees in their current job locations.

Comment 2 - DSI 20: International Activities I

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 1

i Discussion All our personal contacts inside DOE inform us that DOE's safety program would benefit from independent oversight.

Recommendation l

Take over as much DOE oversight as possible.

Comments Provided bv 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 (DBT')

Kent Prendergast (KMP) j Phil Qualls (PMQ)

William Wagner (WJW)

--