ML20137L733
| ML20137L733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/21/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L664 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-067, COMSECY-96-67, DSI-23, FACA, SECY-96-067-C, SECY-96-67-C, NUDOCS 9704070296 | |
| Download: ML20137L733 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _
1
...........u.........
g 4'e UNITED STATES RELEASED TO THE PDR p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- g
}
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 e
g g%,
/
cate inttia!s l
a.............. -
cOuesSIONEn February 21. 1997 3
J MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson Comissioner Rogers Comissioner Dicus 1
Commissioner Diaz FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-067 - DSI 23 - ENHANCING REGULATORY EXCELLENCE l
This paper asks the Commission to choose between an option under which individual offices would assess program performance and implement improvements in regulatory effectiveness (Option 1) and an option where an agency-wide senior management group would prioritize elements of the NRC's regulatory framework for systematic improvement and oversee program assessments and the implementation of identified improvements (Option 2).
1 The paper and Appendix A lay out in some detail the large number of specific i
2 studies, self-assessments, and regulatory reviews that the individual offices in the NRC have undertaken ever the years.
It is fair to say that many of these self-assessments and resulting efforts to improve regulatory effectiveness were pro-active, not simply reactive to events or external pressure. What is lacking under the Option 1 approach is a systematic assessment of where limited agency self-assessment and regulatory performance improvement resources can be most effectively applied to achieve key 4
improvements in a timely fashion.
There also appears to be a lack of following through on the office level initiatives to get their full benefit, possibly due in part to senior management and Commission attention being focused elsewhere (on the next problem with its next initiative) when hard choices had to be made Recent events at Millstone and Maine Yankee seem to indicate that there are continuing agency regulatory performance problems that were not identified and corrected by ongoing programs or by individual studies and self-assessments that were undertaken in the past.
Similarly, the recent Arthur Anderson study a) pears to have identified possible infirmities in one of the most important NRC regulatory processes -- the Senior Management Meeting and watch list formulation -- that we might have expected to have been identified and addressed long ago. All of this leads me to the view that the agency needs to Earlier incidents involving Thermo-Lag. Rosemount pressure transmitters, 2
the Indiana, PA medical nisadministration and the Sequoyah Fuels Facility UF6 cylinder ru3ture. for example, revealed NRC regulatory performance failures or press weacnesses that had not been identified and corrected by prior assessments or ongoing programs.
9704070296 970403 R
NRCSA I
a i
-2 institute a process that will result in a comprehensive, systematic coordinated and centinuing assessment of regulatory performance with a view toward " enhancing regulatory excellence." Accordingly. I support Option 2.
However. I have concerns about some aspects of the Preliminary Views on this paper and about the resource estimates (18-30 FTEs and up to $2 million in contractor support in FY 1999) to carry the Preliminary Views out.
Option 2. as proposed in the paper, recognized resource constraints and proposed to take a step-by-step approach to selecting elements of the regulatory framework infrastructure for priority and systematic improvement.
It listed on page 11 cuite a broad range of regulatory framework processes that might be selectec for systematic improvement and then on page 12 stated that the more proactive approach would be considereo for extension to all NRC regulatory functions and all NRC management and support functions after a suitaole period of time and on the basis of experience.
In the Preliminary Views, the Commission directed the staff to broaden its focus to "all NRC regulatory areas" from the outset.
I am concerned that this will lead to paralysis in the system.
I note that several stakeholders, including those such as the Organization of Agreement States (0AS), who generally favor Option
- 2. share my concern. 0AS favored phasing in the more proactive ap3 roach over an extended period so that the cumulative changes resulting from tlis DSI and the other DSIs do not introduce a "destabilizing organizational effect" in the agency.
I agree and so I would urge that we allow the staff to tell us how broadly and how quickly they can realistically phase in the comprehensive.
)
systematic agency-wide ap] roach to program assessment and improvement.
Therefore. I wculd dro) t1e last sentence of the first paragraph and the entire second paragrap1 of the Preliminary Views in the Commission's final views. This would give the staff needed flexibility in coming up with an implementation plan for this cross-cutting DSI bearing in mind the implementation plans for all the other DSIs on which they will be simultaneously working.
At the same time. I do believe that we need to develop performance measures to gauge our progress in enhancing regulatory exce'1ence.
The Commission's preiiminary views similarly noted a need for the implementation plan to identify " goals with milestones and clear criteria for judging success." As I have indicated in my views on a number of DSIs. one area where I believe we must substantially improve is in the timeliness of our rulemaking, updating and incorporating codes and standards, and completing regulatory guidance to complement our requirements.
Thus. I would suggest that the performance goals that are established in the area of enhancing regulatory excellence should include a goal of completing rulemaking, codes and standards updating and regulatory guidance documents within about one year of the initial proposal.
On the issue of resources. I believe that there are several ways to conserve l
resources in implementing this DSI.
First. I agree with Commissioner Dicus that the Executive Council is the logical place to lodge responsibility for the systematic approach to program assessment and performance im3rovement. A new agency-wide senior management review group does not need to ]e created.
Second the Executive Council's initiatives need not be "in addition to the l
current routine and periodic office-directed self-assessment improvement afforts." as described on page 11 of the paper, but instead could replace some of those efforts.
I envision the Executive Council first evaluating the i
effectiveness of those office-level efforts and then encouraging the timely completion of those that appear effective and eliminating, or revising, those that are not.
Finally. I note that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has substantial expertise (and some responsibility) related to program and performance assessment.
Consideration should be given to soliciting the OIG's assistance, on a continuing basis, to participate in some of the reviews and evaluations for the Executive Council.
cc:
ED0 MC SECY CFO