ML20196L078
| ML20196L078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196L061 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-070-C, SECY-99-70-C, NUDOCS 9907120290 | |
| Download: ML20196L078 (2) | |
Text
'
,(
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-070 -IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVE (DSI-14)
Approved sapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
a swk)
(0 -<- b
)
SIGRAT)dfRE-7
>/ bis
' /
DATE Entered on "AS" Yes / N'o S
CORRESPONDENCE PDR j
~
1 L
Commissioner Merrifield's comments:
First, I want to recognize the staff for assembling a commendable product on an important but often ambiguous topic, public communications. At first glance, the intuitive thought is that adequate public communication should be almost an automatic function; after all, society has been " communicating" for literally thousands of years. But in reality, inadequate cornmunication often lies at the heart of many problems found in society today. It is proper that the NRC contributes its part in improving communications. I have two things that I want to both support your current plans but also caution you to be conscientious in long term follow-up actions.
First, under " Future of the Plan", you properly state that the implementation of the plan itself is not the ultimate goal. I most headily agree that the " ultimate goal" is the institutionalization of a
. good public communication process. However, I caution you to develop adequate, but possibly evolving, performance targets to evaluate how the Agency is proceeding with public communications. It will be too easy after two years to say the implementation plan is done, the process is " institutionalized", now let's go back to business as usual. Many bureaucratic j
procedures started out as a good product for the padicular circumstances under which they were developed. But people kept using the same " approved" words, even though the circumstances changed, until the words no longer made sense. The same thing can happen with this current initiative. What is good communication at one site may not be good communication at another site or even the same site at a different time. The staff must not become complacent and assume that there is one formula that will result in " good
)
communication" at all times or at all sites.
Second, under the resources section of the paper, you discussed the need to develop two new training courses due to the fact that no single existing courses would fully satisfy the objectives 1
of SECY-98-089. I can support the development of the new courses, but the paper could be read to say that the staff saw no need for revising the old courses. I am going to assume that all of the old courses will be reviewed and modified as appropriate so that each course will have some, no matter how small, emphasis on constantly improving public communication.
3 Jo ff i
I
i
[
UNITED STATES f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
i WASHINGTOW, D.C. 20555-0001 "o.,
8
%,****1/
July 8, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
William ~ D. Travers Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 1
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-070 - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVE (DSl-14)
The Commission has approved the staff's implementation plan for the public communications initiative subject to the comments provided below.
1.
If not already included in the plans for implementation of ADAMS, there should be a period of overlap concerning utilization of ADAMS and continuing to provide paper copies to the PDR, until six months after we have demonstrated the effectiveness of ADAMS at the point of public interface for access to agency documents.
2.
The staff should be cautious to the possibility that the resource requirements may be understated. Not only is it important that the initiatives reach all NRC staff and all NRC 7tt ar'ivities, it is also important that these init:atives not diminish the performance of the tasks that underpin our findings of reasonable assurance of public health and safety, and protection of the environment. If the staff finds that conflicts are developing,it should immediately bring the resource issues to the attention of the Commission.
3.
With regard to early public involvement in rulemaking (IIA 1), the staff should clarify the scope or depth of the intention that "[p]ublic involvement should be considered in developina rulemaking plans." (Emphasis added).
4.
The staff should consider the proposition that the Agency should " educate" the public, albeit "without being promotional," as might be suggested by the statement of Issue VA.
The staff should focus on explaining and discussing agency actions with clarity and accuracy.
5.
With respect to the " Future of the Plan," the staff should develop adequate, but possibly evolving, performance targets to evaluate how the Agency is proceeding with public communications. The staff must not become complacent and assume that there is one formula that will result in " good communication" at all times or at all sites.
6.
The staff should review the old courses and modify them as appropriate so that each course will have some, no matter how small, emphasis on constantly improving public communication, f]O ~e, Im mW S
y!VYJC,U @ f~
n.
.e s-
\\:
1 i-cc:-
- Chairman Dicus.
Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Oommissioner Merrifield -
' OPA
. Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
)
i i
i 1
1
\\
1 4
1 1;
,