ML20197C842
| ML20197C842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/10/1997 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| COMNJD-97-006, COMNJD-97-6, NUDOCS 9712240286 | |
| Download: ML20197C842 (3) | |
Text
~ gy[
~
^ -
'~ "-
[
- w; j,,,
UNITE D ST ATES "g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMNJD-97 006~
e
['3,,(
WW ASHtNGToN. O C. 20555
-r a
g "g
/
- "" RELEASED TOTHE POR eM',,[og September 10,1997 pg date g
......,,e TO:
Chairman Jackson 1
Commissioner Dieus Commissioner McGaffigan
(
FROM:
Commissioner Diaz l
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION PROCEDURES: FURTHER ISSUES Having read the September 8 memorandum to the Commissioners
(" Commission Procedures - Recording of Votes," COMSECY.97-022"), I wish to commend the Office of the Secretary for its conscientious monitoring of Commission practices and procedures, in this case with regard to the submission of vote sheets signed by Commissioners' assistants.
This occasion seems an appropriate one to look funher at the question of adherence to Commission procedures, as two recent occurrences have raised the question whether the Commission could and should be doing more to ensure it gives full and timely notice to the public of developments relating to its decisions and decisional processes.
First,it has recently come to my attention that when Congressionalletters are l
received containing ex nane communications about pending adjudications, they are not served on the parties immediately, although the Internal Commission Procedures (at p. V.5) make no distinction in the handling of ex parte communications from Members of Congress and from others. Under current practice, Congressional letters containing ex parte communications are not served on the parties or otherwise made public until the staff's response to the c
Member of Congress is dispatched and served.
f I am concerned that this delay in making the incoming communication public L
may not be consistent with the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act and -
with the NRC's u_ pans regulation,10 CFR $2.780(c), which provides that go3 g
such communications shall be served on the parties to the proceeding L
"promptly " I suggest that Commission practice should be to serve the panies C.4 0 v k>
go 3 g O Mi%
I 22pg L
CORRESPONDENCE PDR ii f
'i
- ww
O
\\
2 promptly when ex pane communications are received, regard'ess of their source, and to respond to the sender with a couneous, standard-format letter explaining that in conformity with the NRC's rules on the handling of such communications,it has been served on the parties to the proceeding. If a funher staff response is called for, this letter can tell the writer to expect the staff to respond shortly to the merits of the incoming letter. I believe we owe it to the public and the panies to our proceedings to make clear that the way to panicipate in our adjudicatory processes is through normal legal channels (tgi, seeking pany status or making a limited appearance). Moreover, by politely reminding Congressional correspondents of the limits of the law, we may be doing them a service, helping to insulate them from attempts to persuade them to involve themselves in NRC adjudicatory matters.
Second, the discussion about the release of of a recent C6M, originating in the Chairman's office, has made apparent that COMSECYs, as well as the SRMs and Commissioners' votes associated with them, are not routinely being released l
to the public. My view is that a significant part of the Commission's deliberations and decision making now takes place through COMSECYs, and l
that openness and accountability call for making these available to the public as a matter of routine. (The COMSECY in question along with Commissioners' comments addressed an issue pivotal to NRC.) The same considerations that call for releasing SECY par ers "whenever possible," is, unless certain specified circumstances are present (tte "SECY Papers," at 113), apply to COMSECYs as well.
The withholding of COMSECYs is not specifically addressed in the Commission's internal procedures. However, they provide that responses to the COMSECYs of Commissioners are one of the four ways in which Commission l
decision making occurs (5ss " Voting," at 1111); that such votes lead to a memorandum recording the decision and, if called for, a Staff Requirements Memorandum as well (tes " Votes on Inter-Commissioner Action Memoranda,"
at 1115), if it is routine practice to release SRMs on SECY papers to the public five days after their approval, the same should apply to SRMs on COMSECYs.
The Commission's internal procedures also provide that waivers of the procedures may be made only by written vote of a majority of the Comnussioners. (Ses " Commission Administrative Procedures," at I-6.)
Funher, they provide that procedures "will be reviewed periodically to ensure
3 consistency with current practices." (Str_ Foreword," at i.)
These two instances lead me to believe that this would be an opportune time for the Secretariat to conduct a systematic, across-th, board review of procedures. This should be performed in coordination with the Office of General Counsel, to assure consistency with legal requirements as well. If there are areas where it is uncertain whether current practice conferms to the internal procedures and to legal requirements, those areas of uncertainty should be identified as well.
SECY, please track.
.