ML20197D008
| ML20197D008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/26/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712240319 | |
| Download: ML20197D008 (2) | |
Text
V UNITED STATES 0000000000 0
,a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf{
RELEASED TOTHE POR
[5 2
I S
W AsHINGTON, D.C. EMES e
2 PN.@
DhJ
%.....)
am m
- ee......
comssicurn September 26. 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
John C. Hoyle. SecretaryC!,,h b / Y[
FROM:
Edward McGaffigan. Jr.
W,
SUBJECT:
COMNJD-97-006 - COMMISSION PROCEDURES: FURTHER ISSUES I have reviewed Commissioner Diaz' proposals in COMNJD 97-006 and the other Commissioners' views on those proposals, and I offer the following coments --
- 1. I agree that ex parte communications from Congress should be served on the parties to the adjudicatory proceeding in the same time frame as SECY should implement the ex parte communications from other entities.
proce(ures on service of ex carte communications in a manner that will result in equal treatment, frem a time-of-service-standpoint, for all such communications regardless of their source.
- 2. When the Comission changed its procedures in the early 1990s to allow for the routine release (with certain resirictions) of SECY papers and votes, it focussed on SECY papers alone and did not address the release of other voting vehicles.
The extension of that release appruach to COMSECYs and the attendant voting records (votes. SRM) is logical and long overdue.
Thus I support Commissioner Diaz' proposal to modify our procedures to as to routinely release COMSECYs and the ".oting records thereon. Subject. of course, to the same restrictions t. at currently apply to the release of SECY papers and the SECY paper voting records.
- 3. On the matter of public release of SECY papers. I also believe that we should consider routinely releasing such payers (subject to the normal restrictions on release) a few days after t1e paper is transmitted to the Commission by SECY.
This would allow a more timely review of SECY papers by the public, and could result in better information flow - from the Commission to the public and from the public to the Commission
- on substantive policy issues that the Commission is considering.
- 4. As to Commissioner Dicus' comments concerning negative consent papers.
it is my understandirig that, for years. SECY has prudently soug1t some affirmative indication from each Commissioner that the Commissioner has For not objected to the proposals in the negative consent documents.
l the same period. SRMs have been issued on negative consent papers so that the staff will have a clear indication that the Commissien has considered the proposals and not objected.
I believe that this practice is useful and hebs to ensure that all Commissioners have actually
,q considered the su)jects of the negative consent papers and that the
~M~,D '> / b staff is fully informed of the Commission', actions on those papers.
D CM3 9712240319 970726 l,,,
i(l f
1 {
, g,
., Ll [l PDR CCHMS NRCC 4
CORRESPONDENCl! PDR
( O M fl\\
<'7
}
j 4-2 Although the )ractice of Commissioners commenting on, or suggesting changes to, t1e proposals in the negative consent papers blurs the distinction between negative consent and notation vote documents. I don't believe that these practices necessarily obviate the need for, or usefulness of, three categories of Commission papers.
Nevertheless. I support Commissioner Dicus' suggestion that the Commission examine the negative consent process: I would suggest that SECY study that process and the current practice on negative consent papers and make recommendations to the Commission on the need for any changes.
- 5. Finally I support Commissioner Diaz' suggestion that SECY should undertake a systematic review of Commission procedures.
The review should include. among other things, a review of, and recommendations ca the matters discussed in items (1) through (4) above.
cc:
Chairman Jackson Com*' <ioner-Dicus Con.as :oner Diaz OGC I
l l
i
-m
.