ML20202H236
| ML20202H236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/05/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202H212 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-281-C, NUDOCS 9902080046 | |
| Download: ML20202H236 (2) | |
Text
j NOTATION VOTE -
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary 1
FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN L
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-281 - RESIDENT INSPECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY 4
' Approved X
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
/m k SIGNATURE
(/C l) ()
3 li'll DATp C
Entered on "AS" Yes X
No 9902080046 990202 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR g
4 90 2 6 9 O D 4'6
Commissioner McGaffigan's Comments on SECY-98-281 In general, I support the recommendations contained in SECY-98-281. However, because of the importance of resident inspectors, particularly in light of the proposed changes to the NRC inspection and assessment programs which will further increase Agency reliance on the resident inspector corps, I am of the view that we should not wait until FY 2001 to implement the full locality pay provision discussed in the SECY.
l The discussed option to extend full locality pay to the resident inspectors for the second half of FY 1999 and for FY 2000 should be initiated now, rather than simply explored as one of many reprogramming options. Also, the staff should utilize the full scope and authority available to the Agency in providing retention bonuses to residents on a case-by-case basis. The head of OPM recently stated that agencies should use the authority they have to retain the personnel they feel they need. The NRC has used retention bonuses only on rare occasions for particularly valuable executives; we should re-examine the rationale for our limited use of this authority with a view toward using it more broadly to ensure the resident corps retains its best and brightest.
I agree with the staff in SECY-98-281 that the previous very high turnover and the many new replacements could well be major factors in the small improvement in resident inspector demographics reported for the current FY through May 1998 (SECY-98-152 and SECY-98-183). I am far from convinced that the problems in attracting and retaining a very high quality resident inspector corps have been resolved, and the restoration of the original pay differentialis an important element in assuring a strong and stable resident inspector corps.
Also, as I discussed in my vote on SECY 98-152, I believe each Region should have several" super senior" residents at the GG-15 grade level. This is not strictly within the scope of the current SECY and I won't repeat my entire earlier vote here, but I want to reiterate that the critical role of the senior resident inspector and the significant scope and growing demands of that position, particularly at very challenging sites, argue for the highest qualified and experienced individuals. Offering such a promotion possibility would provide Regional Administrators another tool to fill the most demanding and potentially stressful resident positions with the best possible candidates. Even the use of temporary promotions to GG-15 has potential to be of value.
k 1
1