ML20203G461
| ML20203G461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/07/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203G390 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-220-C, NUDOCS 9712180138 | |
| Download: ML20203G461 (3) | |
Text
.. - - . . . ... . . - -.
, n N O T ATIO N VOT E' ;
RESPONSE SHEET
- TO:- John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-220 -IMPLEMENTATION OF DSI 22 RESEARCH Approved A Disapproved __ Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments, s ,
SIGNATURE (( U ()
' Release Vote -/ N / l~7!S7' __
DATE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes K_ No -
N[d**c*o $ Sc!"'
cORRESf0NDENCE PDR g-
Commissioner McGaffican's Comments on SECY-97 220 I approve the staff's proposals ' subject to the following coments:
first. I agree with the Chairman's comments.
Second, l_ note the staff's disclaimer with regard to the lack of resources to complete all of the listed rulemakings in Attachment 4 and with regard to the likely adverse effect on several rulemaking schedules of implementation of the transfer of rulemaking to the program offices. With regard to the first disclaimer. I believe that the staff and Comission need a tool to provide adequate resources-to the rulemakings which we are trying to accomplish; Having more rulemakings underway than there are resources to carry them out leaves the priority setting to happenstance. If there are not enough resources to carry out all the rulemakings that are currently underway, the Rulemaking Activity Plan should identify which rulemakings are proposed to be delayed or eliminated and the Comission will then have a chance to concur with or amend those proposals.
With regard to the second disclaimer. I would expect the staff to take actions that will ensure that very high priority rulemaking activities clearly identified as such by the Comission with deadlines established (such as Part 35 revision or the regulatory guide for the license termination rule) will not be adversely affected by the transition.
Third. I do not object to the Office of Administration (ADM) being designated as the organization responsible for rulemaking infrastructure, although I note that this infrastructure function is described somewhat differently in this SECY compared with SECY-97-167. For example. I assume that the function of getting OMB clearance for specific rulemakings will be the responsibility of the program offices. I also note that in updating the Rulemaking Activity Plan twice a year, ADM will be carrying out a compiling function. The responsibility for proposing priorities for rulemakings and meeting schedules for rulemaking Mlestones will reside with the Directors of the program offices.
Finally. I note the staff's desire in Attachment 3 to retain responsibility for the Generic Safety Issues Program in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), although this will apparently be discussed in more detail in a paper that will soon be forthcoming. I note the Comission's previous direction that implementation of the action to resolve a generic safety issue, whether it involves rulemaxing, issuing a generic letter or other regulatory J
l.
l l
2 action, be performed by the responsible program office. This implies that there will need to be close coordination between the program offices and RES on the Generic Safety Issues Program. I believe that a mechanism, such as the Rulemaking Activity Plan, needs-to be developed to set priorities and schedules for generic safety issues and ensure that resources are available in both RES and the program offices to meet the milestones established for analysis and resolution of generic safety issues. My impression at the moment is that, just as in the rulemaking area, there are far more issues under consideration than resources available to analyze and resolve them and that priority-setting is left at least-partly to happenstance. What I am calling for may already be under development as a result of the implementation of NRC's Performance Plan under GPRA.
pattog Do UNITED ST ATE S
/
j' s
, 3 g NUCL E AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
/. ASmN CT ON D C N555-0001 g
t December 5, 1997 5, a . . . . ,o '
OF $ict OF T HE .r -
$tCHETARY Joseph Callan iL MEMORANDUM TO: L.
Exec tive Director for Operations , k FROM: Joh[C h e Secretary V
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-220 -
IMPLEMENTATION OF DSI 22 RESEARCH The Commission has approved the staff's plans to transfer the rulemaking resources and responsibilities to the program offices as described in SECY-97-220 and subject to the following comments.
- 1. The staff should clearly define the scope of activities meeting the definition of confirmatory research as defined in SECY-97-167. Technical activities meeting this definition, but not being transferred to RES should be identified and the reasons for not transferring the activities should be provided.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 12/31/97)
- 2. The staff should provide recommendations on the Generic Safety Issues Program and the consolidation of highly specialized expertise to the Commission. As with there the Rulemaking Activity Plan in the rulemaking area, should be a mechanism in place to set priorities and scheduling for generic safety issues and to pass that information to the Commission for review. 12/31/97)
(EDO) (SECY Suspense:
- 3. With regard to the lack of resources to carry out all the rulemakings currently underway, the staff should identify in the Rulemaking Activity Plan (RAP) which rulemakings will be delayed or eliminated to permit the Commission to concur The RAP should with or amend the proposals as necessary.
become an effective mechanism for setting priorities for application of limited resources in the program offices.
High priority rulemaking activities (such as the Part 35 revision and the regulatory guide for the license termination rule) should not be adversely impacted by the SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-97-220, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLTCLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
iv.,u 3gn 4--,f n,
,7 r u vti; ,~y
-transition.
.(EDO) (SECY Suspense: Next update of RAP) r 4.. While the Office of Administration (ADM) will be designated the responsible organization for rulemaking infrastructure, '
the function of. preparing OMB clearances for specific rulemakings,should be retained by the program offices. . In addition, updating the Rulemaking Activity Plan will-be a compiling function for ADM.- The responsibility for proposing priorities remains with the Directors of the program offices.
- 5. The staff should forward che information on staff core capabilities in response co the SRM on SECY-97-075 by the end of January, 1998.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 1/30/98)
- 6. The transfer of rulemaking functions, staff and funding to.
the program offices should be complete by the end:of February, 1998.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 2/27/93) e cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigun OGC CIO CFO OCA OIG
' Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via B-Mail)
l L
. . - . . .