ML20211Q130
| ML20211Q130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/17/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211Q113 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-176-C, NUDOCS 9909140204 | |
| Download: ML20211Q130 (2) | |
Text
.
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET i
TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-176 - PLANS FOR PURSUING PERFORMANCE-BASED INITIATIVES Approved X
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
v SIGN TURE l
17, liii DATE Entered on "AS" Yes X
No 9909140204 990913 RE F
I L
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-99-176
'I approve the staff activities described in this paper. As my Commission colleagues have pointed out, the paper lacks definitive schedules, milestones or goals (although these have
' been provided separately to the Commission for many of the activities with performance-based elements described in the paper). What this paper lays out is essentially a case-by-case approach until the staff has dealt with enough cases to provide a general framework for going forward. The~ paper does describe a generally sound approach to continue assessing and studying possible approaches to and applications of performance-based regulatory initiatives.
Our strategic plan commits the Commission to " risk-informed and, where appropriate, performance-based regulations." As I said in my vote on SECY-98-132, the precursor to this paper, the staff and the Commission both have been struggling with the concept of performance-based regulation and where it would be appropriate to utilize that approach instead of prescriptive regulation. I noted the lack of a foundation for performance-based regulation compared to risk-informed regulation. The May 1999 " White Paper on Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation" gave the staff very little guidance on where performance-based approaches are appropriate to use. From the stakeholder meetings, it is also clear that stakeholders are also struggling with this concep..
Thus, I am not surprised at the staff's case-by-case approach to performance-based regulation.
Indeed, both NRR and NMSS clearly have a significant number of actMties underway in which performance-based initiatives are being pursued. Also, where appropriate, the staff is planning
'1 to seek stakeholder comment in each new proposed rule on whether the proposed rule is unnecessarily prescriptive and can be more performance-based. All of these activities should eventually yield a firmer foundation for performance-based regulation without diverting resources from higher priority risk-informed initiatives.
This said, I am not opposed to Chairman Dicus' recommendation that the staff provide an
! annual update on performance-based initiatives. I would caution, however, against any expectations that the staff can deliver an annual" Performance-Based Regulation implementation Plan" similar to the "PRA Implementation Plan" which we use as a tool to pursue risk-informed regulation. The two concepts of " risk-informed regulation" and j
" performance-based regulation" are far apart in their rel,ative maturity.
1 I
l
$