ML20237D430
| ML20237D430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/03/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237D420 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-152-C, NUDOCS 9808260158 | |
| Download: ML20237D430 (3) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _
NOTATION VOTE y
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENT INSPECTOR PROGRAM Approved X
Disapproved x
Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments previously submitted on July 28, 1998.
n 1
ster
~
SIGN URE
., 00 U V
. ),
/ 7 'lff DATE
(>
Entered on "AS" Yes x
No 9808260158 980821 RES DE E PDR
1 Commissioner McGaffigan's Comments on SECY-98-152 The current SECY-98-152 shows that the staff reaction to the demographic and attrition discovenes made during the preparation of the earlier paper (SECY-97-285, itself directed by the March 25,1997 SRM on DSI-11) is still very much a work in progress. The SECY points ahead to milestones or products associated with various other hitiatives, such as IRAP, the JTA, and the OlG survey. in responding to recommendations from the ALMPC.
The budget pressures that necessitated the extension of the resident tour length from 5 to 7 years have not eased. Indeed, such pressures have significantly increased. I am of the view that the maximum resident tour length should be regarded as having been extended to 7 years for all residents in their current assignments until the staff receives an approved budget that provides the funda necessary to support the retum to a 5 year tour. I do not plan to support a
]
retum to 5 year tours in the FY 2000 budget process. The residents deserve a high level of program stability such that any retum to the 5 year maximum should be applied as new tours begin. I therefore do not support the planned content of the memorandum proposed to be sent to the affected staff (by July 31,1998) on this matter.
The ALMPC recommendations indicate that management expectations on the subject of site coverage need clarification. I am very disappointed in the staff's reaction to this ALMPC recommendation. The staff apparently agreed that clarification was needed, but the proposed date for the revised guidance will be over 10 months after the ALMPC made its recommendations. While a revision to the Manual Chapter may take time, residents and their supervisors deserve a clear statement on management expectations in this area. This is especially important in light of the remote locations involved, the low number of staff at each office, and the obvious personal / family conflicts inherent in mandated backshift coverage. This clarification should be made promptly, prior to its inclusion in a Manual Chapter revision if necessary.
I would also like to note that, while i welcome the signs of reduced attrition reported in the SECY, the projected data through May 1998 did not include any summer moves that might be made by families waiting until the end of the school year.
Finally, I note that the Commission is scheduled to receive recommendations on resident compensation by September 30,1998. There is no similar due date on the other recommendation with resource impacts, namely improving telecommunications for resident sites. It strikes me that it would have been better to deal with these issues in the budget process. That apparently being impossible, I do not want the staff to be budget constrained in making recommendations on these issues, both of which I would hope could be addressed by September 30. We will fund by reprogramming in FY 1999 and FY 2000 the resources necessary to carry out any recommendations approved by the Commission.
I also request that when the staff considers compensation issues, an idea not discussed by the ALMPC Subcommittee be considered, namely whether each region should have a group of four to six " super senior" residents at the GG-15 grade level. The " super seniors" would be resident either at sites from which they could frequently travel to other sites or at regional headquarters.
They would be responsible for mentoring other residents, for bringing about greater cons stency in NRC inspection and assessment, for providing staff to important team inspections, responding to emerging requirements, etc. In making this proposal, I am trying to create an opportunity for a select group of resident inspectors to remain residents throughout their careers if they so desire and not get diverted into management tracks in order to win promotions. I
a 2
continue to regard the resident corps as the front line forces of the igency, on which our entire reactor safety program depends. Just as research laboratories create opportunities for productive scientists to remain researchers and not be forced to a management track, we need to create similar opportunities for the resident corps.
,,h/
t 1
i l
1 i
.s v
/*
UNITED STATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g_
. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 e
c\\
/
August 21, 1998
- OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
' MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan l
Ex t
Director for Operations
. l dt..
FROM:
J C. Hoyl, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS 'SECY-98-152 -
SUMMARY
OF -
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENT INSPECTOR PROGRAM The Commission has approved the staff's recommendations subject to the specific comments provided below.
l The staff should proceed with a short term action to ensure that immediate issues of
' Management Expectation" for resident inspectors (such as site coverage and residence
' requirements discussed in the ALMPC subcommittee report) are addressed as describcd in Action 1. This clarification should be made promptly.
(EDO).
(SECY Suspense:
9/30/98)
To address longer term changes to the program guidance, the staff should wait for completion of the re-baselining of the inspection and assessment programs. After finalization of the revised inspection and assessment programs, process mapping (as described in the Job Task -
Analysis) of the inspection and assessment processes should be used to establish clear roles-4 and responsibilities for resident inspectors. A final revision of the program guidance, incorporating the new program's roles and responsibilities, should be issued by June 30,1999, or consistent with the schedule developed in response to the Chairman's tasking memorandum of August 7,1998.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/30/99)
Based on the realities of the budget situation, the Commission does not expect to reinstate the five-year rotation policy for resident inspectors in FY 2000. _ As such, all current resident l
inspectors should be considered to have the option of a seven-year vice five-year maximum tour length.~ New resident inspector assignments will stipulate a seven year maximum tour length. Should future budgets support a retum to a five-year maximum tour length, that should be applied as new tours begin. The proposed letter to affected resident inspectors should '
clarify this decision.
. in addressing issues'on telecommunications for resident sites, t_he statt r,hould not be l,-
constrained by the FY 1999 and FY 2000 budget program - funds for at proved recommendations should be made available from lower priority activities within the Agency.
i
.- J M
p.
s.
sg,
. cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan
' OGC CIO' CFO OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
PDR-DCS l