ML19224D701
| ML19224D701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/29/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ribicoff A SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D702 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907160141 | |
| Download: ML19224D701 (2) | |
Text
Ccm yy 1
UNITED STATES Gg
[i NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
".. p C
- i. ASHINGTC'J. D. C 2C555 s
yR fl June 29, 1979 C H A I R '.9 A N The Honorable Abraham Ribicoff, Chairman Committee on Governnental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are pleased to respond to your request for comments on S. 2, the " Sunset Act of 1979".
In general the NRC strongly supports the objectives of this bill', that is, to promote governmental efficiency through elimination of inactive and overlapping federal programs and by periodic review of exist-ing budget authority.
Because c the budget system which is currently in use at the NRC, we already have the mechanism in place to comply with the basic provisions of S. 2.
Therefore, our agency would not be greatly affected by this bill in terms of budgetary procedures used or paperwork required.
The Commission has previously commented on the Sunset legislation (S. 2),
as passed by the Senate on October 11, 1978.
The Commission continues to have a number of specific concerns about the proposal which were expressed in a letter to OMB on December 19, 1978.
First, it is not clear from our reading of the language of S. 2 whether or how new single year programs, initiated between review cycles, will be exanined.
Neither is i: clear what effect the legislation would have on the extent or the incidence of reviews now conducted annually by the Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission's three congressional oversight committees.
Since the NRC's budget authority is ordinarily granted on a yearly basis, this agency's programs are scrutinized even more freqJently than would be required by S.2.
We believe that the reauthorization review under the legislation cou'd take the place of the annual authorization process when the Comnission's program is being reviewed, thereby avoiding duplication of oversight functions. Alternatively, it might better serve the intent of this bill to have an annual review of the agency's five year budget plan jointly conducted Dy the Congressianal Budget Offica and the Office of Managenent and Budget.
Such a review would have the advantage of elininating possible overlap between tne Executive Branch and the Congress and also provide a mechu ism for automatically updating these projections on en annual basis.
Second, Executive Orcer 1204, which the Comnission has agreed to impie-ment, already provides for a review of existing regulatory programs, 7907160 4 TO " W
The Honora:le Abranar Ribicoff 2
especially for their impact on the U.S. economy.
To this extent, tne Sunset legislaticn may duplicate existir.g Presidential efforts to elim-inate regJlatory waste.
In the spirit of tne Sunset legislation, tr.ese initiatives shcuid be reconciled to avoid overlapping revie'.vs and actions.
In addition, we believe tne work of the recently established Regulatory Counci' could have important implications for the Sunset proposal, and shculd be carefully reviewed as the legislation is developed.
Unile we support the idea of a Citizen's Commission to evaluate govern-ment activities, we have questions about the scope and nature of access to infccm.ation which would be provided to this citizen group.
Presumab' the legislation would not require release of so-called " embargoed" r.ater -
ial anc internal working papers not normally orovided to OM3 or to the Congress ur.til af ter the President completes his budget mark.
The legis-lation should be clarified to reflect this concern.
Firally, Ccamissioner Eradford notes, as far as it relates to the I,RC, he ino,,s of no justification for the extraordinarily broad condernation of adjudicator, proceedings in Section 501(a)(4).
Regulatory "adjudica-ticn" 15 usJally nct "af ter the f act", and it is of ten the only f air way to resclve contested technical and factual issues in a manner fair to all tncse affected by an agency'a decisions.
We apareciate this opportunity to concent on the proposed legislaticn and would be happy to provide you with any further information.
I Sincerely, l
1 \\
,/
g
(<
Joseph P Hendrie 450
!3i