ML20137L455
| ML20137L455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/18/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L372 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-065, COMSECY-96-65, DSI-21, FACA, NUDOCS 9704070232 | |
| Download: ML20137L455 (2) | |
Text
- '
............ese........
y *%*2 UNITED STATES
- g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 '
RELEASED TO Ti E PDR k .8 ~
, i i
%, *****/ . c6!o ini!!als COMMISSIONER february 18, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz FROM: Edward McGaffigan, Jr. ./ '
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-065 - DSI 21 - FEES The only difference between Option 1 (Continue Existing Approach) and Option 2 (No Consideration of Fees for Mandated Activities) according to DSI-21 is that under Option 1. in certain narrow circumstances notably Agreement State training and travel and "certain international activities." the Commission considers fees. Under Option 1. the Commission does not consider fees for the vast majority of mandated activities, such as the reactor oversight or the byproduct materials programs.
I basically support Option 1 rather than the Preliminary Views in favor of Option 2. but note that this may be a matter of semantics, given the small difference between the two options. Under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA),
specific authority is granted to the NRC to charge Agreement States for training, travel and technical assistance. Thus, this is a " mandated" activity but one different from other mandates in that Congress opened up a funding mechanism for it that became attractive once OBRA-90 was enacted and Congress and the Office of Managemant and Budget (OMB) failed to provide the relief requested in the Commission's February 1994 report. It is not clear to me which international activities may have been constrained by fee considerations, but that is an area where distinguishing " mandated" and "non-mandated" activities can be difficult. In my view, most, if not all, regulatory assistance efforts should be funded either outside the fee base within the NRC appropriated budget (my preference in DSI-20) or as reimbursable activities funded by other agencies.
As for the issue of funding mechanisms. I sup3crt the Preliminary View which endorses Funding Mechanism 2 (Current Approac1) only if the Commission is unsuccessful in obtaining OMB and Congressional approval of amendments to 0 BRA-90. the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (10AA) and the AEA to address inequities summarized in Appendix B to DSI-21 and in the February 1994 Report to Congress. This is essentially Funding Mechanism 1. The goal would be to move as many of the three groups of activities mentioned in Appendix B outside the fee base and into a separate appropriation as OMB and Congress will allow (or, in the case of the costs of NRC assistance to other Federal agencies, being permitted to assess appropriate Part 170 fees within the fee 9704070232 PDR NRCSA 1 970403 '
I PDR
base). This would be done as part of the FY 1999 budget request. I support making this part of our FY 1999 request because I am sympathetic to 1 stakeholder comments on the inequities in the current funding mechanism. l particularly when electric utility economic deregulation is rapidly changing l the competitive environment in which NRC licensees operate compared to when !
OBRA-90 and the 10AA were enacted.
In my vote on DSI-2. I recommended that consideration be given to assessing at least Part 170 fees on DOE contractors as part of any legislative package to l 4 implement NRC oversight of DOE. In my vote on DSI-4. I recommended that Agreement State training and travel receive a separate appropriation outside the fee base and I said that I supported ~ seeking similar relief for the costs
, associated with the development of NRC materials regulations and guidance and NRC oversight of Agreement State programs. In my vote on DSI-9. I made a similar recommendation with regard to site decomissioning management plan activities not recoverable under Part 170. Finally. I mentioned above my vote ,
on DSI-20 with regard to funding regulatory assistance efforts, which I would i like to see ex)anded, outside the fee base. All of these recommendations are !
consistent wit 1 my recommendations on funding mechanisms in this paper.
The last issue raised in DSI-21 is how to obtain necessary FTEs to carry out reimbursable work. I support the Preliminary Views that NRC is a " business- i like organization" under the terms of the January J.1996 OMB letter to the !
Chief Financial Officer (CF0) Council when it carries out reimbursable work.
It is not clear to me however, what the prospects for relief are from OMB and the CF0 Council. I would recommend that we seek an early decision by requesting the FTEs needed to carry out known or highly predictable business-like activities in our FY 1999 budget request. The request would break out :
" core FTEs" and "known reimbursable business-like FTEs" for FY 1999 - FY 2001 1
and seek OM3 support for the " reimbursable business-like FTEs" in the NRC budget request as directed in the January 1996 OMB letter. NRC would turn to the CFO Council for relief onb if OMB turned down the request for the business-like FTEs or if there were an unpredictable rise in reimbursable work after the FY 1999 budget was submitted.