ML20137L870
| ML20137L870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/30/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Mcgaffigan E, Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L805 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-064, COMSECY-96-64, DSI-20, SECY-96-064-C, SECY-96-64-C, NUDOCS 9704070333 | |
| Download: ML20137L870 (6) | |
Text
,
[
%,t UNITED STATES RELEASED TO THE PDR NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e-WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!k 0001 j
f)
)
{
9, 8
cate '
inda:s
%, *
- s s *,#
January 30, 1997
.....e........ 1........
CHAIRMAN MEMORANDUM TO:
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan FROM:
jL, j
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-064, INTERNATIO AL ACTIVITIES (DSI-20)
After reviewing comments related to DSI-20 on NRC international activities, I continue to support Option 4 as reflected in the Commission's preliminary views.
The next phase should include the development of a plan to include criteria which would address the basis for prioritizing NRC's international activities, I
including research.
With respect to Commissioner Dicus' specific comments, I agree that the plan should focus on non-mandated activities, address program effectiveness, and take into account new international initiatives.
However, since the Office of International Programs has a wider knowledge base of NRC's international activities, I believe they are in a better position to develop the plan itself.
I agree that the Executive Council should be involved in the coordination and review of the plan.
On the matter of input from NEA and Senior Regulators, I note that several international organizations and senior regulators themselves provided comments on OSI-20.
I see the development of the plan in the next phase to be used as guidance for Commission decision-making of budget and priorities.
As we do not yet know the plan, I believe it would be prudent to reserve judgment on the utility of circulating it for further public comment.
If a decision is made to solicit further comments, I do not believe it can be restricted solely to the NEA or Senior Regulators, but should be made available to all relevant stakeholders.
On the matter of assistance from the international nuclear regulators group, I believe it is premature to envision any specific role for them, given that they are not yet a formally constituted body.
I agree with Commissioner Dicus' comment that there should be no diminution of domestic nuclear regulatory safety activities, including those in support of State and local radiation safety programs.
In this regard, I note that many of the comments received from the Organization of Agreement States and individual State regulators argue that money now spent on foreign trainees 9704070333 970403 PDR NRCSA I PDR 20
I P
l 2
could be spent for other purposes such as training for Agreement States.
Despite documented evidence to the contrary there continues to be misunderstanding and a perception of inequity in this matter.
Therefore, I strongly recommend enclosing the attached paper on NRC assistence to foreign regulators to the SRM for this DSI, which will be made publicly svailable.
l I agree with Commissioner McGaffigan's comment on support for the i
l NRC's role in export-import licensing activities.
In this connection, it is important to recognize that there is a nexus i
between domestic and international nuclear safety activities particularly with regard to nuclear vendors and other NRC l
domestic licenses who increasingly are involved in nuclear upgrade projects abroad.
It should also be noted that regulatory assistance programs often are part of larger U.S. government foreign policy and security goals.
Finally, all NRC international activities, not just regulatory assistance, but research, should be evaluated for effectiveness; program of work; structure and budget; accomplishment of stated objectives; and shculd include a sunset provision.
l
Attachment:
As stated t
cc:
3 f
P f
POINTS ON HRC ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN REGULATORS Introduction A question has been raised concerning the appropriateness of providing NRC training to foreign regulators without reimbursement at a time when the Commission is moving to assess Agreement States for certain training costs.
It is important in this context to be clear about several matters regarding both agreement state and foreign training; including the nature of training being offered, the types of costs involved and who is paying them.
Foreian Assionees and Trainina at NRC NRC's long-standing foreign assignee program has brought hundreds of foreign experts from advanced and developing nations to the United States for both long-t'erm and short-term training. AE00 reports that it has provided training in the US for the following numbers of foreign experts:
FY-93--29; FY-94--83; and FY95--52.
In addition, over the past few years, NRC has conducted about a dozen off-site training courses for foreign regulators under contracts or interagency agreements (typically with one of the national laboratories). As will be discussed, funding for foreign courses (NRC travel and contract costs) was provided through AID.
The foreign assignee / training program rests on two policy bases.
First, is the established fact that a healthy exchange of professional experience between regulators not only benefits the foreign countries who send assignees here, but also benefits the NRC in many ways (understanding different j
regulatory perspectives, obtaining information about how foreign regulators j
deal with common regulatory issues, and concrete contributions during the work i
assignment at NRC are only a few of these). Second (and particularly since the Chernobyl accident), is the view that helping other states utilizing nuclear power avoid serious reactor accidents is not only a benefit to them, but a distinct benefit to the United States (The statement that "a nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere" embodies this concept).
]
In this light, most training of foreign experts has been in power reactor safety, as the area in which US experience is likely to provide the greatest benefit to the recipient, while also advancing US interests in enhanced reactor safety worldwide.
Examples of such training are PRA methodology, nondestructive testing, inservice inspection and fundamentals of operator licensing.
Further, except for off-site activities, most of this training is ancillary to the Commission's own regulatory activities, not specially developed or tailored for foreign assignees.
The cardinal principle for financing this program has been that the sending
(
country or organization pays for each assignee's travel and per diem. The NRC absorbs other costs--for lack of a better term, hereinafter called " incidental i
costs"--(e.g., office space, computer equipment, staff time and certain travel expenses deemed incidental to the assignee's work program).
This has been justified on the mutual benefit concept mentioned above.
In recent years, under major federal programs to provide safety assistance to countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Central / Eastern Europe (CEE),
the Agency for International Development has funded travel and per diem of a number of foreign trainees / assignees at NRC and a number of off-site training courses (typically through agreements / contracts with US national laboratories). The use of tax-payer funds to support this activity is authorized under applicable federal laws and has strong support in the Administration and Congress. As for its " regular" assignee program, NRC has a
continued to pick up the " incidental costs" of training for FSU/CEE assignees, With regard to experts from non-FSU/CEE countries (such as South Africa), AID may have funding available under other development assistance programs to support nuclear safety training.
j 1
Aareement State Trainina For many years NRC has provided training to personnel from agreement States.
The 1994 NRC Annual Report states on page 137 that "NRC sponsored 25 such training courses and workshops attended by 500 state radiation control personnel during the fiscal year." AE00 his recently reported that it has sponsored the following numbers of agreement state students at its training courses:. FY93--Il5; FY94--207; and FY95--214.
Given the scope of State i
resoonsibility under relevant agreements, this training has basically focused on licensing and inspection of radioactive materials, not reactor safety. The j
Annual Report lists the following areas of agreement state training: health physics, industrial radiography, well-logging, radiation protection engineering,_ transportation of radioactive materials, non-power reactors, low-3 level waste, nuclear medicine and inspection procedure.
Further, many of
]
these enurses are specifically developed and tailored to tne needs of i
agreement States.
i With regard to costs of such training, Section 2741 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides, inter alia that : "The Commission is also authorized to j
provide training, with or without charge, to employees of, and such other assistance to, any such State or political subdivision thereof or group of States as the Commission deems appropriate".
In determining whether to assess fees the coamission may take into account a variety of factors, including the States' own ability to assess fees to support their programs. As reflected in a January 1996 report by the Texas Department of Public Health's Bureau of Radiation Control entitled " Comparison of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," all 26 NRC agreement states responding to the Texas DPH survey assess fees.
In terms of coverage of expenses, the survey reflected a wide variation, with w!en states (California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, j
Illinois, Kansas and Oregon) recovering more than 100 per cent of their expenses and most others recovering between 45-90 per cent.
In terms of past practice, unlike the situation with regard to foreign assignees or trainees, per diem and travel costs of agreement State employees receiving NRC training have been paid from NRC funds. As with the 4
international program, NRC has not charged for " incidental costs". However, since FY 1994, the NRC technical training program support budget has included costs of providing training to agreement state personnel.
Analysis of the issues With this background, the issue of possible " inequity" regarding trainees from Agreement States vis-a-vis foreign trainees may be easier to sort out.
1
First, with regard to foreign assignee / trainee travel and per diem costs, funding typically comes from other governments or statutory programs implemented by other federal agencies to meet important and clearly-defined national policy goals (e.g., assisting nuclear safety in the FSU/CEE and supporting economic development in Southern Africa).
In contrast, funding travel and per diem for agreement state trainees has been provided by NRC.
This past practice thus clearly does not pose an equity issue. However, if NRC were to treat state agreement trainees in the same manner as foreign trainees with regard to per diem / travel costs in the future, it could be argued that this redresses rather than exacerbates any perceived inequity.
State governments which have accepted certain regulatory responsibilities are able to fund their activities through a combination of fees and state tax revenues.
It is difficult to see how this means of handling travel /per diem costs would raise an issue of equity.
If NRC pays per diem / travel for agreement states, that is is benefit which foreign trainees do not receive.
If both foreign and agreement state students are charged per diem / travel, it is up to foreign governments or federal aid-granting agencies and agreement states to determine whether their policies support payment of such fees.
These are not issues of equity, but about how to allocate costs to support US national and state government policy interests.
It is also difficult to see how an NRC decision to alert federal aid-granting agencies to the potential value of supporting nuclear safety training for experts from one or more foreign nations raises an issue of inequity.
If tha relevant agency feels the activity merits support, a grant is made; if not, NRC training cannot be made available.
Second, there is the issue of possible inequity arising from NRC's bearing the
" incidental" costs for foreign assignees / trainees, but not for agreement st W personnel.
Several factors suggest that an equity issue does not artse.
First, the NRC is an agency of the United States government, and as such, bears a responsibility for supporting national foreign policy objectives--to the extent reassnable. One of those objectives, repeatedly affirmed at the highest levels, is to work to enhance the safety of reactors operated in foreign countries.
For reasons alfearly discussed, this is deemed to be a benefit to the United States, not merely to a country receiving assistance.
Training of foreign assignees is only one of many ways in which this objective is pursued (participation in bilateral and nulti'ateral technical meetings, development of international codes, standt.rds and legal instruments, participation in review missions to foreign facilities are only a few of NRC's other activities in support of this end).
All of these activities are supported by funds derived from license fees paid by the domestic US nuclear industry.
The NRC has been careful to limit its acceptance of foreign assignees to achieve an appropriate balance in supporting national goals with available resources. However, as a matter of policy, supporting a long-standing and well-articulated national goal to enhance global nuclear safety through a limited commitment of agency resources does not seem to raise an issue of equity or fairness regarding how the NRC pursues the entirely separate national goal of supporting state agreement programs.
A second factor involves the issue of " burden-sharing".
With regard to state agreements, the various state governments (for their own political reasons) have sought to exercise certain regulatory authority otherwise committed to the NRC. A clear requirement underlying this transfer of
~
regulatory authority, is that the states would assure adequate resources for exercising their authority in an. acceptable manner (the statute speaks of a program " compatible" with the Commission's). Training of state regulatory employees is a central means for assuring this " compatibility". Agreement states can and do assess fees to conduct their activities.
In principle, there is no difference in asking states to cover the costs of training provided by the NRC than in asking them to cover the costs of office space, secretarial services or inspection equipment.
In fact, the Atomic Energy Act explicitly gives the NRC the authority to charge for such training. This reflects a congressional injunction that NRC should exercise its best judgment as to whether such costs are most appropriately borne by federal license fee payers (who receive at most an indirect benefit from regulatory activities conducted by agreement states) or agreement state licensees and/or taxpayers in those states (who receive the primary benefit of state regulatory activities).
In brief, agreement states possess the means for covering these costs in a manner consistent with the overall statutory structure of NRC's agreement states program. This contrasts with the situation regarding foreign assignees where the foreign policy benefit to the United States is direct, and where (for many countries of concern) economic circumstances would make it difficult to bear additional costs of training beyond travel and per diem.
Third, although not an argument based on principle, there is tha f>ct that compared with the agreement state program, NRC's foreign assignee and training program, as currently administered, places much lower fiscal demands on NRC's budget than agreement state training.
This is not merely because the number of students involved is lower (typically half or a fourth the number of trainees from agreement states). And, not only are per diem / travel costs for foreign trainees provided by foreign governments or other US agencies, these students are more likely to be " add-ons" to existing programs, rather than participants in special, dedicated courses.
The bottom line is that NRC's foreign training efforts represent significant support for important US policy interests, while imposing relatively minor and ancillary costs to NRC.
j Conclusion J or these reasons, the NRC's practice of paying the " incidental costs" of training for a limited number of foreign experts to support the US policy of enhancing nuclear safety world-wide does nat conflict with the proposal to require employees of agreement states to cover similar costs. Different policy reasons support each of these activities, including the issue of how costs are assessed and paid. Although many issues could arise from how these two policies are implemented, the issue of " inequity" is not one of them.