ML20137M032
| ML20137M032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L805 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-064, COMSECY-96-64, DSI-20, FACA, SECY-96-064-C, SECY-96-64-C, NUDOCS 9704070357 | |
| Download: ML20137M032 (2) | |
Text
. . - - . .. - . - - - - - - - - - . - . . . - . .
> .- .......................d D '* */ o UNITED 5TATES RELEASED TO THE PDR @
8 ,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 g i W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 // 9h k() o S,,.
[ .
..............>........E
. date [nitials OFF6CE OF THE conmissiouEn January 23. 1997 i
4 MEMORANDUM T0: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers l Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz i FROM Edward McGaffigan Jr. k .
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-064: DSI 20 - INTERNATIONAL" ACTIVITIES I believe that the NRC should be pursuing at least the level of international activities envisioned in Option 4 and in the Commission's preliminary views. In particular. I wouid argue for a ' larger NRC role both in
, international ; olicy formulation, a low cost activity, and in leading the U.S.
-Government's (JSG) effort to help foreign regulators, particularly in the FSU !
and CEE nations, develop sound and independent regulatory programs. In the ,
latter case, this would require additional resources compared to Option 4. 1 1
The main impediment to pursuing a more aggressive regulatory assistance ,
arogram is not a lack of resources when viewed from the perspective of the J.S. Government's budget as a whole. As the State Department points out, these activities have received the support of two Administrations and three Congresses in other agencies' budgets (AID. D00. and DOE). Some, but not all.
of that money has then been transferred to NRC but without accompanying FTEs.
This has led NRC to overuse contractors in some of these activities (as recommended by staff in SECY-95-175). It has also led to concerns about possible conflicts with DOE in certain cases where that agency has taken on the regulatory assistance function.
The impediment therefore is how NRC's international programs are- )
budgeted. With 100 per cent recovery of NRC's budget in license fees mandated by Congress, the NRC has been appropriately devoting most of the funds in its international budget to activities which benefit our domestic mission. Even then the Commission has on several occasions told Congress that it would be appropriate to remove the international programs budget from the fee base.
It would be far preferable if the assistance funds and corresponding FTEs were also included in the NRC budget outside the fee base. Therefore. I recommend that the Commission work with OMB and the Congress to include the US Government's international nuclear regulatory assistance programs in the NRC budget outside the fee base starting in FY 1999. This would not involve additional USG budget resources but the transfer of out-year resources to NRC '
1 from other agencies.
l 9704070357 970403 PDR NRCSA I PDR 20 J
l b ,
- i I agree with the Commission's preliminary views regarding the importance l of developing criteria to prioritize NRC's international activities, both !
those supported with NRC funds and those based on other agencies' funds. j Finally, I note that I strongly support the agency's export-import licensing function, a function Congress gave to the agency in the 1978 Nuclear ,
Nonproliferation Act as a check on executive branch decision-making in this i area.
cc OEDO OGC SECY I
h 0
)
e T
4
- 1