ML20154E379

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 850117 Request for Legislative History on Congressional Ceiling of 38 Positions for Ofc of Investigations.Commissions FY82 Budget Did Not Include Separate Category for Investigations
ML20154E379
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/24/1988
From: Kammerer C
NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To: Asselstine J
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20154D958 List:
References
FOIA-88-237 NUDOCS 8809160305
Download: ML20154E379 (5)
v • d • e


Text

.. ..

[ . .- [ NUCt.E AR RE Ul, ORY COMMISSION Questi n 25 - Attechmant EEIM 5

ic , Th

."?i.'3 f.','

2M V.EMORAN0Uv FOR:

Comissioner Jafes).

s Assel ,ine , / -

r.

FROV.: Ca rlton'kamerer, Di y.

Office'of Conpesi be:r' Affairs r [

L,~

SU5 JECT: RESOURCES F0F THE OFFICE OF INVEST!GATION!

Your rnemorandum dated January,17,1985 asked that we provide a legislative history on the Congressional ceiling of 38 pesitions for the Office of Investigations (01). This review is provicec in response to your request.

4 As y'ev tre aware, the Comission advised cut three authorizatico and two aper priations sub:omittees in Congress cf its intention to consolidate <

agen:y investigative fun:tions in a new Office of Inveitigatiens by letter 2

from Chaiman palladinc, cated June 10, 1952 (Attachment A). The

! Chaiman's letter was transmittec curing FY 19E2 af ter the NRC's FY 1983 i . bu:get had been submittee. '

9

The Cesanission's FY iSEi budget cic not include a separate category for  ;

investigations. Resources for enforcement, investigations and special

] prograr.s (in:luding emergen:y pre;areeness activities) were icentified as a '

sub:stegory of the budget fer th- Office cf Inspe:tien and Enfer:ement. In i the FY 1.482 budget submission, the recuest fer this categ:ry was for 140

, persennes. In the FY 1953 bucget submission already before Congress, t l emergen:y preparedness activities were identifite se;arately se that 1 ' personnel reovirenents for enfercerent, investigations and spe:ial programs '

were estir,atec.tc be at 107 people for both FY 1982 and FY 19E3.

3 -

1 The Chaiman's Jee 10, 1952 letter did net specify the number of p:sitiens  !

i having investigattve fun:tions within this sub:stegory of O!E. It simply  !

statec that present NRC investigative personnel vere being transferrec into '

the new effice and that additional trained persennel woule be hired "within l

~

NRC's current personnel ceiling." However, a subsequent letter frem  ;

Chairran Pal 1# fine mentions a "total staff limit of 35 pcsitions i distributed among beth head:uarters and field offices" and this nurter was  :

previcusly com.unicatec to the Congressional oversight comittees by OCA in  !

respense to it)4uirits.

i 4

The Heuse Appropriatiens Sub:omittee on Energy and Ni ter Develegeent responded to the Chairman's advisory letter with a le' ter, datec June 21, .

4

  • 1952 and signed by both Chaiman Eevill and Ranking Minority Meeter J:hn l

, M3 ers. The Bevill/Pyers letter ( Attachment E) a:knowledges receipt cf the  ;

June 10, 1932 letter and ststes the sub: mittee's view that

  • staffing l i

~

levels and budgetary resources for this new effice, in excess of levels. -

1  !

I

. l 0809160305 890830 I

$TO 8 237 PDR i

1

es i:u '.s : ta1ce: 'o by tne f:crsitet. s :.'.: ta sur- t:e: f: ;c- tiet
  • 'ete in-Oug' tra usual re; cg ar.-in; pe::ec.*ts.'

Tne Congrest die n:t cass an Energy anc Wate- Developmen: Apprepailtier. fer Fi *.9E3. Durin; the f ucal yeer, the NRC anc ether affectec agen: 1ts operated at FY 19E* 1evels uncer Continuir; Resolution. In Janvery 19Ei, the f3C submittec its budget recuest for FY 1954 That budcet subcissict was the first tc identify rescueces for investiga*. ions (or 01) as a separate iterr uncer program Techrical Support rather than under Inspeciter and Enforcement Programs.

l The TY 1984 recuest estire.ated 3E people for 0; in FY 1984 anc again'in FY 1955. The FY 1984 budget justification (Green Ecok) provicee a brief description of 01 and indicated that all estimates of people were statec in tems of full-time equivalents (FTEs).

The House Appropriations Corrittee report en :ne FY 195 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill (H.Rept. 9B-217) made no mentien cf staffing rec 0irements for 01. It did, however, cor.tain the fe11 ewing language relating to the investigatiens program:

t i

i * *The Cem.ittee is concerned with the relatiemship between

'he Office of Inspection and Enforce.msnt and the recently established Office of Investigations. The Comittee is ret convinced that there is any need for a separate Office of Investigations and whether the existence of that separate office in fact is censistent with an integrated investigatier and enforcement program. *

  • The Comittee has been advised that the Office cf i Investigations has net made public their p licies and

] procedures. The Comittee dire:ts the tiEC te make a repert to the Cotrittee relarding the interrelationsh.; of'these effices and what legal problems exist thst rd yt prevent the

, publishing of the policies and procecures Of the Office of j Investigations."

On June 16. 1953 subsecuent t: the issuance ef the House Appropriations

! temittee report en May 24, 1953 Chairman Pallading wrete to the Subccmittee. His letter (Attachment C) advised that .fter a year of experience with the new 01, the comission had concluded that aa. adcitional l eleven (11) fu11. time employee positions Aheuld be ellocated to 01. The j fo11 ewing justification was provited in the letter:

i

'The nu-$er cf allegations recuiring htC investigation is

~. substantial and growing. 'All of ther reed at least a screer.ing investigation. Our inability to complete

{ investigatiens in a timely manner may result in a reduction

. in the level cf public safety licersing celay or both. Such

! delay is inrinent in several cceplex cases befere tht

Comi s sicn."

I 1

1 .

i 1 _

. . .I =

I l

1 l

a Cep crar ! Junt 1(, 19E' Ittter state: that the r*trnst: repreg't r y ,

a:tict m :'. l c CP t "fr0" w*thir tne cieri e?*sonnel Itytis alreacy )

trevice; fcr the NRC f:r Fi 1983 an; re:ges teg ea rly anc f avorable {

conSiceratiCn Cf the Ce mission's request. f.0*. long a#ter tne Cna1 mar'! '

letter was sent. OCA was askee te acvise the Subcomittee that the Cemission was re ucing the requested num er of positions to bt reprograme: from eleven to six. This was comunicated crelly tc the Subcomittee staff by 00 .

The Sub:ce ittet never proviced a written response te the Ccm issich's request anc the reprograming was never implemented. The Congress enacte:

the FY 195: Energy and Water Develepment Apprepriation and the assq-*ier en the part of both agency and Subcomittet was that a reprograming action was requirec to in:rease the level of persennel fer O! above the FY 1982 level,, continued in FY 1953 by Continuing Resolution and requested by the NRC in its bu:get submission fer FY 1954 Threughcut the remainder of FY 1953 and mu:h cf FY 1954, Sub:omittee staff repeatedly expressed the cesire to re:eive the NRC rep;rt en 01 called for in the Comittee'.; May 24, 1953 report before taking any action en the Comissien's reprugra ming re:uest. Tne callee for res:et en 0:'s interrelationship with OIE an: what legal pretlets might prevent publication cf OI pelicies and erotecures was not subritted te the Sub:cm ittet until March 14, 1954 -- eight cays before its hearing on the NpC's FY 1955 budget re;uest.

The Comission's budget submissien fer FY 1955 included a sumary cf estimate: fer Prcgrar Te:hnical Su; pert programs by function which statec an actual figure for FY 1953 for C! cf 36 pe:;1e, an estimate for FY 1954 ef 44 people (presumably refle: ting expe:ted ac:eptance of the Cerissier's pending reorograming recuest fer an increase of six pe:ple) and an estimate cf 49 peeple fer 0: for FY 1955. Tne Chairran's statecent race n:

rentien cf special needs for OI and the related text in the FY 1925 Greer Book was curser,y: "lneresses in staffing reflect greater e ;hasis place:

on InYestigatiCBs..."

In conjunctien with the Subecm ittee's hearing en the agency's budget submission, the Subcomittee asked a number cf ques,tiens relating te OI.

These included a question about whether the Comission planned te move C:

under the dire: tion of the Exe:utive Dire:ter for Operations. However. I there were no cuestions relating to staffing recuirements for the office. '

, 11though both the Heuse Comittee till and the apprepriation finally l ena:ted substantially reduced the agency's everall budget request, n:

specific language was in:1uced in either House er Senate Cemittee report er in the Conference Report that would specifically limit the re ber cf people assigned to 01. l

, However, on Nove.ber 7, 1954, the Cov ission transmitted the agen:y's initial FY 1955 Ease Table (t.t a:hrent t') to the H:wse Appropriations Sub:trrittee and other Congressienal eversign; sub:ccrittees. The East.

Table transmitted te CcPgress sh:=s adjustnents anc reducticns trade in the l 1

.g

i

tutgt* I! e*ig % .1;. su:t1 :e: ty int N er; er: a '"er #: *1t oer: u i
der ettc*riring recrogram ing retient ur.:t Reprog tr-- rg P*ececi,res i

ernicusi supplied by the house Ap;reprianon: Su::c-- .: tee ( Atte:t.n.e. . ,

!). Feetnote 1 to the Er.se Table cescrioes Fi! ret 11e: tions in:1udirt i incretses an: re:uctions in various progrars and art in:rease in the nuree- {

j cf investigators.* i

)

it should be noted that, with respect to the position allocation for 0 , i j the f ase Table simply reflects the Comission's budget as submitted to the l Office cf Management and Budget (anc soon te be submittee te Congress by  !

the F*esicent), which estimates 35 FTEs in both FY 1985 and FY 1986.

l

! If the Cemission wishes to revise this number for 01, it would be

  • I

! acvisable to de so before the budget hearing cycle begins and to identify I

! clearly the need for a staffing increase for 01 in its budget '

j presentations. In particular, the Comission needs te eddress the points i

, mace in the original reprograming request of June 1963 in itght of our additionai experience over the lest eighteen months. For example, since l J the reallo:ation of staff was not perritted, is there any evidence of 3 4

either licensing delay or a reduction in the level of putlic safety as a  !

} result?

i e i i 2 , Last year's House Aperepriatiens Comittee report made several referen:es which ceuld be construed as relating to 01 and its staffing requiremerts. l

{ These ought te be taken into account in any Comission justificP. tion fer  !

! further personnel for 01.  !

i '

i First the Comittee expressed supp:rt fer Chaircan Palladino's suggestien j that NRC develcp a policy for handling last minute allegations with a high l 1 threshold fer the introduction of new allegatiens, for example, "supported i l by signed affidavits, anc presented in a disciplined way." One effect cf l j such a pelicy weule presur. ably be te redu,ce demanes en the resources cf 01. j a .  ;

i Secend. the Comittee repeated previous "concerns over the NRC establishing  !

duplicative and redundant staf.fs* noting that "Comission level staff, as I opposed to the Agency staff, has now grown to 261 positions." The House i i report dire:ted NRC "to take imediate action to review this situation and i

! take steps te streamline and improve the management process" stating, I 1

r aithout recomending specific manpower ceiling reductions, its expectatien

  • hat the NRC would implement reductions to Comission level staff prier te

{ submission of the FY 1986 budget. Previous Comittee coments have expressed con:ern about the overlapping duties of OGC and ELD. During the budget hearing, the Subcomittee asked about whether the Comission still plannec to put O! under the direction of F00, about the, training 01 investigators may have had in , nuclear safety or nuclear operations, and j about steps NRC had taken te assure the safety significance of any violation uncovered by 01. Taken together with the Cervrittee's previous request for a study of the interrelationship between 01 and O!E. these questions reflect a centinuing uneasiness en the part of the Comittee about the apparent ise14tien cf the O! investigative staff currently

, reperting to the Comissien frem NRC's inspection and enfor:ement

! activities under the supervisien of the EDO.

4 I

i l . 1 i

q I 4 _

mi I

e  : .

...I,

  • ... .'gsmegy f

5,3., -o ww e. W+

hangwo.

e wet e4 g.

e--issioner Ze
r*O I YYb 0.:,I r.W 0:

SECY 9

0 e

9 e

4 o

N e

e 9

e

Mtnsk f h I

  • )

/,jo**6sgJ.,

U M Tr.c st AT!.s )

NUOLE AR REGUL ATOP" eOMMISSION )

$ g }, ,I a m :T h s.c. ro w l i

%, e /

  • i

..... June it.19E2 ,,,

m,. .. . " i

. I i

Q Tne Honorable hrk Hatfield, Chairman ,

i

' Subccanittee on Energy anc '

. Water Development

  • Consittee on Appespriations ,

. Lmitad States Senate

j. Washington, DC 20510 i

l . ,

Dear M . Chairman:

\.'. .. .

In,an effort to upgrade RC's investigative capabilities, the Concission is

,"- ftaking steps to consolidate NRC's investigatory functions in a new Office of  !

    • t Investigations (01). . The new Office will, for the time being, report directly i 1

. 3 sto the Ceartission and will be responsible for investipating all allegations of i

rg.;,,: l-Ming by . individuals or organiza tions ether than NRC ernplopes or con-

e . .. tracters.- The Office vill develop relicy, p-ocedures aM ' quality cent-1 3 '. ..

standarvs fot the condest of all 03 inyesti3ations and will ensure thet all O!

! [ ',

  • investigators are properly trained.

.P '. .

- - - Present RC investigative personnel in the Office of Inspection and E.nforce-

* * , . ment and in ,the Regional Offices are being transferred to the new Off. ice. 3:

will ' he '-heided tazzorarily by W. James Fitzgerald, an Assistant General
  • 4 Counsel, until a permanent director can he' hired. Additional trained person.

! ,,. nel will be re:rvited for the new Office within RC's current personnel ceil.

},,. . l,, . i ng .
-

e y . .'

' \

.~

j h Commission believes that restructuring MC investigative activities to l provide a acre centralized and high-level focus is urgently needed. tur plans l es sentially invol ve the reorganizing and upgrading of existing activities rather than an em>arkation on any new programs or activities. We believe that our objectives can be a:ctoplished within existing NRC funding and personnel levels for FT 1982.

3-

] *-

We will, of course, continue to keep you apprised of significant Cas.ission 4 .

efforts in this an: other areas of interest and importance.

i . .- sincerely.

(

),'.

  • JaJntic w al adino l' cc: Acm:rggiraattastansten * .

l I

  • g

-- "' ' - . ^,; ". T _ gl3'1 1 JO I

-'.t-

. FInt 70I.A l y.gL!g3.guan . pgm '

i - - - . _ ~

i

.,3.,..',,, -

t.orneIi a.== = = &.~

^

.  ; N N.,

= = = = m. gehg 27.:=t g

+_"E'Gr Congregg of the hittb states Sirrs s

-- - stelle 'd.E h. a -

M$a. %cust 0! Etpregtntatibt$ DeYoung 'g'" ';g' ,

i j'"' ~,,%# ,, Committt! on Epp:cpriationg , $^ Eq . '

*CO ElisWrit:r., D.C. 2315 E00 RTF h' .N.:=t.

" '.'t2 ,'".^.  :=."J.::, m a

!ll:'::l "":" =:"Arb

" ' ,':ll"M

, , . .  :::=.'.::;q.2=

= =:

June 21,1982 .

%.". C T

""T.2,",:".5ll"""

T.:;."l3. ""

,pg7 m (=o -

3.', ~ ':' -

C'~AT ..

9

~ '

Honorable Nun:io J. Palladine ,

Chaiman . ,

t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemission Washinst:n, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

We have revie ed your letter of June 10, 1952, concerning the '

reorgani:ation of NR;'s investigatory functions into a new Office of Investigations reporting to the Cemission. You note that additional trained personnel will be recruited for the ne < office'within NRC's

current penennel ceilings.

! While we comend your efforts to improve NRC's cperations, it would

  • appear that the staffing levels and budgetan resources for this new office, '

in excess cf levels previously provided for by the Co=ittee, should be .

submitted for Comittee review through the usual reprograming procedures. I

Sincerely. -

/ ' (

)

' hn T. Myers  : Tom Bevill, Chaiman -

j Ranking Minority Me-ber Subcomittee on Energy )

'- Subcomittee on Energy and Wa*.er Develcpmen. . i and Water Develep ent j COA f:r a ppr:pria te a ction. . . . . . . . .ce; EDO, RF. . . . . . . . . . . Ecy.82 0550

. 9 ,

r$OV00

- . . - - . - - . _ _ . . -~_ . _ _ . - . .

l ,e, p 0

%,e. UNITED sTATis N khrw.? (,,

.g ,i NUCLEAR REGULATOAY COMMISSION j-t s f RA&mihCT04, C. C. 20545

\ ,e8 un 16, 1983 eaa w j,A

The Honorable ion Bevill, Chaiman

! Subcomittee on Energy and Water

Development -  ;

i LQmittee on Appropriations ,

) Unitec States House of Representatives l j Washington, D.C. 20515 l 1 , ,

Dear Mr. Chairinan:

' A year ago, I advised you by letter that the Comission was consolidating its l investigative functions in a ne!< Office of Investigations, which wovid report i j

j dire;tly to the Comission and which would be responsible, for investigating '

all allegations of wrongdoing by individuals or organizations other than hRC

employees or contractors. -

i In ey letter to you, dated June 10, 1982, ! indicated that our plans i

' essentially involved a restructuring and upgrading of on-going investigative i

', activities and that the Comission believec its objectives could be met- (

i within existing NRC personnel levels for FY 1982, i.e. within a total staff

~

limit of 35 positions distributed among both headquarters and field offices, j i .

j After a year of experience, we have concluded that an increase in our  !

. investigation staff is needed. The number of allegations requiring NRC investigation is substantial and growing. I,11 of them need at least a screening investigation. Our inability to conplete investigations in a timely licensing manner may delay or result in a reduction in the level of public safety, both.  !'

Such delay is iminent in several com;1er cases before the Comission.

Therefore, we propose to reallocate an additional eleven (11) full-time  !

l' employee positions to the Office of Investigations for this purpose. This proposed reprograming action will come from within the overall personnel levels already providec for the NRC for FY 1983, ,

i

. t j Your early and favorable consideration of this reprograming action is  :

! reQVested. i I

! }

Sincerely, ,

Y , YYf Nun:io  %. Palladino ,

cc: Re;. John T. Myers '

I I

) -

i i

i t

i

' '

  • m..t a Ast!
-[ -

NUCLE AR REGUL; TORY 00MM!SS%

? , %~~;:5- .

r.i se.:m.. t c 2::1t

't.#~/....."

. ~f t. eve te 7, 15E; l

  • /

rs M 3

A e

r' d

ine benerable F.icherc L. 0::inger, Chaimar.

Sub:emittee on Energy Conservation anc Power Cemittee on Energy and Come-ce Ur.itec States house of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 *

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

For your infomation, enciesec is a copy cf the NR 's FY 1925 Ir.itial East Table.

Sincerely, 1

Carlten Kamer, Directer Office of Cergressicnel Affairs .

Inciesure:

t i

As stated i cc: Re;. Carles Mccrhead ICE'iilCAL LETTER SENT TO:

Sen. Sim: son /cc: Sen. Hart'.

Rec. Udall/cc: Re:. Lujan Sen. Hatfield/cc: Sen. Jennsten Rep. Bevill/cc: Rap. Myers *  :

1 4 1 .

t J s** I iA*,TI 3 mes >' 0;'

^=r)l...................

. F. .A..Y.:. .l.a. .c. .......

'un) .11../ 7/. 2-s l

l -

1

l'.I. hV:lt&' Eegula*.0*;. 0 0 .- *. ! ! *. O n FY liEi initial East Tatie (D iiars in incusancs)

President's Congressional Initial Budeet Adjustments 1/ Recu:tien / 2 g,,,

hu: lear Rea::er Regulation (NRR) S 90,950 +S1,001 -5 700  ! 91,2!!

Inspe: tion and Enforcement (IE) 92,190 + 544 - 1,000 92,034 huelear P.aterial Safety and 5t'eguares (NMSS) 43,520 - 854 - 1,000 41,63!

fiutlea r Regula:Ory Resear:n (RES) 16E,415 - 655 - 17,300 150,460 Fre;ra: Te:nnical Su:::rt (PTS) 30,545 -

55 30,631 Pr:grar Dire::icn and

. A: inistra:ien (F04) 42,550 - 392 42,1EE T::ai $465,200 - -520,000 Sa45,200 i i l

~

l 1

See atta:hed page(s) for feetn::es. .

{

t

j L'.S . hue lea r Repl a te ,, *.emmissier l

FY 1955 ]nittai East Iable l (Dollars in Tnousancs)

M includes ccmparability transfer of 5750,000 from the Office of the Secretary  !

(SECT /PDA) to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP/ PTS) fer the l Transcription Services Contract. ASLBF is using this centract in suppert of  !

l

the ASLEP hearing process. In previous years, SECY funded this entire con-tract. New SECY is only funding for effort in the Washington, D.C., area; and  ;

ASLBP is funding for effort outside the Washington, D.C., area,  !

i

)i Alse includes adjustments for salaries and administrative support. At the i

} ' time the budget is fomulatec, calaries and benefits are allocated to each i program basec on the most current actual average salary rates for the staff within the program. Portiens of administrative support costs are assigne ,

directly to the applicable program (i.e., ADP costs directly related to a ,

specific program) with the remaineer allocated to programs based on a rate per  !

staff year. The following year, when the next year's budget is femwlated,  !

I actual salary rates have changec and the estimates for the direct allocatien i l l

of administrative support costs are more refined. Therefore, to make the  !

o

  • current year" celumn of the bucget ri a comparable basis with the "bucget l year," the rate change adjustments are made. In addition, minor staff changes which have taken place in the past year recuire a reallocation of salaries and 1 benefits, administrative support, and travel. The FTE reallocations are ,

1 related te increased support of reacter operator licensing activities. l

} increased reacter inspection efforts, increases to imoreve implementation cf 4

Quality assurance recomendations, reduced uranium mill renewals anc amenc- ,

ments, reducec research effort consistent with the research funding  ;

reductions, and no increase in the number of investigaters, t U NRC allocation of the $20,000,000 reduction to our appropriation fer 4

FY 1985. Most of the reduction was applied to the research program (RIS). As i

we stated in our letter to Senator McClure on August 31, 1984

"We carefully reviewed how best to distribute this reduction as

[; eouitably as pessible among Nuclear Reacter Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and l

Nuclear Regulatory Research: There were no easy options. About fifty percent of NRC's betat is non discretionary - Salaries /

I 5ettfits and Administrative Support art directly tied to the size of l Cur staff and their corresponding logistical support - and must be paid, the only remaining area from which the $20 r.dUion reduction could be taken was the 5237.5 million in Program Support funds. Of 6

this* 1237.5 million 3151 million represented research support work anc the remaining 386 million was for the support of the day-to day licensing and regulatory oversignt of operating plants, safeguares.

transportation safety, and review and appraisal of new plants. We felt we could net cut deeply into the 566 million operating support l without seriously threatening our inmediate safety oversight respen-j sibilities. Since NRC must give priority, through its inspection and licensing prograbs, to assuring the continued safety of optrat-ing facilities anc industrial and medical use of radioactive k l

}.

i i

l a *. t *

  • 4 ' t a nc be:8'.st 0 t*t mag tV0t C #
  • nt re:W: tier.. tPt C##itt Of hu:itar Ee gul a *.o') Resear:r. aoso"ot; a larger reCV tion thaf* a  !
  • o rata shart. We were terrilly trog; led !<y tnt neeC tC a;;Iy su*' l
a cisDroportionat,e snart of *his $20 million cut tC the research  !

I j o r e g "al* but given Ine Circumstan:es wt felt we ha: no other' i

options." j l The prin:ipal impa:ts of this reduction to the research program are: reduction  !

j of some of the materials aging stucies; termination of certain plant instrumenta-  !

i tion anc control programs; cancel planned themal-hydraulic research on steam  !

i generators; reduce the analytical coce effort to a maintenance level; signifi.  !

cant recu tion in hydroger, research; defer certain high level waste research; I j anc perfore no research to provide technical guidance to states related to l l low-level waste facilities. Sufficient funds have been provided to complete  !

the Pnase I fuel damage test program at the FBF facility. The remainder of the  ;

Congressional redu: tion was allocatec to lower priority activities relateJ te  ;

j licensing amen ments (NRR) inspe: tion support (IE), anc transportation safety l

. and waste management (NW.SS).

]

i  !

I I i

l l i  !

l l i

1 6 i i

- I I

i s l j ,

j i

l l

L_ _.____ _ _ _ -__ _._ __ . _ _ _ _ _ ._.

_ _ _ _ _ . _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20154E379&oldid=3352135"