ML20155B490
| ML20155B490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dingell J, Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155B494 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9810300157 | |
| Download: ML20155B490 (12) | |
Text
,.._..._-._._.________.-_______m__.. _._m_ _
e OL 5A t .t.
i' 978 f% ^
n UNITED STATES
+ j,. Qi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION $stribution:
o WASHINGTON. D.C. 20066 g
..... HThompson Ctober 23, 1998 PNorry CHAHtMAN .
JBlata GKuzo, ED0 i KCyr, 0GC CPaperiello, NMSS The Honorable Edward J. Markey AThadani, RES l Subcommittee on Energy and Power TMartin, AE0D l Committee on Commerce JLieberman, OE l United States House of Representatives EHalman, ADM l Washington, D.C. 20515-2107 PBird, HR l 1
GT980443 2
Daar Congressman Markey: ED0 r/f
)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appreciates the opportunity to provide an additional 1 m response to your cor.cems regarding a potential reduction in nuclear safety regulation in light of the proposed severe cuts to the Commission's budget and staff as recommended by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Watar Development. In a July 14,1998 l letter, we provided an initial reply to your concems and noted that additional responses would !
be prov'ded regarding the proposed Subcommittee recommendations and the NRC's ability to 1- , . execute its mission of regulating nuclear safety. Specificallys you requested our analysis of the j
- impact of the proposed significant budget and staff reductions, curtailment or elimination of l 1 ' selected regulatory tools, and the elimination of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative stylo hearings before the Commission.
In our initial reply, we noted that although both the House and Senate bills did not reduce the
- level of funding as much as the Senate Subcommittee recommendations, both constituted 4 sizeable reductions from the requested budget. As enacted, the FY 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act requires the NRC to reduce its planned FY 1999 programs by
$18.8 million. As a result, we have cut back the reactor inspection and oversight programs, curtailed selected safety research, eliminateo studies of nuclear materials operating experience and substantially reduced many support activities. We have evaluated the impacts of these budget cuts in accordance with our integrated, agency-wide Planning, Budgeting and i . Performance Management process which provides a direct means to refocus work or re-deploy resources. Although we have concluded that our statutory mandate to protect public health and safety can be fulfilled, the reductions affect several initiatives related to developing a risk-
. informed, performance based regulatory framework, as well as, our efforts associated with reducing regulatory burdens.
We plan to exercise buyout authority that accompanied our FY 1999 appropriations in order to k
- achieve targeted workforce reductions and restructuring. With regard to proposed curtailment or elimination of the specific regulatory tools documented in your June 3,1998 letter, we have e-implemented actions or are currently evaluating these areas in an effort to reduce unnecessary b0 regulatory burden on licensees without compromising public health and safety. For example, specific actions have been taken to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our assessment processes and the use of generic communications and confimiatory action letters. In addition,
. we also have contracted with an outside consulting firm, Arthur Andersen, to conduct an overall review of several program argas and propose methods to improve th^4 effectiveness and processes. ~vvvuj Originated by: .[GKuzo;E00] "_
9810300157 981023 y
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR M Q.
r -l OD&'
f
O
- t 2
As you know, on July 30,1998, the Commission testified before the Senate Subcommittee on i Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Saf aty to provide, clearly and directly, the l NRC analysis of and response to many of the criticisms of the agency, including several of the i specific regulatory tools mentioned in your letter. As a followup to the concerns raised, I l asked the staff to identify, define and prioritize program areas which support our long term l performance goals and which will receive near-term attention. The Commissicn has identified a I number of candidate areas where improvement efforts rnust be focused and requested that proposed staff action plans include milestones and time-lines to ensure success. We plan to present our overall progress to Congress early in CY 1999.
Information needed to formulate a view on the impact of eliminating the Atomic Safety and Licens;ng Board in favor of legislative style hearings before the Commission will be generated as part of a comprehensive review that the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has recently undertaken. The OGC was directed to review and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking options that would further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which formalized trial type procedures are currantly used.
Subsequent to completion of this review, OGC will make a number of recommendations to the Commission, including options for the expanded use of legisbtive-style hearings conducted by the Commission itself and the role of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in future agency adjudications under streamlined procedures. A response to your specific question will be provided after the Commission determines the course it wishes to take on streamlining agency hearings.
The Commission appreciates your concerns regarding NRC programs and your support for e6 suring that the NRC remains uncompromised in fulfilling its public health and safety mission.
We look forward to working with you as we continue efforts to improve our regulatory practices.
Sincerely, b h-hirley Ann Jackson
. ,- . - _ - -. . - - - . - . - - ~ - . - - . _ - -.-. - -. - -- - - - -
+
y L p+*%
~
- UNITED STATES t
8- o
- ?, i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 0 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20056
- October 23, 1998
- CHAIRMAN i
The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Member Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-2107
Dear Congressman Dingell:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appreciates the opportunity to provide an additional
- response to your concerns regarding a potential reduction in nuclear safety regulation in light of
, the proposed severe cuts to the Commission's budget and staff as recommended by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. In a July 14,1998
. letter, wo provided an initial reply to your concerns and noted that additional responses would be provided regarding the proposed Subcommittee recommendations and the NRC's ability to execute its mission of regulating nuclear safety. Specifically, you requested our analysis of the impact of the proposed significant budget and staff reductions, curtailment or elimination of selected regulatory tools, and the elimination of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative style hearings before the Commission.
- in our initial reply, we noted that although both the House and Senate bills did not reduce the level of funding as much as the Senate Subcommittee recommendations, both constituted sizeable reductions from the requested budget. As enacted, the FY 1999 Energy and Water l
( Development Appropriations Act requires the NRC to reduce its planned FY 1999 programs by l $18.8 million. As a result, we have cut back the reactor inspection and oversight programs, curtailed selected safety research, eliminated studies of nuclear materials operating experience i and substantially reduced many support activities. We have evaluated the impacts of these budget cuts in accordance with our integrated, agency-wide Planning, Budgeting and Performance Management process which provides a direct means to refocus work or re-deploy resources. Although we have concluded that our statutory mandate to protect public health and safety can be fulfilled, the reductions affect several initiatives related to developing a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework, as well as, our efforts associated with reducing regulatory burdens.
We plan to exercise buyout authority that accompanied our FY 1999 approp riations in order to achieve targeted workforce reductions and restructuring. With regard to proposed curtailment or elimination of the specific regulatory tools documented in your June 3,19G8 letter, we have implemented actions of are curremly evaluating these areas in an effort to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees without compromising public health and safety. For example, specific actions have been taken to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our assessment processes and the use of generic communications and confirmatory action letters. In addition, w we also have contracted with an outside consulting firm, Arthur Andersen, to conduct an overall review of several program areas and propose methods to improve their effectiveness and
. processes.
U k
S +- Y--.,- N &. rs + ..n, ,- _ ,_,,.g,, , ,,, ., , , _ _ , _, ,,, ._ _
_ . . - -= .- . , . . ..
l 2
As you know, on July 30,1998, the Commission testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety to provide, clearly and directly, the NRC analysis of and response to many of the criticisms of the agency, including several of the specific regulatory tools mentioned in your letter. As a followup to the concems raised, I l asked the staff to identify, define and prioritize program areas which support our long-term performance goals and which will receive near-term attention. The Commission has identified a number of candidate areas where improvement efforts rnust be focused and requested that ,
proposed staff action plans include milestones and time-lines to ensure success. We plan to present our overall progress to Congress early in CY 1999.
Information needed to formulate a view on the impact of eliminating the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative style hearings before the Commission will be generated as part of a comprehensive review that the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has recently undertaken. The OGC was directed to review and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking options that would further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which formalized trial type procedures are currently used.
Subsequent to completion of this review, OGC will make a number of recommendations to the Commission, including options for the expanded use of legislative-style hearings conducted by the Commission itself and the role of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in future agency l i adjudications under streamlined procedures. A response to your specific question will be provided after the Commission determines the course it wishes to take on streamlining agency hearings. .
l The Commission appreciates your concerns regarding NRC programs and your support for ensuring that the NRC remains uncompromised in fulfilling its public health and safety mission.
We look forward to working with you as we continue efforts to improve our regulatory practices.
I Sincerely, l b
l 2 ,
performance goals and which will receive near-term attention. The Commission has identified a number of candidate areas where improvement efforts must focused and requested that proposed staff action plans include milestones and time-li s to ensure success. We plan to present our overall progress to the Subcommittee on J uary 28,1999.
i 1
Information needed to formulate a view on the imp t of eliminating the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative style hea ' gs before the Commission will be generated as part of a comprehensive review that the Offic f the General Counsel (OGC) has recently undertaken. The OGC was directed to revi and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking options that would further en nce the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which rmalized trial-type procedures are currently used.
Subsequent to completion of this rev' , OGC will make a number of recommendations to the Commission, including options for e expanded use of legislative-style hearings conducted by the Commission itself and the rol of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in future agency adjudications under streamlinep procedures. A response to your specific question will be provided after the Commissi96 determines the course it wishes to take on streamlining agency hearings. /
The Commission appre ates your concems regarding NRC programs and your support for ensuring that the NRQtemains uncompromised in fulfilling its public health and safety mission.
We look forward to y/orking with you as we continue efforts to improve cur regulatory practices.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson This correspondence formulates policy or expands, revises, or interprets policy, involves matters pending Commission decision, contains items relating to the performance of Commission duties and responsibilities, or involves items of high Commission interest.
- Previously Concurred
[ldentical Letter to Representat've John D. Dingell] D// /98 DEDR:TA*
GKuzo NRR*
SCollins OGC C
DED [
HLThompson LJ i OCA OCM/SAJ 8/28/98 8/28/98 / /98 /9/ J /98 $ 8 9/ /98 /0/4' /98 (0 h
t
{
2 performance goals and which will receive near-term attention. The Commission has identified a j number of candidate areas where improvement efforts must be focused and requested that proposed staff action plans include milestones ano time-lines to ensure success. We plan to )
present our overall progress to the Subcommittee on January 28,1999.
Information needed to formulate a view on the impact of eliminating the Ato e Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative style hearings before the Commissi will be generated as part of a comprehensive review that the Office of the General Counsel ( C) has recently '
undertaken. The OGC was directed to review and advise the Commis on on the legislative and rulemaking optiopharwoulfd furthe&nhance the Commission's ab' y to utilize informal procedures)t Subsequen torrany m proceeding in which formalized trial-type proce res are currently use!
ogof thiyeview, OGC wi make a num .r of recommendations to the Commission,i c(luc Ae %xhan8ed use of legis,I tive-style h rings conducted by the l
Commission it if and he role of the Atomic Safety and Lic sing Board in future agency 1 adjudications un streamlined proceduTes. A response your specific question will be !
provided after the Commission determines the course it ishes to take on streamlining agency l hearings.
The Commission appreciates your concerns regar ng NRC programs and your support for ensuring that the NRC remains uncompromised ' fulfilling its public health and safety mission.
We look forward to working with you as we co inue efforts to improve our regulatory practices.
Sincerely, i i
l
)
i
/,
j This correspondence formulates policy or expands, revises, or labrprets policy, involves matters pending Commission decision, contsin9 items relating to the performance of Commission duties and responsibilities, or involves items of high Commission interest.
l 1
(Identical Letter to Re sentative John D. Dingell) !
DEDR:TA OGC DEDR EDO OCA OCM/SAJ
$GKuzo KCyr HLThompson LJCallan l 8/ /c 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/f /98 1
, pw 4 W l h')'\# dwp o helf l
l 2
Information needed to formulate a view on the impact of eliminatir; the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative style hearings before the Uommission will be generated as part of a comprehensive review that the Office of the General unsel(OGC) has recently I undertaken. In a June 26.1998 memorandum, OGC was di cted to review and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking options that ould further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any roceeding in which formalized trial- i type procedures are currently used. Subsequent to co letion of this review, OGC will make a number of recommendations to the Commission, inclu ing the expanded use of legislative-style l hearings conducted by the Comrnission itself and th role of the Atomic Safety and Licensing l Board in future agency adjudications under stream ' ed procedures. A response to your specific question will be provided after the Commission d ermines the course it wishes to take on streamlining agency hearings.
The Commission appreciates your concerns r garding NRC programs and your support for ensuring that the NRC remains uncomprom' ed in fulfilling its public health and safety mission.
We look forward to working with you as we ontinue efforts to improve our regulatory practicos.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson l
This correspundence formulates policy or expands, revises, or interprets policy, involves matters pending Commission decision, contains items relating to the performance of Commission duties and responsibilities, or involves items of high Commission interest.
[ Identical Letter to Representative John D. Dingell)
DEDR:TA NRR OGC DEDR EDO OCA OCM/SAJ fGKuzo SCollins KCyr HLThompson LJCallan
' 8/) /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98
2 With regard to proposed curtailment or elimination of specific regulatory tools docurpented in your June 3,1998 letter, we have already implemented actions or are currently eydluating the effectiveness of several of these items in an effort to reduce their regulatory bu en on licensees without compromising public health and safety. For our assessment process , we have taken actions to improve their effectiveness by increasing focus on systematic pro essing and comparison of plant safety performance data, and by requiring Commissic approval for selected actions such as including a plant on the Senior Management M ting " watch list." A !
fullecope, integrated review of the NRC reactor related assessment pr cesses, IRAP, is ongoing and scheduled to be completed late this year with a goal of veloping a single, integrated process which will be more objective, scrutable and less source intensive than the current assessment processes. Proposed generic communicatio now are reviewed and commented on by NRC staff and management, and are publishe for public comment prior to issuance. We have and will continue to emphasize the proper se and wording of confirmatory action letters and willincrease management oversight regardi their issuance and implementation. In addition, we have contracted with Author nderson and Associates to performance an overall review of the Office of Nuclear Reac r Regulation to improve its effectiveness and its processes.
Information needed to formulate a Commission view on e impact of eliminating the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative style arings before the Commission will be generated as part of a comprehensive review that the ffice of the General Counsel (OGC) has 1 recently undertaken. In a Staff Requirements Memor ndum on " Streamlining NRC Adjudications," issued v June 28,1998, the OGC s directed to review and advise the Commission on the legiwative and rulemaking opti s that would further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informalprocedures n any proceeding in which formalized trial-type procedures are currently used. Considerati would be given as to whether changes to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 would be appropria e to allow greater staff access to the Commission through certification of policy issue raised during the pendency of individual cases.
This review is to be completed by December 3 ,1998. When OGC has finished the work on this project, it will make a number of recomm dations to the Commission, which will include recommendations on the expanued use of le islative-style hearings conducted by the ;
Commission itself and the role of the Atomic afety and Licensing Board in future agency i adjudications under streamlined procedureg. A response to your specific question will be provided after the Commission determines.the course it wishes to take on streamlining agency 1 hearings. k s
The Commission appreciates your conce ns regarding NRC programs and your support for ;
ensuring that the NRC remains uncomphmised in fulfilling its public health and safety mission. ;
We look forward to working with you asMIe continue efforts to improve our regulatory practicec. !
Sincerely, j i
l f Shirley Ann Jackson g I
This correspondence formulates policy or expands, revises, or interprets policy, involves matters pending q Commission decision, contains items relating to the performance of Commission duties and responsibihties, or 1 involves items of high Commission interest.
]
l
[ldentical Letter to Representative John D. Dingell]
DEDR:TA NRR OGC DEDR EDO OCA OCM/SAJ
,fGKuzo SCo!! ins KCyr HLThompson LJCallan 1 b 8/p /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ 19 8 8/ /98 8/ /98 j
1 7
With regard to proposed curtailment or elimination of specific regulatory tools documented in I your June 3,1998 letter, we have already implemented actions or are currently evaluating the, effectiveness of several of these items in an effort to reduce their regulatory burden on licendes 1 without compromising public heahn and safety. For our assessment processes, we hav aken actions to improve their effectiveness by increasing focus on systematic processing a -
comparison of plant safety performance data, and by requiring Commission appro for selected actions such as including a plant on the Senior Management Meeting " atch list." A full-scope, integrated review of the NRC reactor related assessment process , IRAP, is j ongoing and scheduled to be completed late this year with a goal of develo ng a single, integrated process which will be more objective, scrutable and less reso ce intensive than the current assessment processes. Proposed generic communications n are reviewed and commented on by NRC staff and management, and are published f public comment prior to i issuance. We have and will continue to emphasis the proper use nd wording of confirmatory action letters and will increase management oversight regardin eir issuance and implementation. In addition, we have contracted with Author /p derson and Associates to performance an overall review of the Office of Nuclear Reac 6r Regulation to improve its effectiveness and its processes.
Information needed to formulate a Commission view a the impact of eliminating the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in favor of legislative st hearings before the Commission will be generated as part of a comprehensive review that Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has recently undertaken. In a Staff Requirements M iorandum on " Streamlining NRC Adjudications, " issued on June 26,1998, the C was directed to review and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking ptions that would further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which formalized trial-type procedures are currently used. Consicleration would be given as to whether changes to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 would be a dropriate to allow greater staff access to the Commission through certification of pol issues raised during the pendency of individual cases.
This review is to be completed by Decpmber 31,1998. When OGC has finished the work on this project, it will make a number of Jecommendations to the Commission, which will include recommendations on the expande .tase of legislative-style hearings conducted by the Commission itself and the role of e Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in future agency adjudications under streamlined . rocedures. A response to your specific question will be provided after the Commission, determines the course it wishes to take on streamlining agency hearings. /
/
The Commission appreciate's your concerns regarding NRC programs and your support for ensuring that the NRC remains uncompromised in fulfilling its public health and safety mission.
We will continue to update you on our continuing efforts to improve our regulary practices as selected tasks or milesto'nes are implemented.
/
1 Sincercly
/ Shirley Ann Jackson (Identical Letter to Representative' John D. Dingell)
DEDR:TA NR3 OGC DEDR EDO OCA OCM/SAJ GKuzo SCollins KCyr HLThompson LJCallan 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 8/ /98 E
DISTRIBUTION Crntrd Files
. PDR-JLCallan -
WDTravers'.
HLThompson -
PGNorry JLBlaha SBurns MK' Jpp, NMSS
- AThadani, RES TMartin, AEOD JLieberman, OE EHalman, ADM PBird, HR EDO R/F DEDR R/F GTracy GKuzo JThoma OCA SECY GT980443 I
l l
l~
l i
J h'
4
DISTRIBUTION C;ntral Fil;s
. PDR JLCallan '
WDTravers HLThompson PGNorry JLBlaha SBums MKnapp, NMSS AThadani, RES l
TMartin, AEOD !
JLieberman, OE EHalman, ADM PBird, HR EDO R/F 1 DEDR R/F '
GTracy GKuzo JThoma OCA SECY GT980443 3 hs0 LcS f%Wdeu .
s:gaso,scoce>46-see) '
l i
- . '*{
H
- 4
- s. .
' -Y
.~,~~ ,
EDO Principal Corr;_-pridence Control -
FROM:
DUE:'08/21/98 EDO CONTROL: G980443 DOC DT: 06/03/98 RCprcsentative Edward J. Markey FINAL REPLY:
R*prccentative John D. Dingell TO:
Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** PRI **
CRC NO: 98-0099 Chairman DESC: '
ROUTING:
IMPROVEMENTS TO NRC'S REGULATORY PROGRAMS Callan Travers Thompson Norry Blaha DATEt 07/21/98 Burns Knapp, NMSS ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:
Thadani, RES Martin, AEOD NRR Collins Lieberman, OE Halman, ADM Bird, HR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Prcpare follow-up responsa to Chairman's 7/14/98 letter to Markey/Dingell. .
,e
r-
- ~ - . . . . - - . =
l f..- , ,
l l'.
1 l l ;
C011grCSS 0{ !!)0 Ulll[CD StalCS f I!)01150 0( 3$tpt'fStillattlJts L Elashington. DC 20313 June 3.1998 The Honorable Shirley A. Jackson Chairman l
Nuclear Regulatory Commissior 11555 R-ckville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Der Chairman Jackson:
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development yesterday approved a budget for the NRC which would make severe cuts in the Commission's budget and staff and potentially reduce the effectiveness of its nuclear safety regulation.
As Members serving on the NRC's authorizing Subcommittee in the House, we
.are writing to express our strong opposition to these reductions, and to request the Commission's analysis of their impact on the NRC's r.bility to carry out its mission of regulating nuclear safety. Specifically, we request your analysis of the impact of the Senate' Appropriations Subcommittee recommendation for eventual reductions of approximatcly 590 million in the NRC budget and elimination of more than 700 professional staff.
In addition, we are concerned about a number of other recommendations made in the Appropriations Committee's proposed report language to accompany the NRC appropriations bill, including the sy;gestion that it end use of the watch list of troubled nuclear power plants, or other im'portant regulatory tools such as implementation of the l
systematic assessment of licensee performance process, generic c:mmunications with L
licensees, use of diagnostic evaluation teams, and providing guidance to reactor I operators regarding what should be included in an operator's confirmatory action letter.
We request the Commission's analysis and views regarding the impact of curtailment or i
elimination of these regulatory tools ca its ability to preserve the high levels of nuclear Isafety expected by the American people.
r Finally, we are concerned about the impact of the Committee's recommendation that the atomic safety and licensing boards be eliminated in favor of legislative style 7
hearings before the Commission. We request the NRC's views on the impact of such a change, particularly in situations such as a relicensing application.
j s
_'l8b7zeoec.g.
s
'ig..* .. .
'. The l'or.oraNe smries \ I.w. n tune.i.l'NS Page2~
While we may base ditferent perspesino in the nature and adequae) of the ComminionN regulatory program. we are umled in our belief that the cut.s and legislative changes proposed by the Senate would undermine nuclear safety , and in agreeing with yt 2r recent statement to the pren that implementation of the>e cuts would be tantamount to a -dismantling of the ageney." We look forward to working with you to assure that such an outcome does not occur.
Sineerely.
L&Q. "
y #
~.
Edward J. Sta/ key e John Dingell Stember Ranking Democrat Subcommittee on Committee on Commerce Energy and Pawer 1
i i
l l
l f
4
)
i 4
- - . - - , , + - - . , , , , - , , ,