ML20196E906
| ML20196E906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bliley T HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9812040160 | |
| Download: ML20196E906 (3) | |
Text
%R
[
UNITED STATES T
e
.4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i*'
- O(d g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
't
/
November 24, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Thomas Bliley, Chairman Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is taking very seriously the feedback we have received from the Congress over the past few months on NRC programs. The August 6,1998, House Report (H.R.105-680) accompanying H.R. 3532, the NRC Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, from the Committee on Commerce expressed concern about a number of NRC program activities, and I would like to give you a brief update on actions we are taking in several areas.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires NRC to recover 100 percent of its new budget authority, less the appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund by assessing user fees. However, the 100 percent fee recovery requirement reverts to 33 percent if the current requirement is not extended. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has unanimously approved S. 2090 " Fairness in Funding Act of 1998" which would extend the authority for the NRC to recover fees through FY 2003. In addition, the bill authorizes up to $30 million to be excluded from fee recovery due to concerns regarding the fairness and equity of charging licensees for certain agency expenses which do not provide direct benefit to individual licensees or classes of licensees.
The Commission, NRC licensees, and the Congress have all expressed similar fairness j
and equity concerns relative to the 100 percent fee recovery requirement. The
/
Commission has recently considered issues associated with fees and concluded that
/2 reducing the percentage of our budget to be recovered from fees would address the fairness and equity issues. Therefore, the Commission proposes that further extensions of the fee recovery requirement be based on collecting 90 percent of the NRC's new budget authority, less the appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund and from the General Fund for assistance provided to DOE and other Federal agencies, rather than collecting 100 percent.
The NRC has been moving and will continue to move toward making the NRC regulatory framework more risk-informed (i.e., such that areas of highest risk ruceive the greatest focus), and, where appropriate, more performance-based (i.e., more results-l oriented ano more open to allowing licensee flexibility in how to meet NRC regulatory requirements). The overall goal of this adjustment in the NRC's regulatory approach is to enhance safety decision-making, to improve efficiency, and to reduce unnecessary burden on the licensees. A significant number of NRC efforts related to risk-informed regulation have been initiated and are ongoing.
l 9812040160 981124 PDR COMMS NRCC l
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
l The Honorable Thomas Bliley Under the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Implementation Plan, the NRC recently published generic regulatory guidance to support risk-informed plant changes, as well as application-specific guidance in the areas of technical specifications, in-service testing, in-service inspection of piping, and graded quality assurance. First of a kind risk-informed pilot application reviews and plant-specific licensing actions are being completed such that lessons learned may be utilized for future risk-informed reviews.
The Commission also has emphasized an approach to rulemaking that is risk-informed and, where appropriate, performance-based, in order to reduce the burden associated with overly conservative or prescriptive requirements and to sharpen the focus on matters of highest risk. One example is the NRC Maintenance Rule--made effective in July 1996--which uses a risk-informed and performance-based approach to ensure the availability and reliability of key structures, systems and components in power reactor facilities. The Commission is working with stakeholders to identify options on modifying 10 CFR Part 50, in gencral, to be risk-informed and address backfitting implications.
Through trairjng, program reviews, and stakeholder interactions, the NRC also is working to make its inspection, enforcement, and assessment processes more risk-informed and where appropriate, performance-based, in order to provide a coherent, defensible, and consistent framework for the spectrum of NRC regulatory functions.
Our efforts to move toward a more risk-informed regulatory framework are also addressing the Committee's concerns about Severity Level IV Violations. The NRC recently issued an Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) that reinforced existing guidance and policy on not citing licensee-identified and corrected non-repetitive violations, waiving licensee's responses when corrective action information is already on the docket, and treatment of multiple violations and violations identified as a result of a licensee's corrective actions. The NRC held a public meeting with stakeholders on September 3,1998, to solicit input on possible enforcement policy revisions. A revision of non-escalated enforcement policy has been presented to the Commission in early November for its approval. The NRC staff is expected to develop additional guidance on regulatory significance by January 1999. Interim guidance which provides strict controls on the use of the term has been developed. The NRC staff plans on developing risk-informed examples for inclusion in the supplements of the enforcement policy in the Spring of 1999. The NRC staff also expects a proposal from the Nuclear Energy Institute for far-reaching changes in escalated enforcement policy and will review that proposal and report to the Commission on it later in FY 1999.
Nevertheless, the NRC recognizes that the pace of its actions in this area should be accelerated, and that improvements are warranted. We are open to working with our stakeholders to accelerate these actions. In addition, we have developed a plan of short-and long-term actions to respond to issues raised within the House and Senate Authorization Context and the July 17,1998 Commission meeting with stakeholders.
The plan is focused on improving NRC's regulatory processes in several key areas including risk-informed and performance-based regulation.
e The Honorable Thomas Bliley The NRC's Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) staff has undertaken a number of e
initiatives to facilitate the review of spent fuel storage and transportation applications. In June 1998, the SFPO underwent a reorganization and staff reassignments were made to address the backlog in the technical review of dual purpose (storage and transport) cask applications. Additionally, the SFPO instituted strict new guidelines for spent fuel storage and transportation cask design reviews. These guidelines will help ensure that well-prepared applications are reviewed and approved prior to rulemaking within approximately 13 months of the start of the review, an improvement of about one year over previous review time estimates. Subsequently, the SFPO undertook efforts to prioritize and schedule the review of storage and transportation cask systems and proceeded to implement its review strategies through the use of its new guidelines.
At this time, the SFPO initiatives are in-place and are working. Significant review activities have been prioritized, dedicated review teams have been established, review schedules have been issued to applicants, and all applications are undergoing technical review. The NRC will consider staff increases to handle the increased workload and to further enhance the SFPO technical review process if necessary. Moreover,in the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Developments Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-62, the Congress directed the Department of Energy to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with $4 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purpose of licensing a multi-purpose canister design. The NRC no longer has before it a design for a multi-purpose canister. If permitted by Congress, the NRC could effectively use the
$4 million to cover the costs of dual purpose cask reviews and other spent nuclear fuel related activities pertaining to canisters for the transportation, storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel.
We hope that this update is responsive to the Committee's concerns. Please let me know if there is any further information that we can provide to the Committee regarding these matters.
l Sincerely,
&4 Shirley Ann Jackson cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell 1
!