ML20196L129
| ML20196L129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/28/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196L132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907120309 | |
| Download: ML20196L129 (2) | |
Text
rr
~
UNITED STATES
- yp
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Distribution:
WASHIN LToN, o.C. 20086 4 001 WIraVers -
5 j
MKnapp
/
FMiraglia i
8 June 28, 1999 PNorry
%g JBlaha CHAIRMAN FCongel, IR0 FKantor, IRO KCyr, 0GC SCollins, NRR JDyer, RIII
- Susan L Hiatt, Director JFunches, CF0 Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.
G19990236 8275 Munson Road ED0 r/f Mentor, Ohio 44060 1
Dear Ms. Hiatt:
I am responding to your letter of April 30,1999, in which you commented on the NRC's recent action concerning the possible use of potassium iodide (KI) as supplemental protection for the public in case of a severe accident at a nuclear power plant. As indicated in a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) to the NRC staff on April 22,1999, and in a press release on April 23,1999, the NRC is proposing to revise its emergency preparedness regulations to add Kl 4
to the protective actions that must be considered, along with evacuation and sheltering, in nuclear power plant emergency plans and has decided not to fund State stockpiles of Kl.
A related issue that recurs in the debate on the use of Kl as a protective action for nuclear power plant accidents has been the role of the Federal government, in particular the NRC, in funding the purchase of a stockpile of Kl for those States that may wish to include Kl in their emergency plans. As previously discussed by the Commission in the Federal Register notice on emergency planning (45 FR 55402, August 19,1980) under the section on funding, "any direct funding of State or local governments solely for emergency preparedness by the Federal Government would come through the (Federal Emergency Management Agency) FEMA "
Notwithstanding earlier draft Commission positions indicating that "the Federal Govemment (most likely the NRC)" would fund the purchase of State stockpiles of KI, this previously g
established NRC policy,'in place for nearly 19 years, dictates against NRC funding for such
\\j purchases. In addition, the NRC budget has continued to decrease and offers little margin for the Commission to divert resources to new initiatives.
\\
In your letter, you referred to a statement in the SRM that the petitioner (of PRM 50-63A) has not requested Federal funding of stockpiles of Kl and questioned why the petitioner would request h0 i
such funding when the NRC had promised Federal funding. The petitioner did not request Federal funding in the original petition (PRM 50-63), submitted on September 9,1995. The Commission supports the position that the Federal government should fund the purchase of Kl for Federal stockpiles at appropriately located regional centers, possibly collocated with some of the three national and 27 regional stockpiles being established by FEMA to respond to possible nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) terrorism, discussed in the draft Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee Policy Statement on Kl. The Commission supports NRC funding of the initial purchase and resupply of KI for such regional stockpiles to the extent there l
are no constraints on the FEMA receiving money from the NRC for this purpose. The j
j Commission believes that funding for State stockpiles of KI for States that elect to use it should j
Originated by:
[FKantor,IR0]
hlbO 9907120309 990628 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 4
,y-2 come from the traditional sources of funding for State and local emergency response planning rather than the Federal government.
In your letter, you referred to a March 11,1999, letter from the rutC granting a fee waiver to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the Perry licensee) for the review of an operating license amendment te ;mplement an alternative source term at the Perry plant. You indicated that the decision to waive fees for Perry is not proper because "..the NRC is required by law to achieve full cost recovery of its expenditures through license fees." In addition, you stated that the waived license amendment review fees could have paid for the bulk of the purchase of Kl for the State of Ohio and indicated that the fee waiver is incongruent with the NRC position in the SRM that budgetary constraints prevent the NRC from funding new initiatives such as the purchase of Kl for States that elect to use it.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 parcent of its budget authority through fees assessed under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA) (fees for specific services) and annual fees. The NRC is not permitted under the legislation to use the fees collected to supplement its budget authority.
Thus, the waived review fee for the subject license amendment for the Perry plant could not have been used to fund Kl stockpiles.
The NRC has a longstanding policy of granting fee waivers for its review of license applications that address industry initiatives that have a generic impact on NRC's regulatory programs.
Subsequent reviews addressing the same issue will utilize far fewer NRC resources because of conclusions drawn and lessons learned from the initial review, in order to meet the 100 percent fee recovery requirement of OBRA-90, the costs for the review of the first of a kind programs exempted from fees, such as the subject fee waiver for Perry, are recovered through the annual fees assessed to all operating power reactor liransees. Because the Perry licensee is subject to annual fees, FirstEnergy will pay its share of the review costs.
We appreciate your interest in the KI policy issue. I trust that these comments are responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely,
&Si Shirley A n Jackson !
.