ML20198S405
| ML20198S405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/20/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| SECY-97-249-C, NUDOCS 9801260175 | |
| Download: ML20198S405 (8) | |
Text
.
i NOT ATION VOTE l
3..........e............
l RELEASED TO THE PDR l
J RESPONSE SHEEI f
//g/pg g;
l ~ dato '
laitialili
~j TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-249 - RECOVERING THE BUDGETED COSTS RELATED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES, REGULATORY SUPPORT TO AGREEMENT STATES, THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND GENERIC DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES J wd i
Approved
>f Disapproved Abstain 40t Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See the attached comments.
.l 1)ftw
/'
u k e'().C A
'I i
.. d,,.
SIGNATURE
.R: lease Vote / >< /
h'/ /Y'I 7
~
DATE
/ ",Wu (
i Withhold Vote /
e on
1 t
Comissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-97-249 I support the recommendation by the staff that the costs of activities which raise significant fairness and equity issues be excluded from any legislation which may be proposed to extend the requirement for NRC to continue to recover its budget from fees. The activities in_ question would include all of the-activities identified by staff ($49.5 million) plus the activities relating to DOE regulation (Hanford Waste Tank Remediation and pilot program activities)
-($6.5 million) for a total of approximately $56 million in FY 1999.
b I recognize the attractiveness (in terms of maximizing NRC flexibility) of requesting that a percentage amount be provided through a General Fund appropriation with the remaining percentage coming out of fees.
However.
.1 believe that realistically we would have to defend a specific dollar amount each year in the appropriations process with the usual back-up detail (similar
'to that provided in this SECY and its companion information paper SECY-97-226) on what activities the General Fund appropriation was meant to cover.
Furthermore, the percentage approach will no more easily accommodate an expansion of the NRC mission into external regulation of 00E than will a specific dollar approach.
Either would have to be adjusted in any legislation authorizing 00E external regulation in FY 2000 or-FY 2001, in voting to make this request to 0MB and the Congress. I by no means imply that the activities whie aise fairness and equity concerns are marginal or discretionary.
Indeed, e ~f these activities are at the heart of several critical NRC health and safety functions. including decomissioning. the entire materials program, oversight of Federal licensees, and carrying out our
- statutory responsibilities for Agreement State oversight.
I am sure that Congress and OMB would recognize that. What_ drives _my vote is the changed circumstances for the nuclear utility licensees since 1994 when the Commission
.last approached Congress on this matter. The paradigm that NRC fees, however unfair. could simply be passed on to utility customers through rate adjustments no longer holds in the increasing number of states which are
-deregulating.their electric power industry.
(Indeed. in the past few days the Illinois and Massachusetts legislatures passed deregulation legislation and thereby added to the momentum toward nation-wide deregulation).
Of course, that paradigm _never held for s terials licensees.
1f the 18 FTE in International Programs who-carry out' FSU/CEE
~
2 assistance. programs are fully reimbursed by AID and DSWA as the Chairman and I have advocated in our votes on SECY-97-207, this amount would be reduced by
($3.2 million and the FTE would move to the business-like category.
4
i 2
It is true that the Balanced Budget Act puts tremendous pressure on discretionary General Fund appropriations.
The $56 million request which I propose for FY 1999 would be competing with many other high priority programs throughout the Federal gnvernment, That is why it would be-important to structure the authorizing fee legislation in such a way that, if the Appropriations Committees did not have sufficient discretionary General Fund appropriations available in any year, and yet wanted these cri' tcal health and safety activities to be funded, they could shift activities back onto the fee base notwithstanding the fairness concerns.
Now is the time to propose legislation for these purposes to OMB and Congress since our current fee legislation expires at the end of FY 1998.
Some legislation to address the fee issue must be enacted in FY 1999 or the agency will revert to the pre-0 BRA-90 33% fee recovery and a General Fund appropriation of about $320 million will be required, Congress recognizes both the need for legislation and the fairness problem in the current fee legislation.
Senators Chafee and Inhofe attempted to deal with the issue during Senate consideration of the Balanced Budget Act, but were thwarted by arcane budget scoring issues.
A provision to extend 100% fee recovery in the House version of the bill failed in conference for the same reason.
While the Chafee-Inhofe bill has, in my view, certain technical problems that need to be addressed, it would allow us to identify a range of NRC activities that should he removed from the fee base.
The main problem with the bill is that it would require NRC to identify activities and costs to be removed from the fee base by annual rulemaking. The rulemaking approach would not be practical for NRC or for the Appropriations Committees.
I have attached proposed modifications to the Chafee-Inhofe bill that would replace the rulemaking requirement with provisions that would require the NRC to identify activities and costs to be funded from General Fund appropriations in its annual budget submittal.
I would urge that we use this draft legislation as a basis for our proposal to remove certain activities from the fee base.
2 I would stress that the marked up bill would establish a ceiling for the General Fund appropriation, but the bill would not preclude the Appropriations Committees-from shifting activities requested under the General Fund back into 21 suggest $60 million to allow some modest growth in pilot activities relating to DOE external regulation prior to passage of enabling legislation in that area.
3
^
the fee base. Thus. I do not believe that-attempting to correct fairness _and equity issues need compromise NRC's ability to obtain the.necessary funds to-implement programs that will protect public health and safety.
Finally I note some inconsistency in the staff's handling of the papers which deal with_ fee and reimbursement issues.
SECY-97-249. and its companion information paper. SECY-97-226. are marked " Sensitive Information--Limited to the NRC Unless the Commission Determines Otherwise." The SECY on Lreimbursement' policy. SECY-97-146 and the SECY on reimburs C e business-like FTEs. SECY-97 207. are intended for public release and the former has already been released. I can find very little in SECY-97-249:and SECY-97-226 that was-not already discussed publicly in DSI-21 and its appendices.
All of these
- papers are inter-related. Consequently. I would urge the Comission to release the papers and voting record per the usual practice when the final SRM is completed.
t
-+
10/23/s7 'nrU 13:31 FAI 202 224 $161/
U W T &91 M futt
-g I
8.Itc.
~
0:\\JOH\\JOH97431 -
L 1057ti CONGRESS isT SRssion IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. CHAFEE (for Ilimself, Mr. INuorE, Mr. Jzyronos, Mr. SutTu of New Hampshire, M r. 6< a A a m i-
) intnxtuced the following bill; which was mul twice and refermi to the Committee on i
A BILL To extend the authority of the Nuclear Regtdatory Commis-sion to colleet fees through 2005, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-2 tives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "NRC Fairne.u in 5 Funding Act of I997".
6 SEc.L s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ANNUAL 7-CHARGES.
8 Section 6101 of the Onutibus Budget Reconsiliation 9 Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214) is amended-
- - - - - - - -_.102 224 5167
- Tylg
,10/23/97 TBU 13:31 FAI EPW MAJORITY d!4.0.
O:\\JOH\\JOH97.691 I
2 I/
1 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking " September 2
30,1998" and inserting " September 30, 2005"; and 3
(2) in subsection (c)-
4 (A) by striking paragraph (2) and insert-S ing the following:
6
"(2) AGORICGATE AMOUNT OF CIMRGES.- The 7
aggregate amount of the annual charge collected 8
from all licensees shall equal an amount that ap-9 proximates 100 percent of the budget authority of 10 the Commission for the fiscal year for which the 11 charge is collected, less, with respect to the fiscal 12 year, the sum of-13
"(A) any amount appropriated to the Com-14 mission from the Nuclear Waste Fund; ar.
15
"(B) the amount of fees collected under 16 subsection (b); and 17
"(C) for Escal year 1999 and cach fiscal
- W/$ h D
r thereaftet,
&m uNuuh,..,.._. x$n:.:;.6nn/ S wj' $neWu.
18 Ontt4Ftl&Toen
^
m n nh m f w en-+
d
" 2"-
19 foth ef"acMy} Net IJhsoh C Curtk5h idMb{d
'^-"'3-'-~6"-
20 5j ind f
21 22 (B) by adding at the en following:
ZNSEAf" 23 m ) m >" '"::::.::::. :::,.,....
24 u{A) IF >"n'u'> "
Th: ni.....' :..s.... ' c I
jmi >im s p - () ei' ill i>'< l"<1> e it....:....:L,:. d i
25 Doomer 15.1997
LMSECl"(5A}
(5) EXCLUDED BUDGET COSTS. -
(A) IN GENERAL. - For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter the Comission shall:
(1) make a determination of those activities of the Commission for which it would not be fair and equitable to assess annual charges on a Nuclear Regulatory Comission licensee or class of licensee: and (ii) include the costs of activities determined under subparagraph (A)(1) in its budget submittal as a request for appropriations from the General Fund.
\\feebill. mod
- [*10/23/s7 11l013832 FAX 202 224 5167 EPW MAJoRITT
@004:
i 8 I'0-i 0:\\JON\\JOHef.891 3
g-r - 6: e--
r er c-- :- :.... r-..
g 2
..!.!d !! r:!? r;i L.fi - d 0;!'"'!: b r 3
x.x
- ' i F " '--
" g.:!: t g 4
C m m ;
e;. 1 ~. x x :'- r f !! r :. x..
5
"(B) CONSIDicRATIONS.-In making the 6
determination under subparagraph (A), the 7
Commission shall consider-8
"(i) the extent to which activitics of 9
the Commission provide benefits to persons 10 that are not licensees of the Commission; 11
"(ii) the extent to which the Commis-12 sion is unable to assess fees or charges on 13 a licensee or class of licensee that benefits 14 from the activitics; and 15
"(iii) the extent to which the costs to 16 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of ac-17 tivitics are commensurate with the benc5ts 18 provided to the licensees from the activi-19 ties.
"(0) MAXDIUM EXCLUDED COSTS.-The 20 fordhte4 /Wlahwr$ $ven L 21 total amount of cost *7%~::!;id b'y the Commis-di4 MEA /
22 sion pursuant to the determination under sub-feg forf&
23 paragraph (A) sluul not execed 0 for,
24 any fiscal year.".
-