ML20211B070
| ML20211B070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1999 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | J. J. Barton HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908240215 | |
| Download: ML20211B070 (43) | |
Text
bf C 6A W'Urug g,
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066tM001
\\...../
August 4,1999 The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's editorial corrections to the transcript of the July 21,1999, hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on H.R. 2531, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely, A
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: Representative Ralph Hall i
i
( (,,.-;q x
9908240215 990004 PDR ORG NRCCO PDR j
c l* /.
l b
l DO NOT DETACH FROM TRANSCRIPT I
RETURN TO:
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE l
ROOM B-334, l
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 i
Subject:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for FY 2000 Hearing date: July 21,1999 dN A N W
Referred to: Hon. Greta Dieus
/l M i
l Testimony given by you before the Committee appears on the attached typewritten print. Please indicate corrections, if any, in RED, and return the original within I week of receipt.
PLEASE NOTE: Only technical, grammatical, steno-l graphic, and typographical corrections will be accepted.
If supplemental material has been requested for the record by the Committee, it should be of photographic I
quality for reproduction. Please indicate clearly, by page and hne, where material is referenced. A copy of this information should also be sent directly to the Member requesting the material. Please supply a data disc of material and prepared statement if possible.
Thank you, Joe Patterson, Publications Office i
Ph. 225-0430 l
[
i
p
~.
(
+*
HIF202.030' PAGE 1
1 l.
1 Ann Riley-& Associates, Ltd.
l I
1 l
2 HEARING ON H.R. 2531, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY l
3 COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL l
4 YEAR 2000 5
Wednesday, July 21,fl999 6
House of Representatives, 7
Committee on Commerce, 8
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, 9
Washington, D.C.
10 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
11 in Room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Barton 12 (chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
13 Present:
Representatives Barton, Stearns, Burr, 14 Whitfield, Shimkus, Bryant, Ehrlich, Markey, Hall, Sawyer, 15 and McCarthy.
16 Staff Present:
Kevin V.
Cook, Professional Staff Member; 17 Betsy Brennan, Legislative Clerk; Rick Kessler, Minority 18 Counsel, and Sue Sheridan, Minority Counsel.
l l
l l
[.
HIF202.030 PAGE 4
69 And some may even be worth a separate hearing later in the i
70 year.
External regulation may be one such topic.
Reform of 71 the NRC regulatory process may be another.
i 72 The Center for Strategic and International Studies is on i
73 the verge of releasing a major study on the regulatory 74 process for nuclear reactors.
This study will identify 75 problems and opportunities for improvement.
The study may be 76 a useful jumping off point for us to address NRC regulatory 77 reform in more detail.
78 However, I again advise that we may want to defer some of i
79 the more complex issues for the future and explore in today's 80 hearing things that we can solve today.
81 Our first priority must be to reauthorize the user fee by 82 the end of September.
Beyond that, we should include only 83 those other legislative provisions that we can readily agree 84 upon.
85 I want to welcome the Honorable Greta Dicus--am I saying 86 that right?
87 Ms. DICUS. That's correct.
88 Mr. BARTON. Okay.
The Honorable Greta Dicus is the new 89 chairman of the NRC; and also welcome her 90 colleagues--Commissioner McGaffigan, Commissioner Merrifield.
i 91 I know Commissioner Diaz wanted to be with us, but he had a 92 prior obligation to meet with nuclear regulatory authorities 93 in Mexico.
i
~
HIF202.030 PAGE 15 233 Mr. BARTON. The-gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, 234 is-recognized for an opening statement.
235 Mr. MARKEY:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND WE WELCOME OUR 236 NEW CHAIR--
237 Ms. DICUS:
THANK YOU.
l 238 Mr. MARKEY:
OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
239 Congratulations.
240 Ms. DICUS. Thank you.
241 Mr. MARKEY. You have already served on the Commission, 242 and you know that the Commission is buffeted by many winds 243 that you are in the middle of a clamor on all sides.
The 244 nuclear industry is crying that the burden of regulations 245 must be jettisoned so that it can sail swiftly in the 246 competitive race.
Neighbors of nuclear plants are yelling 247 that they risk being sunk in the environmental and safety 248 undertow.
249 Some of my colleagues are shooting shots across the bow, 250 warning that industry must be left alone.
I may even have 251 had a word of two on some of these subjects from time to 252 time.
And so, as you take the helm, I offer you a simple 253 compass point through the noise and the distractions.
254 As you know, the sole purpose, the sole purpose of the
]
l 255 Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to ensure that our nuclear 256 power plants and other nuclear facilities are as safe as l
257 possible.
The NRC was deliberately split off from the old i
HIF202.030 PAGE 22 l
363 STATEMENT OF HON. GRETA JOY DICUS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR l
l 364 REGULATORY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, 365 JR.,. COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; HON.
366 JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 367 COMMISSION, AND HON. TIMOTHY FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 368 FOR THE OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S.
l 369 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY l
l 370 STATEMENT OF HON. GRETA JOY DICUS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR 371 REGULATORY COMMISSION 372 Commissioner DICUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members 373 of the subcommittee.
Of course, I am pleased to appear today l
374 to discuss the NRC's authorization for Fiscal Year 2000, as l
375 well as NRC's legislative proposals.
And as is noted, I have 376 two of my colleagues with me today--Commissioner Edward 377 McGaffigan, to my left, and Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield, 378 to my right.
And is noted, Commissioner Diaz regretfully 379 could not be with us today due to a prior engagement.
l 380 As you know, the past year at the NRC has been a time of 381 intense, but rather carefully structured change, both 382 organizationally and in our fundamental programs.
These 383 changes have been accelerated and enhanced by the
HIF202.030 PAGE 23 I
384 constructive interest shown by our congressional oversight 385 committees'and by our other stakeholders.
386 I believe it is fair to say that our stakeholder
'387 interactions are both more extensive and more productive than 388 ever before.
The NRC is improving its internal efficiency 389 and effectiveness, such as streamlining its operations and 390 consolidating its functions.
We are changing our regulations 391 to be more risk informed.
We have entered the first phase of 392 implementing our new reactor oversight process.
We are 393 making improvements in the areas of power reactor license 394 renewal, license transfers, spent fuel dry cast storage, 395 decommissioning uranium recovery, fuel cycle facility and
)
t 396 licensing, and medical oversight.
397 We have streamlined our hearing process for reactor 398 license renewals and license transfers.
Our proposed Fiscal 399 Year 2000 budget, when adjusted for inflation, represents the 400 lowest budget in the last two decades.
401 Similarly, by the end of this Fiscal Year, our staffing 402 levels will be the lowest in 20 years.
We also have 403 integrated our performance plan and our budget in a manner 404 that links agency performance goals,. strategies, performance 405 measures, and resources consistent with the Government i
406 Performance and Results Act.
407 I would like to review very briefly and quickly the 408 legislative proposals we have submitted for consideration of
HIF202.030 PAGE 24 409 the 106th Congress.
410 We have urged the approval of several amendments that 411 would help to deter terrorist activity related to nuclear 412 facilities and special nuclear materials:
one, to authorize 413 guards at Commission-designated facilities to carry and use 414 firearms where needed, to prevent radiological sabotage or 415 the theft of special nuclear materials; two, to make it a 416 Federal crime to bring unauthorized weapons or explosives 417 into NRC licensed facilities; and three, to clearly prohibit 418 sabotage during the construction phase of production, 419 utilization, and waste storage facilities.
420 We also have proposed a number of amendments to increase 421 Commission efficiency and flexibility.
These include:
422 first, to allow continuation of a Commissioner's service past 423 term expiration under certain circumstances, to maintain a 424 Commission quorum, and to offset delays in the confirmation 425 process; two, provide flexibility on hearings associated with 426 the Commission licensing of new uranium enrichment 427 facilities; three, to make explicit that a combined 428 construction and operating license would allow up to 40 years 429 of o eration; and four, to eliminate the requirement for an 430 NRC in the District of Columbia.
g 431 Two proposed amendments would eliminate what we feel are 432 duplicative regulatory roles.
One is to eliminate NRC's 433 anti-trust reviews; and two, establish NRC an Agreement State l
l
t 1
~
HIF202.030 PAGE 25 434 jurisdiction over radiological clean-up criteria for l
435 facilities that are licensed by the Agreement States or the 1
436 NRC.
l 437 Now, the final two proposed amendments would relax what
\\
438 we feel are either unnecessary or outdated provisions.
- One, 439 which has already been mentioned, eliminating prohibitions on 440 foreign ownership of power or research reactors; and two, 441 providing general gift acceptance authority commensurate with 442 the provisions that other agencies have.
443 I would like now to take this cpportunity to acknowledge 444 and thank you for your efforts, Mr. Chairman, in introducing, 445 by NRC request, and to Congressman Hall both our 446 reauthorization bill and our legislative proposals.
And 447 moreover, I would like to thank all of the members of this 448 subcommittee for the sustained interest that you have taken 449 in supporting and improving the NRC.
We value your continued 450 interest and your support, and I thank you very much.
451
[The statement of Ms. Dicus follows:)
452
- INSERT **********
l l
1 j
f.
1 HIF202.030 PAGE 26
]
\\
453 Mr. BARTON. Would I guess go with Mr. McGaffigan. He's
]
454 getting the microphone, and then Mr. Merrifield.
l l
I
HIF202.030 PAGE 27 455 STATEMENT.OF EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, JR., COMMISSIONER, U.S.
456 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 457 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a 458 prepared statement, but I want to comment very briefly about 459 the Superfund provision that is in our legislative package 460 and put some context on that provision.
461 First, I want to say that we appreciate the support of 462 this subcommittee for this provision in the last Congress,/dt 463 the request of Mr. Hall and then Chairman Mr. Schaeffery[he 464 provision was in identical form included in Mr. Oxley's 465 Superfund legislation, H.R.
3000.
466 We believe that we are at a fundamental policy difference 467 with our colleagues at EPA.
We promulgated a rule through 468 the full Administrative Procedure Act process in July of 1997 469 that set what we believed to be a protective standard for 470
' decommissioning and license termination at our facilities.
471 The standard was based on voluminous analysis and public 472 comment.
But it did not~come out the way the EPA would have 473 liked it to come out.
We believe the 25 millirem all --
ps 474 pathways standard is protective of public health and safety.
475 Our colleagues at EPA, who will speak soon, will say that 476 that is not edequately protective; and that further actions 477 under Superfund might be required.
HIF202.030 PAGE 28 478 This same issue comes up repeatedly.
It came up in the 479 high-level waste hearing, as you recall earlier this year. It 480 comes up in the EPA's dealings with the States on what the 481 standards should be for so-called technologically enhanced 482 naturally occurring radioactive material--oil field by -
K 483 products, that sort of thing.
And when we are in fundamental 484 disagreement, when an independent regulatory agency is in 485 fundamental disagreement with the Administration, we 486 respectfully suggest that the Congress is 22 should break 487 the tie.
488 We would be happy to testify as to why we think our 489 standard is protective.
It is basically the same argument 490 that we made earlier this year during the high-level waste 491 hearing, and I won't go further.
492 Thank you, sir.
J r
1 k
7:
HIF202.030 PAGE 29 l
493 Mr. BARTON. Thank you.
Mr. Merrifield?
m
! i HIF202.030 PAGE 30 494 STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY MERRIFIELD, COMMISSIONER, U.S.
495 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' 496 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I 497 would~certainly associate myself with my remarks of my fellow 498 Commissioners.
I just want to expound briefly and 499 extemporaneously on two issues that have been raised by the 500 members this morning--this afternoon.
501
.The first one is on the fee-base issues.
This 502 subcommittee is considering the way in which we go about 503 paying for the programs that we regulate at the NRC.
Under 504 law, we as an agency are required to seek funding for all of 505 the activities that we have, and so ultimately those fees are l
506 passed off to licensees.
As has been noted by various 507 members, we as an agency, we the Commissioners, have taken a (Lt-508 position that believe that up to 10 percent of the activities 4
509 we conduct should be taken off of that fee base and should be 510 paid for by general revenues, as they are issues that are 511 more appropriately distributed among all of the American l
l 512 people, not just the licensees.
l 513 Some of these programs that have been targeted include 514 some of the activities we have relative to Agreement States, 515 those States which are responsible for running some of their 516 own programs in conjunction with us; some of our I
HIF202.030 PAGE 31 517 international activities; some of our work in terms of 1
l' 518 regulating Federal agencies, which also are passed off to the 519 licensed utilities and other licensees
[
520 We do feel and do believe that the issue of moving toward/generalrevenuesmakessense.
The one point I would 521 522 want to leave with the members of this subcommittee:
we l
523 believe those activities are very important M
524 activities--and -because A ust'because we want to move those 525 off the fee base does not take away from the fact that they 526 are important.
The international activities, many of which 527 were subject to statutory requirements, are vital.
We have 528 good relationships with many of our foreign counterparts. The 529 American role in maintaining the safety of nuclear power 530 plants across the world is vital.
531 Similarly, although there are many States which have 532 taken responsibility for some of the regulation for radioactivematerialsintheirStates6[hefact 533 remains that 534 they depend on the NRC to come up with the underlying 535 regulations.
Even if every eeme tate were to e,,
536 decide even if every State were to decided /to become an
_J 537 Agreement State, we would still need to have the monies to be 538 able to establish those regulations.
So they are important, 539 and I want to bring that to your attention.
540 The second issue is the Sunshine Act.
I know that has 541 raised some concerns on the part of this Committee and
'HIF202.030 PAGE 32 542 others.
We have had a comment period on our efforts to be j
543 compliant with.the Supreme Court decisions on how our 544 Commission acts relative to our public disclosure.
The point 545 I certainly would want to make is this Commission is clearly i
546 dedicated towards the notion of openness and having full 547 stakeholder involvement.
548
^
What we have found, and Commissioner McGaffigan and I 549 have been talking about this and we initiated this issue at 550 the Commission, we do not have an opportunity for the 551 collegiality the Congress originally intended for Commissions 552 such as the NRC.
We have not had an ability to sit down and 553 do the big picture thinking about how where we want to go as l
aA CW 554 an agency; how we want to view ourselves to the Agency.
j l
555 Those are issues that we feel are important sometimes to be i
j 556 able to kick around amongst the five of us.
/d In addition, we reall h w/
557 ant to de those in a big j
l 558 picture way.
We want them to be dis.cussions, be we do not l
4@Md W
l 559 want them to. be decision making /
Any of the,fmeetings that we 560 have now, we have committed to maintaining h n full 561 public view.
562 There are.many other comm4ssions out there which have a14s M 563 already~ moved toward afsociatigthemselves with the Supreme 564 Court decision.
dhe Defense Facilities Nuclear Safety Board, 565 for example, the members of that Commission meet on a daily 566 basis to discuss these very issues.
I think it is important
7--
~
HIF202.030 PAGE 33 l
567 to increase the collegiality, to make us work more 568 effectively as a Commission.
And certainly I and the other 569 Commissioners would be happy to discuss with you our thoughts 570 on that matter.
571 Thank you.
1 i
j
HIF202.030 PAGE 34
~
572 Mr. BARTON. And representing the Environmental Protection 573 Agency, Mr. Fields.
}
I
HIF202.030 PAGE 35 574 STATEMENT _OF HON. TIM FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR 1
575 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, ENVIRONMENTAL 576 PROTECTION AGENCY 577 Mr. FIELDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 578 subcommittee.
I am pleased to be here this afternoon to talk 579 about the role of the Superfund program in facilities that 580 are currently or previously licensed by the Nuclear 581 Regulatory Commission.
582 Before I begin to address language on the legislative 583 provisions before us, it is important to note that EPA 584 expects that implementation of the NRC regulations of July 585 21, 1997, which are the radiological criteria for license 586 terminations will result in cleanups within the Superfund i
i 587 protective risk range at the vast majority of sites.
588 But for a small, but important, group of sites we believe 1
589 that the legislative provisions being considered today would 1
590 result in not providing assurances to the public that NRC 591 licensees are decommissioning in a manner that is protective 592 human health and the environment.
593 The Superfund law and the implementing regulations, 594 namely the National Contingency Plan, do not differentiate 595 risks caused by radioactive contamination as compared to 596 non-radioactive contamination.
Remedial actions under the
HIF202.030 PAGE 36 597 Superfund must be protective, i.e.,
generally within the risk 4
598 range of ten to the minus fourth, ten to the minus sixth 599 risks for all expocure pathways and all contaminated 600 media--groundwater, surface water, sediment, air, other 601 biodia.
l 602 Further, groundwater should be returned to beneficial 603 reuse we believe, which includes meeting maximum contaminant 604 levels for all contaminants, including radionuclides within l
605 the groundwater plume where maximum contaminant levels are 606 relevant and appropriate for the site.
It is this view that 607 we have that current or potential future sources of drinking l
608 water, which are the source of drinking water, as you know, 1
609 for more than 50 percent of the American people comes from 610 groundwater.
We believe this is a valued national resource.
611 It must be protected to levels suitable for drinking water.
l l
612 The Superfund policy, therefore, is that a site--if a 613 site cannot be cleaned up to a protective level for a
- 614 reasonably anticipated future land use because it is not cost 615 effective or practicable, then a more restricted land use 1
616 should be considered using institutional controls that allow 617 it to be done in a protective level.
EPA does not generally 618 expect that the future anticipated land use for most NRC 619 sites will be residential.
620 Since September of 1983, we have had one policy on the 621 books, which is that we will generally defer to the NRC's l
l l
l HIF202.030 PAGE 37 622 Corrective Action Program and not place NRC sites on the i
623 Superfund national priorities list.
However, as EPA 624 indicated in the Federal Register published that year if we 625 determine that the sites that are not on the national 626 priorities list are not going to be cleaned up in a 627 protective way, we would consider placing those sites on the 628 Superfund list or taking appropriate Superfund response 629 action.
That remains today EPA's position.
630 EPA expects to continue to work in a cooperative fashion 631 with the Commissioners and the Chairman of the Nuclear l
632 Regulatory Commission as we have in the past on a 633 site-specific basis.
We are concerned with the potential 634 inefficiencies of this situatio and the potential 635 impediments to cleanup caused by the threat of dual l
636 regulation.
637 As a result, EPA urges again that we work together with 638 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a memorandum of 639 understanding, outlining consultation requirements and 640 procedures for EPA to use in those rare cases where a 641 site-specific application of NRC's decommissioning rule might 642 result in a cleanup that is not protective o human health and 643 the environment.
644 EPA stands ready to work with the Nuclear Regulatory 645 Commission on the completion and implementation of such an 646 MOU.
While we clearly believe that NRC ought to be the
HIF202.030 PAGE 38 647 leader regulator, with EPA consulting and providing advice.
648 Lastly, in conclusion, EPA believes that the areas of 649 difficulty between EPA and NRC regarding our cleanup programs 650 mainly involve issues of groundwater remediation, overall 651 cleanup levels, and lastly methods of providing for 652 restricted land uses where necessary, to establish cost 653 effective cleanup levels.
654 EPA believes that citizens should be protected within the 655 Superfund risk range and have ground waters restored to 656 beneficial uses where practicable, regardless of the type of J
657 contaminant--radionuclide or otherwise.
EPA cannot support l
658 legislative initiatives that would hinder our ability and 659 responsibility to protect human health and the environment.
660 Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for being able to 661 present my testimony and look forward to responding to 662 questions.
663
[The statement of Mr. Fields follows:)
664
- INSERT **********
HIF202.030 PAGE 39 665' Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Administrator Fields.
The Chair 666 wants to remind our panel and also the Committee we are 667 expec' ting a number of votes in about 10 minutes.
I think 668 there's one 15-minute votes and--excuse me--three 5-minute 669 votes, so we are unfortunately going to have to--excuse 670 me--suspend to go do that.
I especially want to remind my 671 minority friends the second panel was put on at the request 672 of the minority, so I expect some minority members to be here 673 when the minority--when the second panel--and that's not 674 necessary to Mr. Sawyer.
He just happens to be the only one 675 here.
676 Mr. SAWYER. I will share the message, Mr. Chairman.
677 Mr. BARTON. Yes.
The Chair recognizes himself for the 678 first five minutes of questions.
679 Madam Chairwoman, it is very unusual for a Federal agency 680 to request that part of its jurisdiction be eliminated.
But 681 -yet, in your NRC proposal, you do--the Commission requests 682 that it be relieved of its anti-trust review.
683 If we do that, what other agencies would perform 684 anti-trust review for nuclear power plants and companies that 685 own them?
686 Commissioner DICUS. Okay, there are two agencies that 687 conduct the reviews that the NRC currently conducts.
The 688 Department of Justice and the FERC conduct these same 689 reviews, and for us to do it also does not add value to the l
E HIF202.030 PAGE 40 690 process.
They are quite--the other two agencies do tt; ;ob 691 quite capably.
For us to do it simply adds in some cases 692 costs and time, so we feel that it is adequately covered, and l
l 693 there is no reason for us to perform those reviews.
l 694 Mr. BARTON. Does the--do the other Federal agencies that 695 would do the-review, do they share your view on this, the 696 Commission's view on this?
697 Commissioner DICUS. I have not discussed personally this i
698 with the other agencies.
I would assume that they would, and 699 would not have a problem with that.
We would have to get 700 back to you on that.
701 Mr. BARTON. Well, you noticed that a similar provision 702 was in the administration electricity deregulation--
703 Commissioner DICUS. That is true.
704 Mr. BARTON. Proposal.
705 Commissioner DICUS. Yes.
706 Mr. BARTON. So I would take that that the Clinton 707 Administration at least at the presidential level supports 708 the proposed change?
709 Commissioner DICUS. Yes, the administration supports this 710 change.
711 Mr. BARTON. Okay.
The--a number of the Republicans in 712 their opening statements showed support or concern anyway i
713 about the fact that right now the Commission, by law, has to 714 request 100 percent funding through user fees.
It is my l
e
r.
,~
HIF202.030 PAGE 41 715 understanding that in the budget submission to the OMB, the 716 Connission did request authority to get some funds from 717 general revenue.
Can you comment on that?
718 Commissioner DICUS. Sure, I would be happy to, and that 719 is correct.
In fact, for the last few years, we have 720 requested to get perhaps up to as much as 10 percent, as 721 Commissioner Merrifield testified, of our budget off the fee 722 base because of the activities that we have that are 723 important activities we think to the public health and 724 safety, but are--really benefit the American people as a 725 whole.
We have not been successful in getting OMB to agree 726 to this.
727 Mr. BARTON. Mr., oh--Commissioner.
10 728 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. Just one brief[-there is one l'
pwLYOf y
729 little piece of our legislative package that addresses this We will solve the problem if you a/tL4Jsk this piece of 730 issue.
A 731 the package of subsidizing our review of other Federal 732 agencies out of the fee base.
We have part of our proposal 733 within the authorization bill as opposed to the legislative 734 package, andthatisabouta$2.8million)(fairnessin a uJL-735 equity issue that would be solved within the overall $50 735 million issue if that provision were to be enacted.
So-thers-Sp/qhbtthatistheonlypiecethatwegotoutofOMB.
_737 738 Mr. BARTON. Okay.
Administrator Fields, first I--I just 739 want to thank you for the work you have done with me on the l
HIF202.030 PAGE 43 740 dry cleaning issue.
We are still working on that, and I hope 741 my office has stayed in contact with your staff as we have 742 worked with Senator Kerry and the industry to try to get 743 agreement.
But I really appreciate your openness on that.
744 Mr. FIELDS. You are welcome, sir.
745 Mr. BARTON. On this issue, Commissioner McGaffigan I
746 basically said he wants Congress to break the tie.
Does the 747 EPA share that view of the Congress as a referee?
Is the EPA 748 willing to let the Congress break the tie on some of these 749 who sets the standard and how do they set it issue that seems 750 to be perennial between your agency and the Regulatory 751 Commission?
752 Mr. FIELDS. No, we do not share that view.
We do not 753 think this is something that Congress needs to break the tie 754 on.
We think that there is some valid approaches as to how 755 you make decisions about remedy that provide for protection 756 of groundwater and appropriate cleanup goals.
I would like 757 to sit down with Mr. McGaffigan to talk--
i 758 Mr. BARTON. Maybe we can give you all pistols that--for l
759 30 paces.
760 Mr. FIELDS. About how we might--how we might work l
761 together on a--what we have suggested is a memorandum of 762 agreement.
We are not trying to take the lead.
We believe 763 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ought to be the lead 764 regulator in this regard, and, like I said in my testimony, l
l
E 1
HIF202.030 PAGE 43 765 we believe that 90 percent of the time, we are going to be in 766 a agreement.
But we think that there are a few cases where 767 we need to have some clear agreement as to how we will 768 interact and how we agree on cleanup approaches for 769 groundwater and overall cleanup goals.
And we are currently 770 in disagreement.
We think that we can sit down and write 771 out--develop a memorandum of agreement that would make clear howweresolvef31sputesbetweenthetwoagencies, and that is 772 773 the best way to go.
And we would love to do that.
774 Mr. BARTON. But now is not it true that you all have been 775 in disagreement for a number of years, that this is not--
776 Mr. FIELDS. That is correct.
777 Mr. BARTON. How many--
778 Mr. FIELDS. We have been--
779 Mr. BARTON. How many years to the best of your 780 recollection?
781 Mr. FIELDS. We have been--I have--we have been working on 782 this for more than two years.
783 Mr. BARTON. More than two years.
But is not it--
784 Mr. FIELDS. In terms of--
785 Mr. BARTON. Is not it a point in fact--
786 Mr. FIELDS. Trying to develop a memorandum of agreement 787 that would allow us to arrive at some compromise in this 788 area.
789 Mr. BARTON. Mr. Commissioner McGaffigan, how long have I...
I
~
HIF202.030 PAGE 44 790' you all been in disagreement?
' t 791 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. As best I can tell, sir, a 792 better part of a decade.
And you go back to--
793 Mr. BARTON. So you are in disagreement about how long you 794 have been in disagreement?
795
[ Laughter.]
796 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. Well, it depends how you define 797-it.
provided comments to EPA about the Waste Isolation PilotPlantf ck in around 1991, M.
798 799 Mr. BARTON. That was my understanding also that it--I am 800 not saying Mr.--
801 Mr. F12LDS. I am not talking about--I was not talking 802 about that situation.
803 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. But it is the same fundamental 804 issue.
805 Mr. BARTON. I understand.
My time has expired.
The 806 Chair would recognize Mr. Sawyer for five minutes.
- 807 Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me apologize to 808 you and Mr. Shimkus for my disorderliness, as he began his 809 opening statement--
810 Mr. BARTON. It was more Markey than you.
811
[ Laughter. ]
812 Mr. SAWYER. Is not that always the case, Mr. Chairman?
813
[ Laughter.]
814 Mr. BARTON. He is not here to defend himself.
Iigr i
~.
HIF202.030 PAGE 45 815 Mr. SAWYER. Let me just ask the question that the t
816 Chairman and I were talking about on our way trying'to find 817 our. hearing this afternoon.
The whole question of the 818 proposal in the bill to limit the prohibition on foreign 819 licensure to production facilities is a substantial change in 820 policy.
Could you talk a little bit about your sense of 821 whether or not there are sufficient security standards.
How 822 that c.an be ensured, and your sense of motive for making this 823 change in the first place.
824 Commissioner DICUS. Certainly.
The ssue--the NRC, if a 825 company, a foreign-owned company, wer; t: ;;nt--have an
.826 interest in buying, for example, a nuclear power plant, we have currently,and we would maintain if there were any 827 828 changes in the law the ability to look at that company and to y
lT)&
829 ensure that there is no reason that sale of
- ne of our 830 facilities to a foreign-owned company would, in any way, 831 endanger the security of the United States.
We would 832 maintain that capability and that would be part of our 833 decision to say yes or no to such a transaction.
834 And secondarily, should we say yes to such a transaction 835 and then we were to find some additional information, or ~$[
836 there would be some sort of change in the process that--we-837 f ;nd that that was not--it might be not in the best interest 838 of the American public, we can revoke that license.
839 Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.
HIF202.030 PAGE 46 840 Commissioner DICUS. You want to go further?
i 841 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. If I could just expand on the 842 motivation.
843 Commissioner DICUS. That's good.
844 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. The restructuring of the 845 electric power industry in this' country, in some sense, is 846 the motivating force.
We looked at this provision, and we 847 regard it as archaic.
And I will tell you my own thought 848 process.
There are very sensitive facilities, from a j
849 non-proliferation perspective, namely the fuel cycle 850 facilities that produce the fuel that goes in the reactors i7'23 j
851 deal with vast quantities of special nuclear material. Those i
852 fuel cycle facilities are licensed under a different 853 provision in the Atomic Energy Act.
And it has the provision 854 that Chairman Dicus just talked about--this common defense O
855 and security finding, inimicality finding, we call it.
And '
wh>(hutalmostallofthosefacilitiesaretodayownedby 856 857 foreign entities--Eupope--West European entities. The sole j
858 exception is the General Electric Company. Westinghouse was 859 the most recent to be bought by a foreign entity.
So we have 860 made determinations under this inimicality clause that 861 certainly would prevent Iraq, Iran, North Korea--any nation j;
862 of that sort to own any of our nuclear power plants if this g
863 provision were enacted.
864 So it was really an effort to look at the restructuring, l
l l'
l l
I i
j
1 HIF202.030 PAGE 47 865 look at the global commerce.
The nuclear power plants are i
866 not as sensitive as the fuel cycle facilities.
We, indeed, 867 have exported our nuclear power plant technology to all of
&M M l'&M W 868 the countries thab I could conside
-the Japanese, the 869 French, the British, the Germans, et cetera.
They build 870 American power plants--Westinghouse or GE.
So there is not a 871 security issue with regard to many countries.
There is CL-872 security issue with regard to others, but there is another 873 clause that would prevent us from selling to the bad guys.
874 Mr. SAWYER. Is there an economic motive behind all of 875 this that--particularly with the--with restructuring, both on 876 the State level and the national level impending?
877 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. I am jumping in.
I guess, from t) 4 878 my standpoint, whseh is sort of a free market issue. We 879 have--if you were a user of power--you are sitting at home.
880 You get power flowing through the line that may come from an 881 oil-generated plant, a gas-generated, coal, or nuclear.
882 Nuclear power plants are the only energy-producing plants in 883 the United States that cannot be bought by a foreign company.
884 Now, the old test in the Atomic Energy Act, as was expounded 885 by the two Commissioners, is a tw -
t one.
gm
-you%ew[denotallow 886 The first one is the 887 foreign ownership to get a majority.
888 The second part of the test is the inimicality, and that 889 relates to either someone in the United States or someone
HIF202.030 PAGE 48 r
890 outside of the United States.
891 What we are saying with our proposal is we want to--in 892 order toLalign us with'the rest of.the power production 893 industry, we would take away the majority ownership test, but 894 we could'still make that inimicality determination.
And we 895
'still have the ability to take that license away if later on, 896
_having given that license, we determine it is not in the Ned o v 897 national interest to allow that lice"ri"; to keep--
898 Mr. SAWYER. Just one further.
And you are assuring me 899 that this has little to do with the costs that might well be 900 stranded to a domestic industry and the willingness of 901 foreign investors to bet on the ability to get those 902 recovered in some way, even if at bargain basement prices?
903 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. I do not think that--when I 904 think of myself, that did not actor into my 905 determin.ation.
906 Commissioner.DICUS. No, I do not think so.
907 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. I mean, logically, it is very 908 difficult to make--when the Atomic Energy Act was first put LL EA.L -
L 909 together, there (EEF/ concerns about having foreigners have 910 access to this technology.
I 911 Mr. SAWYER. Sure.
Sure.
912 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. The nuclear industry and its 913 technology is very widespread.
The reason for having that 914 distinction, that wall--
.HIF202.030 PAGE 49 915
'Mr. SAWYER. It is simply the' security distinction that no 916 longer applies in your view?
917 Commissioner DICUS. Right.
1
(
918 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. Right.
Right.
l 919 Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
920 Mr. BARTON. No one has ever accused the Congress of being 921
-logical, but many have said we are archaic, so that propos&1
)
l 922 still has problems.
1 923 The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for five 924 minutes.
925 Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
926 Mr. Fields, now I take it that you would be opposed, and 927 your agency is opposed to the definitional change of 928
. federally permitted release that they are proposing?
929 Mr. FIELDS. Yes.
930 Mr. WHITFIELD. Is that correct?
931 Mr. FIELDS. Yes, that is correct.
932 Mr. WHITFIELD. And why are you all opposed to that?
933 Mr; FIELDS. Well, we are concerned that this--that the 934 changes that are being proposed to the cleanup provisions i
935 would: result in certain inadequate being occurred--occurring.
i 936 And we are proposing-that the legislation not be changes to l
937 CERCLA or the Superfund law, but rather allow us to retain 938 the current legislative language that is in the Superfund law 939 in terms =of defining what is a radionuclide, for example, i
l l
1
)
HIF202.030 PAGE 50 l
940 The current definition in 101 defines radionuclides as t
941 hazardous air pollutants. Radionuclides under the clean
)
942 air--are defined as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean 943 Air Act.
Under the Superfund law, they automatically get 944 adopted as hazardous substances--under the Superfund law; and 945 therefore, come out of the jurisdiction of the Superfund 946 authorities.
We believe that that authority is appropriate 947 for all contaminants--radionuclides as well as j
948 non-radionuclides. And, therefore, we do not believe that 949 ought to be changed. We believe that ought--that current 950 legislative construct in the current legislation ought to be 951 retained.
952 Mr. WHITFIELD. Now is there any--
953 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. Congressman, I am sorry.
I 954 would not mind responding to that if I could?
IktLE-955 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. I think there are thee-things, 956 three points I want to make.
First, you know, our mission, 1
957 as it is the EPA's is to protect public health, safety, and 958 the environment, so an accusation that we would not be able 959 to do that in a sufficiently high caliber, certainly I would l
l 960 find that somewhat objectionable.
l l
961 Secondly, in comparison, we went out, and we used the 962 best science available to us.
We went to all of our l
963 international counterparts to determine what is the best way 964 to come up with a standard.
l 1
HIF202.030 PAGE 51 965 Now, there are some countries that have a somewhat W
966 different standard.
They may go with,g 20 millirem, / 15 967 millirem, but the one thing that we did find out, EPA, in 968 their efforts to try to have a separate groundwater standard 969 is the only agency in the world that calls for a separate 970 groundwater standard.
Each and every other international 971 agency that regulates this area calls for a single 972 standard--all pathways.
973 The third point that I would make is, you know, we are 974 little territorial.
You know, our business is regulating 975 nuclear energy and nuclear materials and protecting public 976 health and safety.
We have got 2,800 people in our agency c&ffA 977 who worry about this all day long--280 of them are Ph.D.s.
978 And I would compare our record and our expertise with any 979 portion of the Federal Government.
I note, for example, the 980 Office of Air and Radiation--the folks that they have there 981 who worry about controlling radioactive issues.
They have 982 got 60 people and 5 Ph.D.s, and we certainly--we feel pretty 983 fair in making that comparison.
984 Mr. FIELDS. I just want to interject on that point, I did 985 not address that point, but it--
986 Mr. BARTON. It sounds like you are out gunned; you are 987 out Ph.D'd, anyway.
988 Mr. FIELDS. Well, this is a--this is an issue that the 989 position the EPA has taken on this issue, Congressman, is one
F HIF202.030 PAGE 52 990 that is not just supported by EPA, but it is the entire 991 remainder of the administration, including the Department of 992 Energy, for example, who regulates and manages a lot of 993 radionuclide cleanups as well, so this is not just an EPA 994 position on--just let me finish my comment.
It is not an EPA 995 position on what the appropriate protection is for cleanup of 996 these radionuclide sites.
This is an administration point of i
997 view, not shared by my colleagues in the Nuclear Regulatory 998 Commission, but I assure you this is not just an EPA 999 position.
hdP 1000 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. Sir, just on that last/, I would j
1001 point out that the doe did try to propose a rule very similar 1002 to ours, and they did get a letter from EPA saying it was not pa. @ uiust A %l'S 1003 supportive of Superfund principles.
But the doe would like 1004 to have adopted a rule for cleanup of its facilities.
It was 1005 very similar, with the identical standard--almost identical.
1006 Secondly, our rule--earlier it was talked about us r' ding Madt 1007 roughshod over an EPA standard.
We adopted our su4e by rule.
f 1008 The EPA standard that we are talking about, we get in 1009 letters.
We get in guidance documents.
Senator Domenici, 1010 Senator Murkowski, and Senator Nickles sent a letter to the a.a):d4 nWMA am 1011 administration sayin3 is one of these guidance documents a 3
jfndsotheyare 1012 rule, and the answer was it was not.
E_L l
l 1013 trying to trump our rule.
I 1014 Mr. BARTON. They being?
I
HIF202.030 PAGE 53 1015 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. They being the EPA, with 1016 guidance--
l.
1017 Mr. BARTON. You seem like such a nice guy, too.
1018 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. Yes, and he is.
I 1019 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. He is a very nice guy.
1020 Commissioner MCGAFFIGAN. Yes, and that is frustration we l
1021 have.
..; J 5f rrid, Ms Commissioner Merrifield said, we did I
i 1022
' adopt this based on the best science that we had available to 1
1023 us--a bipartisan commission--three Democrats and two 1024 Republicans.
Andweareatloggerheads.[4 MOU that has been talked abouthould theEPAproposals)readas 1025 i
1026 follows:
change your rule to our rule by MOU.
I personally 1027 think that somebody would sue us if we did that, because we clW-M W '
g ym' h~",Mavingadoptedarulethrough
_1028 would have violated 1029 the proper procedure, we would undermine it through an MOU.
1030 So that i-f e are at loggerheads.
1031 Mr. WHITFIELD. You know the NRC said that they may be 1032 territorial.
I assumed that the EPA would not be 1033 territorial.
l 1034 Mr. FIELDS. We would not be territorial.
1035
[ Laughter.)
1036 No, but, Congressman, if the NRC had finalized the 1037 regulation that they proposed, that the same great scientists 1038 at the NRC proposed prior to the final, we would have 1039 accepted that.
That would have been--that we believe that
I HIF202.030 PAGE 54 1040 rule would have been protective.
And we said that. NRC 1041 changed their position between the proposal and the final 1042 rule that came out in 1997.
The proposal was fine with EPA, 1043 but the change in the--from final--from proposal to final is 1044 what caused the problem and the concern we have today.
1045 Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, Mr. Chairman, that was not my 1046 main question.
1047
[ Laughter.]
1048 But what I would like to do is I would like--I have two 1049 or three specific questions I would like to submit to Ms.
1050 Dicus in writing and get an answer to it.
1 1051 Commissioner DICUS. Okay.
Certainly.
1052 Mr. BARTON. Without objection.
And if you are willing to 1053 come back and they want to stay, you can get a second round.
1054 Mr. WHITFIELD. I may.
I may do that.
1055 Mr. BARTON. Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes, and 1056 at the end of Mr. Hall's five-minute question period, we will 1
1057 suspend until approximately 4:00 p.m.,
because we have two l
1058 votes on the floor.
1059 Mr. Hall.
1060 Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, we can suspend now if would like l
l 1061 to.
I will submit my questions in writing.
I do not know 1062 what questions have been asked, and I hate to waste their 1063 time.
1064 Mr. BARTON. Okay.
Then we will recognize Mr. Shimkus for
~
HIF202.030 PAGE 55 1065 five minutes.
1066 Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have got a--
1067 Mr. BARTON. He will--he--his will be the last questions.
1068 Mr. SHIKMUS. Mine will be relatively quick.
Going back 1069 to the user fees, and, Mr. Merrifield, you mentioned that 1070 under the proposal that internally by charging the other i
1071 agencies, that is how you could make up some of the 1072 shortfall, was that correct?
1073 Those who benefit from the NRC?
1074 Ms. MERRIFIELD. Right.
Right now, we believe we have 1075 about $2.8 million worth of services that we provide to the 1076 Army, the Air Force, doe--we should be able to get from them.
1077 Ms. SHIMKUS. Right.
Okay.
Let me--let me try to get 1078 this shorter.
Okay, what about externally?
Do you provide 1079 services to people or agencies or nations outside--
1080 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. Well, we have--we have, you j
1081 know, we regulate non-profit educational institutions, for 1082 example.
The non-profits, they do not have the same kind of 1083 taxing structure, because we have to have 100 percent--
1084 Mr. SHIMKUS. But could we then also offset some of the 1085 cost by charging those who are receiving benefits from your 1086 services?
1087 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. In that particular case, I am 1088 not certain whether Congress would want to impose, in effect, 1089 a tax or fee--
HIF202.030 PAGE 56 1090 Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, what about internal, are we providing 1091 any assistance outside the United States?
1092 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. Chairman?
1093 Mr. SHIMKUS. To other countries?
1094 Commissioner DICUS. Yes, we do have an international 1095 program and we do provide assistance.
Some of that funding W&S 1996 is provided to us through AID, the Agency for Industrial-1097 Development, and through some other things.
Some of it, some 1098 of our international programs is paid off the fee base, which 1099 would be one of the programs that might best benefit from the 1100 general funds.
1101 One of our major programs is the Agreement State program, 1102 and that is the most costly one coming out the fee base for 1103 support to the Agreement States, in addition to oversight of 1104 the Agreement States.
/
1105 Commissioner MERRIFIELD. And we k b E we believe 1106 that those are valuable programs that benefit all American 1107 people, and for that reason, we think it ought to be paid for 1108 by the general fund.
1109 Mr. SHIMKUS. And there will be a conflict obviously with 1110 budgetary principles, but I wanted to get those answered.
1111 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1112 Mr. BARTON. The--does Mr. Ehrlich wish to ask a full 1113 round of questions?
1114 Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I may ask a full round of
(.
l'I
1 i.
.HIF202.030 PAGE 57 l
l' l..
1115 questions, but I would like to submit those questions--
1116 Mr. BARTON. For the record.
Okay.
I 1117 Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, sir.
1118 Mr. BARTON. Okay, the gentleman--
1119 Mr. EHRLICH. I appreciate it.
1 1120 Mr. BARTON. From North Carolina.
1121 Mr. BURR. Just for one question, Mr. Chairman, because I 1122 did get in on the tail end as well.
Mr. Fields, is--are--is 1123 the science at EPA that much better than the science at NRC?
1124 Mr. FIELDS. We believe--
1125 Mr. BURR. Or is the science the same, and you just have a l
i 1126 policy difference?
1127 Mr. FIELDS. I am sure that the Nuclear Regulatory 1128 Commission has great scientists working for them.
I think we 1129 have good scientists working for us.
We have a science
/
(
l 1130 advisory board that works for EPA that coordinates science l
1131 that is used at EPA--
l 1132 Mr. BURR. What would your scientists say if they looked 1133 at their scientists' information?
1134 Mr. FIELDS. That would be an interesting question to say.
1135 All I can say is that the--our scientists have supported our 1136 position, the policy position we have taken, on groundwater 1137 cleanups and what is a protective cleanup within the risk
(
1138 range.
I will be happy to have our--
1139 Mr. BURR. A key word in there, and I hope--
i i
E l
(
f HIF202.030 PAGE 58 1140 Mr. FIELDS. Scientists take a look at the background 1141 documents that support NRC's science, and see what they say.
l 1142 Mr. BURR. Hope, a key word in there, and I would hope 1143
.that you would do that.
Your scientists.have supported your 1144 policy decision, not your--necessarily the science behind 1145 what you are after, and I am--and that is a very, very 1146 important difference that you and the EPA need to realize in' 1147 this difference that the two parties have.
I would yield 1148
- back, 1149 Mr. BARTON. We are going to suspend until a little before 1150 4:00 p.m.
We have got two votes.
I am going to go ahead and 1151 officially let this panel go.
There is going to be lots of 1152 questions that people want to put into the--submit to you for 1153 the record, and then we will be involved at the personal 1154 level and the staff level in working through your proposal.
1155 If you all wish to stay, and other members come back and want 1156 to ask--if you are willing to come back to the table, that is 1157 a little irregular, and, as high-powered administration 1158 appointees, you do not--you will not be required to do 1159 that--but, you know, if you are going to stay anyway, that we 1160 might could get some questions from some of the people that 1161 are not here right now.
1162 But we appreciate the--this panel and your officially 1163 relieved of duties.
So if you need to go back to your 1164 offices, you can do that.
We will come back in a little
(-f HIF202.030 PAGE 59 11'65 before 4:00 p.m.
1166
' Commissioner DICUS. Okay.
1167 Mr. BARTON. For the second panel.
1168
' Commissioner DICUS. Thank you.
1169
[ Recess.],
i 1170 Mr. BARTON. The subcommittee will come back to order.
1171 We now wantJto hear from our second panel.
We have Mr.
1172 Ralph Beedle, who is the Senior Vice President and Chief 1173 Nuclear Officer for the Nuclear Energy Institute, and we also 1174 have Mr. David Aydelman '(ph) or Ahdelman (ph).
i l
1175 Mr. ADELMAN. Adelman.
1176 Mr. BARTON. Aydelman, who is the project attorney for the 1177 Natural Resources Defense Council in New York, but his office
'1178 is here-in Washington, D.C.~I think.
1179 We are going to put your entire statements in the record.
1180 We will recognize' you, Mr. Beedle, for five minutes, and 1181 then_we will recognize Mr. Adelman for five minutes.
And 1182 then, Mr. Burr and I will have some questions and hopefully 1183 some of the Democrats will also be back and have some 1184 questions.
1185 So welcome to the Committee.
i I
i CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARATION CHECKLIST This check list is to be submitted with each document (or group of Os/As) sent for processing into the CCS.
)
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) J/ev. V3Atdov 2.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT X_ CORRESPONDENCE HEARINGS (Os/As) 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL _% SENSITIVE (NRC ONLY)
X NON-SENSITIVE 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE (if applicable)
Congressional Committee Subcommittee 5.
SUBJECT CODES (A)
(B) l (C) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (A) 5520 (DOCUMENT NAME (B)
SCAN (C)
ATTACHMENTS (D)
OTHER 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (A)6[/9/09 DATA OCA SENT DOCUMENT TO CCS (B)
DATE CCS RECEIVED DOCUMENT (C)
DATE RETURNED TO OCA FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (D)
DATE RESUBMITTED BY OCA TO CCS (E)
DATE ENTERED INTO CCS BY (F)
DATE OCA NOTIFIED THAT DOCUMENT IS IN CCS COMMENTS:
RELEASE TO PDR 200a88 1 MW98. P:\\DISRTLIS.DMS