ML20211Q074
| ML20211Q074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Burton D, Domenici P, Fazio V, Gingrich N, Glenn J, Gore A, Graham B, Randy Hall, Inhofe J, Mcdade J, Raines F, Reid H, Schaefer D, Sessions P, Thompson F, Waxman H HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REP., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, SENATE, PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211Q079 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710220088 | |
| Download: ML20211Q074 (35) | |
Text
._ _.
ebre
[
UNITED STATES
- n..
O t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T'
%('
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 p.
September 30, 1997....
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Franklin D. Raines Director 4
Omce of Management and Budget Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Raines:
In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic ascessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper,
+
and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Internet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, exclained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted tnree 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, wironmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
@roximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide
=
f variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of D those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that ara contrary to the
}
provisions of our plan.
)
In reviewing stakoholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified i
several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making finci decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining C.,
i@
$.lMlN 1
l 9710220000 970930 tku PDR COMMS NRCC i
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
2-initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategit s in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with ti,e staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For examole, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department cf Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we alsa realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, d-Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosures:
As stated
[
UNITED STATES 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
WASHINGTON, D.C. ?o655-0001 5
fI
(.....af September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Albert Gore President of the United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and com nent orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
in reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of s
the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
2 initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions d. ing the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable
, input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversigat and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, prevmusly identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual perfcrmance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemmeat agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the CPRA. Although this is an exce!!ent beginning, we also realize that additional Pctions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, L
-L Shiriey Ann Jackson
Enclosures:
As stated
LNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056H001 G
September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN J
The Honorable Newt Gingrich Speaker of the United States l
House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 i
i
Dear Mr. Speaker:
1 i
in accordance with the Government Pe.formance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have l
enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contrbut on was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate
- our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the external and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic 2
assessment and rabaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, j
the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put i
our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder Involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited i
comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agencv representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferenced to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, i
environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy i
decisions, which formed the bas:s for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assecsment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction setting 4
issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants undcrstood the purpose of the strategic as?essment and rebaselining 4'
m
,,-.m..
l initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The ermments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activitia and the roguiatiun cf the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of tiiese consultations. We also had the benefit of a revicw by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our vrategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our stratefe plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-temi goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or cuplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance mecsures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make m:naging for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b
Enclosures:
As stated F
\\
UNITED STATES de 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)Rf E WAsHINoToN, D.C. 20555-0001 f
,4.....
September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Joseph McDade, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Developrnent Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1957 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment end rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. Na significani contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Ft.deral entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the external and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Comm..ssion. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Dc Nment, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associctions.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
2 initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear indue should notbe m~,nimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the syne;gy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in W'ferent arenas. The comments also provided valuable
, input to the Commission decisio,'.. on the specific strategies in the plan, inc:uding strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congrecs, as well as discussions with the Office cf Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review nre enclosed.
We consulted with other govemmem agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with tha NE-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy difference - e IPA in such areas as high level waste and radiolog.ical cleanup standards, we ide trb a 5 consistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance muures.
The tinclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, inc'uding developii,3 our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed b implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strateac plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b
Enclosures:
As stated
p/
h UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!M)001 g
a
\\*...*/
September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Vic Fazio Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Fazio:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantial input to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the utam4 and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic anrvient and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series
~l,v:ra papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from ste' sholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the pubhc an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuc. ear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which fcrmed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
t 1
t i
- initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues h different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of 4
^
Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
~
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional j
oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform j
and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight arid appropriations subcommittees and modified our i
strategic plan to reflect the results of these cor. Jitations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation i
period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
l For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other
}
agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added j
key extemal factors for two of our goals that originslly had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional j
consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and
[
objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures, t
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
I The Commission is committ.ed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make J
managing for results a reahty at the NRC.
l Sincerely, b
i i
i
Enclosures:
As stated e
j i
g UNITED STATES d
O*
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001
- j September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chainnan Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantial input to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining efert that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor tu help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. Wo put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (intemet) and on the e!ectronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosec' 7trategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted severrJ general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting ;ssues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
4
-. 4 initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should I
notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable Input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform
- and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our -
l strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance i-goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
]_
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional j
consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of 4
Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are j
significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, v'e also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b
Enclosures:
As stated
k UNITED STATES c
pf.
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
o WASHINGTON D.C. 2055HX)01 n
j C,
/e September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ralph Hall Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Hall:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantial input to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the external and internal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC empbyees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained; and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from ste..ceholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects )f the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Crmission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on tFe direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
. initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas arid highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies a
related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our
-strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMS), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authonties; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that origina!y had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual penormance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's acticas in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b
Enclosures:
As stated
f UNITED STATES p
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055H001 0
E September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantial input to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholde, conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the previsions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
2-initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-let el waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key axtemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic l
plan to i,elo show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we ddressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRrk actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other government agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and 4
objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant pelicy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup star.1ards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas it' our respective goals, strategies or performance measures.
The er closed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make msnaging for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b
Enclosures:
As stated
\\
UNITED STATES f-t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055f4001 ti,\\.....[j September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Harry Reid Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Reid:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and internal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisians, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several generst observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic asse% ment and rebaselining
2 initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we contulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation 1
period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needad to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b.
Enclosures:
As stated
[
UNITED STATES 0
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001
~k q
\\ y,,
- September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantial input to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic p!an by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and internal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder Involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted ihree 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associatiens.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
L - _.
.__m
. )
initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also piovided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-inforrned, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemel factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, 4
Enclosures:
As stated
f[
%n UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
S WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055 A001 E
September 30, 1997
,, g CHAIRMAN The Honorable Bob Graham Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Graham:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatoy Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluatert in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an annou7 cement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder Involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Internet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1.600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's prelir.linary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and gemlane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
2-initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission dacisions on the specific strategies in the plan, ine'uding strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
j Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an exce\\ lent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely,
' /b s
Enclosures:
As stated
UNITED STATES p,
t NUCLEAR REG 8)LATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055%0001 September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman Committee on Govemmenta! Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the external and internal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Coom, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (internet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-seting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified severalinstances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
l 2
initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in ddWent arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission de&ns on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed. performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in iroroving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to croWutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and leg:.Me authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none, v.s.avised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GFRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, iL L Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosures:
As stated
g*%
UNITED STATES
{f k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 r,,
- j k...~ p8 September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Glenn Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Glenn:
In accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the external and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder Involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World #,de Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
2-initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issus3 in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
- On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions witn other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative cathorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goa s that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additiona! details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
4 Wa consulted with other govemment agencie,s that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FElVA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such mas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identifiad no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or perfomance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commisslon is commilled to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements 10 its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, ib 4
Shirley Ann Jackson Enclosures. As stated 4
5
{
f UNITED STATES
/p '
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 e
\\.u./
September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
in accordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fisca! Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help fac!!itate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment througii a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range ofinterests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission't strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific P.ttention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
!~.
t 1
2-initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should i
notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy.
between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent reguletar/ approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable
. Input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informeo, pcs... nance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of 4
Energy, the low-level waste p,ogram, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriatiens sebcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with the staff of cur oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified cur strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congrees, as well as discussions with the Office E
of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other l-agencies, prewusly identified management problems, and legislative authorities: we added key external factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan :o help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addrest *d resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies, i.
!~
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional j
consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
l We co..:ulted with other government agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emerger:cy Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with E A in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclo' ad strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the i
GPRA. Altnough this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our peric=rne plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make 1
improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b
a i
Enclosures:
As stated Y
I l
m e.-
[
UNITED STATES p
$*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055A001 O
E e
%..... +'
September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Henry Waxman Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Congressman Waxman:
In accordanca with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Commissioc's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of issues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluatad in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder Involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Intemet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purmse of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
-'s
2 initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings ref'ected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in different arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform ano Ov,ersight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consllted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modif;ad our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we added information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's actions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or daplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measure The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are naeded to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, b
Enclosures:
As stated
/
k UNITED STATES f
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055H001 E
September 30, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Pete Sessions United States House of Representatives Washingen, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Sessions:
In a,cordance with the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I have enclosed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic Plan. As noted below, the public provided substantialinput to the Cummission's strategic assessment and rebaselining effort that preceded the strategic plan as stipulated by GPRA. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of our strategic plan by any non-Federal entity. However we did use a contractor to help facilitate our discussions and resolution of lssues.
Consistent with the GPRA, we assessed the functions that the NRC performs and the extemal and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers that were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's preliminary views for responding to the issues were given to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the Federal Register, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an announcement to all NRC employees. We put our Strategic Assessment Framework Document, a Stakeholder involvement Process Paper, and issue papers on the NRC's Home Page on the World Wide Web (Internet) and on the electronic Federal World Bulletin Board Service. These documents described the initiative, explained how copies of the issue papers could be accessed and obtained, and solicited comments from stakeholders.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. We announced these conferences to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizens groups, and Govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meetings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The Commission took into consideration comments received from our stakeholders in its policy decisions, which formed the basis for the enclosed strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment, and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on direction-setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane views that are contrary to the provisions of our plan.
In reviewing stakeholder comments, we noted several general observations and identified several instances in which broadly held stakeholder views warranted the specific attention of the Commission in making final decisions on the direction-setting issues. Although the meeting participants understood the purpose of the strategic assessment and rebaselining
r
.. initiative, several noted that the demonstrated safety record of the nuclear industry should notbe minimized or forgotten. Discussions during the meetings reflected the synergy between the issues in different regulatory areas and highlighted the need for a consistent regulatory approach to issues in differem arenas. The comments also provided valuable input to the Commission decisions on the specific strategies in the plan, including strategies related to risk-informed, performance-based activities and the regulation of the Department of Energy, the low-level waste program, and nuclear materials.
4 On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our congressionat oversight and approoriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we a
consulted with the staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations. We also had the benefit of a review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of our strategic plan during the consultation period. This review and consultations with Congress, as well as discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were very helpful to us in improving our strategic plan.
For example, we addeo information to the plan relating to cross-cutting functions with other agencies, previously identified management problems, and legislative authorities; we added key extemal factors for two of our goals that originally had none; we revised the strategic plan to help show the relationship between our long-term goals and our annual performance goals; and we addressed resource and new legislative needs to execute our strategies.
Additional details on the NRC's sctions in response to comments received from congressional consultations and the GAO review are enclosed.
We consulted with other government agencies that have major cross-cutting r,oals and objectives with the NRC-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Depertment of Energy (DOE), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While there are significant policy differences with EPA in such areas as high level waste and radiological cleanup standards, we identified no inconsistent or duplicative areas in our respective goals, strategies, or performance measures.
The enclosed strategic plan is a major step toward managing for results as required by the GPRA. Although this is an excellent beginning, we also realize that additional actions, including developing our performance plan, are needed to achieve the intent of the GPRA.
4 The Commission is committed to implementing the Act and will continue to make improvements to its first strategic plan and take the other actions necessary to make managing for results a reality at the NRC.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosures:
As stated
9 Actions in Responta to Comments Received from Congressional Consultations and the General Accounting Office Review Comment:
The relationship between long-term goals and annual performance goals is not included; some strategies are unnecessarily vague and more quantitative measures of success need to be included.
Action-To provide a clearer link between the long-term (general) goals and the strategic plan, the goals sections aave been exaanded. Intermediate performance goals from the performance plan were added to the general goals that were originally included in the strategic plan, clearly showing De relationship be+ ween the strategic plan and the performance plan. This also provides additional measures of results.
Comment:
Resource needs to execute strategies are not discussed.
Action-A statement was added to the strategic plan explaining that we anticipate no major unique resource requirements and that our budget will identify specific resources needed to implement the plan. We noted that performance indicators have been established for human, capital, information, and funding resources in our performance plan. We also explained that, in the event legislation is enacted to provide for NRC oversight of DOE facilities, changes to our strategies and resource needs could be required.
Comment:
Legislative needs are not addressed.
Action--We examined the need for legislation to implement our plan. A statement was added to the strategic plan indicating our conclusion that we have not identified a need for any significant legislative changes to achieve our goals and strategies. However, as noted in certain substrategies related to reactor and non-reactor decommissioning, the NRC is seeking legislation that would eliminate the overlap in the standard-setting authority of the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency with regard to Atomic Energy Act sites and materials by recognizing the NRC's and Agreement States' standards in these areas.
Comment:
Some key extemal factors are not included in the draft strategic plan.
Action-Extemal factors were added to the two strategic arenas that had none-Protecting the Environment and Excellence.
Comment:
Program evaluations are described, but schedules for future evaluations are not incNded.
Action-The agency has a process in place for identifying program evaluations, but the specific evaluations to be performed have not yet been identified. The strategic plan describes this process.
2 Comment:
Legislative authorities are considered, but expressly linking all of the NRC's goals and strategies to its major statutory authorities would facilitate a better understanding of the diversity and complexity of its overall mission, goals, and strategies.
Action-Legislative authorities were added for each strategic arena. Since the goals and strategies are arena specific, this expressly links goals to legislative authority.
Comment:
Cross-cutting program activities were not fully addressed, but coordination is occurring.
Action-A section has been added to the appendix to the strategic plan, " Cross-Cutting Functions." identifying major cross-cutting functions and interagency programs and discussing the NRC's coordination with other agencies.
Comment:
The draft plan addresses previously identified management problems but the strategic plan could be more helpfulif the measures to address these challenges were clearer.
Action-We added a section to the appendix to the strategic plan,
" Responsiveness to Audit Reports and Investigative Findings," in which we discuss initiatives to improve our plant performance measurement capability and changes to rules and processes governing licensing bases information.
Comment:
Actions may be needed to p' ovide reliable information on performance.
Action-The strategic plan has been modified to discuss our actioris to pn vide reliable performance information. We explain that most of the data that we plan to use to measure performance will come from existing reports to Congress, and in FY 1998 we plan to identify any primary data systems that require improvement to provide any other information needed.
Comment:
Impodant information technology management challenges are not fully addressed.
Action-The strategic plan has been modified to explain that plans, goals, and performance measures for key issues, such as Year 2000 and the information security program, are included in the FY 1999 performance plan, which complements tne stulagic plan. Furthermore, the performance plan includes a description of how the NRC intends to plan for and use information technology to support the agency's mission.
-.....-.-.-. -.~ ~..... -... -..
1 3
in addition to the above, the congressional assessment of the NRC's strategic plan scored the agency low on congressional and stakeholder consultations.
Action-A section was added to the appendix to the strategic plan, ' Congressional and Stakeholder Consultations," describing the NRC's efforts in this area and additional
. information_is provided in this transmittal letter to the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress.
4 l
1 l.
1-I 4
~
i l
i 5
i
.n r--,
wre-,
w r.,
a---
,n.
--s-,
r---
-,,a-
A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission STRATEG C PLAN Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 e
x
'f!
,i t::J;7: 1y ytg;d gne ma
' [hk. 4 NK f K
~ ::t l$
f ' a, di Lg%
P4ll L'
4, 4/..
sden w
- l15,g
+
e September 1997 y:
" hhGi l
9710220096 970930 PDR COMMS NRCC f'
CORRESPONDENCE PDR E1"3PM _____-___-- _------
_W l c
t' y%-4 P
1 1E,0
_qL
-a c
Qf U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission s?)
O
., 3'
=
k aj 3
1 U.
4 m
.g
]h n4 y
t, ',b'
- i. q
-- ~ s ~..
.x n
(
l\\ \\_
yA;4
?
e lu; ; -.
4.
. _ c)ri s
,-; j y 7
e to 1 (pjl tm o D 4fy;..
i,> r,
~
m([f
=
S,, 4, Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002
- i4 [ k
,a T, 4.at 3-a f?;{f}
- a,44
---: M H?
.-[ $ $r yJd
.. s.
,N: f-),
[w; !-
p,j4 g;&,%
IkST l$
L 1
{;; 4 $
t d
-J h
-Q
[Q
3,,1
-w
- g. I" ug
% -.-U J(i g) c
't a
y 'I l, a
2.j
-~%:j 3
September 1997 w;
a tjjn v 4].3 i
g, N N bY N hU N YiYlD $DUYJ M $$YaD $Y8aYmV8 MMM M (( O2 M M M M M
(#a
,gf s.
V...
'g's
'g/.
i e
B I
e
,i F
\\
e 1
l'4 y,,
'e,
't
'g8
=
i 4
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission q
STRATEGIC PLAN i
I Fiscal Year 1997 - Fiscal Year 2002 i
l l
I I
i
.g September 1997
_ - _ -.. ~ _ -
. _ - - _. _ ~ -. ~.
U.S. Nxclar Regulitary Commissin nble auf Cetents Table of Contents I
Page l
Message From t he C hairma n................................................................................................... 1 t
ourMinion...............................................................................................................................2 ourvision.................................................................................................................................2 i
ouraoais...................................................................................................................................2 i
s St rat es i c A re n u.......................................,..........................................................................
j Nuclear Reactor Safety Prevent radiation-related deaths orillnesser due to civilian nuclear reactors.............. 4 Nuclear Materials Safety
\\
Prevent radiatior; alated deaths orillnesses due to civilian use of source, byproduct, and speciaI nuclear ma teriaIs....................................................................................... 9 Nuclear Waste Safety Ensure treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes produced by civilian use of nuclear materialin ways that do not adversely affect this or future generations.....................
13 Common Defense and Security and International involvement Prevent the loss or theft of special nuclear materials regulated by the NRC, and support U.S. nationalinterests in the safe use of nuclear materials andin non-proliferation.. 15 Protecting the Environment Protect the environment in connection with civilian use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials through the implementation of the Atomic Energy Act and the Na tional En vironm ental Policy A ct....................................................................... 18 Public Confidence Provide the public, those we regulate, and other stakeholders in the national and intemational community, with clear and accurate information about, and a meaningfulrole in, NRC's regulatoryprogram so that thsre willbe respect for and confidence in tha t program.................................................................................. 20 Excellence Carry out the NRC regulatoryprogram etficiently and etfectively.............................. 22 Appendix..................................................................................................................................23 Links to Other NRC Planning Documents................................................................... 24 Responsiveness to Audit Reports and investigative Findings................................. 27 C ross-C uttin g Fu nctio n s............................................................................................... 28 Congressional and Stakeholder Consultations......................................................... 31 U pdat i n g Th i s P i a n...................................................................................................... 3 2 FY1997 2002 Pagei Strategic Plan
U.S. Nuclour Regulatory Commisshc Alensage from the Chairman l
I Message From the Chairman Like many organizations, both public and private, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is facing a rapidly changing environment as it prepares to enter the 21st century.
> Restructuring and economic daregulation of the electric utility industry are introducing new complexities to the NRC regulatory environment.
> Public interest in the safe operation of nuclear power plants and facilities, use of nuclear materials, and management of nuclear waste remains high.
> Technology and other societal t.<,Sdt,;rt changing the characteristics of the NRC workforce and the way that the N?MevWs work.
All of these and many other changing conditions suggest that the NRC's future holds many challenges and opportunities, some already known to us, but others we cannot anticipate today.
To respond effectively to these challenges, we have established a clear strategic direction that will enable the NRC to carry out its mission and achieve the results expected by its primary customers, the collective interests of the American public. The Commission believes that this mission must be the foundation for making decisions about what activities the agency should -
perform. Thus, the Commission's programmatic riecisions will not be fee-driven but will be based on their contributions to public health and safety.
This strategic plan establishes a strategic framework that will guide future decision-making and will help the NRC continue to meet its responsibility for protecting public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security, and protecting the environment. Meeting these responsibilities requires the collective efforts of the NRC and its licensees, since the regulatory oversight of licensees is the responsibility of the NRC and the safe and secure use of nuclear materials for civilian purposes is the responsibility of NRC licensees. Finally, the development and implementation of the strategic plan will meet the requirements of the Govemment Perfor-mance and Results Act.
& C Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TY1997 2002 l' age I Strategic 1%n
I Albshe, Wlon. Goals U.S. Nutlear Regulatory Commlulon Our Mission The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 4
amended, establish NRC's basic regulatory mission.
NRC's mission is to regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection cf the public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment.
Our Vision In implementation ofits mission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission actions enable the Nation to safely and etficiently use nuclear materials. NRC's actions should be such that the public, those it regulates, and other stakeholders in the national and intemational nuclear community have the utmost respect for and confidence in the NRC.
Our Goals The NRC has developed general goals consistent with its mission. These goals are supported by performance goals that represent outcomes that are planned to be achieved over the period covered by this strategic plan (FY 1997 FY 2002). The safe and secure use of nuclear materi-als for civilian purposes is the responsibility of NRC licensees, and the regulatory oversight of licensees is the responsibility of the NRC. Thus, to achieve these goals requires the collective efforts of the NRC and its licensees.
The NRC will conduct an efficient regulatory program which allows the Nation to safely use nuclear materials for civilian purposes by working to achieve the following general goals:
- Prevent radiation related deaths or illnesses due to civilian nuclear reactors Prevent radiation-related deaths orillnesses due to civilian use of source, byproduct, andspecialnuclearmaterials Ensure treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes produced by civilian use of nuclear materialin ways that do not adversely affect this or future generations Prevent the loss or theft of special nuclear materials regulated by the NRC, and sup-port U.S. nationalinterests in the safe use of nuclear materials and in non-proliferation Protect the environment in connection with civilian use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials through the implementation of the Atomic Energy Act and the NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act Provide the public, those we regulate, and other stakeholders in the national and intemational community, with clear and accurate information about, and a meaningful role in, NRC's regulatory program so that there will be respect for and confidence in thatprogram
- Cany out the NRC regulatory program efficiently and effectively St.ategic Man Page 2 FY 199~ 2002
L'.S Nuclear Retrolatory Cornmisslort Strategic Aremas Strategic Arenas We have organized our strategies for achieving our vision and general goals into seven strate-gic arenas:
NucIcar Reactor Safety Nuclear Materials Safety Nuclear Waste Safety
- Common Defense and Security and Intemational involvement Protecting the Environment
- Public Confidence
- Excellence For each arena that follows we provide a brief introduction, pedormance goals for measuring results toward meeting our general goals, major environmental factors, and strategies for ac-complishing our general goals. The performance goals are the annual outcomes in support of the general goals and, as such, link the strategic plan to the FY 1999 performance plan. We will include these performance goals along with measures and targets and major program outputs in the performance plan. We have not identified a need for any significant legislative changes to achieve the goals and strategies included in this strategic plan, and we anticipate no major unique resource requirements. However, as noted in certain substrategies related to reactor and non-reactor decommissioning, the NRC is seeking legislation that would eliminate the overlap in standard-setting authority of the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regard to Atomic Energy Act sites and materials by recognizing the NRC's and Agreement States' standards in these areas. Our budget will identify the specific resources we need to implement the strategic plan.
Most of the data that we plan to use to measure performance will come from the NRC's abnor-mal occurrences report that the agency provides to Congress on an annual basis, in FY 1998, we plan to identify any primary data systems that need improvement in order to provide any other information necessary to apply the agency's performance measures and otherwise imple-ment this strategic plan. Carefully examining our data systems in FY 1998 will help ensure that we can report accurate and reliable data in FY 1900, the first year c,f implementing the pedor-mance plan under the Government Pedormance and Results Act, Effective management of the NRC's four core resources--human, capital, information, and funds-are critical to achieving the NRC's mission and goals. We have established performance irdicators for these core resources in our performance plan.
FY1997 2002 Page3 htnamic Plan
Nucleu Neutut SAfro' U.S..% lear Regulatory Commission q-l Nuclear Reactor Safety 1
i j
GOAlt Prevent radiation-related deaths or illnesses due to civilian j
nuclear reactors A major part of our mission is to ensure that our licensees design, construct, operate, and decommission civilian reactor facilities safely. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 2
and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, provide the foundation for regulating l
the Nation's commercial nuclear power industry. The NRC regulates the 106 commercial nuclear power reactors that are licensed to operate and another 14 that are undergoing decom-i missioning ' The safety of commercial nuclear power reactors is the responsibility of NRC licens-ees. The regulatory oversight of licensee safety is the responsibility of the NRC. Thus, safety j
performance reflects the collective results of the efforts of the NRC and the nuclear industry.
Reactor safety encompasses all NRC efforts to ensure that civilian nuclear reactor facilities are operated in a manner that provides adequate protection of public health and safety. These efforts include reactor licensing, inspection, pedormance assessment, identification and resolu-tion of safety issues, reactor regulatory research, regulation development, independent assess-4 ment of reactor operational events and experience, investigations of alleged wrongdoing by
}
licensees, applicants, contractors, or vendors, and imposition of enforcement sanctions for
)
violations of NRC requirements.
j Research provides the information, independent analytical tools and analyses, and some of the
]
technical expertise for making timely regulatory judgments and anticipating problems of poten-tial safety significance. NRC's research includes both short and long range components. The 2
i.
short-range component, confirmatory research, delivers a well-defined product on a predeter-
]
mined schedule to assist the NRC in making its safety decisions. The long range component,
.i anticipatory rosearch, focuses on issues of potential regulatory and safety significance.
The performance goals for measuring results toward meeting our nuclear reactor safety goal are:
4 i
> Zero civillan nuclear reactor accidents'
{.
Maintain low frequency of events which could lead to a severe accident 3
' These figures reflect the recent shutdown of Haddam Neck. Big Rock Point, and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants.
8 " Nuclear reactor accidents" is as defined in the NRC Severe Accident Policy statement (50 FR 32138 August 8,1985), that is, those accidents in which substantial damage is done to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite consequences.
8 These are events that could result in a 1/1000 (10-8) or greater probabihty of occurrence of a severe accident.
Strategic Plan Page.I IT1997 20ft2
l!.K Nucler Regulatory Commission Nuclear Reactor Sqfety i
> Zero deaths due to radiation or radioactivity releases from civillan nuclear l
reactors
- Zero algnificant radiation exposures due to civilian nuclear reactors 5 Major factors or assumptions affecting our nuclear reactor safety strategy are as follows:
Safety questions will continue to arise as the currently licensed reactors age and as operational events continue to occur.
Restructuring and reorganization within the electric utility industry and economic deregulation will cause increased economic pressure on the owners and operators of power reactors, potentially impacting the economic and regulatory environment in which the utilities operate.
An application for a new nuclear power reactor or an early site permit is not expected to be submitted during the period covered by this plan.
Some power reactor owners will continue to express interest in renewing their plants'
{
licenses. A number of the operating reactors are expected to shut down prior to the expiration of their licenses over the period covered by this plan.
The availability of nuclear-energy related research skills and experimental facilities is expected to decline.
Licensees will continue to seek reduced burden and implement plant upgrades to improve economics.
Strategy We will increase the involvement of licensees and We will assure that licensees discharge their others in our regulatory development process primary responsibility consistent with the prov,sions of the National i
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
for conducting We will encourage industry to develop codes, safe operations.
standards, and guides that can be endorsed by the NRC and carried out by the industry.
We will cowunicate with licensees to facilitate a clear understanding of existing and emerging regulatory requirements.
We will regularly assess, objectively measure, and report on licensees' performance. We will use this information to identify adverse safety
- This rneasure addresses actual deaths due to acute radiation exposure.
5 "Significant radiation exposures
- are those exposures that meet the NRC criteria for reporting abnormal occurrences to the Congress.
FY1997 2002 Page5 htrategic Plan
]
Nuclear Hracter Safety U.S. Nwirar Regulatory Commluton trends and to identify early individual plants with declining performance. We willincrease our regulatory attention on those licensees with marginal performance, including halting operations if performance falls below an acceptable level, and distributing inspection resources based on licensee performance.
We will make licensee performance and compliance with our requirements consequential by decreasing the inspection frequency for good performers and assessing penalties to poor performers.
We will be alert to the changing environment in the electric utility industry and timely adjust our regulatory program to maintain safety.
We will inspect licensecs' operations and activities to l
help ensure that licensees identify and resolve safety l
issues before they affect safe plant operations.
We will review applications from licensees for amendments to their operating licenses to ensure that operational safety is not compromised.
We will maintain and exercise an incident response capability to ensure that licensees and the NRC are prepared to respond to radiological emergencies.
We will/ncrementally We will focus on those regulated activities that pose implement risk-informed, the greatest risk to the public, building on probabilistic and, where appropriate, risk assessment concepts and other approaches for determining high and low risk activities, performanc.e-based regulatory approaches Using risk insights together with deterministic for power reactors, analysis and performance history, we will establish objective parameters and criteria to monitor and assess performance.
We will assess our regulatory processes to determine which are amenable to a risk informed, performance-based or a risk informed, less prescriptive approach.
The scope and priority of our assessment of regulatory activities will be based on the cumulative impact on safety, stakeholder initiatives, and the effect on agency and licensee efficiency.
We will reflect a risk-informed, performance-based approach in our inspection, licensing, and performance assessment activities, where appropriate.
$trategic Plan Page&
FYl997-2002
l'S. Nucitur Regulatory Comminian Nuclear Reactor Sqfety We willposition the NRC
- We will encourage applicants, vendors, and others to for // censing future inform the NRC at the earliest opportunity of planned future reactor activities.
reactors and renewing existing IIcenses.
Upon their submission, we will give priority to reviewing applications for license renewals, standard and advanced reactor designs, early site approvals, and new reactor licenses.
We will provide clear and stable NRC guidance, We w/Ilposition the NRC for licensing activltles including specific radiological criteria.*
associated with reactor We will assure that licensees have adequate funds decommissioning.
available for decommissioning by establishing additional financial requirements.
We will adjust our regulatory oversight of facilities undergoing decommissioning to be commensurate with the safey risk.
We will maintain a We will pursue a reactor safety research program that research capability to includes elements of both confirmatoiy and anticipatory provide timely and research to meet current and projected regulatory
- " **' ~ *"
Independent technical which operating experience indicates potential bases for NRC problems and areas with the highest safety and regulatory decislons.
regulatory significance.
- We will identify and maintain a core research capability. In doing so, we will evaluate technical activities to determine those specific research skills that will be maintained by in-house staff.
- We will consolidate our research activities at the best laboratories, universities, and commercial contractors.
We will enter into cooperative research agreements with other countries, the Department of Energy, and the nuclear industry.
We will use innovative procurement approaches, in addition to educational grants, to facilitate university participation in NRC's research.
' Separate from this strategic plan, NRC is seeking legislation that would eliminate the overlap in stan-dard-setting authority of NRC and EPA with regard to Atomic Energy sites and materials by recognizing NRC's and Agreement States' standards in these areas.
TY1VV7 2002 l' age 7 Strategic l'lan
Naclear Reactor Safety U.S..Vucicar Regulatory Commission i
1
- We will develop performance indicators and measures We will /mprove the measurement of that provide leading or concurrent indications of plant performance of nuclear peri rmance and that identify facilities that warrant increased NRC attention in a consistent manner.
- powerplants to Identify plants that We will develop improved methods of organizing and warrant heightened displaying pedormance information in order to enhance NRC attention.
the assessment of plant performance and communicate the basis for NRC decisions to the industry and the public.
- We will determine objective criteria and thresholds for determining NRC action levels and categorization of facilities.
Strategic Plan Page8 IT1997 2002 l
,, c
U.S. Nucitur Regulatory Commission NucirarMaterials S ftty A
Nuclear Materials Safety GOAL:
Prevent radiation-related deaths or illnesses due to civilian use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials The nuclear materials program encompasses over 20,000 specific and more than 100,000 general licenses which are regulated by the NRC and the existing 30 Agreement States'. These materials range from very low risk smoke detectors to relatively high risk Irradiators. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, provide the foundation for regulating the Nation's civilian uses of nuclear materials.
Nuclear materials safety encompasses all NRC efforts to ensure that all NRC regulated aspects of nuclear fuel cycle facilities and nuclear materials activities are handled in a manner that provides adequate protection of public health and safety. These efforts include licensing, inspection, and related regulatory activities for fuel cycle facilities and nuclear materials users, l
transportation of nuclear materials, and uranium recovery.
I in June 1997, the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Chairman on behalf of the Commission agreed to pursue NRC regulation of DOE nuclear facilities on a pilot program basis. The NRC and DOE believe that a pilot program of simulated regulation,in which regula-tory concepts are tested, should be conducted before seeking !egislation to transfer regulatory responsibility to the NRC. A pilot program to conduct simulated regulation at three facilities is planned in FY 1998, and in FY 1999, additional pilot sites /faciltiles of a different nature will tus added to this program. We expect the pilot project to provide information, including cost infor-mation, which v>ill prove useful to Congress in its consideration of legislation for NRC oversight of DOE facilities. If such legislation is enacted, it could require changes to our strategies and resource ne eds.
The nationwide performance goals for measuring results toward meeting our nuclear materials safety goal are:
Zero radiation-related deaths due to civilian use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials7 No increase in the number of significant radiation exposures due to loss or use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials'
' An Agreement State is a State that has signed an agreement with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act allowing the State to regulate the use of radioactive material, other than use in ret.: tor facihties, within the State. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma have expressed interest in becom-ing Agreement States, which could bring the total to 33 in the period covered by this plan.
7 This measure addresses actual deaths due to acute radiation exposure.
8 "Significant radiation exposures" are those exposures ti,m meet the NRC criteria for reporting abnormal occurrences to the Congress. No increase refers to the average number of significant expo-sures that meet the abnormal occurrence unteria per year for the preceding five-y:.ar period.
EY1997 2002 Page 9 Strategic Plan
suricar statenats sajm v.s. suctcar argulaim ommiuton c
No increase in the number of losses of licensed material as reported to Congress annually' No accidental criticality involving licensed material
> No increase in the number of misadministration events which cause significant radiation exposures
- Major factors or assumptions affecting our nuclear materials safety strategy are as followt/
The proportion of nuclear materials licensees regulated by the Agreement States will likely increase.
Agreement States will continue t o pursue a more active role in the regulatory process.
Controversy will continue over hcw nuclear materials should be regulated and the roles of Federal and State agencies.
Uncertainty exists with respect to the extent of NRC's future role in regulating Depart-ment of Energy (DOE) facilities.
Strategy We willassure that
- We will increase r involvement of licensees and
//consees discharge their others in our regt.ory developrnent process Primary responsibility for consistent with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
using materials safely.
We will encourage industry to develop codes, standards, and guides that can be endorsed by the NRC and carried out by the industry.
- We will communicate with licensees to facilitate a clear understanding of existing and emerging regulatory requirements.
We will regularly measure the level of safety performance exhibited by material licensees and share this information with them.
' " Losses of licensed materiar are those losses that meet the NRC criteria for reporting abnormal occurrences to the Congress. No increase refers to the average number of losses of licensed material that meet the abnormal occurrence critena per year for the preceding five-year period.
S " Misadministration events" include uvents that cause nsliation exposures at or above the level for reporting abnormal occurrences to the Congress. No increase refers to the average number of misadministration events that meet the abnormal occurrence criteria per year for the preceding five-year period.
Strategic Plan Page 10 FY1997 2002
U.S. Nuclear Itcrutatory comminion Nuctrar Maurials safety We will make licensee performance and compliance with requirements consequential by decreasing the inspection frequency for good performers and assessing penalties to poor performers.
We willlicense and inspect facilities and material users to help ensure that they operate and decommission safely and develop safe products.
We w//f regulate material We will use risk analysis concepts and other uses consistent with the approaches to determine the relative risks of the levelof risk Involved by regulated activities in the nuclear materials area.
decreasing oversight of We will assess our regulations and processes to those materials that pose identify those that are now or can be made risk-the lowest radiolog/ cal informed, performance based or risk informed, less risk to the pubIlc and prescnptuve.
continuing emphasis on high r/sk activit/es, We will reengineer our licensing processes, tailoring them to reflect the relative hazards of licensed activities.
We will inspect specific licensees at varying frequencies and with varying techniques, depending on the magnitude and relative risk of the licensed material and licensee performance.
We will work with the We will provide for early and substantive involvement Agreement States to of the Agreement States in rulemaking and regulatory assure consistent pr cesses, including consideration of risk-informed, performance-based regulation or a risk informed, less profection of pubilc prescriptive approach.
health and safety nationwlde.
We will review the adequacy and compatibility of each Agreement State's radiation c'ntrol program and discuss the results of this perfctmance review with the Agreement States.
We will continue to respond to requests from individual States that express an interest in pursuing Agreement State status and work with each State to achieve this goal; we will also encourage retention of existing Agreement States primarily through non-monetary incentives.
We willposition the NRC to We will identify and resolve significant legal, perform regulatory Procedural, and technical issues before accepting oversight for certain DOE versight responsibilities of DOE nuclear facilities, nuclear facilities.
We will request that funding for oversight of DOE facilities not be included as part of the NRC fee base currently paid by non-DOE licensees.
FY19V7 2002 Page 11 Strategic l'lan
Nuclear Sluterials Safety l'.S..%uclear Regulatory Comminion We will pursue a materials safety research program that We willmaintain a research capability includes elements of both confirmatory and anticipatory to Prov/de timelF and research to meet current and projected regulatory needs. We will focus the research ' a those areas in independent technical which experience indicates potential problems and bases for NRC regulatory areas with the highest safety and regulatory significance.
decisions.
l 5trategic Plan Page 12 FY1997-2002
l!.K Nvcint Reg ulatory Cemmissia Nuclext Waste Splity Nuclear Waste Safety GOAL:
Ensure treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes produced by civilian use of nuclear material in ways that do not adversely affect this or future generations Nuclear waste is a byproduct of the use of radioactive materials. High-level radioactive waste results primarily from the fuel used by reacters to produce energy. Low level radioactive waste results from reactor operations, and from medical, academic, industrial, and other commercial uses, and genera!!y contains relatively limited concentrations of radioactivity.
The NRC's high level waste regulatory activities are mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifies a detailed approach for the long range undertaking of high level waste disposal, with DOE having operational responsibility and the NRC having regulatory responsibility. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act directs DOE to character-ize only one candidate site, the Yucca Mountain site in the State of Nevada. Likewise, NRC's activities are focused on Yucca Mountain.
The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, amended in 1985, made States respon-sible for providing for the disposal of commercial low level waste generated within their borders.
The Act encouraged States to enter into compacts that would allow several States to dispose of waste at a regional disposal facility. Most of the States have entered into compacts, and sev-eral States are proceeding with plans to construct and operate as many as 12 new disposal facilities. However, to date, no new disposal facilities have been opened.
The perforrnance goals for measuring results toward meeting our nuclear waste safety goal are:
> No significant accidental releases of radioactive material from storage and transportation of high-level waste (including spent fuel) or low level waste"
> Establish the regt.latory framework for high-level waste disposal, consistent with current national policy, as required by law after the legislatively-required standard is issuedia
> No offsite release of radioactivity beyond regulatory limits from low-level waste disposal sites
" "Significant accidental releases of radioactive material" are those releases that meet the NRC criteria ur reporting abnormal occurrences to the Congress.
'8 The " regulatory framework" is 10 CFR Part 60. Conforming 10 CFR Part 60 to the legislatively required standard is the measure to meet this goal.
FYLV97 2001 Page 13 htrategic Plan
Nuclear Maste Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminion Major factors or assumptions affecting our nuclear waste strategy are as follows:
Permanent disposal of nuclear waste will continue to be a national goal; however, uncertainty exists about whether and how Congress will change the approach for reaching this goal.
There will continue to be opposition to the disposal of nuclear waste, delaying progress in developing both high-and low level waste disposal facilities.
Sites that are developed by States in response to legislative requirements to develop new low level waste disposal sites will most likely be licensed by the Agreement States rather than by the NRC.
l Strategy We willadvise DOE and We will participate in the development of a practical I
prepare to // cense a and implementable high level waste radiation safety high level waste standard. We will implement the standard through site-repository at a pace specific, performance based regulation.
consistent with the We will focus on resolving the key technical issues that nationalprogratn, are most important to the performance of a high-level waste repository to provide early feedback to DOE on potentially significant site, design, or assessment flaws as they are identified during the site suitability study, and prior to DOE's viability assessment of Yucca Mountain.
We will maintain the regulatory framework and the capability necessary to regulate transportation and storage of spent fuel.
We willperform We will maintain core technical disciplines needed to legislatively required assess low-level waste disposal issues, in part, by low-leve! waste relying on technical skills in other programs.
activities.
We will provide guidaaco and assistance to Agreement States about licensing a low-level waste facility.
Strategic Plan Page11 IT1997-2002
U.S. Nuclear llegulatory Commb rinn Common ikfense and Secursty and InternationalInsob etnrnt Common Defense and Security and International involvement GOAL:
Prevent the loss or theft of special nuclear materials regulated by the NRC, and support U.S. nationalinterests in the safe use of nuclear materials and in non-proliferation The NRC performs international activities, some of which support the agency's domestic mis-sion and many of which support broader U.S. nationalinterests. These activities include inter-national policy and priority formulation, export import licensing for nuclear materials and equipment, treaty implementation, international information exchange activities, ard interna.
tional safety and safeguards assistance. Our domestic safeguards rer 'nsibility involves the control of and accounting for nuclear materials, the protection of nuclear materials to prevent theft or diversion, and contingency plans for responding to threatening situations. The primary foundation for these activities include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Act of 1978, executive orders, and treaties and conventions.
The performance goals for measuring results toward meeting our common defense and security and international involvement goal are:
> Zero loss or theft of special nuclear materials regulated by the NRC" No substantiated case of attempted theft or diversion of formula quantities
- of strategic special nuclear material No substantiated breakdown of physical security or material control (i.e., access cor, trol, containment, or accountability systems) that significantly weakened the protection against theft or diversion of formula quantities
- of strategic special nuclear material
> Strengthen international nuclear safety and safeguards by participating in International safety and safeguards exchanqe activities, by providing assistance through International agreements, and by supporting U.S.
non prollferation interests A major factor or assumption affecting our common defense and security strategy is:
Increased energy needs and their attendant planning for growth in nuc%ar power abroad are expected to lead to increased requests for assistance from 'he NRC, particularly from the Pacific Rim countries that are embarking on, or concidering, new or expanded nuclear power programs.
" A " loss or thett" is that which meets the NRC cnteria for reporting abnormal occurrences to the Congress.
- Formula quantities of special nuclear material are defined in 10 CFR Part 73.
ITIV97 2002 Page 15 5trategic Plan
Common Defeme and Secunty cnd Internationrlinvobement U.S..Vuelear Regulatory Commluton i
Strategy We willprov/de
- We will seek and maintain a more active and leadership to strengthen comprehensively larger role for the NRC in nuclear safety and internation,al nuclear regulatory policy formulation and safeguards worldwide.
In developing approaches for the safe and secure use of nuclear material for peaceful purposes.
We will provide a wide but carefully selected range of safety and safeguards assistance to regulatory bodies in countries establish lng or seeking to improve their regulatory programs.
We will participate in international exchange activities of benefit to our domestic responsibilities or U.S.
nationalinterests.
We will support international programs and research that have beneficial Impacts on nuclear reactor and nuclear materials safety.
We will conduct a comprehensive review and develop criteria that will address the basis for prioritizing and suns : tting NRC's intemational activities. In doing so, we will consider the intemational activities and capabilities of other organizauons (e.g., DOE, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency, and World Association of Nuclear Operators) and will not undertake tasks that are better funded by, or better performed by, entities other than the NRC.
We will inspect and complete licerise reviews to We willassure that licensees control, ensure that licensees prevent the theft or diversion
- ' ***'**' * *'*'i*l
account for, and protect nuclear materials from We will require that licensees be prepared to respond being misplaced, to threatening situations involving theft or sabotage of nuclear materials.
We will strengthen domestic and intemational programs to ensure no improper control or disposal of radioactive material.
Strategic Plan Pageifa FYl997,2002
U.S. Naclear Regulatory Couunissica Conunon Defense and Security and intercationalInsolvement We willassist in curbing We willlicense the export and import of nuclear the proll/eration of the materials to ensure that U.S. non proliferation interests capability to produce are protected as contemplated by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act.
nuclear explosives.
We will support intemational safeguards and physical security by working to strengthen the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards systems and participating in bilateral exchanges on physical security approaches and practices.
l l
TYlV97 2002 Page 17 Strategic Plan
l*retecting the 1:nrironment U.S..Vuc! car Regulatory Commluton Protecting the Environment GOAL:
Protect the environment in connection with civilian use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials through the implementation of the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act The NRC recognizes a continuing obligation to conduct its civilian licensing and related regula-tory functions in a memer that is both responsive to environmental concerns and consistent with the Commission's responsibility as an independent regulatory agency for protecting the radiological health and saf sty of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 19F. as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental legislation provide the statutory authority for the NRC's aciivities in protecting the environment.
Protection of the environment from potential hazards associated with the civilian use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials involves actions to mitigate environmental impacts both during licensed activities and afterward. Prior to authorizing licensed activities, the NRC
. ensures that potential environmentalimpacts of such activities are assessed consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by applicable NRC regulations. Under NRC regulations, decommissioning involves safely removing a facility from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a level that generally permits the property to be released for unrestricted use. This action is taken by a licensed before termination of the license. In some cases, nonlicensed facilities may also be required to reduce or stabilize con-tamination before sites are released.
The performance goals for measuring results toward meeting our environmental protection goal are:
> Zero offsite releases from operating facilities of radioactive material that have the potential to cause adverse impact on the environment" No increase in the number of offsite releases from operating facilities of radioactive material that exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits
> Environmental impacts have been identified through the NEPA process before regulatory acti6n is taken
> No sites will be released until satisfactorily remediated in accordence with NRC release criteria A major factor or assumption affecting our strategy for protecting the environment is as follows:
Changes in Federal environmental laws may occur.
" Releases of radioactive material that cause ' adverse impact" are those that exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits for reporting release to NRC immediately or within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery as provided under 10 CFR 20.2202.
Strategic Plan Page 18 FYl997 2M2
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting the Enviramment Strategy We will/mprove the We will provide clear and stable NRC guidance, process by which 1/consees including specific radiological criteria, for successfully complete decommissioning sites.*
decommissioning of non-We will assure that licensees have adequate funds reactor sites.
available for decommissioning and maintaining financial requirements.
We will revise our decommissioning review process to be more performance oriented and more efficient.
We will strengthen litigation and enforcement to make compliance with decommissioning regulations more consequential.
- As a last resort, we will transfer to the EPA those sites whr,re NRC remedies are not working and when EPA agrees that the remedies EPA can bring to bear will have a higher probability of success for achieving cleanup.
We willassure that During initial licensing and any other major NRC action licensees protect the that could significantly affect the quality of the environ-environment during ment, we will consider the environmental effects and operations.
alternatives associated with such major NRC actions.
We will inspect to ensure that licensees identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts on the environment from their operations as required by the NRC.
- Separate from this strategic plan, NRC is seeking legislation that would eliminate the overlap in stan-dard-setting authority of NRC and EPA with regard to Atomic Energy Act sites and materials by recogniz-ing NRC's and Agreement States' standards in these areas.
T Y H V7 2002 Page 19 Strategic l'lan
Public Confidence U.S. Nuclear Regalatory Comminion Public Confidence GOAlt Provide the public, those we regulate, and other stakeholders in the national and international community, with clear and accurate informa-tion about, and a meaningful role in, NRC's regulatory program so that therry will be respect for and confidence in that program Building and maintaining public trust is critical to carrying out our mission and achieving our vision. To be an effective steward for nuclear safety, our actions must be such that the public, those we regulate, and other stakeholders in the national and intemational community have respect for and confidence in the NRC.
The performance goal for measuring results toward meeting our public confidence goal is:
> Implement the agency's plan to improve how it Informs and involves the public, those we regulate, and other stakeholders in NRC's regulatory program Major factors or assumptions affecting our public confidence strategy are as follows:
Skepticism and mistrust will continue to be an element of the public's attention directed toward the use of nuclear materials.
The public's confidence in the safe use of nuclear materials will be affected by how well the NRC does its job.
The public's assessment of the NRC's performance will continue to be closely tied to the performance of the regulated industry.
Economic deregulation and restructuring of the electric utility industry and changes in NRC's regulatory strategies probably will raise new questions about the effectiveness and credibility of NRC's regulatory oversight programs.
Strategy We will objectively
- We will establish and clearly communicate our annual demonstrate that NRC's Performance goals and measures.
efforts are enabling the Nation to use nuclear We will measure and report the performance of both the NRC and its licensees and share this performance mater /als safely.
information in a fair and focused way with interested stakeholders.
Strategic Plan Page 20 FYl997 2002
l'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PuNic Confidence We will /dentify regulatory For each of the various types of issues, we will dec/slons orissues that develop a specific approach for responding to public arelikel to 9enerate interests and concerns, ensuring that our approaches I
to public interaction employ open processes that substantialpubl/c provide opportunities for meaningful participation, Interest or concern at candid communication, and exchange of views among an early stage, and the participants.
employ appropriate methods to Inform and We will ensure that the approaches developed are consistently practiced agency wide by using involve the public, centralized planning and coordination, and decentralized implementation, primarily by the program offices and regions.
We will obtain ieedback from the public to improve our public information dissemination and interaction programs.
We will periodically reexamine our responsiveness to allegations and petitions from the public to ensure that timely and technically adequate information is clearly and understandably communicated to the parties and 091 regulatory action is taken if warranted, consistent with the risk significance of the issues.
1 We willreexamine exist /ng We will capitalize on information technology for modes and explore new improving information access, information distribution, modes of communication and public interaction, being careful not to eliminate paper in favor of electronic communication without full to make Information consideration of the public's ability to access dissemination and public information electronica'ly.
Interaction more effective We will identify areas in which informal communication and efficient.
can be used. We will use these informal communication processes where they can help to enhance the quality and efficiency of our interaction with the public.
TY1997 2002 Page 21 Strcargic Plan
& cclience U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commluton Excellence GOAL:
Carry out the NRC regulatory program efficiently and effectively Striving for regulatory excellence in all NRC functions is both desirable and necessary to maintain 3
an effective and efficient regulatory framework in today's changing environment. The NRC can improve its intemal pei1ormance by ensuring that its people and processes function with a goal of excellence. As used in this context excellence includes both regulatory effectiveness and effi-I ciency, and applies to all NRC functions. Regulatory effectiveness denotes a regulatory frame-
{
work for ensuring public health and safety that is clear, coherent, logical, consistent, reliable and
)
technically sound. Efficiency connotes a regulatory framework that is cost effective for both the NRC and its licensees. As s' ited in the NRC's " Principles of Good Regulation," the American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and licensees are all entitled to the best possible manage-ment and administration of regulatory activities. Where several effective alternatives are available, the option that minimizes the use of resources should be adopted.
The performance goals for measuring results toward meeting our excellence goal are:
> Implement the agency's plan for regulatory excellence
> Evaluate and implement needed improvements for five major NRC processes by July 1,1999 A major factor or assuption affecting our strategy to achieve our goal of excellence is as follows:
The Administration, the Congress, and the public will continue to expect cost-effective l
programs throughout the Government.
Strategy We willmake ragulatory
- We will proactively examine our programs and per-excellence the corner-formance in order to improve the way we do our work stone for all of our through a comprehensive, systematic, agency-wide strategies and activities, appr a h to program assessment and improvement.
We will implement changes to improve the ef'ectiveness and efficiency of our regulatory pro-grams and our management and support activities, We will make our improvements in a continuous, systematic, and open manner with the support and input of our intemal and extemal stakeholders.
We will provide training and development to our staff to enable us to achieve excellence in our organizational and individual performance.
We will eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements and policy statements, and streamline our processes, including using information technology to help improve efficiency.
Strategic Plan Page 22 ITI997 2002
APPENDlX t
i
/
.~= -.- -
Appendit Links to Other NRC Planning Documents U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Links to Other NRC Planning Documents Key documents that are linked to and complement this strategic plan are: Commission deci-sions on Direction Setting issue papers, annual performance plans, annual budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congress, NRC's information resource management plan, and program evaluations.
Commission Decisions on Direction Setting issue Papers The NRC's Strategic Plan is a product of a broader strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative. "he first two phases of that four phase initiative resulted in the creation of a series of Direction-9etting issue papers. These issue papers and the associated Commission decisions form the f aundation for this strategic plan. The Commission decisions were made after obtain-ing stake'iolder comments as part of Phase 11.
Annual Performance Plans The NRC's annual performance plans will be directly linked to the f 'RC's Strategic Plan. The general goals in this strategic plan set the framewcrk for developing annual performance plans.
The performance plans will delineate objective, quantifiable, and measurable performance goals to be achieved in a given fiscal year in furtherance of the general goals contained in the strate-gic plan. Each annual performance plan will also include performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes related to the perfor-mance goals. We expect to measure our progress by using a combination of output and out-come performance goals.
NRC support functions are not included in this strategic plan, but they are included in the NRC's FY 1999 performance p!an, which complements the strategic plan. Plans, goals, and perfor-mance measures for key issues such as Year 2000 and the information security program are contained in the FY 1999 performance plan. Furthermore, the performance plan now includes a description of how the NRC intends to plan for and use information technology to support the agency's mission.
Performance Report Within six months after the close of each fiscal year, the NRC will submit to the President and
\\he Congress a report on program performance for the fiscal year that has just closed. This performance report will review the success of the agency in achieving the performance goals established for the fiscal year being reported uport Where those goals have been achieved, the underlying assurrptions and strategies will be examined to ensure that continued application is warranted in the future. If any of the pe,formance goals are not met, the agency will conduct a thorougn analysis of why it did not meet the goal and the actions necessary to meet the goal in the future. One result of this analysis will be the documentation of plans and schedules for achieving the established performance goal, if the analysis should indicate that the perfor-mance goal is impractical or infeasib!e, the performance report will document why that is the case and what action is recommanded.
e Strategic Plan Page 24 FY 1997-2002
Appendix U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conanission LinLs to Other NRCl'lanning Documents Annual Budget Request to OMB and the Congress Each year, the NRC submits a budget request to OMB, which is part of the Pres &n budget to the Congress. The budget will specify the programs, activities, milestones, ant uources necessary to implement the strategic plan and the performance plan.
Program Evaluations The major program evaluation that supported the development of this strategic plan is the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative, in Phase I of that initiative, the NRC as-sessed where the agency is today by examining current NRC functions and activities, including their bases (e.g., statute, regulation, Commission guidance). After analyzing this information, the NRC identified Direction Setting issues (DSis) whose re solution will influer$ce the strategic direction of the agency, in Phase 11, the NRC evaluated the DSis and develop 3d and evaluated a range of options to address the DSis. These evaluations resulted in a serics of issue papers which were provided to our stakeholders for comment. The comments received were reviewed by the Commission in its review of the DSis and associated issue papers. The Commission decisions on the issue papers form the basis for this strategic plan.
In addition, the following key evaluations were considered in the development of this strategic plan.
NUREG CR-6330, "Results of Regulatory Impact Survey of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Materials Licensees of the Office of NMSS," 1995.
NUREG-1444, Supplement 1, " Site Decommissioning Management Plan." 1995, containing a management review of SDMP.
NUREG-1551," Final Report of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group to Evaluate Control and Accountability of Licensed Devices," 1996.
SECY-95-085, " Recommendation on the Senior Management Meeting Process for the Continued Use of Trending Letters and for Plants That Remain on the Problem Plant List for an Extended Period," April 1995, SECY-95-163," Improvements to the Power N actor Inspection Program and imple-e mentation of the Integrated Performance Assessment Process," June 21,1995.
Millstone Lessons Learned Task Group Report, September 1996.
We will use the new NRC organization that was established in December 1996. Top manage-ment of the agency has been realigned based on a recogni7ed need for increased program oversight and assessment of regulatory effectiveness. One of the fJatures of the realignment is the establishment of a Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectivenass to provide a high-level program evaluation focal point, independent of the line organizations that have responsibil-ity for the day-to-day operation of regulatory programs. The grouping of offices for the regulatory effectiveness organization was designed to facilitate improvement of program evalua.
tion. Regulatory effectiveness findings will focus emphasis on improving NRC's regulatory performance. To the extent practical, these evaluations will be performance-based, will involve an objective means of assessment, and will be risk-informed.
FY 1997 2tM2 l' age 25 Straugic l'lan
Appendle Links to other SRC Planning Documents U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Communication of Goals and Objectives Throughout the Agency and Accountability for Results Goals and objectives will be communicated throughout the agency through a process in which each NRC office would develop a multi-year operating plan with clear linkages to performance goals and measures. The organizations will link the goals and performance measures for each organizational level to successive levels and ultimately to the organization's strategic goals.
With clear, hierarchically linked performance measures, managers and staff throughout the organization will have straightforward road maps showing how their daily activities contribute to attaining organization-wide strategic goals and objectives.
Managers will be held accountable for achieving performance goals for those organizational units for which they are responsible. Program reviews will be an integral part of managing and planning. These reviews would assess how well strategic plan and performance plan goals were met and whether program performance met management expectations regarding regula-tory excellence. Self-assessments will play a critical role in the program performance review process it is anticipated that periodic self-assessments will be conducted on every program.
The scope of this assessment would vary considerably among programs and would be based on criteria associated with such factors as program size and responsibilitics, interim perfor-l mance, and the significance of internal and external environmental changes. These areas of l
assessment reflect a focus on three attributes: (1) how well strategic plan, performance plan, 3
and operating plan goals were met, (2) whether program performance met management expec-tations regarding regulatory excellence, and (3) how well-positioned the program is to meet the strategic and performance goals of the agency in the year to come. Where performance goals
(
have been achieved, the designated program manager would be responsible for examining the underlying assumptions and strategies to ensure that continued application is warranted in the future. Where performance goals were not met, the program manager would be responsible for determining why they were not met and for formulating actions deemed necessary to meet the goals in the future, t
Strategic Plan Page 26 IT 1997-2002
Appendix U.S. Nuclear Regtdatory Commission Responsiveness to Audu Reports and investigative Findings Responsiveness to Audit Reports and Investigative Findings The NRC has no high-risk areas designated by the GAO as being particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The strategies adopted in our strategic plan are aimed at correcting previously identified problems and findings in intemal and external audit and
- investigative reports, such as the NRC Office of Inspector General (OlG) reports and the GAO reports, considering corrective actions that have already been taken or are underway. For example, in response to a GAO audit report," Preventing Problem Plants Hequires More Effec-tive NRC Action," we provided improvement initiatives that will enhance our plant performance measurement capability. These included: (1) clarificction of the information in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), (2) clarification of project manager responsibilities and training require-ments, (3) initiation of a pilot program to manage licensee commitments, and (4) enhance-ments to the Senior Management Meeting process. These actions are consistent with our strategy to " improve the measurement of performance of nuclear power plants to identify plants that warrant heightened NRC attention." To implement this strategy, we are undertaking an initiative that will result in an integrated assessment of operating plant performance.
in addition, in response to events at the Millstone and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants, the NRC conducted several special inspections and lessons-leamed reviews. While the inspections and reviews have formed the bases for a number of corrective actions that respond to OlG reviews of these facilities, they have also suggested the need for changes to certain agency rules and processes governing licensing bases information. Specifically, these include the rules that regulate plant and procedure changes that may be made by licensees without prior NRC approval, control of plant design bases information, and update of information contained in FSARs. These topics are interrelated and are being evaluated in an integrated way to ensure that an effective and efficient course of action is taken in addressing regulatory changes.
FY 1997-2002 Page 27 Strategic Plan
Appendix Cross Cutting Functions U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cross-Cutting Functione We consulted with other govemment agencies that have major cross-cutting goals and objec-tives with the NRC-the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We identified no inconsis-tent or duplicative areas in our respective strategic plans, but we are continuing to be alert to potential inconsistencies or duplication in cross-cutting areas. A description of the major cross-cutting functions with other agencies that we have identified to date is provided below. In most instances, we have, or we are developing, memoranda of understanding or other agreements with these agencies that ensure that cross-cutting functions are treated in a consistent, coordi-nated, and complementary way that avoids unnecessary duplication or conflict.
The NRC and DOE share responsibility for high-level waste (HLW) disposal. As specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), DOE designs and builds the HLW repository and NRC licenses the construction and operation of the facility. Our stntegy is to advise DOE and prepa'e to license a high-level waste repository at a pace consistent with the national program. The NRC and DOE have an agreement that outlines the procedures for staff consultation and exchange of information which the NRC staff and DOE and its designated contractors will observe in connection with the characterization of the geologic repository. This procedural agreement is currently being updated to incorporate changes to the HLW program since 1993.
The NRC also interacts with DOE on a number of activities associated with the transportation and storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The NRC and DOE have a procedural agreement regarding spent tuel and HLW transportation packaging.
The NRC ar J DOE have a joint responsibility in carrying out the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title I Program and in the long-term care of reclaimed uranium mill tailings sites. Although DOE has the responsibility for carrying out remedial action, the NRC must concur in DOE's selection and completion of the remedial action and must license the sites for long-term care. The NRC and DOE have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to minimize or eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort between the two agencies.
The NRC and EPA share responsibility for protection of public health and safety and the envi-ronment. EPA is responsible for developing general radiation standards, which are then re-flected in NRC regulations and other requirements. EPA regulations frequently limit radiological activities of NRC licensees and these requirements may be added to NRC regulations and implemented by the NRC. The NRC is seeking legislation that would eliminate the overlap in standard setting authority with regard to contaminated sites by recognizing NRC's and Agree-ment States' standards in this area. Generally, the EPA requirements are developed with interagency committees with NRC staff participation. There are numerous MOUs and interre-lated activities of the NRC and EPA which impact protection of the public health and safety.
NRC and EPA currently share responsibility for establishing and implementing site-specific HLW l
standards for a geologic repository under existing legislation. As specified in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPA), EPA is tasked to develop a site-specific HLW standard consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences report on the Technical Bases for a Yucca Mountain Standard. NRC has one year to develop an implementing rule after issuance of the EPA standard. Both Houses are considering legislation that proposes to change this and provide primary responsibility and authority to the NRC.
Strategic Plan Page 28 FY 1997-2002
Appendix j
U.S. Nucleur Regulatory Commissium Cross. Cutting functions FEMA has lead responsibility for offsite nuclear power plant emergency planning and response.
FEMA also has the lead in assessing offsite emergency plans and preparedness for adequacy.
I NRC is responsible for onsite radiological emergency preparedness and for review of FEMA findings and determinations as to whether offsite plans are adequate and can be implemented.
NRC also has the responsibility to make radiological health cnd safety decisions with regard to the overall state of emergency preparedness, such as assurance for continued operation and shutdown of operating reactors. Additionally, FEMA and the NRC share involvement in the National Dam Safety Program. The primary purpose of this program is to bring together the 3
i expertise and resources of the Federal and non-Federal communities to achieve national dam j
safety hazard reduction.
I The NRC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have ongoing interaction regarding issues of mutual concem, such as: (1) FERC actions with respect to economic i
deregulation of the electric utility industry and the potentialimpact of FERC's deregulation i
activities on the NRC's mandate to protect public health and safety; and (2) the respective roles of the NRC and FERC in evaluating antitrust and market power issues arising from NRC power reactor license applicants or licensees.
l The NRC and the Department of Transportation (DOT) share responsibility for developing, I
establishing, and implementing consistent and comprehensive regulations and requirements for J
the safe transportation of radioactive and fissile materials, often through interagency commit-tees. Generally, the NRC works with DOT to develop regulations for transporting materials, and the NRC adopts DOT requirements into its regulations and implements these requirements.
l The NRC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have an MOU that outlines procedures for sharing information of mutualinterest relating to the approval of medical devices incorporat-ing byproduct materials, radiopharmaceuticals, and radioactively-labeled biologic materials. The 4
i NRC routinely relies on prior FDA approval of medical devices as an essential component of the i
NRC's sealed source and device safety evaluations. The MOU also establishes procedures for notification, sharing of information, and coordination of joint inspections of events related to design and manufacturing defects and failures of these devices or of radiopharmaceuticals.
i The NRC shares responsibility with the Department of State (State), DOE, DOD and the Agency for International Development (AID) in providing nuclear safety and security assistance to other countries. State provides foreign policy guidance for U.S. government agencies in carrying out i
such assistance, while NRC contributes actively to the formulation of this guidance and clears its assistance programs with State to ensure they are within U.S. govemment policy and bud-i!
getary guidelines. The NRC also shares responsibility with DOE for providing safety and secu.
l.
rity assistance intemationally. The NRC and DOE coordinate their efforts with each other and with other countries providing assistance to ensure they are complementary and to avoid dupli-cation and conflict. The NRC and DOE are developing an MOU to specify their roles and responsibilities in the international assistance area. DOD and AlD provide some funding to i-NRC to carry out assistance programs such as those for the Former Soviet Union and Central i
and Eastem Europe countries and coordinate on the programs developed by the NRC to utilize l-this funding. In addition, the National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President provide high-level policy guidance on key issues in the international assistance area and resolve questions that arise in providing such assistance, i
The NRC, DOE, State, DOD, Arms Control Disarmament Agency (ACDA), and the Department of Commerce (DOC) have interrelated roles in controlling exports of nuclear and nuclear-i related materials, equipment and technology. The NRC's primaq/ role involves issuing export l
FY l997-2002 Page 29 Strategic Plan
Appendix Cross Cutting Functions (1.5. Narclear Regulatory Commission licenses for nuclear materials and equipment, including reactors. Other agencies issue licenses or authorizations in related areas, including the following: DOE for nuclear technology exports and for retransfers or changes in form or content of previously exported nuclear materials and 4
equipment; State for munitions made with depleted uranium; and Commerce for nuclear reactor balance-of-plant equipment and " dual use" commodities. Each agency is obliged to consult with the others (and ACDA and sometimes DOD) for significant cases.
l Strategic Plan Page 30 yy 199~.2002
Appendix U.S. Nuclear Rettsfatory Cocacission Congressional and Stateholdee Consultations Congressional and Stakeholder Consultations Consistent with GPRA, we assessed the functions the NRC performs and the external and intemal factors that affect the NRC's mission. Through this strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative, policy issues were identified and evaluated in a series of issue papers which were considered by the Commission. These issue papers and the Commission's prelimi-nary views for responding to the issues were provided to our stakeholders for comment through a variety of communication mechanisms, including the FederalRegister, the Intemet, the NRC's Public Document Room, and an agency announcement to all NRC employees.
We conducted three 2-day stakeholder conferences to give the public an opportunity to meet agency representatives and comment orally on the issue papers. An announcement of these conferences were sent to approximately 1,600 stakeholders, such as the nuclear industry, environmental groups, professional societies, citizen groups, and govemment associations.
Approximately 175 stakeholders representing a broad range of interests attended these meet-ings. Additionally, about 165 comment letters were received from stakeholders. The comments received from our stakeholders were considered by the Commission in its policy decisions which formed the basis for the strategic plan. Although there was a wide variety of views on various aspects of the Commission's strategic assessment and some of those views did not agree with the Commission's preliminary views on Direction-Setting issues, we have not identified any substantive and germane contrary views to the provisions of our plan.
On July 1,1997, we provided a consultation draft strategic plan to our Congressional oversight and appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Over-sight, and the Senate Committee on Govemmental Affairs. Subsequently, we consulted with staff of our oversight and appropriations subcommittees and modified our strategic plan to reflect the results of these consultations.
FY1997 2002 Pa;:e 31 Strategic Plan
- Appendix
. Updating this Plan -
U.S. Nttelear Regulatory Commission Updating This Plan j
This strategic plan establishes the framework that will guide future NRC decision-making. An updated and revised strategic plan is required by the Govemment Performance and Results Act every three years. Since this plan is a living document, we will review it annually and revise it as appropriate. The annual re 'ew will be conducted in the Fall under the purview of the NRC's Executive Council. The results of that review will be presented to the Commission along with any proposed changes to the goals, objectives, strategies, underlying assumptions, or other facets of the plan. Commission decisions regarding proposed changes to the strategic plan will form the basis for the subsequent performance plan development and budget formulation cycle.
Details of this process will be contained in NRC Management Directive 4.7 after the egency completes the first cycle of developing the strategic plan, the FY 1999 performance plan, and the FY 1999 budget.
Minor adjustments to this strategic plan will be made by including such changes in the agency's annual performance plan. Major policy or programmatic changes to the plan will be incorpo-rated by issuing a revised strategic plan.
l J
Strategic Plan Page 32 FY 1997-2002
THE NRC'S SAFETY PHILOSOPHY In the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Congress authorized the civilian use of nuclear energy sub-ject to regulation by the Commission. The principal terms of this regulatory mandate - " protect health and safety,"" assure the common defense and security,"" minimize danger to life or property," and " provide adequate protection"-- are not defined in the Act, nor are they self-explanatory. Since 1954, therefore, the Commission has been engaged in a continuing process of interpreting and applying these terms in such a way as to give effect to the Congressional intent. This process has taken place with Congressional oversight as well as judicial review of specific NRC actions. The result has been the creation of c body of regulations, decisions, and practices through which the Commission's safety and safeguards philosophy is expressed. This philosophy comprises several closely interrelated elements: defense in depth, licensee respon-sibility, safety culture, regulatory effectiveness, and accountability to the public.
DEFENSE IN DEPTH ensures that successive measures are incorporated into the design and operating procedures for nuclear installations to compensate for potential failures in protection or safety measures, wherever failures could lead to serious public health and safety or national security consequences. Protection and safety must be ensured by sound management and engineering, quality assurance, training and qualification of personnel, comprehensive assess-ments including the effect of human performance on safety and safeguards, attention to lessons learned from operating experience and research, and procedures for mitigating accidents and protecting the public should multiple system failures or malevolent activities nevertheless occur.
LICENSEE RESPONSIBILITY embodies the principle that, although the NRC is responsible for developing and enforcing the standards goveming the use of nuclear installations and materials, it is the licensee who bears the primary responsibility for conducting those activities safely. The NRC's role is not to monitor all licensee activities but to oversee and audit them. This allows the agency to focus its inspection, licensing, and other activities on those areas where the need, and the likely safety and safeguards benefit, is greatest.
SAFETY CULTURE recognizes each licensee's responsibility to establish and maintain a set of attitudes that ensure safety issues get the attention they warrant. A safety culture encourages a questioning and leaming attitude toward protection and safety and discourages complacency. It reflects an understanding that safety and protection are permanently the highest priority; that problems must be identified and addressed promptly and appropriately; that individuals at all levels must know their responsibilities and have suitable training; and that, within the organiza-tion, effective communication on protection and safety must be ensured.
REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS emphasizes the approach that, because safety is paramount in the Commission's regulatory program, certain standards and practices to ensure adequate protection will be required, whatever the cost. Over and above that baseline, additional safety upgrades will be required only if their benefits justify the added cost. In implementing its pro-gram, moreover, the NRC is conscious of the need to foster efficiency, so that a given level of safety and safeguards can be achieved through the most cost-effective mears. NRC's require-ments and regulatory approaches must reflect state-of-the-art information, taking into account accumulated operating experience, technological developments, and progress in research.
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC dictates that just as licensees are accountable to the NRC, so too is the NRC accountable to the American people and their elected representatives, the Congress. For the NRC, part of accountability entails being candid with the public about what it is doing and why, as well as acknowledging the public's interest in safety issues and its right to know. In addition, the NRC recognizes that the Atomic Energy Act ensures that the public has an important role to play as the agency addresses issues of safety and health. For members of the public to perform that role, they need sound, complete, and up-to-date informa-tion from NRC. A key element of the NRC's safety philosophy is that nuclear regulation is the public's business.