ML20216G218
| ML20216G218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/03/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bennett R, Burns C, Byrd R, Callahan S, Cochran T, Craig L, Dickey J, Dorgan B, Edwards C, Frelinghuysen, Gorton S, Hollings E, Knollenberg J, Kohl H, Matthew Mcconnell, Murray P, Parker M, Pastor E, Rogers H, Visclosky P HOUSE OF REP., SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709120296 | |
| Download: ML20216G218 (40) | |
Text
- "'*% UNITED STATES
- p \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o.C. 2066tKVJ01 jf lhg i
v 3.p
% September 3, 1997
- /
CHAMAN 1
The Honorable Harold Rogers United States House of Representatives ,
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressmtn Rogers:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate l prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I would note that our budget request took into account the wor" cad reductions due.to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to ,/
improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection to V capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic f Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
\
\
9709120296 970903 PDR COMMS NRCC llll,l.llll%.
.[l.l I CORRESPONDENCE PDR (ppI(9 1
4 0
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions will likely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Con mission would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for extemal regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1uG4 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to describe the impacts that P.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you.
Sincerely, b
- ______J
v c# UNITED STATES h E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j j WASWNGToN. D.C. MNC001 k.....,/ -
September 3, 1997 cHARMAN -
The Honorable *loe Knollenberg United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Knollenberg:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear l
l --
Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, i
the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.-
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I"tould note that our budget request took into account the worklmd reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of
' Agreement States. It also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
-The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our
- Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to
-improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
o
-.n.
- $1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will_ replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop _ i mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be
_ taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S,1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R.' 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for extemal regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House
- reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement
'this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concems and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you.
Sincerely, b zu Shirley Ann Jackson
M % UNITED STATES
- j'Jo 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,j wAssmGToN. D C. 20555-4001 3
p a .,
k, f 8 September 3, 1997
- ...+
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Frelinghuysen:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concerns about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I wm 'd note that our budget request took into account the workload reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States, it also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
2
- - $1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and 1 believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring _
in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be
- taken at this timec Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the__
l Department of Energy's non defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House l . reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently iniplement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concems and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you.
p Sincerely,
,& Y Shirley Ann Jackson
,/ % UNITED STATES g t NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665 4 001 e
September 3, 1997
\ *****
/
cHAMMAN The Honorable Mike Parker United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Parker.
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development -
Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would aporopriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million
- reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to l NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate pre!icensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We f urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I would note that our budget request took into account the workind reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the
. agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Dccuments Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My follow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI-2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken et this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for extemal regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement this pilot, we raquest that you include the $1 million for the ivRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to desenbe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you.
Sincerely, 1
- [
= -
4-"
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001
=5 i
\...../
CHARMAN September 3, 1997 The Honorable Sonny Callahan United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 -
Dear Congressman Callahan:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Developr 4 nt Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million l
reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
l Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to !
maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activitiesi in addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second corum ,:, the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered frF es . nould note that our budget request took into account the worbload reductions due w ca;mmissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States, it also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our-
, Agencywideracuments Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to
' improving the ;ost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's e'ectronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to ,
t 2
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early
-elirunation of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones _at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used
-- by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission'would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission.looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in.more detail with you.
l-I Sincerely, g Shirley Ann Jackson
p+ [ %
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j e
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655-4001 September 3, 1997
\ ...+ /
5 CHA!RMAN The Honorable' Jay Dickey United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Dickey:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-l level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I "tould note that our budget request took into account the workind reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States, it also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficierry and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
o 0
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitonng in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
- The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the
- Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the
- pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concems and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you.
- Sincerely, M A' Shirley Ann Jackson l
v 1
. i UNITED STATES y" t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j t
WASHINGTON, D C. 20$6H001 e
September 3, 1997 k . . . . /'
- l CHAIRMAN The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Visclosky:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concern is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I woHd note that our budget request took into account the woutoad reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the numtser of Agreement States. It also made other workload related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create eFiciencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It it, also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
1 1 Si million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used ,
by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor r licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability l to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be l taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the >
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the
! Department of Energy's non-defense facihties as specified in both the Senate and House
< reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently iniplement
- this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the ,
- . pilot in the NRC appropriction as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concems and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in more detail with you, Sincerely, .
f
) & :L e Shirley Ann Jackson -
.t
. t F
1 i
. =
JP
,,w, se ae--*--.y ,-qu. tr+"sF-8 **"Mw =r ev ***am 3 - m e-~ g er eevi -> +w-, ine,w-pere =- -c.-ev *s. g--y -
ww+ +--ee, www- .* . +:--dr yget- =e- tut r -9 s
d h4 UNITED STAT ES
[
- ~
k" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C 2056R001 Ye -
f k..../
CHAIRMAN September 3, 1997 The Honorable Chet Edwards United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Edwards:
On My 16,1997, the Senaie passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development l Appropttations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear ,
l Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concerns about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concern is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate
(
l prelicensing program. This ."4 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientdic capabikty to review the Department of Energy's high-level wasta activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viabi'ity astessment, and in the longer term, would enpact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I would note that our budget request took into account the workload reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of thase and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficierv,y and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspectic n capabilities. It is also na ,mportant component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedon, of information Act responsibihties as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
1 2
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early i __ elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring
- in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and ehminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMl 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be
' taken at this tirne. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and house reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our abikty to efficiently implement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is 6. ne in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concems and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in more detail with ycu.
Sincerely,
)M Shirley Ann Jackson 4
- / % UNITED STATES p* ?'. NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION g j e
w AsmNG10N. o.C. NH001
\*...+/
CHARMAN September 3, 1997 The Honorable Ed Pastor United States House of Representatives
(. Washington, D.C. 20515 Deat Congressman Pastor:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate 5481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997,
. the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concerns about the $14.8 million .
reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concern is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC -- 54 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry,- We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the 54.million reduction iWuded in H.R. 2203.-
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I would note that our budget request took into account the woWload reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the
- agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. -It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to i
1 ,
e 2
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor j licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability l to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the l
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
l The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement ,
this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in supprt of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that ne have been given to express our concerns and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in more detail with you.
Sincerely,
} L - -;
jM % UNITED STATES g' ?*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WiSHINGToN D C. 70%b-0001 y E Septenher 3,1997 k....*
CHAIRMAN
~
The Honorable Thad Cochran United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cochran:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development i Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to pur attention two concems about the $14.8 million
! reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concern is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high.
level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability te keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S,1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I vould note that our budget request took into account the workland reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States, it also made other workload related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the.
agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
0 1 I
l
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My :
fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early !
elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring ;
in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used !
by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor j licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability .
to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMl 2 and to develop t mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commissicn would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the '
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate end House t reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement I this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot ;n the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203. I I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to describe :
the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our >
concerns in more detail with you.
l' Sincerely, M b Shirley Ann Jackson l l
s 4
k F
p
....;,..J.. .a. . . ~ . - - - - . - . . _ , . + - - . , -+- ~,,.n-.a--...~~~,,,,-,,,r. ,,.--,,,,n..n,n, nm,
e*
[ 4 t
- - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g, )g wasmNoToN, o c rommot k% /*....
September 3. 1997 CHAIRMAN l l
The Honorable Slade Gorton i United States Senate .
l Washington, D.C. 20510 1-Dear Senator Gorton; On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill; I want to bring to your attention two concerns about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concern is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concern is the $10.8 milli .n eduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I wo'1d note thapur budget request took into account the workload reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's
- budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future.- This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
. - )
i 2
i
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early [
elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and rad (ation monitoring l
.j
- in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used e by some licensees in _the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor >
licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for extemal regulation of the Department of Energy's non defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the
. pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to describe the irnpacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you.
Sincerely, j
$ & =
T
> Energy and Water Development
, Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concerns about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
3 I Our first concern is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC -- $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program, This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC s ability to
- complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep poce with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to L
the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million r3 duction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees, I wc"Id note that our budget request took into account the workload reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number.of
,- . Agreement States, It also made other workload related reductions in areas such at, advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
g The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our
. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to
~
d' Improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection t capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic
. Freedom of information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to >
4 1
3~ q 3
_b-L
,1
.r,__. .M,,+-.- ~.m.,,, , , , _ _ . . _ , - . , , . -.,,,.~...m%, _._ . . . - . - , .._.m,. 7.. .- ,,v-,,
m-.---i-.
2-
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to nursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and elitninating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMl 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the
- Department of Energy's non defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently it iplement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H R. 2203.
i I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in more detail with you.
Sincerely,
/u w Shirley Ann Jackson
1 4
/[*
g, W k
j UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssiNotoN. o c. mwooot September 3, 199'/
(. .(.,e e ..
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Robert C. Byrd United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Byrd:
On July 16,1997, the SenMe passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropnctions Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concerns about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory C ,mmission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concern is that H.R,2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's abikty to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assussment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concern is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I would note that our budget request took into account the workfond reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection a capabilities, it is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as : Voiding needlessly spending up to
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident nsk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be l taken at this tirne. Therefore, we strongly urge thet you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Er. orgy's non defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S,1004 and H.R 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203, I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in more detail with you.
Sincerely,
,(w A=
UNITED STATES ,
I 3* t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)DI j WASHINQiON. D C. 20h0001 september 3, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hollings:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Enera and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concem is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC -- $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact ,
NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high level waste problem is imponant to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees, I would note that our budget request took into account the workload reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
4 ,
, .* i l
c !
l 2
! l i i
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My l
fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early l
j elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring
- in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used l
- by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability .
l
- to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop i
. mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be j . taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
- $10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203. ,
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the
, j Department of Energy's non defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House l
reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement l !
.; ' this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the
- pilot in the NRC appropnation as is done in H.R. 2203, I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to describe i .the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you, Sincerely,
- s M
- i - ,
Shirley Ann Jackson- l
+
I 8'
b e
s L
i_
- . y
_.__.._.,....m._,
-~._.._._._._._.._,._,,___..._........_._.,__....._._.__,.,-._,_-.,___._..4... . . . . . _
h[
j*
4
,j UNITED STATES NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssiNotoN. D C. 2D656@01 t
September 3, 1997 k*..../
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Patty Murray United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Murray:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development l Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1990 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
l l Our first concem is that H R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities. In addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I would note that our budget request took into account the worklond reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States. It also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certitiotion. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to i
O O
2
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMl-2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement i this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I l appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concems and to desenbe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in more detail with yau.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
((%
UNITED STATES
- bt NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 % WASHINoTON, D C. 20%W1 g .t Septeinber 3,1997 CHAmMAN The Honorable Herb Kohl United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kohl:
On July 16,1997, the Senate passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill I want to bring to your attention two concerns about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203.
Our first concern is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17. million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities, in addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high-level waste program. Timely resolution to the high level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We .
urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concem is the $10.8 million reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I wn'/d note that our budget request took into account the workload reductions due to decommissioning power reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States, it also made other workload-related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million and 400 FTE over the past five years.-
The effset of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee-based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is essential to-improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities. It is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
l
. l' e
2-
$1 million to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and I believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken at this time. Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House reports accompanying S 1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently in.plement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concerns and to desenbe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concerns in more detail with you.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
e UNITED STATES
/[. . 4e?'g NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. O C. MirKW 3.n i ,g September 3, 1997 k...../ _
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Dorgan:
- On July 16,1997, the Senata passed the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (S.1004). S.1004 would appropriate $481.3 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as requested in the FY1998 President's budget. On July 25,1997, the House of Representatives passed H.R,2203, FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. I want to bring to your attention two concems about the $14.8 million reduction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1998 budget contained in H.R. 2203, Our first concern is that H.R. 2203 would appropriate $13 million in Nuclear Waste Funds to NRC - $4 million less than the $17 million NRC believes is the minimum appropriate prelicensing program. This 24 percent reduction will adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong independent scientific capability to review the Department of Energy's high-level waste activities, in addition, this level of reduction could jeopardize NRC's ability to-complete a timely review of DOE's viability assessment, and in the longer term, would impact NRC's ability to keep pace with the national high level waste program. Timely resolution to the high-level waste problem is important to the nation as well as the nuclear industry. We urge you to support S.1004 and restore the $4 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
Our second concern is the $10.8 million' reduction to the part of the agency's budget that is recovered from fees. I would note that our budget request took into account the worklo 'd -
reductions due to decommissioning cower reactors and the increase in the number of Agreement States, it also made other workload related reductions in areas such as advanced reactor certification. As a result of these and other cost-cutting efforts, NRC's budget has been reduced approximately $60 million_and 400 FTE over the past five years.
The effect of a further $10.8 million reduction on the fee based portion of our budget will mean the postponement of initiatives which are expected to create efficiencies and make the agency more effective in the future. This includes delaying the implementation of our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) which is essential to improving the cost efficiency and safety effectiveness of our licensing and inspection capabilities ~ lt is also an important component in addressing the agency's electronic Freedom of Information Act responsibilities as well as avoiding needlessly spending up to
e-O o
2 1
$1 millien to correct year 2000 problems with existing systems that ADAMS will replace. My fellow Commissioners and 1 believe that further reductions willlikely include the early elimination of funds for States to perform independent environmental and radiation monitoring in emergency planning zones at power reactor sites; delaying information that could be used by some licensees in the longer term to decide whether to pursue renewal of their reactor licenses; and eliminating NRC's severe reactor accident risk research, ending our capability to resolve remaining uncertainties about accidents similar to the one at TMI 2 and to develop mitigating measures. These are not reductions which the Commission would recommend be taken at this time, Therefore, we strongly urge that you support S.1004 and restore the
$10.8 million reduction included in H.R. 2203.
The Commission looks forward to implementing a pilot program for external regulation of the Department of Energy's non-defense facilities as specified in both the Senate and House -
reports accompanying S.1004 and H.R. 2203. To enhance our ability to efficiently implement this pilot, we request that you include the $1 million for the NRC activities in support of the pilot in the NRC appropriation as is done in H.R. 2203.
I appreciate the opportunity that we have been given to express our concems and to describe the impacts that H.R. 2203 will have on our programs. I would be pleased to discuss our concems in more detail with you.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson