ML20217E027
| ML20217E027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/10/1998 |
| From: | Stoiber C NRC OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (OIP) |
| To: | Blaha J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217D998 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803300362 | |
| Download: ML20217E027 (13) | |
Text
,
In ef"%
p-4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001 March 10, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
James L. Blaha Assistant for Operations Office of Executive Director for Operations h
FROM:
Carlton R. Stoiber, Director Office of Intemational Programs
SUBJECT:
BIRKHOFER REPORT ON " NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE OECD:
TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED APPROACH" As part of the OECD phase il organizational review, OECD Secretary-General Donald Johnston, appointed high-level outside review groups to advise him on the future role of different sectors within the OECD family, in March 1997, he convened an outside panel of independent experts to advise him on the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and its appropriate role over the next decade and beyond. Dr. Kenneth Rogers was a member of the NEA review panel and Dr. Adolf Birkhofer served as Chairman. On January 29, the panel formally presented its report, " Nuclear Energy in the OECD: Towards an Integrated Approach," to the Secretary-General and the OECD Council. The report is informally referred to as the "Birkhofer Report."
The report will be discussed at the May 1998 Steering Committee meeting and recommendations will be sent to the OECD Secretary General in early June. In addition, the NEA Director-Generalis developing a draft Strategic Plan (Attachment 1) to be based on the May recommendations, for discussion and approval at the October 1998 Steering Committee meeting.
The U.S. is currently formulating a government position that willinclude NRC views. Your comments are particularly important because the Birkhofer Report addresses a broad range of issues of interest to the NRC: NEA's structure, program of work and resources (;ncluding reducing the number of committees); its visibility and communications; its relations with other OECD bodies and links with industry; its admission of new member states; and its relations with non-member countries.
CONTACT:
J. Gorn, OlP 415-2339 3
)
9803300362 900325 PDR ORG NEIC PDR EDO -- G980144 i
n.
li a
.e 2, <.*'.,
\\
l( ",
. March 10, 1998 Attached for reference are the current U.S. positions on the 1995 Long-Term Objectives (Attachment 2) and the 1997-98 budget and proposed organizational changes (Attachment 3).
Please provide comments on the findings and recommendations (pp V -IX, Attachment 4) by
- Friday, March 25,1998.
Copies of this memorandum and its attachments have been sent to Office Directors to facilitate this request.
Attachments: As stated cc w/atts:
J. Dunn Lee /OCM/SJ J. Lubenau/OCM/GD M. Lopez-Otin/OCM/ND J. Sharkey/OCM/EM OPA OGC SECY
F
r
~
NEA DIRECTOR-GENERAL DRAFT
~
STRATEGIC PLAN: TABLE OF CONTENTS I
introduction 11 The Context 1.
The OECD Context 2.
The Energy Context 3.
The Nuclear Energy Context 4.
The Role of Governments 5.
The Needs of Governments lil General Objectives of the Nuclear Energy Agency Mission Statement IV Strategic Arenas 1.
Safety 2.
Waste ManaDement 3.
Legal Affairs 4.
Nuclear Data 5.
Economics, Resources, Development 6.
Radiation Protection and Public Health 7.
Nuclear Science 8.
Information, Communication V
Interactions 1.
Interactions within OECD Family a.
with IEA b.
with the Environment Directorate c.
with DSTl and Economic Directorate 2.
Interactions Outside the OECD Family a.
with IAEA b.
with the European Union c.
with Other Groups d.
with Industry VI Relations with Non-Member Countries 1.
New Membership 2.
Cooperation with Non-Members Vil Working Methods 1.
Program of Work (POW) and Prioritization 2.
Secretariat Efficiency 3.
Standing Committees Efficiency 4.
Adapting Steering Committee Role Vill Resources 1.
Financial Resources 2.
Staff Resources IX Conclusions ATTACHMENT 1 I
r a
- 1 e
r U.S. NON-PAPER LONG-TERM ORIENTATIONS OF THE OECD/NEA Special Meeting of the Steering Committee March 7,1995
- 1. ROLE OF THE OECD/ NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY t
l The NEA is a government-to-government representative organization in support of member country nuclear programs, and its purpose is to support, at the highest te':hnical levels, the safe and economic operation of nuclear power plants in NEA member States.
Therefore, the Agency must only focus on interests of greatest importance to Member States, which do not duplicate programs of other international organizations. Emphasis should be placed on the important work of technical Standing Committees, as authoritative sources of information and advice to NEA Member States.
Increased emphasis must also be placed on co-operative research and regulatory activities for the purpose of identifying and resolving nuclear safety issues.
NEA activities and programs must not be directed toward promoting or enhancing public acceptance of nuclear power. Rather its programs should focus on high quality technical work.
II. CHANGES TO THE NEA STATUTE The NEA is unique in that the government-to-government interests found in this forum do not exist elsewhere.
The NEA must meet the needs of its Member States, while avoiding duplication of policy, programs, or activities of other similar intemational organizations, such as the IAEA.
The NEA, while semi-autonomous, is a part of the OECD. It does not currently possess complete authority to decide its own policies and programs, e.g. budget, decisions, procedures, membership qualifications, etc.
A change is needed tot he NEA Statute to allow the Agency more independence and authority, to carry out the technical, scientific, and economic nuclear energy interests of the Member States.
The U.S. Govemment supports a change in the NEA Statute to allow for more complete autonomy similar to the OECD/ International Energy Agency (IEA).
ATTACHMENT 2 l
t lll. ROLE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE The U.S. Government emphasizes the NEA Steering Committee's statutory role and responsibility is to establish NEA policies, give direction to the Secretariat, and approve the NEA's program of work and activities.
Responsibility for charting and directing the Agency's future lies solely with the Steering Committee. Developing NEA policy on long-term objectives through advice from third party meetings of uncertain status is not acceptable to the U.S. Government.
While performing a useful function in the procedural functioning of the Steering Committee during its meetings, the Bureau doles not possess any decision-making authority and should not be relied upon to reflect the view of the full Steering Committee.
lt is of crucial importance that Steering Committee members strengthen their
=
involvement in carrying out their decision-making duties, to establish policies, to approve the program of work and activities, and to give clear direction tot he work of the Secretariat.
Voluntary contributions are welcomed to assist in carrying out the work of the NEA.
However, Member States should use restraint in the use of extra-budgetary contributions to shape specific NEA programs of work and support for activities.
IV. ROLE OF THE NEA SECRETARIAT The NEA Secretariat statutory role is to assist the Steering Committee and technical standing committees in carrying out their approved program of work.
The Secretariat should not decide or initiate the NEA program of work, absent explicit Steering Committee approval.
V. STRUCTURE OF NEA TECHNICAL STANDING COMMITTEES.
WORKING GROUPS. AND SPECIAL MEETINGS A. Technical Standing Committees The strength of the NEA lies in its ability to supplement the technical and regulatory programs of Member States, and its ability to identify, discuss, and propose resolution of technical and regulatory issues of concem, between similar programs in NEA countries.
Each committee provides a valuable framework for govemment authorities, to exchange information on nuclear energy, in peer meetings; consultation on safety and regulatory practice or policies; carrying out analytical studies; and conducting joint studies, and research and development projects.
s y,
~
Technical Standing Committees should, consistent with overall direction from the Steering Committee, coordinate their program of work horizontally, with other NEA Standing Committee work and other OECD Directorates, to eliminate -
duplication or enhance carrying out their program of work.
i The Agency is struggling to meet the demands of an expanding interest in nuclear energy safety within the constraints of a zero-growth budget, with no foreseeable increase in Secremriat staff, and Member States are experiencing '
shrinking budgets and strong competition for resources.
Therefore, it is critically important that NEA be mindful of the potential for duplication of work with the IAEA.
The U.S. believes a more effective mechanism must be established by the IAEA and the NEA, to minimize duplication in the work of the two organizations. The USG is willing to consider proposals for mechanisms that would better minimize duplication in the work of the two organizations.
The U.S. Government is willing to consider proposals for restructuring the Standing Committees in such a way that they would better reflect the key areas of the Agency: nuclear safety, the back end of the fuel cycle, the economic aspects of nuclear power, legal affairs, and the information program.
The U.S. Government believes that the CNRA, CSNI, and RWMC are effective structured, and their respective functions should not be combined nor should these Standing Committees be eliminated.
In addition, the U.S. believes CRPPH programs and activities have
=
diminished and remaining responsibilities could now be placed within the CNRA. Under this restructuring scenario, a permanent Working Group q
within the CNRA should be established to carry out associated tasks.
B. Special Meetings Heads of Regulatory Organization Meetings. The U.S. supports convening this meeting annually, just prior to the IAEA General Conference in September of i
each year. Participation should be expanded beyond the G-7 countries to include all OECD/NEA Member States with nuclear power programs.
Heads of Govemment Public Affairs Offices Meetings. The U.S. believes it j
would be useful to convene a biennial (2-year) meeting of govemment public affairs experts, to focus on selected topics of currant interest and to provide professional guidance to the Secretariat from time-to-time on the NEA's Information and Publications Program.
j l
t
1
- e VI. LEGAL ISSUES AND THIRD PARTY LIABILITY Fostering of a global nuclear safety infrastructure, based on a strong domestic legal framework for nuclear matters in states utilizing nuclear energy, should continue to be given a high priority.
The NEA has provided valuable legal assistance and plans to do more in the future.
Prioritization of the NEA's Legal Program could be revised to better reflect the interests J
of Member States in this area.
j The U.S. believes that this activity should receive a higher priority.
The U.S. supports the establishment of the NEA Ad Hoc Work Group on LIABILITY and the Legislative Data Bank.
The U.S. tabled an Umbrella Convention on Liability proposal at the IAEA General Conference.
]
)
The United States seeks support for this proposal from NEA Member State experts attending the next IAEA Meeting on Liability.
In the U.S. view, countries can adopt either or both the Vienna Convention and the Umbrella Convention as a means of establishing adequate liability arrangements.
Vll. NEA INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS PROGRAM In the last four years the NEA's information and publications program has greatly expanded into a wide range of activities. therefore, we believe it is appropriate now to review it within the context of the Agency's long-term objectives.
The U.S. appreciates the NEA information and Publication Program Ad Hoc Group's efforts, to provide the Steering Committee with a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the NEA's information and publication program.
Although the report elaborates on some panel views and provides some good observations and recommendations, the final report fails to fulfill the objectives for convening this panel to review both strengths and weakness, because the report has l
not included the very valuable insights and comments of all the Ad Hoc Group
]
participants. Because it is written as an endorsement of the program rather than a report of the group's findings, it cannot receive U.S. full support.
However, of particular U.S. interest is the recommendation for stronger relations with technical Standing Committees, and to strengthen routine cooperation between members si..:.he Secretariat staff responsible for NEA programs at the design and j
planning stage.
4
1, > <
L, b
The U.S. believes the Secretariat should develop for Steering Committee approval, a formal mechanism for interaction on information seminars with the Standing Committees, including beginning at the planning stage and approval of full technical Standing Committee memberships.
To assist the Steering Committee in better reviewing the proposed program of work, and because there is no other formal committee review of the Information and Publications program; we believe that greater transparency and detail is also needed in presenting the program of work for Steering Committee approval.
The U.S. does not support continuing to maintain a data base on "Public Opinion."
The U.S. does not support activities and programs directed toward promoting or enhancing public acceptance of nuclear power. We believe such a function is better suited to other national and intemational organizations.
Vill, NEA RELATIONS WITH NON-MEMBER ECONOMIES The U.S. is concerned with the trend toward enlargement of the OECD';s membership and its implications for zero-growth budget constraints, for the Agency's program of work and activities, and for duplication of objectives and programs with the IAEA.
Historically, the NEA has been composed of OECD Member States with homogeneity of membership, including advanced technological status and similar non-proliferation credentials. Thus, unique programmatic interests are found int he NEA forum that do not exist elsewhere. The U.S. believes there is no compelling reason to change this basic composition.
The U.S. acknowledges the June 1994 OECD communique on " Partners in Transition,"
the special circumstances in Eastem Europe and the former Soviet Union, and the benefits of OECD's global economic expansion interests.
However, in light of the IAEA and the G-24's membership, objectives, and activities, the U.S. is very concemed with the implications of substantial NEA goals to " extend further its knowledge of and dialogue with non-member countries.
< ~
We believe increasing NEA membership (either observers or full members) should be resisted int he absence of a compelling case related to the NEA's basic charter.
Acceptance of non-member countries as observers at selected meetings and dissemination of information, should be consistent with the NEA's 1992 Policy on Relations with Non-Member Economies (NMEs), particularly in regard to " major players" and " mutually rewarding" criteria.
l The U.S. supports stronger and more frequent coordination of NEA FSU/CEE activities with the G-24 process, to avoid duplication and overlap in both bilateral and multilateral programs.
The U.S. notes that CCET unfunded NEA Secretariat staff months in support of non-member country activities, are off-set by a decrease in staff months devoted to the support of technical Standing Committees.
Absent 100% funding support from the OECD/CCET, including for NEA Secretariat Staff (currently not funded) and consultants (no longer funded), the NEA Steering Committee should closely examine Non-Member activities, and potential effects on other programs of interest to Member State international cooperation.
U.S. Non-Paper: A proposal for 1997 Budget and Staff Reductions, Organizational Restructuring and Adjustments to the 1997-1998 Program of Work The NEA's excellent past work and its potential to play an important future role justify our working to enhance the Agency's effectiveness.
We believe our challenge in 1997-1998 is effectively managing the NEA and maintaining its strong technical culture. We must find ways to bring about stability, evolve into a stronger organization, dealing quickly with whatever budget reductions, downsizing, and restructuring is to be conducted.
lt is clear that for the future we must all accept a new reality of constrained resources in many Member States. Therefore, we must collectively find more rational ways at the October Steering Committee meeting of delivering, a focused, efficient, and effective Nuclear Energy Agency.
To that end the Steering Committee's immediate priority is to find more relevant ways, to restructure the Organization, and cost-saving measures to reduce the proposed 1997 budget by 10%, reduce the Secretariat staff by 10%, and prioritized reductions in the 1997-1998 Program of Work. We seek your immediate support and partnership in achieving these objectives.
We remain of the view that the key priorities for the NEA are in the areas of nuclear safety, radioactive waste management, third party liability, and economic aspects of nuclear power.
We recognize efforts by the NEA Secretariat to voluntarily contain costs, through reform of internal administration costs, particularly computer software designed to improve administration processes efficiency; implementing a budgetary data base system; improved communications; improved office information technology; and reduction in travel.
The steps that we are recommending are simply a matter of good management.
OECD Overhead Charges: We continue to be concerned about seemingly excessive overhead costs (22% of total nea budget) charged to the NEA by the OECD and supported consensus to send a letter to the OECD Secretary-General. We are disappointed in the July OECD Secretariat response noting there is an indefinite delay.
We strongly urge the OECD to provide the NEA Steering Committee with a timely transparent accounting of all overhead charges as requested in its May 29,1996 letter.
We have not yet fully reviewed the recently completed consultants' studies on support services and publications. We appreciate the Secretariat's initiative in commissioning these studies and hope they will result in improvements and savings.
ATTACHMENT 3
f.
s.
However, to ensure that overhead charges reflect actual services rendered by the OECD to the NEA, and that the system of accounting for overhead charges is fully transparent, the NEA Steering Committee must continue to press the OECD for resolution of the overhead charge issue.
We urge each Member State to also press for resolution through parallel delegation pressure in the OECD Budget Committee.
Privatizing Services: In addition, we support a Steering Committee resolution to reduce the NEA budget through a reduction in OECD overhead assessments, by seeking to convert to privatized services via the NEA wherever economically justified; e.g. publication printing, translation and interpreting services, budget and personnel accounting functions.
Seeking such reductions in OECD overhead services could result in a direct corresponding reduction in OECD overhead charges to the NEA.
We are requesting the Secretariat to prepare a cost comparison paper for the Steering Committee, on those OECD services that may be more economical and efficiently rendered through privatization under the auspices of the NEA, for example translations, printing, staff training.'
Downsize and Restructure Secretariat Staff: Staff costs and cost allowances are 60% of the NEA budget. Our estimates show that significant reductions are possible and we welcome your support for:
A 10% reduction in 1997 full time equivalent (FTE) staff, particularly upper middle management, to reduce supervisory ratios and achieve a lean an effective management structure, and Reduction of staff in non-technical areas in lieu of technical line staff, recognizing that the main asset of the organization is maintaining its strong technical culture in areas of key priorities.
We are requesting the Secretariat to provide for the October Steering Committee meeting a list of rational options for staff reductions and Secretarial organizational restructuring.
Discipline Personnel Costs: We believe to discipline personnel costs and the drain of increasing OECD pension contributions, it is necessary to convert all permanent staff positions to fixed contract positions (3 to 5 years), and that the a
practice of granting tenure after five years of service should be ended. These policies would be similar to those of the IEA.
Cost-free experts: We encourage the NEA to make better use of Member State experts and short-term project staff, whose employment would be tied to the expected life of a project.
We are requesting the NEA Secretariat and technical Standing Committees to provide the Steering Committee with suggested programmatic areas of need where Member States could provide the services of a cost-free expert.
's A
1
' We welcome and encourage newly admitted Member States to provide cost free experts to assist in the transition process and to become more acquainted with the NEA program of work.
Program of Work Adjustments and Reductions: We believe am immediate
. critical review of proposed 1997-1998 program priorities is needed at the October Steering Committee meeting. The goal would be to reduce costs and, in particular, to provide justification for client-product relationships to assure continued broad-based relevancy.
We support the establishment of priorities for further reduction in the 1997-1998 Program of work.
We Acknowledge that it is important not to spread NEA resources too thinly. Therefore, reductions in the Program of Work should be accommodated through careful prioritization adjustments and elimination of low priority activities, rather than across-the-board reductions which
. would risk negating the benefits in many areas.
Data Bank Activities. A large portion of work carried out by the Data Bank is devoted to NEA Standing Committee and Secretariat administrative support services. The NEA is billed for these computer services. The remaining activities are devoted to associate code interests of participeting members.
In a cost savings effort, the Secretariat has restructured support services supplied by the Data Bank to the main Secretariat and Standing Committees.
To provide the Steering Committee a more in depth review of savings, etc., We request the Secretariat prepare a report with detailed transparent costing of services billed to the Secretariat for the next Steering Committee meeting.
Of interest is possibly undue expansion of Data Bank Charter beyond its original purpose to include NEA administrative services.
Restructure Technical Standing Committee. During the long-term orientations exercise (1994-1995), Member States put forward ideas on rationalizing i
i technical committee structure and prioritizing the Agency's program of work. In our view consideration should again be given at the October Steering Committee meeting to reaching consensus on reducing the number of technical Standing Committees.
Observer Member Activities: The revised OECD policy on observers provides flexibility for establishing a scale of contributions for participation in OECD activities.
We are concerned with the increase in NEA membership and the potential for IAEA duplication.
We favor a limited observer classification for non-member countries, including establishing a scale of contributions.
f
. =,
2 We are requesting the NEA Secretariat to develop a proposal for Steering Committee consideration at its October meeting, for a " limited NEA Non-Member Observer classification."
Internet: We support broader use of the Intemet for NEA use as a mechanism for interaction with the NEA by Member countries. We are requesting the NEA Secretariat to consider the value of the intemet versus sole use of the OECD on-line information service (OLIS) for NEA purposes and to prepare a report for the Steering Committee.
i i
l