ML20248K802
| ML20248K802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Domenici P SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806100277 | |
| Download: ML20248K802 (2) | |
Text
.
f#%
UNITED STATES Ob t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
S WASHINGTON, D.C.' 20666-4001
[*
/
4.-
g
\\.....
Y June 3, 1998 CHARV 'N The Honorable Pete V. Domenici Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-3101
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you are aware, the Commission has been reviewir.g de draft legislation from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) budget for FY 1999, with accompanying report language which, if enacted into law, would rwult in a major reduction in the resources available for tne NRC to carry out its vital health and safety mission. The reduction, if implemented as originally drafted, would target heavily the agency staff responsible for oversight of nuclear power plants, and would have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the NRC to ensure nuclear reactor safety in accordance with our statutory responsibilities.
The Subcommittee action is of particular surprise, since in the past you have been very supportive of NRC programs. I am encouraged to leam that, based on discussions during yesterday's mark-up of the Subcommittee, additional efforts are ongoing to review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. Of course, I will be pleased to meet with you this Friday to discuss these issues in further detail. However, given that our meetire will take place after the full Appropriations Comm'"ee has acted on the NRC budget this Thursday, and given that I have not had a recent opportunity to discuss NRC programs and resource requests-either in front of the Subcommittee or in a private meeting with you-l would like to mention here several points of Commission concem.
Without question, there is room for improvement in the NRC regulatory program, and you should
- be assured that the Commission will examine the criticisms in the Committee report and l
proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commiss'on has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continua to do so. In fact, we believe that much of the improvement in the performance of the industry is a result of our improved reactor regulatory program and oversight which we have implemented over a number of years.
My initialimpression is that a number of issues raised in the report and its recommendations are longstanding nuclear power industry issues regarding the NRC regulatory program, and as such, issues familiar to the Commission. For example, to a substantial exterd, agency
' adjudicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic L
.' Energy Act and other legislation. Changes of the sort proposed in the draft Committee report may well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede, 3
. not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed n9 1/
\\
,, ).
(0 pc=ar&mer r.
l u
I C
2 l
In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry I
and the commercial nuclear industries of France and Japan, and makes an ad hoc comparison of the NRC resources dedicated to reactor regulation to the combined resources in these two other countries. Such international comparisons do not bear up under even the slightest j
scrutiny. As you are aware, significant institutional, economic, and legal differences exist between the civilian nuclear industry in the United States relative to the industries in either France or Japan. For instance, the French nuclear industry is a national public utility with three standard reactor designs, whereas the U.S. nuclear industry is comprised of more than 40 electric utilities with approximately 80 different reactor designs and multiple venaors. The French have no resident inspectors. The French and Japanese legal and administrative systems are very different from ours. The French and Japanese figures do not capture the nuclear safety research function of the NRC. Other differences in basic regulatory missions also affect these comparisons. We feel strongly that such comparisons cannot be the basis for major reductions in the NRC reactor safety program.
The Commission contiraes to stand by the merits of our FY 1999 budget proposal of $488 million, as originally submitted. While we are proceeding with a detailed assessment of the implications of the committee appropriation mark, I quite candidly believe that a reduction of the magnitude originally proposed will undermine the ability of the NRC to adequately protect our nation's public health and safety in the area of commercial nuclear reactor operations. Rather than achieving regulatory efficiency in a manner that responds to the concerns expressed by the nuclear power industry, a reduction of this size would, in fact, have just the opposite effect. In short, it would leave the agency without the resources to continue to make sensible reforms, l
and, ultimately, would undermine public confidence in the safety of nuclear energy-a confidence that is supported and upheld by the presence of a strong, competent, and effective regulator.
We cannot believe that the Committee intends or desires these effects. We hope that the Committee or tne full Senate will reconsider this draft recommendation.
l l
Sincerely, INbf 6"
' =
- _ _