ML20248K855
| ML20248K855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Allard W, Baucus M, Boxer B, Chafee J, Graham B, Hutchinson T, Inhofe J, Lieberman J, Sessions J SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806100309 | |
| Download: ML20248K855 (20) | |
Text
r I
f# % UNITED STATES
[+. 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
E wAsw NGTON, D.C. 20555-4001 O
U "I fJ[ d7 0,
June 3, 1998 T)'ptL
%, * . . . + #g CHAIRMAN The Honorable John H. Chafee, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you are no doubt aware, the Commission has been reviewing recent 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 result in a major reduction in the resources available for the 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. >
Additional efforts are ongoing within the Subcomm!! tee to review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. However, given that the full Appropriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several specific points of Commission concern. ,
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 proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue to do so. In fact, we, hiieve that much of the improvement in the performance of the industry is a result of our improved reactor segulatory 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 su-h, issues familiar to the Commission. For example, to a substantial extent, agency so;udicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic i 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, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
. as ga v 9806100309 980603 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
. _ _ _ _ ______________________w
~
l
. 2-In the dratt report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 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 instar ce, the French nuclear industry is a national public utility with three standard reactor designs, whareas the U.S. nuclear industry is comprised of more than 40 electric utilit;es with approximately 80 different reactor designs and multiple vendors. The French have no resident inspectors. The French and Japanese legal and administrative l 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 cannrS be the basis for major reductions in the NRC reactor safety program.
The Commission continues to stand by the merits of our FY 1999 budget proposat of $488 million, ac originally submitted. Whse 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 abiiity of the NRC to adequately protect our nation's public healih 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, 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 eh'ective regulator.
The Commission would fixe to thank you for the continuing support you have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfillits public health and safety mission. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcoming days.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson j
I
1 Addressees:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Gafety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 )
lhe Honorable John H. Chafee, Chairman Committee on Environ;nent and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Tim Hutchinson Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on the Environment and Pubuc Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Max Baucus Commitee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Wayne Allard Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Jeff Sessions Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on the Environment and Public Works .
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
i 0*
2-The Honorable Bob Graham Subcommittee on Clean Air, Watlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate
'Nashington, D.C. 20510 i
9 r
jc h UNITED STATES
, e i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055H001 o t
\***2 .* f' June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Bob Graham Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Graham:
As you are no doubt aware, the Commission has been reviewing recent 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 result in a major reduction in the resources available for the 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.
Additional efforts are ongoing within the Subcommittee to review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. However, given that the full App;opriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several specific points of Commission concern.
4 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 proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue 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 extent, agency L 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, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
l l
[ s
s.
2-In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 scrutiny. As you are aware, significant institutional, economic, and legal differences e xist between the civilian nucleer 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 vendors. 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 continues to stano uy 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 undermina 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, 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.
The Commission would like to thank you for the continuing support ycu have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfillits public health and safety mission. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcoming days.
Sincerely, tk~~ -
l
/ %, UNITED STATES p
e
%o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
- E k,,,,,,/ June 3, 1998 CHAMMAN The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
' As you are no doubt aware, the Commission has been reviewing recent draft legislation from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding the Nuclear j I
Regulatory Commission (NRC) budget for FY 1999, with accompanying report language which, if enacted into law, would result in a major reduction in the resources available for the 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.
Additional efforts are engoing within the Subcommittee to review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. Hoivever, given that the full Appropriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several specific points of Commission concern.
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 proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue 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 initial impression 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 extent, agency adjudicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic 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, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
L l
s.
j
2-In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 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 vendors. 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 continues to stand by the merits of our FY 1999 budget proposal of $488 million, as originally submitted. Whiie 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 mariner that responds to the concerns expressed by the nuclear power i'idustry, 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, 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.
The Commission would like to thank you for the continuing support you have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfill its public health and safety mission. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcorning days.
Sincerely,
% .~
M N UNITED STATES
?1 k "
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 5 I t
%,,,,/ June 3, 1998 CHMRMAN The Honorat;le Max Baucus Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Baucus:
As you are no doubt aware, the Commission has been reviewing recent draft legislation from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding the Nuclesr l
Regulatory Commission (NRC) budget for FY 1999, with accompanying report language which, if enacted into law, would result in a major reduction in the resources available for the NRC to carry out its vital health and safety mission. The reduction, if implemented as originally drafted, )
would target heavily the sgency 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.
Additional efforts are ongoing within the Subcommittee to review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. However, given that the full Appropriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several specific points of Commission concern.
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 proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue 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 whicn we have implemented over a number of years.
My initial impression 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 extent, agency adjudicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic 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, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
l l
l
I I. . - 2-In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 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 vendors. The French have no resident inspectors. The French and Japanese legal and administrative systems are very different from ours. The I rench 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.
i The Commission continues 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 cperations. 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, 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.
The Commission would like to thank you for the continuing support you have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfillits public health and safety mission. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcoming days.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
[emkg UNITED STATES O* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 g
June 3, 1998
\*...+#
CHAIRMAN l
l l
l The Honorable Tim Hutchinson l Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property,
! and Nuclear Safety Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hutchinson:
As you are no doubt aw_re, the Commission has been reviewing recent 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 result in a major reduction in the resources available for the 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 4 would have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the NRC to ensure nuclear reactor j safety in accordance with our statutory responsibilities.
Additional efforts are ongoing within the Subcommittee tu review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. However, given that the full Appropriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several l specific points of Commission concern. l l
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 proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue 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 initial impression 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 substa-?.ial extent, agency adjudicatory hearing practius have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic 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, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
.- 2 In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 et parisons do not bear up under even the slightest scrutiny. As you are aware, significt . 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 vendors. 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 continues 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 NPO 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, 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.
The Commission would hke to thank you for the continuing support you have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfillits public health and safety mission. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcoming days.
Sincerely, b u~
% UNITED STATES e- k E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
,. I -
\.....[l CHAIRMAN June 3, 1998 The Honorable Wayne Allard Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 ,
Dear Senator Aerd:
As you are no doubt aware, the Commission has been reviewing .ecent 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 result in a major reduction in the resources available for the 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.
Additional efforts are ongoing within the Subcommittee to review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. However, given that the full Appropriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several specific 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 critick ns in the Committee report and proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my l tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regu!atory program and would like to continue to do so. In fact, we believe that much of 1 the improvement in the performance of the industry is a result of our improved reactor regulatory i' program and oversight which we have implemented over a number of years.
My initial impression 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 extent, agency l adjudicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic 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, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
I
f .'.
2 I
in the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 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, wherecs the U.S. nuclear industry is comprised of more than 40 electric utilities with approximately 80 different reactor designs and multiple vendors. 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 continues to stano vy 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, l 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, and, ultimately, would undermine public confidence in the scfety of nuclear energy--a confidence that is supported and upheld by the presence of a strong, competent, and effective regulator.
The Commission would like to thank you for the continuing support you have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfillits public health and safety mission. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcoming days.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson 1
1
[ b UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% WASHINGTON, D.C. 205500001 1
June 3, 1998
\ . . . . . p#
CHAIRMAN I
The Honorable Jeff Sessions {
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, l 4
and Nuclear Safety l Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 l
1 Dear Senator Sessions-As you are no doubt aware, the Commission has been reviewing recer,t 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 result in a major reduction in the resources available for the NRC f.o carry out its vital health and safety mis:: ion. 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.
Additional efforts are ongoing within the Subcommittee to review and re-work elements of the l present draft of the proposal. However, given that the full Appropriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several specific points of Commission concern.
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 proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue 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 initial impression 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 extent, agency 3 adjudicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic j Energy Act and other legislation. Changes of the sort proposed in the draft Committee report l may well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede, i not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
i l
l J
___J
. In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 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 :s comprised of more than 40 {
electric utihties with approximately 80 different reactor designs and multiple vendors. 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 msjor j reductions in the NRC reactor safety program. ]
The Commission continues 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, 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.
The Commission would like to thank you for the continuing support you have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfillits public health and safety mission. We stand read; to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcoming days.
Sincerely,
)' fa l
l i
/ UNITED STATES do i o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 20555-0001
, E E E June 3, 1998 l
b.....[
y CHAmMAN The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Committee on the Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Lieberman:
As you are rio doubt aware, the Commission has been reviewing recent 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 result in a major reduction in the resources available for the 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.
Additional efforts are ongoing within the Subcommittee to review and re-work elements of the present draft of the proposal. However, given that the full Appropriations Committee intends to act on the NRC budget this Thursday, I believe it is vital to bring to your attention several specific points of Commission concem.
Without question, there is room for improvement in the NRC regulatoly program, and you should be assured that the Commission will examine the criticisms in the Committee report and proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue 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 initial impression 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 extent, agency adjudicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic 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, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
f 1 2 In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 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 vendors. 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 l affect these comparisons. We feel strongly that such comparisons cannot be the basis for major reductions in the NRC reactor safety program.
The Commission continues to stand by the merits of our FY 1999 budget proposrl 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 ar.d 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, 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.
The Commission would like to thank you for the continuing support you have shown for ensuring that the NRC has adequate resources to fulfillits public health and safety mission. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any related discussions in the upcoming days.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
0"
[cuak4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l,'* E S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$55-0001 u oy
% June 3, 1998 l
l CHAIRMAN l The Honorable Barbara Boxer Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Boxer:
As you are aware, the Commission has been reviewing the 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 result in a major reduction in the resources available for the 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.
i l 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. We appreciate the interest you have taken in this matter, and the continuing support you have shown for ensuring responsible funding of authorized NRC programs, in addition, given that I have not had a recent opportunity to discuss NRC programs and resource requests before the Subcommittee, I would like to mention here several specific 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 proposed appropriation from a constructive perspective. However, I would note that during my tenure as Chairman of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program and would like to continue 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 initial impression 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 extent, agency adjudicatory hearing practices have been dictated by long standing practices under the Atomic Energy Act and otherlegislation. Changes of the sort proposed in the draft Committee report may well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
=
In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry 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 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 l 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 vendors. 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 continues to stand by the merits of our FY 1999 budget proposal of 5488 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, 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.
Once again, I would like to thank you for the interest you have taken in this matter, and the continuing support you have shown for ensuring responsible funding of authorized NRC prograrns. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely, b u Shirley Ann Jackson