ML20248K900

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notation Vote Approving & Disapproving in Part W/Comments Re SECY-97-249, Recovering Budgeted Costs Related to Federal Agencies,Nonprofit Educational Inst,Small Entities, Regulatory Support to Agreement States..
ML20248K900
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/17/1997
From: Diaz N
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To: Hoyle J
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20248K822 List:
References
FOIA-98-55, REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-97-249-C, NUDOCS 9806100333
Download: ML20248K900 (2)


Text

I F li.-i No. 894 11/17 '97 16:34 ID:Doub le Tree Hotel c60.t41 505 247 7025 PAGE 5

- 'l 15/17/97 13:30 N R C + 505 347 7G25 NO.239 D07 NO T ATIO N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ

SUBJECT:

SECY-87-249 RECOVERING THE BUDGETED COSTS RELATED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES, REGULATORY SUPPORT TO AGREEMENT STATES, THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND GENERIC DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES Approved d Disapproved I Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

See attached comments.

l1 /

SfGNXTUR$ M /

Release Vote / N rhr- I 7. N

~~ '

DATE Withhold Vote / /

9006100333 990529 h_2@l]A __ _

FILE No. 894 11/17 '97 18:34 ID:Poub le Tree Hotel ABO.hf1 505 247 7025 PCGE 6 11/87/97 12:23 N R C o 595 247 7025 pas No.239 CotNIISSIONER DIAZ'S COMMENTS ON SECY-87 840: RECOVERING SUDGETED COSTS RELATED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL WSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES, RESULATORY SUPPORT TO AGREEMENT STATES, THE SITE  !

05CotteplSSMN#NO esANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND GENERlC DECOMAM5540NING AND RECLAABATION ACTIVITIES Cw wsr#,g reauthorization of 100% fos recovery legislation, I support OMR's use of 100% fee

' recovery for NRC budgets for FY 1999, skal.

Having said this. I believe the Commission needs to doces wruch agency scrivtties should be re6mburned and/or taken off the fee base. Thus far, the many papers sent to the Commission do not provide sufficient information to support a Commission decision on these matters. I continue to support my vote on SECY-07-207 concerning reimburssbie businese-like FTEs, and desire that the staff conunue to seek reimbursement for these activities from Exmouwwe Branch agenc6es For exemple, I don't agree with the prinople nor the reasono given in SECY-97-226 to maintain OIP in the fee base, and behave that falmoes and equity can be furthered by otroom4Wng NRC mismational activities or pursuing reimbursement og s. Please see my related commente on SECY-07-256 regarding International activities.

NOT ATIO N VOTE l RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-249 - RECOVERING THE BUDGETED COSTS RELATED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES, REGULATORY SUPPORT TO AGREEMENT STATES, THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND GENERIC DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES j cc3 Approved .X' Disapproved Abstain Jot Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

See the attached coments.

1 SIGNATURE .

/ ,

Ricse Vote / x / j h }"/ ID 7 DATE )

Withhold Vote / /.

-%Han6 % ,

=

Commissioner McGaffican's Comments on SECY-97-24J I support the recommendation by the staff that the costs of activities which raise significant fairness and equity issues be excluded from any legislation which may be proposed to extend the requirement for NRC to continue to recover its budget from fees. The activities in question would include all of the activities identified by staff ($49.5 million) plus the activities relating to DOE regulation (Hanford Waste Tank Remediation and pilot program activities) 2

($6.5 million) for a total of approximately $56 million in FY 1999.

I recognize the attractiveness (in terms of maximizing NRC flexibility) of requesting that a percentage amount be provided through a General Fund appropriation with the remaining percentage coming out of fees. However.

I believe that realistically we would have to defend a specific dollar amount each year in the appropriations process with the usual back-up detail (similar to that.provided in this SECY and its companion information paper SECY-97-226) on what activities the General Fund appropriation was meant to cover.

Furthermore, the percentage approach will no more easily accommodate an expm., ion of the NRC mission into external regulation of DOE than will a specific dollar approach. Either would have to be adjusted in any legislation i authorizing DOE external regulation in FY 2000 or FY 2001. l In voting to make this request to OMB and the Congress. I by no means imply that the act vities which raise fairness and equity concerns are marginal or discretionary. Indeed, many of these activities are at the heart of several critical NRC health and safety functions, including decommissioning. the entire materials program, oversight of Federal licensees, and carrying out our statutory responsibilities for Agreement State oversight. I am sure that Congress and OMB would recognize that. What drives my vote is the changed circumstances for the nuclear utility licensees since 1994 when the Comission last approached Congress on this matter. The paradigm that NRC fees, however unfair, could simply be passed on to utility customers through rate adjustments no longer holds in the increasing number of states which are deregulating their electric power industry. (Indeed, in the past few days the Illinois and Massachusetts legislatures passed deregulation legislation and thereby added to the momentum toward nation-wide deregulation). Of course.

that paradigm never held for materials licensees. l 2If the 18 FTE in International Programs who carry out FSU/CEE assistance programs are fully reimbursed by AID and DSWA as the Chairman and I have advocated in our votes on SECY-97-207. this amount would be reduced by

.$3.2 million, and the FTE would move to the business-like category.

2

~

It is true that the Balanced Budget Act puts tremendous pressure on discretionary General Fund appropriations. The $56 million request which I propose for FY 1999 would be competing with many other high priority programs throughout the Federal government. That is why it would be important to structure the authorizing fee legislation in such a way that if the Appropriations Committees did not have sufficient discretionary General Fund appropriations available in any year, and yet wanted these critical health and safety activities to be funded, they could shift activities back onto the fee base notwithstanding the fairness concerns.

Now is the time to propose legislation for these purposes to OMB and Congress since our current fee legislation expires at the end of FY 1998. Some legislation to address the fee issue must be enacted in FY 1999 or the agency <

will revert to the pre-0 BRA-90 33% fee recovery and a General Fund f appropriation of about $320 million will be required. Congress recognizes l both the need for legislation and the fairness problem in the current fee l legislation. Senators Chafee and Inhofe attempted to deal with the issue  !

during Senate consideration of the Balanced Budget Act, but were thwarted by l arcane budget scoring issues. A provision to extend 100% fee recovery in the l House version of the bill failed in conference for the same reason.  !

While the Chafee-Inhofe bill has in my view, certain technical problems that ,

need to be addressed. it would allow us to identify a range of NRC activities that should be removed from the fee base. The main problem with the bill is that it would require NRC to identify activities and costs to be removed from the fee base by annual rulemaking. The rulemaking approach would not be practical for NRC or for the Appropriations Committees. I have attached proposed modifications to the Chafee-Inhofe bill that would replace the  !

rulemaking requirement with provisions that would require the NRC to identify activities and costs to be funded from General Fund appropriations in its annual budget submittal. I would urge that we use thir draft legislation as a basis for our proposal to remove certain activities from the fee base.

I would stress that the marked up bill would establish a ceilingr for the General Fund appropriation, but the bill would not preclude the Appropriations Committees from shifting activities requested under the General Fund back into

'I suggest $60 million to allow some modest growth in pilot activities relating to DOE external regulation prior to passage of enabling legislation in that area.

i i

3

.the fee base.. Thus I do not believe that attempting to correct fairness and equity issues need compromise NRC's ability to obtain the necessary funds to

. implement programs that will protect public health and safety.

- Finally. -I' note some inconsistency in the staff's handling of the papers which deal with fee and reimbursement issues. SECY-97-249, and its companion information paper, SECY-97-226, are marked " Sensitive Information--Limited to the NRC Unless the Casuission Determines Otherwise." The SECY on reimbursement policy. SECY-97-146, and the SECY on reimbursable business-like FTEs, SECY-97-207. are intended for public release.and the former has already been released. I can find very little in SECY-97-249 and SECY-97-226 that was not already discussed publicly in DSI-21 and its appendices. All of these-papers are inter-related. Consequently. I would urge the Connission to release the papers and voting record per the usual practice when the final SRM

- is completed.

A

S.I C. .

OAJOH\JOH97.691 I

105fn CONGRESS O I

tar Sasstow I

l IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. INHOPE, Mr. Jawonns, Mr. Sums of New Hampshire, Hr. 6m A - ,

) intralucal the folkming bill; which was mul twice and referm! to the Committee on A BILL To extend the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion to collect fees through 2005, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted bjs the Senate and House ofRepresenta- l l

2 tives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, 3 SECT 70N L SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "NRC Fairness in 5 Funding Act of1997".

6 SEC. 2. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION ANNUAL

~

7 CHARGES. j 8' Section 6101 of the Onmibus Budgut Reconciliation 9 Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214) is amended-

~ - - -

LPt TMuna d

, $0/2n!97 TBU 13:38 FAL 202 224 5867 ,

8.14

'O:VOHVOH97c891 l 2 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking " September 1

2 30,1998" and inserting "Septe rnh'!r 30, 2005"; and 3 (2) in subsection (c)-

4 (A) by striking paragraph (2) and hisert-5 ing the following:

6 "(2) AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CIIARGES.-The 1 I

7 aus.gete amount of the annual charge collected 8 from au licensees shall equal an amount that ap-9 proximates 100 pen:ent of the budget authority of 10 the Commission for the fiscal year for which the 11 charge is collected, less, with respect to the fiscal l l

12 year, the sum of-13 "(A) any amount appropriated to the Com- , , ,, .-

l 14 mission from the Nuclear Waste Fund; .y "

1 15 "(B) the amount of fees collected under  :,-

16 subsection (b); and ,,

17 "(C) for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal . :.-

I8 the w , D Ykfl$ & , . , . .

b /4T/rw M. d..d...___ istal M= =k 4 -

19 =ranh Im tsa aa + ar- ' ^'-- '

I & (*tRChiy& ~ " ^selbiYY

- - " ' - - '-'- *n-O.Y .. . . .Y. ,;- l$enbf I 20 -

M l

~

21 .

__ , _ , , . _ , . . ,- /hrny M,* e/

22 (B) by adding at the nn't +ha foDowing:

23 uses wm.

INTSCT";;;;;;;;,7 ;_;@,,,,

24 .

"'? . 9. "-vv" > '

5 "":; . .;' . . , . '. : . .,, . . . . ' r 25 i = = = . 8- ','n l if i 8

M_ . ...:....::.... d 6

.6MSCJG QDA)

(5) EXCLUDED 8(RiET COSTS. -

(A) IN GENERAL. - For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year 3 thereafter, the Comission shall: (

(1) make a determination of those activities of the Comission for which it would not be fair and equitable to assess annual charges on a Nuclear Regulatory Comission licensee or class of licensee: and 1 (ii) include the costs of activities determined under subparagraph (A)(1) in its budget submittal as a request for l

appropriations from the General Fund.

\feebill. mod O

Err uAaoarry goo, j J _. to/22/s7 Tuv 12:22 ru zo2 224 sis 7

.- )

.. n.c.

o o M o m.ro art.m 2

- 3

' "- 0--

. I

"- - - - ' ^ ' - -" M -- '- '-- fr-I 2 . . ' * ' ' ' . l

- r ' i ~. -- - - ' ; " '^ --

Ar._i__.,

- _-._____i_t.- ;_ - n.___v_i-_-

3 3-1 ;.- ~~'- -- "# !' - -

4 1. . ... .*_ * ._ IIJ __

5 "(B) CowarosaATIONB.-In maMag the 6 determination under subparagraph (A), the 7 Commission shall co=G=---

8 "(i) the extent to which activities of 9 the Commission provide benents to persons 10 that are not licensees of the Commission; j 11 "(ii) the extent to which the Commis-12 sion is unable to assess fees or charges on 13 a licensee or class of li-mee that benefits 14 from the activities; and .

15 "(iii) the extent to which the costs to 16 the Nuclear Regulatory Commimmion of ac-17 tivities are commensurate with the benc5ts 18 provided to the licensees from the activi-19 ties.

20 "(C) MAXDWM EXCWDED COSTS.-T total amount of the is-21 raan 22 sion purmtant to the determination under sub- kg spey# '

23 paragraph (A) shad not exceed 000 for 24' any heal year.".