ML20248K905
| ML20248K905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bennett R, Bond C, Boxer B, Bumpers D, Burns C, Byrd R, Campbell B, Cochran T, Craig L, Dorgan B, Faircloth L, Gorton S, Gregg J, Harkin T, Hollings E, Hutchison K, Inouye D, Kohl H, Lautenberg F, Leahy P, Matthew Mcconnell, Mikulski B, Murray P, Reid H, Shelby R, Specter A, Stevens T SENATE, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806100334 | |
| Download: ML20248K905 (55) | |
Text
j# b# UNITED STATES C_
o- 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON j
j WASHINGTON, o.C. 20555-0001 p ,'pd p/[
J 8
\ ..... p , June 3, 1998 CHAmMAN The Honorable Harry Reid Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Reid:
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 i safety in accordance with our statutory responsibilities.
I am encouraged to learn 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 i 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 l 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 inductry 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 d!
may well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede, j q not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed. 9' eg\
9806100334 900603 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR l
In thc oraft 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 1 of the NRC resources dedicated to reactor regulation to the combined resources in these two j 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 j 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 199s oudget 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, i 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson l
l l
l l
Addressees:
The Honorable Harry Reid
.- Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
- Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Thad Cochran Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510.
The Honorable Arlen Specter Committee on Appropriations
- United States Senate .
Washington, D.C. 20510 '
' The Honorable Christopher (Kit) Bond Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 l The Honorable Slade Gorton Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Mitch McConnell Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Conrad Burns Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Judd Gregg i
._ Committee on Appropriations United States Senate
. Washington, D.Cc 20510 f
I I
L 4
e The Honorable Richard F. Bennett '
Committee on Appropriations United States Senate -
, Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Larry E. Craig Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Lauch Faircloth Committee on Appropriations United States Senate
' Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Robert C. Byrd Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Committee on Appropriations United States Senate -
Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings Committee on Appropriations
. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 l .
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy l
L Committee on Appropriations United States Senate -
Washington, D.C. 20510 t.
- The Honorable Dale Bumpers Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Tom Harkin Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Barbara A. M;kulski Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Herb Kohl Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Patty Murray Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Byron L Corgan Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Barbara Boxer Committea on Appropriations .
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
L O'
[ k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 E o t 4 l
k .,,, [l June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN 1
The Honorable Thad Cochran Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cochran:
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 th.e NRC to carry out its vital health and safety mission. The reduction, iiimplemented 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 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. 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 j
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.
I 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 l
\
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 proposa, 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 o' tuclear 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely, l M
l 1
L-_-__________
l y
[ \% UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.- 20565-0001 g
June 3, 1998
\.....
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Arlen Specter Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Specter:
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 th.e 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 am encouraged to learn 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 oversigt.t 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.
r 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 functicn 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 NRC to adequately protect our nation's public health and safety in the area of commercial nuclear reactor operations. Ramer 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson i
h
y/#'%,%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E S WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001
\
- June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Christopher (Kit) Bond Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bond:
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 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 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 regubtory 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 nucicar 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.
- . O l
l l
L_---___--_
l 2-In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draSys a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry and the comme cial nuclear industries of France and Japan, and makes an ad hoc comparison of tne 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 L, 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.
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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely, M f Shirley Ann Jackson I
- % UNITED STATES o 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)y .f a WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 C
%....f 5.
CHAIRMAN June 3, 1998 The Honorable Slade Gorton Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gorton:
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, I 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 am encouraged to learn 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 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 duririg 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 yLars.
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
.i 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
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 inree standard reactor designs, whereas the U.S. nuclear industry is comprised of more than 40 electric utilities with approximately 80 different reactor designs and multip;e 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 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and bill in ,
the upcoming days. .
f cerely, I k
1 l
g-[ g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION
[is j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 @ 01
,o June 3, 1998
. CHAIRMAN l The Honorable Mitch McConnell Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator McConnell:
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 th.e NRC to carry out its vital health and safety mission. The reduction, if implemented as originauy 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 am encouraged to learn 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 er% ring 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 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.
r l
l 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. 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 concems expressed by the nuclear power ind':stry, a reduction of this size would, in fact, have just the opposite effect. In l
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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and bill in the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson 1
i
e
/ %,t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20E5@01 x
,y;,
- June 3, 1998 CHAmuN The Honorable Conrad Burns Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Burns:
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, woulo 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 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 prcgram, 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 changen should precede, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
1 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 I 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. 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 cc 1fidence 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, bC Shirley Ann Jackson ,
UN8TED STATES p 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j e
WASHINGTON, o.C. 20555-0001 June 3, 1998
\ * * * , * /'
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Shelby:
As you are aware, the Commission has been reviewing the draft legislation from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission (NRC) budget for FY 1999, with accompa ;hg 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 am encouraged to leans that, based on discussions during yesterday's mark-up of the Subcommittee, additional efforts are ongoing to review and se-work elements of the present i 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 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 f
C __1_ _ _ _ _ _ _
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, ecor omic, 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 Cmnmission continues to stand L, 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. ,
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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
% UNITED STATES p
/ - t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 % WASHINcToN, D.C. ~0555-0001 5 E
'%4,g / June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Judd Gregg Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gregg:
As you are aware, the Commission has been reviewing the draft legislation from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding the Nuclear Reaulatory 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 am encouraged to learn 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 whi:h we have implemented over a number of years.
- My initial irnpression 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
1 I
f 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 l 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 functicn 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 NRC to adequately protect our nation's public health and safety in thu 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely, b
j# '%, UNITED STATES a Jt NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 L .l
- June 3, 1998 CV -JRMAN The Honorable Ridiard F. Bennett Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bennett:
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, vsith accompanying report language which, if enacted into law, would result in a major reduction in the rescuices 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 am encouraged to learn 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 additica 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.
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.
l 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 changas 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 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 proposa; 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 l
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 l 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 l
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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson i
j UNITED STATES
\'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION if _g WASHINGTON, D.C. 205SH001
\ ,,j June 3, 1998 CHAmt4AN The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell Committee on Appropriations United States Senate
= Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Campbell:
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, tif 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,ifimplemented 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 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 oversighi 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 i longstanding nuclear power industry issues rega Ming 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 imay well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede,' q r not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed. i l
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 aw ca, 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 l 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 ation's public health and safety in the area of commercial nuclear reactor operations. Rather th 1 achieving regulatory efficiency in a manner that responds to the concems 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 tne 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, t
c,
[% 4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y j e
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
% y,,, + June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Larry E. Craig Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Craig:
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 repoit 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 am encouraged to learn 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 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 nucicar 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 . eductions proposed.
~
q w_.--_ _.. ._
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 indastry 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 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, snd 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson i
l l
l
)
o[#%k UNrTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!MXKM y
$ e
,, , + June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Lauch Faircloth Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Faircloth:
As you are aware, the Commission has been reviewing the draft legislation from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding the Nuclear Mcwulatory 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 th.e 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 substantia! adverse impact on the ability of the NRC to ensure nuclear reactor safety in accordance with our statutory responsibilities.
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. 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 prop 6 sed 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. l l
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 stEnding 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 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 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. Whi'e we are proceeding with a detailed assessment of the implications of the committee appropriation mark. I quite candidly believe that a reduction of the l magnitude originally proposed will undermine the ability of the NRC to adequately protect our l nation's public health and safety in the area of commercial nuclear reactor operations. Rather i than achieving regulatory efficiency in a manner that responds to the concems expressed by the l 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
O
/ 4,t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$5rMM)01 e
June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hutchison:
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 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 l the improvement in 'he performance of the industry is a result of our improved reactor regulatory !
program and oversight which we have implemented over a number of years. 4 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 chances should precede, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
l l
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 r,uclear 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 proposai 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson n
f" '% UNITED STATES e t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20%H001 5 I
- June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Robert C. Byrd Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Byrd:
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 th.e 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 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 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 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.
1 I
in the draft report, the Subcommittee a:so draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry and the commercial nuclear industries of France end 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 d;fferences 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 functic,n 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, 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 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely,
+
Shirlsy Ann Jackson
e-
[ % ,t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205 %-4001 y
s c
,,,g
+ June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Inouye:
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 accomprying report language which, if enacted into law, would result in a major reduction in the resources available for th.e 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 am encouraged to learn 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, sad the !
continuing support you have shown for ensuring responsible funding of authorized NRC proDrams. 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 j 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 Chai rnan of the NRC, the entire Commission has sought vigorously to improve our I 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 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, l not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed. l l
I I
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 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 rnagnitude 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, f
l
j>#
t % UNITED STATES p i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C, 20555-0001 y
u ,
\.....
CHAMMAN June 3, 1998 The Honorable Emest F. Hollings Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hollings:
As you are aware, the Commission has been reviewing the draft legislation from the Appropriations Subcommittee en 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 rnajor reduction in the resources available for th.e 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 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 1
programs. In addition, given that I have not had a recent opportunity to discuss NRC programs l
and resource requests before the Subcommittee, I would like to mention here several specific l 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 entke Commission has sought vigorously to improve our reactor regulatory program ar'd 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 l may well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede, l not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
1
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 uti!ity 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 Comrnission 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 nuclesr reactor operations. Rather than achieving regulatory efficiency in a manner that responds to the concems expressed by the nuclear power industry, a reduction of this size w utd, 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.
l i
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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and bill in the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson i
[ %t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O o WASHINGTON, o.C. 205W0001 5 rj
\,,,,,/ June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Patrick J. Ler.hy Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Leahy:
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,'vith 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 am encouraged to learn that, based on discussions during yesterday's mark-up of the I
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 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.
m
\
2-In the draft report, the Subcommittee also draws a parallel between the U.S. nuclear industry and the commercial nuclearindustries 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. 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, l Lb/-
l l
l l
/ % UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
&. 2 o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655-0001 O
2 3
\.....f' CHAIRMAN June 3, 1998 The Honorable Dale Bumpers Committee on Appropnations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
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 th.e 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 am encouraged to learn 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 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.
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 t'n e United States relative to the industries in either France or Japan. For instance, the . rench nuclear industry is a national public utility with three standard reactor designs, wher a 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 Frer.ch 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 send by the merits of our FY 1999 budget proposal of $488 million, as originally submitted. V 'hile we are proceeding with a detailed assessment of the implications of the committee app opriation mark, I quite candidly believe that a reduction of the magnitude originally proposed will Jndermine 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 sho t, 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 e'fec4ve 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, l
l
l
- UNITED STATES a- % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665 4001
- - S E E June 3, 1998 The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 -
Dear Senator Lautenberg:
As you are aware, the Commission has been reviewing the draft legislation from the
! Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding the Nuclear-L Regulatory Commission (NRC) budget for FY 1999, with accompr.:ying report language which, if enacted into law, would result in a major reduction in the resources available for the NRC to L
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 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 vgorously 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 longstandmg nuclear power industry issues regarding the NRC regulatory program, and as
- such, issues familiar to the Commission. For example, to a substantial extent, agency
- a4udicatory hearmg 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 muy well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
1 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 ott:9r 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. 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 concems 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. l 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and bill in the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson I
i
f
)
[
fj e 4)t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205W0001 a
\*..,*[, June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN l
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikutski Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Mikulski:
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 cany 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 am encouraged to learn 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 NPC 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 resctor 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 irr? roved 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.
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 :n 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 figtres do not capture the nuclear safety research function of the NRC. Other differences in tasic 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 contirues to stand by the merits of our FY 1999 budget proposal of $488 million, as originally submitted. While we are proceedirsg 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, kA Shirley Ann Jackson
[ %4 UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8+
g j e
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001
\,,,,,/ June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Herb Kohl Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kohl:
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 am encouraged to learn 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 correm.
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 vigorous ly to improve our reactor regulatery program and would like to continue to do so. In fact, we believe that much of the improvernent 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.
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 utihties with approximately 80 diffeient 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 assessrunt 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 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely,
& =
!. / #% UNITED STATES l
p k "
NUCLEAR REGUL ^ TORY COMMISSION WASHINGT .1 D.C. 20555-0001 0 !
+ June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN
! The Honorable Patty Murray l Committee on Appropriations
- United States Senate l Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Murray:
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 am encouraged to learn that, based on discussions during yasterday'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 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, j not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed, !
i
_L__ :-_.
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 cifferent 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 comparison? A.not 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 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, ano the continuing support you have shown for ensuring responsible funding of authorized NRC programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin l the upcoming days.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
[ %4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d'
g o WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055'A001 i E
% ,, g / June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Dorgan:
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 overs ght 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 am encouraged to learn that, based on discussions during yesterday's mark-up of the 3 j
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 l continuing support you have shown for ensuring responsible funding of authorized NRC l 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 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 be!bve that much of the improvement in the performance of the industry is a result of our improved reactor regulatory j 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
l
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 I systems are very different from ours. The French and Japanese figures do not capture the l 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 $488 million, as originally submitted. While we are proceeding with a detailed assessment of the implications of the committee approp..ation mark, I quite candidly believe that a reduction of the magnitude originally proposed will undermine the ability of the NRC to adequately protect our nation's public health and safety in the area of commercial nuclear reactor operations. Rather ;
than achieving regulatory efficiency in a manner that responds to the concerns expressed by the nuclear power industry, a reduction of this size would, in fact, have just the opposite effect. In short, it would leave the agency without the resources to continue to make sensible reforms, and, ultimately, would undermine public confidence in the safety of nuclear energy-a confidence that is supported and upheld by the presence of a strong, competent, and effective regulator.
Once again, I would like to thank you for the interest you have taken in this matter, and the continuing support you have shown for ensuring responsible funding of authorized NRC programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, b
f 4 UNITED STATES f4 ,)$(
k o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C, 20555-0001 7
illi' June 3, 1998
%, V+,.../
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 1
l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
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 cut 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 suwantial adverse impact on the ability of the NRC to ensure nuclear reactor safety in accordance oth our statutory responsibilities.
I am encouraged to learn 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 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 i 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 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.
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. Tne 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 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days.
Sincerely, d.s Shirley Ann Jackson b
l
- c. _.
.+ _ l
' UNITED STATES
/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ ,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 g l
\, * * * * * / June 3, 1998 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tom Harkin Committee on Appropriations
' United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Harkin:
As you are aware, the Commissicn 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 resul' 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 acccrdance with our statutory responsibilities.
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. We appreciate the interest you have taken in this matter, and the ;
continuing support you have shown for ensuring responsible funding of authorized NRC j 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 l 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 th= 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 i may well require changes in applicable statutes. A debate on such changes should precede, not follow, the personnel and budget reductions proposed.
l C-l l-1
r 1
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, 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 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, havo 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 uphold 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
i l
l p
/ *g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055f4001
\ e June 3, 1998 CHAMMAN 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 whic;1, 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 am encouraged to learn 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 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 reguiatory prograr'n 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 4 J
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 4
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.
I
l I
e 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, econorNe, and legal differences ? dt between the civilian nuclear industry in the United States relative to the industries in either France or Ja- For instance, the French nuclear industry is a national public utility with three standard reactor designs, whereas the U.S. nuclear iridustry 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 Jzpanese 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 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 viould, 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 programs. We stand ready to assist you and your staff on any revisions to the report and billin the upcoming days. .
Sincerely, M
(
)
l 1
f
!