ML20205F083

Discusses Rept by Td Martin & Associates That Compared Regulatory Personnel Loading Per Unit of Nuclear Generation in Us & Other Countries.Nrc Conducted Review with Counterpart Agencies in France,Japan & Uk

ML20205F083
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/26/1999
From:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	J. J. Barton, Chafee J, Domenici P, Inhofe J, Packard R HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Shared Package
ML20205F086	List: ML20205F083 ML20205F091 ML20205F097 ML20205F103
References
NUDOCS 9904060102
Download: ML20205F083 (6)

Text

s DR

$[  %,

4

1. UN'TED STATES ,

/* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION > bo E o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

% j { ~ qL ' b

\*****/

CHAIRMAN '

March 26, 1999 The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate .

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At the July 1998 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, a report by Tim D. Martin & Associates, Incorporated was introduced that compared " regulatory personnel loading per unit of nuclear generation" in the U.S. and other countries. The report implied that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had proportionately far more regulatory personnel than the other countries.

In response, we conducted a review with our counterpart agencies in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The comparison study is enclosed. Our study concludes that there are substantial differences in the industry and legal infrastructures and the nature and scope of specific regulatory programs. Resource comparisons are not meaningful without considering these differences.

Infrastructure differences (e.g., the degree of standardization of reactor design, the placement /

of licensees in the public or private sector, the number of licensees) are outside of NRC control, /

but account for substantial variations in resource levels. Differences in the NRC regulatory approach, while more within our control, are shaped largely by expectations from the Congress ,

and the public and U.S. operational experience. This includes such considerations as the degree of independent verification required for licensee activities and the degree of public ,

participation in regulatory activities.

While we can gain insights from the regulatory approaches used by other countries, the differences in industry and regulatory infrastructure, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder interests must be considered before drawing conclusions from broad comparisons. When these differences are considered, the apparent disparities in resource levels diminish.

Sincerely,

? l% ,

Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated  ;

cc: Senator Harry Reid 9904060102 990326 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 6?0 30 tool 0Q '

e gM ht UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-00C1 r,,

l 5

• ,...$ March 26, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At the July 1998 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, a report by Tim D. Martin & Associates, Incorporated was introduced that compared " regulatory personnel loading per unit of nuclear generation"in the U.S. and other countries. The report implied that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had proportionately far more regulatory personnel than the other countries.

In response, we conducted a review with our counterpart agencies in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The comparison study is enclosed. Our study concludes that there are substantial differences in the industry and leoal infrastructures and the nature and scope of specific regulatory programs Resource comparisons are not meaningful without considering these differences.

Infrastructure differences (e.g., the degree of standardization of reactor design, the placement of licensees in the public or private sector, the number of licensees) are outside of NRC control, but account for substantial variations in resource levels. Differences in the NRC regulatory approart., while more within cur control, are shaped largely by expectations from the Congress and the public and U.S. operational experience. This includes such considerations as the degree of independent verification required for licensee activitios and the degree of public l participation in regulatory activities.

While we can gain insights from the regulatory approaches used by other countries, the differences in industry and regulatory infrastructure, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder interests must be considered before drawing conclusions from broad comparisons. When these differences are considered, the apparent disparities in resource levels diminish.

Sincerely, l l

Shirley Ann Jackson  ;

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator Bob Graham

p L

'%' UNITED STATES

.e* 1 ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

%*****} March 26, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee cn Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I At the July 1998 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, a report by Tim D. Martin & Associates, Incorporated was introduced that compared " regulatory personnelloading per unit of nuclear generation"in the U.S. and other countries. The report implied that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 (NRC) had proportionately far more regulatory personnel than the other countries.

In response, we conducted a review with our counterpart agencies in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The comparison study is enclosed. Our study concludes that there are substantial differences in the industry and legalinfrastructures and the nature and scope of specific regulatory programs. Resource comparisons are not meaningful without considering these differences, infrastructure differences (e.g., the degree of standardization of reactor design, the placement of licensees in the public or private sector, the number of licensees) are outside of NRC control, but account for substantial variations in resource levels. Differences in the NRC regulatory approach, while more within our control, are shaped largely by expectations from the Congress and the public and U.S. operational experience. This includes such considerations as the degree of independent verification required for licensee activities and the degree of public participation in regulatory activities.

While we can gain insights from the regulatory approaches used by other countries, the differ'ences in industry and regulatory infrastructure, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder interests must be considered before drawing conclusions from broad comparisons. When these differences are considered, the apparent disparities in resource levels diminish.

Sincerely, G

/

Shirley Ann Jackson l

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Representative Ralph M. Hall

fI l l

l

% UNITED STATES

[# #g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 4 001 i

l

5

! l l .....[

CHAIRMAN March 26, 1999 The Honorable Ron Packard, Chairman Subcommittee on energy and Water. Development Committee on' Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At the July 1998 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, a report by Tim D. Martin & Associates, incorporated was i

introduced that compared " regulatory personnel loading per unit of nuclear generation"in the U.S. and other countries. The report implied that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had proportionately far more regulatory personnel than the other countries.

In response, we conducted a review with our counterpart agencies in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The comparison study is encio, sed. Our study concludes that there are substantial differences in the industry and legal infrastructures and the nature and scope of specific regulatory programs. Resource comparisons are not meaningful without considering these differences. j l

Infrastructure differences (e.g., the degree of standardization of reactor design, the placement i of licensees in the public or private sector, the number of licensees) are outside of NRC control, but account for substantial variations in resource levels. Differences in the NRC regulatory approach, while more within our control, are shaped largely by expectations from the Congress and the public and U.S. operational experience. This includes such considerations as the degree of independent verification required for licensee activities and the degree of public participation in regulatory activities.

While we can gain insights from the regulatory approaches used by other countries, the differences in industry and regulatory infrastructure, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder interests must be considered before drawing conclusions from broad comparisons. When

~ these differences are considered, the apparent disparities in resource levels diminish.

Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated i

cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky

'  % UNITED STATES p* . $%" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-4001 E

E

(, ,/

• • • • • March 26, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John H. Chafee, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. '20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At the July 1998 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, a report by Tim D. Martin & Associates, incorporated was introduced that compared " regulatory personnel loading per unit of nuclear generation" in the U.S. and other countries. The report implied that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had proportionately far more regulatory personnel than the other countries.

In response, we conducted a review with our counterpart agencies in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The comparison study is enclosed. Our study concludes that there are substantial differences in the industry and legal infrastructures and the nature and scope of specific regulatory programs. Resource comparisons are not meaningful without considering these differences.

Infrastructure differences (e.g., the degree of standardization of reactor design, the placement of licensees in the public or private sector, the number of licensees) are outside of NRC control, but account for substantial variations in resource levels. Differences in the NRC regulatory approach, while moy WKhin our control, are shaped largely by expectations from the Congress and the public and V.a. operativ.lal experience. This includes such considerations as the degree of independent verification required for licensee activities and the degree of public participation in regulatory activities.

While we can gain insights from the regulatory approaches used by other countries, the differences in industry and regulatory infrastructure, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder interests must be considered before drawing conclusions from broad comparisons. When these differences are considered, the apparent disparities in resource levels diminish.

Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator Max Baucus

' b UNITED STATES p -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 17, j-

\*****/

CHAJRMAN March 26, 1999 i

The Honorable Pete V. Domer-lci ,

)

United States Senate l Washington, D.C. 20510

]

Dear Senator Domenici:

At the July 1998 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, a report by Tim D. Martin & Associates, incorporated was introduced that compared " regulatory personnelloading per unit of nuclear generation"in the )

U.S. and other countries. The report implied that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l (NRC) had proportionately far more regulatory personnel than the other countries. l in response, we conducted a review with our counterpart agencies in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The comparison study is enclosed. Our study concludes that there are .

substantial differences in the industry and legal infrastructures and the nature and scope of specific regulatory programs. Resource comparisons are not meaningful without considering these differences.

Infrastructure differences (e.g., the degree of standardization of reactor design, the placement of licensees in the public or private sector, the number of licensees) are outside of NRC control, but account for substantial variations in resource levels. Differences in the NRC regulatory approach, while more within our control, are shaped largely by expectations from the Congress and the public and U.S. operational experience. This includes such considerations as the degree of independent verification required for licensee activities and the degree of public participation in regulatory activities.

While we can gain insights from the regulatory approaches used by other countries, the differences in industry and regulatory infrastructure, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder interests must be considered before drawing conclusions from broad comparisons. When these differences are considered, the apparent disparities in resource levels diminish.

Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As ctated