ML20248K975

Notation Vote Disapproving W/Comment SECY-97-249 Re Recovering Budgeted Costs Related to Federal Agencies, Nonprofit Educational Institutions,Small Entities,Regulatory Support to Agreement States,Site Decommissioning Mgt..

ML20248K975
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/11/1997
From:	Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20248K822	List: ML20248K819 ML20248K900 ML20248K908 ML20248K919 ML20248K933 ML20248K950 ML20248K967 ML20248K975
References
FOIA-98-55, REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-97-249-C, NUDOCS 9806100361
Download: ML20248K975 (2)

Text

... . . . . . . . . . . ,

_N O T A T I O N V O T E RESPrNSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission FROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-249 - RECOVERING THE BUDGETED COSTS ret.ATED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES, REGULATORY SUPPORT TO AGREEMENT STATES, THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND GENERIC DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES.

Approved _ Disapproved X w/ comments Abstain i Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

See attached comments.

i i

l%

1 S4 ICA4 O bid) ATU$ -

Release Vote / X/

ew> ban J/ /997

~~

[ DATE Wthhold Vote / /

M b

MAIL vvAt.3 t. n 11/j3/97 %ED 11:53 FAA 501 585 7666 f

COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER DICUS ON SECY-97-249 I think it is fundamental that we put in context what it is we need to addres explore the options discussed in this paper and in related paper l

226) which have the Commission considerin l item into a non fee-based category. Ultimately there are certain items that should be funded using discretionary fu; '

situation. The real issue'we need to address, a chance of moving closer to the ideal situation where, as appropriate, mo can be funded as discretionary items within our budget.

I understand that the staff may have interpreted Commission indications that are better treated as discretionary spending items, as a direchon to prep budgets for submittal to OMB that place these programs in a disc category. I think that such an assumption is an with a decision of the strategy for achieving that result. I find the curren inadequate for purposes of developing an overall strategy. For e obvious that identifying such programs for removal from the fee base, eith Congress as part of separate legislative initiatives or in budget subm potentially subject these items to closer outside scrutiny. This pa indication that the staff has explored 1) the likelihood of success with OMB contacts; 2) the degree to which we wou fee base if we are not successfulin pursuing cne of the availablei stra we need to have some more leg work done before we can reach an on the best strategy to pursue our goal of improving the falmess of fee collection system. '

I am not willing to put any program at risk of being cut by Congress o having the essential background information discussed above. Ac approve any of the stmW options as a long-term strategy at thi should suggest any changes to our FY 1999 budget in discuss ,

would like the staff to gather the necessary ;,L,T en as discussed a '

provide the Commission with an overall strategy paper that

.,sq :

on what strategies have a lik;":c=f of success That paper should be early next year to allow us to make informed comments on an s

to assure any decision to seek improvements in fee policy through the is carefully developed in preparing the FY 2000 budget.

. . .-. ~

11/57/97 12:"30 N R C + 505 347 7023 NO.339 GO7 NOT ATIO N VOTE -

. RESPONSE SHEET l

TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary -

I FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ

SUBJECT:

~SECY-87-M8 RECOVERING THE BUDGETED COSTS ,

l RELATED TO PEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES, REGULATORY SUPPORT TO AGREEMENT STATES, THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND_.

GENERIC DECOMMISalONING AND RECLAMATION l ACT1VITIES ,

A Approved X[ly Disapproved I Abstain '

Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

See attached comments.

l

) c J'A :l1 Y SfGNATURT \\ /  ;

Release Vote / "[ __ N sri 7. 97

~~ '

DATE

'b

\

Withhold Vote / / \-

i A o'C l & 3 3 3 - W /'-

11e L7/97 12:30 N R C + 515 247 7025 No.239 CMG COtttIIS840NER ptAZ's coasteENTS ON SECY-47 340: RECOVERING BUDGETED .

COSTS RELATED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROPff EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES. RESULATORY Suf90RT TO AeRasseENT STATES THE SITE nar nanmannananaman AAANAGEGIENTPROGRAti, AND GENERIC D5Coastel58 TONING AND RECLAMATION ACTivtTIES Cenoeming voeuthertuelen of 100% ses movery isSmistion, I support Ous's uma et,.100% 8ee recovery for NRC bustpets ter FY 190s. IL.al.

Having said this. I bouevo the Commission needs to decade wruch agency actMties should be reimbursed and/or taken aN the fee base Thus far, the many papers eerd let ,

de not pecWhle summient infWmetPan to support a Commission deelslon on theos I contirwe to support my vote on SECY-97-207 concoming reimbursable businese+ke FTEs and desire that the staN continue to seek reimbursement for these solMees from Essousve Bronch agonaise. For exempio, I don't agree witt the prinapie ror the reasono giveiln SEGY-97-226 to meintam OIP in the fee bene, and belem that falmees and equity men be furthered by otroomlinine NRC mtemational actMiles or pursuing reimbursement og Nase one my related comments on SECY 87-255 sogarding hAsmebonel sativities - ~

% e N

NOT ATION VOTE ,

RESPONSE SHEET .

m TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary .

J

~~

FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-249 - RECOVERING THE BUDGETED COSTS RELATED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SMALL ENTITIES, REGULATORY SUPPORT TO AGREEMENT STATES, THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND GENERIC DECOMMISSIONING AND RECLAMATION - ~

ACTIVITIES .

juE ..

Approved .V Disapproved Abstain -

Jot Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

See the attached comments.

C {

l

" . " M'r f l SIGNATURE -

~

'Ralease Vote / X / }*/ 10 7 DATE f

, i Withhold Vote / /

vt(Of26H96 Sep '

Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-97-249 ._

I support the recommendation by the staff that the costs of activities which raise significant fairness and equity issues be excluded from any legislation  ;

2

.which may be proposed to extend the requirement for NRC to continue to recover l

its budget from fees. The activities in question would include all of the activities identified.by staff ($49.5 million) plus the activities r_ elating to .

I DOE regulation (Hanford Waste Tank Remediation and pilot program activities)

($6.5 million) for a total of approximately $56 million! in i-Y 1999.-

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

I believe that realistically we would have to defend a specific dollar amount each year in the appropriations process with the usual back-up detail (similar to that provided in this SECY and its companion information paper SECY-97'226)~ '

on what activities the General Fund appropriation was meant to. cover.,

Furthermore the percentage approach will no more easily accommodate an expansion of the NRC mission into external regulation of DOE than will a specific dollar approach. Either would have to be adjusted in any legislation authorizing DOE external regulation in FY 2000 or FY 2001.

In voting to make this request to OMB and the Congress. I by no means imply that the activities which raise fairness and equity concerns are marginal or discretionary. Indeed, many of these activities are at the heart of several critical NRC health and safety functions, including decommissioning, the entire materials program, oversight of Federal licensees, and carrying out our statutory responsibilities for Agreement State oversight. I am sure that Congress and OMB would recognize that. What drives my vote is the changed circumstances for the nuclear utility licensees since 1994 when the Comission last approached Congress on this matter. The paradigm that NRC fees, however unfair, could simply be passed on to utility customers through rate adjustments no longer holds in the increasing number of states which are deregulating their electric power industry. (Indeed, in the past few days the Illinois and Massachusetts legislatures passed deregulation legislation and thereby added to the momentum toward n'atiiorgwide deregulation). Of course, that paradigm never held for materials licensees.

- ~

If the 18 FTE in International Programs who carry out FSU/CEE

~

assistance programs are fully reimbursed by AID and DSWA as the Chairman and I have advocated in our votes on SECY-97-207. this amount would be reduced by

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

~

2 -

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

Now is the time to propose legislation for these purposes to OMB and Congress

~since our current fee legislation expires at the end of FY 1998. Some legislation to address the fee issue must be enacted in FY 1999 or the agency -~ ~

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

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

While the Chafee-Inhofe bill has, in my view, certain technical problems that need to be addressed, it would allow us to identify a range of NRC activities that should be removed from the fee base. The main problem with the bill is that it would require NRC to identify activities and costs to be removed from the fee base by annual rulemaking. The rulemaking approach would not be practical for NRC or for the Appropriations Committees. I have attached proposed modifications to the Chafee-Inhofe bill that would replace the rulemaking requirement with provisions that would require the NRC to identify activities and costs to be funded from General Fund appropriations in its annual budget submittal. I would urge that we use this draft legislation as a basis for our proposal to remove certain activities from the fee base.

2 I would stress that the marked up bill;wou:ld establish a ce11ing for the General.Fundappropriation,butthebillwouldnotprecludetheAppropriations Committees from shifting activities requested under the General Fund back into 21 suggest $60 million to allow some modest growth in pilot activities relating to DOE external regulation prior to passage of enabling legislation in that area, i

. l I

3 --

.i the fee base. Thus I do not believe that attempting to correct fairness and

- equity issues need co,mpromise NRC's ability to obtain the necessary funds to

- implement programs that will protect public health and safety.

Finally I note some inconsistency in the staff's 'landling of the papers which deal with fee and' reimbursement issues. SECY-97-20. and its comoahlon information paper, SECY-97-226 are marked " Sensitive Information--Limited to

~

the NRC Unless the Commission Determines Otherwise." The SECY on .

reimbursement policy SECY-97-146, and the SECY on reimbursable business-like FTEs, SECY-97-207. are intended for public release and the former has already

- been released. I can find very little in SECY-97-249 and SECY-97-226 that was

- not already discussed publicly in DSI-21 and its appendices. All of these papers are' inter-related. Consequently. I would urge the Commission to

- release the papers and voting record per the usual practice when the find SRF,-

is completed. ,

b N

e

m

• S l'.C.

O:\JOH\JOH97.691 1057xt CONGRESS LST Session ,

l l

IN THE SENATE OF THE. UNITED STATES

~

Mr. Cl!MEE (for himself, Mr. INitol1c, Mr. Jzrronos, Mr. Surrn of New~

Hampshire, Mr. 6ab am 1

) intmlueed the following bill; which was mal tmee {

and refermi to the Committee on l A BILL To extend the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion to colleet fees through 2005, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-2 tives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION L SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be ci,ted as tiic "NRC Fairness in 5 Funding Act of 1997".

6 SEC. 2. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ANNUAL _ _

7 CHARGES.

8 Section 6101 of tlw Onmihus Budget Reconciliation 9 Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214) is amended-

.. w s, ,u ..... .

ibC-0:UOHUOH97.691 2 .

/ (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking " September 1

2 30, 1998" and inserting " September 30, 2005"; and 3 (2) in subsection (c)-

4 (A) by striking paragraph (2) and insert-S ing the following:

6 "(2) AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CIIARGES.-The aggregate amount of the annual charge collected l 7 l 8 from all licensecs shall equal an amount that ap-I 9 proximates 100 percent of the budget authority of_-

10 the Commission for the fiscal year for which the

'l I charge is collected, less, with respect to the fiscal 12 year, the sum of-13 "(A) any amount appropriated to the Com- , , , , . .

mission from the Nuclear Waste Fund; .y 14 - ,

15 "(B) the amount of fees collected under .-

16 subsection (b); and ,

t 17 "(C) for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal O W VM: . /& h 7

.,s n

18 tereafter, m&,e u$uh, u.._6ntl545;=gy$

139N /

r 'S -f i 1 m mnh (m the en-+- ..>-

19 dMk

- a- -

(+'tltC}iy}{it(

=" " IJhlA'- L W

' A -'MtspW1 i- n ' llN{Y 20 21 Mr S~j Md (B) by adding at the en following:

22 '

CNS6tf" '

u{m m <" '"::::. :::;;; :: . . : ....

23 24 v{A) Iy <"me"" T!;. m'; .....L;..,. .m:r l

25 p i n i.rr i nt- () elin n i ," In <- r % . ...:...;:. .:. d  !

I l

s u i c.r qany (5) EXCLUDED BUDGtT COSTS. --

(A) IN GENERAL. - For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year -

thereafter. the Commission shall:

l l

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

- appropriations from the General Fund.

\feebill. mod O

y l l

W AA N W *" .

10/23/97 Tytj 13:32 FAI 202 224 5167 ,

3.Itc.

0:\JOH\JOH97.681 '

3

~

'- f--

Sr e- * " - "-i"- rf S- C--

1 .

2 '

• d !! .. ; 3' :-t E. f:'- -- 8 g !' " '- --

3  ::: :__. r ' '- . ;; F- '-- n aguintmy 4 C= ... ' ~;.= .!!: :c ;r - '-- " ":: :s , . .

5 "(B) CONarosaATIONS.-In making the 6- determination under subparagraph (A), 'the 7 Commission shall consides 8 "(i) the extent to which activities of J

' ~

9 the Commission provide benents to persons that are not licensees of the Commissio'n; 1.0 11 "(ii) the' extent to which the Commis-12 sion is unable to assess fees or charges on 13 a licensee or class of licensee that benefits 14 from the activitics; and 15 "(iii) the extent to widch the costs to 16 the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission of ac-17 tivitics am commensurate with the benc5ts 18 provided to the licensees from the activi-19 tics.

20 "(C) MAUMUM EXCWDED COSTS.-T the is-21 total amount of 2 sion purmiant to the determination under sub- geg syvf ' ~

- 23 paragraph (A) shall not exceed go for i 24 any fiscal year.".

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -