Re: Meeting info: NRC Strategic Assessment

["Rad. Health Unit"<raldrich@emi.com>]

To all Radsafers:

On Friday morning, 11/1, Melissa Woo posted the following announcement:


>"NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT:   RIII-96-68    October 29, 1996
>CONTACT:  Jan Strasma  630/829-9663
>          Angela Dauginas  630/829-9662
>          E-mail:  opa3@nrc.gov
>
>
>NRC STAFF SCHEDULES TWO-DAY PUBLIC MEETING IN CHICAGO AREA
>ON STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE

>     The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled
>the last of three public meetings for November 7 - 8 in the
>Chicago to receive comments on its direction-setting issue papers
>resulting from the agency's strategic assessment process......"

	The deadline for submitting comments is November 15, and we hope that 
everyone with a stake in this avails himself/herself of the opportunity to do 
so. Three of the direction-setting issue papers (DSIs) raise some particularly 
troubling possibilities for Agreement States and their licensees. DSI #s 4,7, 
and 21, taken together indicate that NRC, in an effort to expand its dwindling 
revenue base, is seriously considering charging annual fees to Agreement States 
and/or their licensees.	

	Attached is the text of the New York State Dept. of Labor's comments on 
DSI # 21 "FEES". Copies of our comments to other DSIs are available upon 
request.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Attachment+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
     GENERAL COMMENTS ON NRC DIRECTION SETTING ISSUES PAPERS
                        AND DSI 21 "FEES"

     Several DSI's that were not released for comment (i.e., Regulating a Small 
Number of Licensees, Management Philosophy, Management and Organization, 
Staffing and Core Capabilities, Independent Oversight) appear to be very 
relevant to the Agreement States program and should be shared with the states.  
The reasons given for not releasing them are that they present internal issues, 
are not direction-setting (Independent Oversight), or don't warrant further
consideration (Regulating a Small Number of Licensees).  The latter issue seems 
particularly relevant to discussion of DSI 4 (NRC's Relationship with Agreement 
States) and DSI 7(Materials/Medical Oversight) and we do not understand why it 
was not included for discussion.

     DSI 21 "Fees":   We were particularly interested in reviewing this DSI 
after reviewing DSI 4 and its discussions under Option 4 (Treat Agreement States 
as Co-Regulators) of implementing "full fee recovery from Agreement States," and 
under "Funding" of modifying OBRA-90 so that NRC could charge Agreement States 
"to recover its oversight costs."  We have remarked, in our comments on DSI 4 
and DSI 7, that NRC seems to be using the issue of money to suit the argument at 
hand.  Possible costs to the states (an unfunded mandate) is presented as
an argument against transfer of NRC's remaining authority over "agreement" 
materials to non-Agreement States, while NRC proposes "full fee recovery" as a 
condition of recognizing existing Agreement States as co-regulators.

     However, the only specific mention of Agreement States in the body of DSI 
21 is to assert that both "safety and payment of fees" were considered when the 
Commission "addressed the issue" of funding Agreement State training.  The 
Commission addressed the issue by discontinuing this funding at an annual  
savings of one-half to one million dollars a year (out of $56 million spent by 
NRC annually which is not directly attributable to services to licensees),
while continuing to fund training for foreign nationals under its international 
program.

     The body of DSI 21 discusses how NRC should take fees (or the non-payment 
of fees)into consideration when making decisions, and what funding mechanisms 
NRC should use to "recover costs in a fair and equitable manner."  The discussed 
mechanisms include requesting legislation to allow NRC to assess fees to 
non-licensees, and amending OBRA-90 and the AEA to give NRC "maximum flexibility 
to assess fees."  Neither the Agreement States nor the non-Agreement States are 
specifically mentioned in regard to these expanded fee categories.

     However, the Agreement States figure prominently in Appendix 21 B to the 
DSI (Specific Fairness and Equity Concerns Identified With 100-Percent Fee 
Recovery), which is apparently excerpted from a February, 1994 report to 
Congress.  Here it is stated that, although Agreement States and their licensees 
cannot currently be charged annual fees under OBRA-90, NRC can
assess fees for specific "services," such as "review of requests for an 
Agreement, periodic program reviews and training and technical assistance."  
These are included in a list of NRC activities that are assessed to NRC 
licensees although these licensees do not directly benefit from them.  Other 
items on the same list are NRC's International program, NRC's low-level waste 
activities and cleanup of former NRC licensee sites.  Although these are
all apparently "fairness and equity" concerns due to costs borne by NRC 
licensees, only the Agreement State "services" include a discussion of specific 
fee assessment possibilities, and a specific action already taken (discontinuing 
funding for training).  We also note that the discussion of NRC's low-level 
waste (LLW) activities and their attendant cost, states that
Agreement State licensees will realize an "indirect" benefit from NRC's 
activities, even though NRC does not now, and is not ever likely to license a 
LLW disposal facility.  Conspicuously absent from this discussion is the direct 
benefit that NRC licensees are currently realizing from being able to dispose of 
LLW at Agreement State-licensed disposal sites.

     The Appendix goes on to include costs attributed by NRC to the Agreement 
States program among another group of NRC activities that raise "fairness and 
equity concerns."  In this case, NRC postulates that 70% of its activities in 
performing research, developing regulations and guidance and evaluating 
operational events for its licensees, are actually done for the
Agreement States and its licensees at a prorated annual cost of $15 million!  We 
would respond that we develop our own regulations and guidance for licensees, 
that we evaluate our own operational events (accidents, incidents, etc.) and 
that we support these activities through fees paid by New York State licensees 
and taxpayers.  We would also respond that whether NRC has one licensee or one 
million licensees, it must perform the listed functions just as the states do, 
as economically as possible.

     It is unclear from DSI 21, what the Commission will eventually do in regard 
to funding mechanisms.  Their preliminary view on considering fees when making 
decisions involves staff development of a set of "criteria for defining mandated 
and non-mandated activities."  Non-mandated activities, once defined, will be 
performed on a fee-for-services basis only.  The Commission will also consider 
comments and recommendations on specific proposals (for funding mechanisms) "if 
they present new approaches to improve the process or to accomplish a
more equitable distribution of fees."

     This appears to leave the door open to consideration of assessing "fees" to 
Agreement States for NRC oversight "services," or to amending OBRA-90 to allow 
annual fees to be charged to  Agreement States for generic regulatory 
"overhead."

     Agreement States, such as New York, have accepted the fact that no federal 
funding is provided for their programs since they are not delegated programs.  
Under our Agreement, NRC discontinued regulation in New York State and 
relinquished authority to the State.  As independent co-regulators, we have 
supported our own programs without complaint.  However, for NRC to propose that 
we not only support our own programs, but defray the federal
government's administrative costs for relinquishing its authority, would be 
totally unacceptable.
     Under such a bizarre arrangement it is quite possible that as NRC's 
licensee base continues to decline, the Agreement States could wind up providing 
the bulk of NRC's funding while having no power to limit NRC's expenditures.

     President Clinton's March 4, 1995, memorandum on his "Regulatory 
Reinvention Initiative" required all federal regulators to address several 
specific questions.  One of these was "whether the states or local governments 
could do the job, making federal regulation unnecessary."  This appears to be a 
situation in which the Agreement States are doing the job, but
a redundant layer of federal regulation continues to exist anyway, and the 
states may be asked to pay for it.  This is not in keeping with the President's 
memorandum; phasing out NRC's materials program, however, is!


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++End Attachment++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clayton Bradt				|voice: 518/457/1202
Assoc. Radiophysicist			|fax:	518/457-5545
NYS DOL/Radiological Health Unit	|
"Rad Health Unit"<raldrich@emi.com>	|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------