Email correspondence from Joe Strolin to Mark Guiton, September 9, 2002, regarding appropriations drafts (2 pages)

Guiton, Mark From: Joe Strolin [jstrolin@nuc.state.nv.us] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 6:41 PM To: Guiton, Mark Subject: Fw: Appropriations Drafts > Mark, > > Bob Loux asked me to review the five different drafts of language on full > scale testing. I spoke with Bob Halstead this afternoon, and he and I are > in agreement that the 2 short versions (3 and 5) are problematic. It's > probably better not to have anything than to have the vague language used in > these versions. By just requiring only that NRC not certify any package > "unless the safety of the package has been established through full scale > testing," without specifying what that testing must encompass, opens the > door for NRC to do something that's relatively meaningless (like what they > are already planning to do with the "testing" program NRC is in the process > of developing) and then use the results for PR purposes, while claiming to > meet the requirements of the statutory language. You might be able to fix > the wording in # 3 and # 5 by expanding on what is acceptable as full scale > testing: " ... unless the safety of the package has been established > through a program of full scale physical testing that includes meaningful > stakeholder participation in the development of testing protocols and the > seiecnon ot facilities and personnel; sequential drop, fire^ punCLuie,?a?d > immersion rests prior to certification by the Commission; and additional > computer simulations to determine performance in extra-regulatory accidents > and to determine failure thresholds." Without this specificity, NRC can > easily manipulate the language for its own purposes and avoid doing anything > meaningful. > > Both Halstead and I think the wording in #2 is clearly the best. Halstead > offered that, if you needed to bargain away something, we could give up > items number 4 and 5 (reevaluation of previous study findings and evaluation > of production model test costs). These are things we could get done in > other ways and they are not essential to requiring full scale testing as an > integral part of NRC package certification process. > > So, to sum up, our thinking is that, if you can't get the detailed > requirements for full scale testing into the language, we're probably > better off not trying to use vague language and risk NRC being able to turn > the tables on us. > > Regards, > > Joe Strolin > > > Original Message > From: Bob Loux <mailto:bloux@nuc.state.nv.us> > To: Joe Strolin <mailto:jstrolin@nuc.state.nv.us> ; Bob Halstead > <mailto:bearhalstead@aol.com> > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 5:02 PM > Subject: FW: Appropriations Drafts > > Pis look these over asap and get back to Mark with any thoughts you have. > Bob > Original Message > From: Guiton, Mark [mailto:Mark.Guiton@mail.house.gov] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:51 PM > To: Bob Loux > Cc: Morana, Joseph > Subject: FW: Appropriations Drafts > > 1 > > Bob, i have a few more options for you to look at. what i am doing is > trying to provide the congresswoman with a menu of options for her to use in > negotiations with the subcommittee. tell me what you think. on berkle_006, > i used the figure $8 million because it represents the smallest amount of > money that i thought would be both acceptable to the appropriators and still > symbolically valuable - it costs $8 million for the comprehensive regulatory > testing of a truck cask. thanks, mark > > Original Message > From: Forstater, Ira > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:50 PM > To: Guiton, Mark > Subject: Appropriations Drafts > > Mark: > > Your additional appropriation drafts are attached. > > ?BERKLE_002 . PDF? ?BERKLE_003. PDF? ?BERKLE_004 . PDF? ?BERKLE_005 . PDF? > ?BERKLE_006.PDF? > As we discussed, each of the amendments 002-005 would be subject to a point > of order under House Rule XXI, cl. 2(c) that it is legislation in an > appropriations amendment. In 002 and 003, the word "hereafter" at the > beginning is required to indicate that the provision would continue to apply > even after the end of fiscal year 2003; it can be deleted if that is not > your intent. The reference to section 180 of the NWPA in these 4 amendments > is the provision that I mentioned that relates to cask design certification. > > > Amendment 006 is drafted as an offsetting en bloc amendment under House Rule > XXI, cl. 2(f). Because the amendment needs to revise more than just the > aggregate dollar amount under the NRC account (since the NRC funds in the > bill come from 3 different sources), you should also check with the > Parliamentarians on whether this is allowed under clause 2(f). In addition, > you will need to have CBO prepare an analysis for the amendment to verify > that it does not result in an increase in outlays due to different spendout > rates of the accounts involved. If there is a problem with the amendment, > CBO will be able to tell you the amount by which you'll need to adjust the > budget authority increase made. > > Let me know if you have questions about the drafts or need further > revisions. > > Ira > > > Ira B. Forstater > Office of the Legislative Counsel > U.S. House of Representatives > 136 Cannon HOB > Phone: 56060 Fax: 53437 > Mailto:Ira.Forstaterdmail.house.gov > > > > > > > 2