Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

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

Document

Information

Digital ID

jhp000373-017
    Details

    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