oversight

Results Act: Observations on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Draft Strategic Plan

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-07-31.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                     United States
GAO                  General Accounting Office
                     Washington, D.C. 20548

                     Resources, Community, and
                     Economic Development Division

                     B-277583

                     July 31, 1997

                     The Honorable Richard K. Armey
                     Majority Leader
                     House of Representatives

                     The Honorable John Kasich
                     Chairman, Committee on the Budget
                     House of Representatives

                     The Honorable Dan Burton
                     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform
                       and Oversight
                     House of Representatives

                     The Honorable Bob Livingston
                     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
                     House of Representatives

                     Subject: Results Act: Observations on the Nuclear Regulatory
                     Commission’s Draft Strategic Plan

                     On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans
                     submitted by the Cabinet departments and selected major agencies for
                     consultation with the Congress as required by the Government
                     Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). This report is our
                     response to that request concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
                     (NRC).

                     NRC faces significant challenges as it begins to plan for its future. Many
                     nuclear power plants are cutting costs to stay competitive in the face of
                     deregulation. The safety consequences of these actions will likely result in
                     NRC’s reassessing its regulatory program in the future. Furthermore, an
                     aging nuclear industry is challenging NRC’s ability to ensure that adequate
                     funds are available for decommissioning plants that have closed
                     prematurely. Finally, the prospect of NRC’s assuming oversight over the
                     Department of Energy’s (DOE) laboratories and weapons plants would
                     dramatically affect NRC’s resources, structure, and strategies.


                     We agreed to review NRC’s draft plan and assess (1) whether it fulfills the
Objectives, Scope,   requirements of the Results Act and provide our views on its overall
and Methodology

                     Page 1                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277583




quality; (2) whether NRC’s key statutory authorities are reflected in the
draft plan and, if so, how they relate to the missions and the goals in the
draft plan; (3) whether it reflects interagency coordination for crosscutting
programs, activities, or functions that are similar or complementary to
those of other federal agencies; (4) whether it addresses the major
management challenges that we have previously identified; and (5) the
adequacy of NRC’s data and information systems for providing reliable
information for measuring results.

We reviewed NRC’s most recent draft strategic plan—dated July 1,
1997—that NRC provided to congressional committees. Our overall
assessment of NRC’s draft strategic plan was generally based on our
knowledge of NRC’s operations and programs; our various reviews of NRC;
our discussions with NRC’s Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Director,
Division of Budget and Analysis; and other existing information available
at the time of our assessment.

Specifically, the criteria we used to determine whether NRC’s draft
strategic plan complies with the requirements of the Results Act were the
Results Act, supplemented by the Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) guidance on developing the plans (Circular A-11, Part 2). To make
judgments about the overall quality of the plan and its components, we
used our May 1997 guidance for congressional review of the plans
(GAO/GGD-10.1.16) as a tool. To determine whether the plan contains
information on interagency coordination and addresses the management
problems previously identified by GAO, we relied on our general knowledge
of NRC’s operations and programs and the results of our previous reports.
In determining whether NRC’s draft strategic plan reflects its major
statutory responsibilities, we reviewed applicable legislation, consulted
with NRC’s Office of General Counsel, and as you requested, we
coordinated our review with the Congressional Research Service. To
determine whether NRC has adequate systems in place to provide reliable
information on performance, we relied on the results of our previous
reports and those from NRC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

It is also important to recognize that NRC’s final strategic plan is not due to
the Congress and OMB until September 1997. Furthermore, the Results Act
anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to perfect the process
and that the final plan will be continually refined as future planning cycles
occur. Thus, our findings reflect a “snapshot” of the draft plan at this time.
We recognize that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process and




Page 2                                 GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
             B-277583




             that NRC is continuing work to revise the draft with input from OMB,
             congressional staff, and other stakeholders.

             Our work was performed in June and July 1997 in accordance with
             generally accepted government auditing standards.


             NRC  was created as an independent agency by the Energy Reorganization
Background   Act of 1974, which abolished the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and
             moved the AEC’s regulatory function to NRC. This act, along with the Atomic
             Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides the foundation for NRC’s
             regulation of the nation’s commercial nuclear power industry and the use
             of various kinds of radioactive materials for research and development;
             medical diagnosis and treatment; and industrial, academic, and consumer
             activities. NRC’s appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is $477 million; it has a
             staff of 3,061. NRC has licensed 110 commercial nuclear power reactors to
             operate in 32 states and has issued approximately 21,600 licenses either
             itself or through the 30 states that have signed agreements with NRC
             allowing them to regulate the use of radioactive material within their
             respective states.

             NRC  began its strategic planning process in August 1995. The effort,
             referred to as NRC’s Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative, was
             the major program evaluation that supported the development of NRC’s
             strategic plan. In Phase I of that initiative, NRC examined its functions and
             activities, including its statutes, regulations, and guidance documents from
             the Commission. After analyzing this information, NRC identified
             direction-setting issues to influence the strategic direction of NRC. In Phase
             II, NRC evaluated these issues and developed and evaluated a range of
             options for the future. These evaluations resulted in a series of issue
             papers that were provided to NRC’s stakeholders for comment. The
             comments received were reviewed by the Commission. The Commission’s
             decisions on the issue papers formed the basis for NRC’s draft plan.

             In addition, NRC issued its first audited financial statements in fiscal year
             1992 and received its first unqualified audit opinion in fiscal year 1994. In
             fiscal years 1995 and 1996, NRC was also one of six federal agencies that
             participated in a governmentwide pilot project to streamline financial
             management reporting into a single accountability report. The project was
             undertaken in accordance with the Government Management Reform Act
             of 1994. In addition, NRC is continuing its efforts to improve the integration
             of performance measures, cost information, and financial reporting. Its



             Page 3                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                   B-277583




                   first step is to prepare a strategic plan, then a performance plan and a
                   program report to implement the Results Act.


                   To its credit, NRC has been actively pursuing the objectives of the Results
Results in Brief   Act since 1995, when it launched its own strategic planning initiative.
                   However, NRC’s draft plan does not provide the Congress with complete
                   information for its consultation with NRC. The draft plan contains two of
                   the six required elements of the Results Act—the mission and the goals
                   and objectives. While NRC’s draft plan meets some of the requirements for
                   three others, it does not describe (1) the resources, such as staff skills and
                   experiences, capital, and information, that will be needed to execute the
                   plan’s strategies; (2) how key external factors could affect the
                   achievement of its goals; and (3) its schedule for future program
                   evaluations. Finally, NRC has not included in its draft plan the relationship
                   between the long-term goals and objectives and its annual performance
                   goals.

                   The draft plan reflects NRC’s major legislative requirements but does not
                   expressly link its mission, goals and objectives, and strategies with NRC’s
                   relevant major statutory responsibilities. The Results Act does not require
                   the agencies’ strategic plans to contain a statement of statutory
                   authorities. However, we believe that including such linkages may permit
                   a better understanding of the diversity and complexity of NRC’s overall
                   mission and goals and objectives.

                   Although NRC shared its draft and is consulting with other agencies, the
                   current draft plan does not fully discuss some programs and activities that
                   are crosscutting, or similar to those of other federal agencies. For
                   example, NRC and DOE share responsibility in the federal government’s
                   high-level waste disposal program: DOE builds such facilities, which NRC
                   must license. Consequently, NRC is affected by changes in DOE’s strategies
                   and program funding. The draft plan would benefit by a more thorough
                   discussion of these issues.

                   Our previous work has highlighted major management challenges that NRC
                   needs to address more completely in its draft plan. For example,
                   weaknesses in how NRC oversees nuclear power plants have led to
                   questions about the quality of the information that NRC uses to inform the
                   public about the safety condition of nuclear plants. Furthermore, we
                   reported that NRC was not aggressively making plants fix their safety
                   problems and has difficulty measuring the safety condition of the plants it



                   Page 4                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                         B-277583




                         is required to regulate. The draft plan does not provide a thorough
                         discussion of these issues. Similarly, the draft plan does not discuss in
                         sufficient detail the consequences of competition and economic
                         uncertainties in the electric utility industry with respect to
                         decommissioning issues. We have reported that NRC’s cost estimates for
                         decommissioning are not realistic, which could mean future problems for
                         those licensees not having sufficient funds to properly close their facilities.

                         While there are indications that some NRC systems may not provide
                         reliable information for measuring results, NRC is continuing its efforts to
                         improve the integration of performance measures, cost information, and
                         financial reporting. NRC’s OIG plans to do more work to determine if these
                         systems can provide reliable information.


                         NRC’s  draft plan does not provide the Congress with complete information
Draft Strategic Plan     for its consultation with NRC. The draft plan contains two of the six
DOEs Not Contain All     required elements of the Results Act (the mission and the goals and
Key Elements             objectives), meets some of the requirements of three others, but does not
                         include the relationship between its long-term goals and objectives and its
Required by the          annual performance goals.
Results Act
Mission Statement        NRC’s draft plan provides a short, overarching mission statement covering
Included in Draft Plan   its basic responsibilities: “To regulate the Nation’s civilian use of
                         byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate
                         protection of the public health and safety, to promote the common
                         defense and security, and to protect the environment.” While general in
                         nature, the mission statement covers NRC’s major activities. In addition,
                         NRC has a vision statement that amplifies the importance of the
                         stakeholders’ respect for and confidence in the NRC.


Goals and Objectives     The second major element in NRC’s draft plan is its strategic goals and
Defined in Draft Plan    objectives. The goals and objectives cover NRC’s major functions and
                         activities and are generally results-oriented. NRC presents seven overall
                         goals for accomplishing its mission. One of them is that NRC’s stakeholders
                         have clear and accurate information and have respect for and confidence
                         in NRC’s regulatory program. This goal is particularly important and
                         represents a major challenge to NRC in the light of the safety deficiencies
                         recently discovered in several of the nation’s commercial power reactors.
                         For example, several reactors in the Northeast are shut down for safety



                         Page 5                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                            B-277583




                            problems that NRC was unable to prevent despite a significant oversight
                            presence.


Resource Needs to           NRC’s  draft plan includes a large number of strategies under each of its
Execute Strategies Not      goals, and the plan has several measures that will be used to evaluate the
Discussed                   results of the strategies. While the list is extensive and the measures are
                            reasonable, the strategies do not describe (1) the resources, such as staff
                            skills and experiences, capital, and information, that will be needed to
                            execute the strategies and (2) the assignment of accountability to its
                            managers for achieving the goals. Also, NRC did not provide projections of
                            the funding and staff that will be available over the period covered by the
                            plan. Without this information, it is difficult to judge NRC’s likelihood of
                            success in achieving the goals or the appropriateness of the strategies.

                            In addition, NRC recognizes that it may be asked to greatly expand its
                            regulatory responsibilities in the future. However, the draft plan does not
                            describe the full extent of resources that will be needed for this expansion.
                            An advisory committee was formed in 1994 by DOE to examine and to make
                            recommendations on the external regulation of DOE’s facilities, including
                            its national laboratories and weapons plants. The advisory committee
                            recommended that DOE be regulated by an external regulator. NRC is one of
                            the organizations that is being considered for such external regulation. If
                            full responsibility for such DOE activities is assigned to NRC, it would,
                            according to NRC’s Chairman, add significantly to the agency’s current
                            nuclear regulatory responsibilities and require a restructuring of the
                            agency and significant additional resources. For example, NRC estimates
                            that this change could cost from $150 million to $200 million and add 1,100
                            to 1,600 personnel. To facilitate its consultations with the Congress, NRC’s
                            plan should discuss the impact of this change on its organization and
                            future resource needs.


Some Key External Factors   NRC’s draft plan did not identify all key factors external to the agency and
Not Included                beyond its control that could significantly affect the achievement of the
                            strategic goals. For five of the seven goals in its draft plan, NRC listed major
                            factors that could affect the achievement of its goals over the period
                            covered by the plan. Furthermore, there were two goals for which the
                            draft plan did not discuss key external factors: protecting the environment
                            and regulatory excellence. Unless the Congress is able to consider the
                            external factors affecting these goals, it may have difficulty in effectively
                            consulting with NRC about the draft plan.



                            Page 6                                 GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                             B-277583




Program Evaluations Are      The draft plan describes NRC’s evaluations that support the development of
Described, but Schedules     its strategic plan. NRC notes that the major program evaluation supporting
for Future Evaluations Are   the development of its draft plan was the Strategic Assessment and
                             Rebaselining Initiative. In addition, NRC cited other evaluations it
Not Included                 considered when it developed its strategic plan. However, the draft plan
                             does not contain a schedule for future program evaluations, as required by
                             the Results Act. Also, it does not describe the general methodology to be
                             used, the timetable, the general scope of an evaluation, or the particular
                             issues to be addressed, as called for by OMB guidance.


Relationship Between         The relationship between the long-term goals and the annual performance
Long-Term Goals and          goals is incomplete. Although NRC has included some measures, it has not
Annual Performance Goals     yet outlined the type, nature, and scope of the goals to be included in its
                             annual performance plan, nor has NRC fully described the relationship
Is Not Included              between its annual performance goals and its strategic goals. Without this
                             information, it is difficult to evaluate whether NRC’s long-term strategic
                             goals will be linked to its annual performance plans and the day-to-day
                             activities of its managers and staff.


                             The Results Act does not require a statement of major statutory
Legislative Authorities      responsibilities to be included with the agency’s plan.1 Nevertheless, NRC’s
Are Considered               draft plan mentions its statutory authorities for its mission and some of its
                             goals. On the basis of our review of relevant legislation, we believe that
                             (1) the activities defined in NRC’s plan are supported by legislation and
                             (2) the plan reflects NRC’s major legislative requirements. We also believe
                             that expressly linking all of NRC’s goals and strategies to its major statutory
                             authorities would facilitate a better understanding of the diversity and
                             complexity of its overall mission, goals, and strategies.

                             NRC’s draft plan acknowledges that the principal safety terms embodied in
                             its mission are not expressly defined by statute. NRC believes that it has
                             interpreted those terms in a manner consistent with congressional intent
                             through regulations, decisions, and practices that have withstood
                             congressional and judicial review. We generally agree. Also, the
                             Commission’s inclusion of environmental protection in its mission
                             statement is derived from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
                             rather than from legislation specific to NRC. This aspect of NRC’s mission
                             flows from an early NEPA decision in which NRC’s predecessor agency was

                             1
                              OMB Circular A-11 suggests that an agency’s mission statement may include a brief discussion of the
                             agency’s enabling or authorizing legislation. This suggestion, however, does not extend to the
                             statement of goals and strategies.



                             Page 7                                            GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                       B-277583




                       directed to take special note of the environmental impacts of its licensing
                       decisions.


                       Although NRC shared its draft plan and is consulting with other
Crosscutting Program   agencies—principally DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (
Activities Not Fully   EPA)—the plan does not contain a complete discussion of the programs

Addressed, but         and activities that are crosscutting, or similar to those of other federal
                       agencies. Because overlapping and fragmented programs can waste scarce
Coordination Is        funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall
Occurring              effectiveness of the federal effort, it is important for NRC to address these
                       issues in its plan.

                       For example, NRC and DOE have joint responsibilities in a long-range
                       undertaking of high-level waste disposal: DOE builds such facilities, which
                       NRC must license. NRC’s efforts are dependent on the funding DOE receives
                       and the amount of work DOE undertakes. Recent budget reductions and
                       other changes in DOE’s waste program have caused NRC to significantly
                       redirect its waste disposal efforts, including the deferral of the activities
                       necessary for licensing. The high-level waste issue is evolving, and more
                       changes are likely given the contentiousness of the issue among federal,
                       state, and local officials and the public. The draft plan lacks a sense of
                       how the two programs will be coordinated with respect to changes in
                       funding and program direction. NRC’s draft plan could be improved by
                       describing how it plans to fulfill its responsibility without causing undue
                       delay or unnecessary rework in DOE’s reduced high-level waste disposal
                       program.

                       In another example, NRC and EPA are jointly involved in developing
                       standards covering such issues as radioactive mixed waste, air emissions
                       of radionuclides, decommissioning, and low-level waste standards. In our
                       prior work on some of these issues, we discussed the differences among
                       standards set by federal agencies.2 Federal radiation standards that have
                       been developed reflect a lack of overall interagency consensus on how
                       much radiation risk to the public is acceptable. Because the standards
                       have different regulatory applications and are based on different technical
                       methodologies, the estimated risks to the public that are associated with
                       these standards and guidelines vary considerably. NRC’s draft plan does not
                       discuss how the agency is working with EPA and others to develop



                       2
                        Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public Is Lacking
                       (GAO/RCED-94-190, Sept. 19, 1994).



                       Page 8                                           GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                        B-277583




                        consensus, nor does the plan discuss the impact on NRC’s programs if EPA
                        develops more stringent standards than those that NRC is now using.


                        NRC’sdraft plan addresses major management challenges that we have
Draft Plan Addresses    previously identified: overseeing the safety of nuclear power plants and
Previously Identified   ensuring adequate decommissioning funds. However, the plan could be
Management              more helpful if the measures to address these challenges were clearer.

Problems                In discussing NRC’s oversight of nuclear power plant safety, the draft plan
                        says that NRC will regularly assess, objectively measure, and report on
                        licensees’ performance and that it will use this information to identify
                        adverse safety trends and to identify early the individual plants with
                        declining performance. It further states that it will halt operations if
                        performance falls below an acceptable level. However, as we recently
                        reported, NRC was not aggressively making plants fix their safety
                        problems.3 We also found that NRC’s process for informing the public of the
                        existence of problem plants was deficient, resulting in misinformation
                        about the safety condition of some nuclear plants. Part of the problem is
                        that NRC does not precisely define safety and thus has difficulty measuring
                        the safety condition of the plants it is required to regulate. Instead, NRC
                        presumes that plants are safe if they operate within their approved designs
                        and in accordance with NRC’s regulations. However, NRC is no longer
                        confident that all plants are operating as designed. We recognize the
                        difficulty in measuring safety, but without an accurate and reliable set of
                        measures on nuclear plant safety conditions, NRC will continue to struggle
                        with its program. The draft plan would benefit by a more thorough
                        discussion and outline of safety measures.

                        Similarly, in discussing the adequacy of funds for decommissioning
                        nuclear plants, NRC’s plan notes that it will ensure that licensees have
                        adequate funds available for decommissioning by establishing additional
                        financial requirements. However, growing competition and economic
                        uncertainty in the electric utility industry is challenging both NRC and the
                        industry to set proper levels of funding for decommissioning. We
                        previously reported that NRC’s cost estimates for decommissioning
                        appeared low. NRC required only that utilities set aside decommissioning
                        funds of $105 million for a 1,100-megawatt pressurized water reactor and




                        3
                         Nuclear Regulation: Preventing Problem Plants Requires More Effective NRC Action
                        (GAO/RCED-97-145, May 30, 1997).



                        Page 9                                          GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                               B-277583




                               $135 million for a 1,100-megawatt boiling water reactor.4 With many plants
                               not completing their useful life, plants may not be setting aside the total
                               amount of funds needed for decommissioning. NRC’s draft plan would
                               benefit by a more thorough discussion of this issue.


                               NRC  may need to develop new systems and improve old ones to track
Actions May Be                 performance measures evolving from the draft plan and to identify
Needed to Provide              management problems. NRC acknowledges deficiencies and has a number
Reliable Information           of initiatives under way. For example, NRC’s CFO is developing a plan for an
                               agencywide financial management system. The goal for this plan is to be
on Performance                 operational within the next 2 years, to integrate financial planning data
                               with performance data, and eliminate the need for multiple financial
                               tracking systems. In March 1997, the acting CFO submitted a plan that
                               identified a proposed approach to developing an integrated financial
                               management system.

                               In addition, NRC will need to address several issues raised in other audit
                               reports. For example:

                           •   The OIG has done a number of reviews of NRC’s information systems and
                               found that NRC has had a history of weak information systems
                               development. For example, an OIG official told us that the Office of
                               Information Resources Management’s projects lacked the management
                               controls to provide information in a systematic manner to management.
                           •   Our recent review of NRC’s inspection program found that NRC has not
                               made a concerted effort to verify the accuracy, completeness, or reliability
                               of its data on nuclear plant performance indicators.5 These data are used
                               by NRC to measure the effectiveness of its programs. We and the OIG have
                               noted that these performance measures are generated by the regulated
                               industry, which made the data difficult to assess and verify as well as
                               analyze.


Important Information          The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996
Technology Management          direct agencies to implement a framework of modern technology
Challenges Are Not Fully       management based on practices followed by leading private and public
                               organizations that have successfully used technology to improve
Addressed
                               4
                                 Nuclear Regulation: NRC’s Decommissioning Cost Estimates Appear Low (GAO/RCED-88-184,
                               July 29, 1988).
                               5
                                Nuclear Regulation: Preventing Problem Plants Requires More Effective NRC Action
                               (GAO/RCED-97-145, May 30, 1997).



                               Page 10                                         GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
                     B-277583




                     performance and help meet strategic goals. Under these laws, agencies are
                     to better relate their technology plans and information technology use to
                     their programs’ missions and goals. While NRC notes that a strategic
                     information resources management plan describing information resources
                     management activities will be developed and maintained, the draft plan
                     does not discuss how NRC intends to plan for and use information
                     technology to support the agency’s missions and improve program
                     performance.

                     Furthermore, we recently reported that NRC, like many other agencies, will
                     face emerging management challenges of implementing modern
                     technology and resolving the need for computer systems to be changed to
                     accommodate dates beyond the year 1999—the “year 2000 problem.”
                     Consequently, in developing its information resources management plan,
                     NRC needs to discuss how it plans to address the year 2000 problem as well
                     as any significant information security weaknesses—two issues that we
                     have identified as high-risk across the government.6


                     We provided a draft of this report to NRC for its review and comment.
Agency Comments      (NRC’s comments are in the enclosure.) While NRC said our report makes
and Our Evaluation   several suggestions that will be useful as it finalizes its draft strategic plan,
                     it disagreed that the draft plan lacked the key elements required by the
                     Results Act. NRC believes that its draft plan contains the essential
                     information necessary for a meaningful dialogue between NRC and its
                     oversight committees. In particular, NRC did not agree that (1) its resource
                     needs should have been discussed because it said that it did not have any
                     unique resource needs; (2) it needs to include key external factors for two
                     of its general goals, protecting the environment and regulatory excellence;
                     and (3) its draft strategic plan did not include the relationship between its
                     long-term goals and its annual performance goals. In addition, while NRC
                     agreed that its plan did not include a specific schedule for future program
                     evaluations or the general methodology, scope, or issues to be addressed,
                     it pointed out that its plan does state that a high-level program evaluation
                     focal point was established in NRC’s new organizational structure and that
                     the grouping of offices for this regulatory effectiveness organization was
                     designed to facilitate improvement of program evaluation.

                     We agree with NRC that the Results Act anticipated that it may take several
                     planning cycles to perfect the planning process, and we recognize that NRC
                     is continuing to revise its draft plan to provide a better foundation for the

                     6
                      GAO High-Risk Series (GAO/HR-97-20, Feb. 1997).



                     Page 11                                        GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277583




consultation process with the Congress. However, the Results Act and
implementing OMB guidance require that all elements be included in an
agency’s plan. The Results Act and implementing OMB guidance expect a
discussion of required resources, such as human, capital, and information,
needed to achieve goals and strategies. In connection with the need to
include a discussion of external factors that may influence the
achievement of goals, we believe that the draft plan could have included
more information. For its “protecting the environment” goal, changing
federal and state environmental policies have a reasonable likelihood of
occurring. Its “excellence” goal is highly dependent on the aggressiveness
of licensees to follow NRC’s regulations. These types of external factors
appear to be important and, therefore, should be included in NRC’s plan. In
connection with the required discussion of how strategic goals link to
annual performance goals, the draft plan recognizes that linkages are
needed but does not define these linkages beyond asserting that the
existence of performance goals establishes the relationships. The Results
Act and OMB’s guidance require the plans to clarify the linkages by, among
other things, defining key terms, discussing how well information
technology is supporting goals, and if any goals have been established to
reduce the unintended negative effects of an agency’s programs. In
addition, we made changes to our report where appropriate in response to
NRC’s detailed comments.



As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days from its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this letter to the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives; Ranking Minority Members of
your Committees; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other
Committees that have jurisdiction over NRC’s activities; the Chairman of
NRC; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be
made available to others on request.




Page 12                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277583




Please call me at (202) 512-5138 if you or any of your staff have any
questions about this letter. Major contributors to this report were Gary R.
Boss, Philip A. Olson, and Jackie A. Goff.




Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
  and Science Issues

Enclosure




Page 13                              GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I

Comments From the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission




              Page 14      GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I
Comments From the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission




Page 15                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I
Comments From the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission




Page 16                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I
Comments From the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission




Page 17                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
           Enclosure I
           Comments From the Nuclear Regulatory
           Commission




(141080)   Page 18                                GAO/RCED-97-206R NRC’s Draft Strategic Plan
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested