GAO United States

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.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

We agreed to review NRC’s draft plan and assess (1) whether it fulfills the

requirements of the Results Act and provide our views on its overall

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.

Background NRC was created as an independent agency by the Energy Reorganization

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.

Results in Brief To its credit, NRC has been actively pursuing the objectives of the Results

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.

Draft Strategic Plan

DOEs Not Contain All

Key Elements

Required by the

Results Act

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), meets some of the requirements of three others, but does not

include the relationship between its long-term goals and objectives and its

annual performance goals.

Mission Statement

Included in Draft Plan

NRC’s draft plan provides a short, overarching mission statement covering

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

Defined in Draft Plan

The second major element in NRC’s draft plan is its strategic goals and

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

Execute Strategies Not

Discussed

NRC’s draft plan includes a large number of strategies under each of its

goals, and the plan has several measures that will be used to evaluate the

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

Not Included

NRC’s draft plan did not identify all key factors external to the agency and

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

Described, but Schedules

for Future Evaluations Are

Not Included

The draft plan describes NRC’s evaluations that support the development of

its strategic plan. NRC notes that the major program evaluation supporting

the development of its draft plan was the Strategic Assessment and

Rebaselining Initiative. In addition, NRC cited other evaluations it

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

Long-Term Goals and

Annual Performance Goals

Is Not Included

The relationship between the long-term goals and the annual performance

goals is incomplete. Although NRC has included some measures, it has not

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

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.

Legislative Authorities

Are Considered

The Results Act does not require a statement of major statutory

responsibilities to be included with the agency’s plan.1

 Nevertheless, NRC’s

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.

Crosscutting Program

Activities Not Fully

Addressed, but

Coordination Is

Occurring

Although NRC shared its draft plan and is consulting with other

agencies—principally DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (

EPA)—the plan does not contain a complete discussion of the programs

and activities that are crosscutting, or similar to those of other federal

agencies. Because overlapping and fragmented programs can waste scarce

funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall

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.

Draft Plan Addresses

Previously Identified

Management

Problems

NRC’s draft plan addresses major management challenges that we have

previously identified: overseeing the safety of nuclear power plants and

ensuring adequate decommissioning funds. However, the plan could be

more helpful if the measures to address these challenges were clearer.

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.

Actions May Be

Needed to Provide

Reliable Information

on Performance

NRC may need to develop new systems and improve old ones to track

performance measures evolving from the draft plan and to identify

management problems. NRC acknowledges deficiencies and has a number

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

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

Technology Management

Challenges Are Not Fully

Addressed

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996

direct agencies to implement a framework of modern technology

management based on practices followed by leading private and public

organizations that have successfully used technology to improve

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

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to NRC for its review and comment.

(NRC’s comments are in the enclosure.) While NRC said our report makes

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

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100