This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-258
entitled 'Managing For Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between
Resources and Results at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission' which was
released on December 10, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives.
December 2002:
Managing For Results:
Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
GAO-03-258:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-258, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental
Relations, House Committee on Government Reform.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Encouraging a clearer and closer link between budgeting and planning is
essential to improving federal management and instilling a greater
focus on results. Through work at various levels within the
organization, this report on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)--
and its two companion studies on the Administration for Children and
Families (GAO-03-09) and the Veterans Health Administration (GAO-03-
10)-- documents (1) what managers considered successful efforts at
creating linkages between planning and performance information to
influence resource choices and (2) the challenges managers face in
creating these linkages.
What GAO Found:
Although in differing stages of implementation throughout NRC, NRC
designed the Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management Process
(PBPM) to better integrate its strategic planning, budgeting, and
performance management processes. PBPM links four individual
components: (1) setting the agency’s strategic direction, (2)
determining activities and performance targets of component offices and
related resources, (3) executing the budget and monitoring performance
targets and taking corrective actions, if needed, to achieve those
targets, and (4) assessing agency progress toward achieving its goals.
GAO’s report provides examples of how the PBPM framework can influence
budget formulation and execution decisions. These examples show (1) how
NRC informs its resource allocation decisions by providing strategic
direction to operating units prior to budget formulation, (2) how
operating units that have implemented these processes link strategic
direction to budgets through tools that set priorities and assign
resources to office activities to accomplish these priorities, and (3)
how operating units monitor performance targets and make adjustments as
necessary during budget execution. In addition, agency managers have
told GAO that PBPM also promotes agencywide coordination of budget
formulation and execution decisions by providing a common language
and common goals.
Integrating budget and planning processes and improving performance
management in NRC is an ongoing effort that includes addressing a
series of challenges. They are (1) creating performance measures that
balance competing goals and keep performance measures current,
(2) associating resource requests with outcomes, (3) standardizing PBPM
practices and techniques but still allowing some flexibility among
offices to tailor the process to their needs, (4) developing the
assessment component, and (5) committing significant effort to maintain
PBPM. In addition, NRC must continue developing a cost accounting
system to support PBPM.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-258].
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul Posner (202) 512-
9573.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Scope and Methodology:
The Current Budget and Planning Process:
Planning and Performance Information Influences Resource Allocation
Decisions in Various Ways:
Challenges to Improving the NRC Budget and Planning Process:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix:
Appendix I: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Figures:
Figure 1: NRC Organization Chart:
Figure 2: NRC’s Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management
Process:
Figure 3: NRC Linked Program Activities and Funding Allocations by
General Goal (Fiscal Year 2002):
Abbreviations:
CFO: Chief Financial Officer:
EDO: Executive Director for Operations:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
NMSS: Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards:
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
NRR: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation:
NSIR: Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PART: Program Performance Assessment Rating Tool:
PBPM: Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management Process:
RES: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research:
RIRIP: Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
December 10, 2002:
The Honorable Stephen Horn:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
During the past decade, the Congress and the executive branch have
sought to improve federal management and instill a greater focus on
results. By enacting a number of major management reforms, the Congress
has created a statutory framework, with the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) as its centerpiece.[Footnote 1] One of GPRA’s major
purposes is to encourage a closer and clearer link between planning,
performance—that is, results, and the budget process. Each
administration takes a slightly different approach to implementing
results management. Improving the integration of budget and performance
is a high priority initiative in the President’s Management Agenda.
[Footnote 2] A central piece of that initiative is the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) new diagnostic tool, the Program
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART is designed to provide
a consistent approach to reviewing program design, planning, and goals
development as well as program management and results. OMB expects to
use PART assessments in considering department and agency budget
submissions for the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget request to
the Congress. [Footnote 3]
In a number of different reports to the Congress, we have examined
different aspects of the resources-to-results link. A series of three
reports described agencies’ progress over a 4-year period in aligning
performance plans; budgets; and, in the most recent report, financial
statements. [Footnote 4] We found that from fiscal years 1999 through
2002, agencies made significant progress in showing a direct link
between expected performance and requested program activity funding
levels—either through structural changes or crosswalks—as the first
step in defining the performance consequences of budgetary decisions.
However, we concluded that additional effort was needed to describe the
relationship between performance expectations, requested funding,
consumed resources, and performance results. Furthermore, we found that
progress likely would be uneven and the pace of development affected by
mission complexity and differences in operating environments across the
government. Finally, we observed that describing the planned and actual
use of resources in terms of measurable results was an essential long-
term effort that would take time and adaptation on the part of all
agencies.
We also studied ways to guide agencies to better integrate performance
information into the budget process. [Footnote 5] In this work, we
developed a framework of budget practices that we believe can
contribute to an agency’s capacity to manage for results. We view these
practices as desirable dimensions of budgeting that could be
implemented in many different ways to reflect the characteristics and
circumstances of a particular agency. Both our assessments of
performance and budget account alignments and the framework of budget
practices have led to the next phase of work and the subject of this
report. This report—one of a group of three—looks at the resources-to-
results link from the perspective of agency managers charged with
making the link happen.
The objectives of this report on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), and its two companion studies on the Administration for Children
and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Veterans Health Administration within the Department of Veterans
Affairs, are (1) to document what managers in these three agencies
considered successful efforts at creating links between planning and
performance information to influence resource choices and (2) the
challenges they face in doing so. For the purposes of this report, we
take a broad view of performance information—possible sources include
GPRA and program evaluations. We neither evaluated agency choices nor
critiqued their processes. Instead, we asked managers to describe when
and how planning and performance information was included in the budget
cycle, to explain what strategies were used and why, and to provide
evidence that there was a related programmatic effect. A secondary
purpose was to show that there are multiple ways to establish these
links, and that there can be successful applications even if progress
in budget and performance integration is uneven.
Budgeting is and will remain an exercise in political choice in which
performance can be one, but not necessarily the only, factor underlying
decisions. However, efforts to infuse performance information into
resource allocation decisions can more explicitly inform budget
discussions and focus them—both in the Congress and in agencies—on
expected results rather than on inputs. We believe that showcasing
agencies’ successes with and challenges in integrating budgeting and
planning may prove useful to other agencies; congressional authorizing,
appropriations, and oversight committees; and OMB in the shared goal of
strengthening the link between program performance and resources.
Results in Brief:
NRC designed the Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management
Process (PBPM) to better integrate its strategic planning, budgeting,
and performance management processes. Its implementation is a work in
progress. As designed, the process has four major components; the
results of each component influence the other components. The four
component processes are (1) setting the agency’s strategic direction,
(2) determining activities and performance targets of component offices
and necessary resources to accomplish the work, (3) executing the
budget and monitoring performance targets and making adjustments, if
needed, to achieve those targets, and (4) assessing agency progress
toward achieving its goals. NRC officials describe PBPM as a framework
through which planning and performance information can influence
decisions in budget formulation and execution. NRC provides strategic
direction to operating units prior to budget formulation through its
strategic and performance plans and other policy decisions. For
example, the strategy of risk-informed regulation and NRC’s four
performance goals guided offices involved in the implementation of a
revised nuclear power reactor oversight program.
Two PBPM techniques in particular provide a link between agency goals
and budget decisions for individual office work activities.
* The first technique is NRC’s use of effectiveness reviews, where
individual offices set priorities for work activities based on their
contribution to achieving NRC performance goals. The prioritization
process questions why NRC is doing the work and whether the results,
that is, outcomes, are worth the planned budgetary resources. Offices
that had conducted effectiveness reviews prior to September 11, 2001,
used information from those reviews to plan for work changes based
upon new security threats.
* The second technique is NRC’s use of operational planning reports.
Once offices set work priorities, they monitor both work activity
performance and budgets during program implementation. For example,
offices monitored license renewal activities throughout the fiscal year
so resources could be adjusted to achieve annual program performance
targets.
In addition, PBPM also promotes agencywide coordination of budget
formulation and execution decisions by providing a common language and
common goals.
Integrating budget and planning processes and improving performance
management in NRC is an ongoing effort that requires NRC to address a
series of challenges that it had identified. The primary challenge
facing NRC is to further develop the concepts and techniques
established within the various components of PBPM and to refine
agencywide implementation (e.g., by standardizing the priority ranking
system). Integral to this challenge is keeping performance measures
current to reflect new programs and industry practices, balancing
efforts to standardize agency-level processes against individual office
flexibility to implement PBPM, and improving performance assessment. As
part of this challenge, NRC also faces an issue common to other federal
agencies linking outcomes and resources—how to show progress in an
annual budget process for activities such as research that may take
years to produce results. Both the nature of these challenges and the
additional work necessary to implement PBPM present a continuing
workload challenge to NRC. In addition, NRC must also finish
implementing a cost accounting system that correlates cost and
performance information.
Background:
NRC is an independent federal agency that (1) establishes standards and
regulations for commercial nuclear power plants and non-power research,
test, and training reactors; fuel cycle facilities; medical, academic,
and industrial uses of nuclear materials; and the transport, storage,
and disposal of nuclear materials and wastes, (2) issues licenses for
nuclear facilities and uses of nuclear materials, such as industrial
applications, nuclear medicine, academic activities, and research work,
and (3) inspects facilities and the uses of nuclear materials to ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements.
While safety is a paramount goal, a reassessment in 2001 added three
subordinate performance goals to NRC’s strategic plan: (1) to make NRC
activities and decisions more effective, efficient, and realistic, (2)
to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on industry without affecting
safety, and (3) to increase public confidence in NRC actions.
Figure 1 shows NRC’s organization. NRC is governed by a five-member
commission with one member designated by the President to serve as
Chairman. The Chairman serves as the principal executive officer and
official spokesperson of the commission. Reporting to the Commission
Chairman is the Executive Director for Operations (EDO). The EDO is the
chief operational and administrative officer of NRC, and is generally
responsible for executing the program policies and decisions made by the
NRC. Also reporting to the Commission Chairman is the Chief Financial
Officer (CFO), who is responsible for the agency’s PBPM and all of NRC’s
financial management activities. NRC is organized into seven program
offices under the EDO. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), the Office
of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), and the newly created Office of
Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) are NRC’s four largest
offices. It also has three smaller program offices, various other
management and mission support offices, and four regional offices.
Figure 1: NRC Organization Chart:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is the NRC organizational chart depicting direct reporting
relationships, general supervision, advisory bodies, the NRC's seven
program offices, and the areas of GAO study, which include:
Executive Director for Operations;
Office of Chief Financial Officer;
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards;
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research;
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation;
Region II, Atlanta, Georgia.
Source: NRC.
{End of figure]
While strategic planning, budgeting, and program implementation involve
headquarters offices and regional operations, we focused our work on
those offices that NRC officials said had more experience in PBPM
implementation. The Office of the CFO which includes the Division of
Planning, Budget, and Analysis, is responsible for NRC’s financial
management and reporting under GPRA. NRR licenses and inspects nuclear
power reactors and non-power reactors. NMSS directs and oversees
licensing, inspection, and environmental activities for nuclear fuel
cycle facilities and safeguards nuclear materials, including the
management and disposal of high- and low-level radioactive wastes. RES
provides technical support to the frontline regulatory activities
involving licensing and inspection, oversight and development of
regulatory products. NSIR combines NMSS responsibilities for protection
of fuel cycle facilities and materials with NRR responsibilities for
physical security at nuclear power plants and other facilities.
[Footnote 6] The four regions execute NRC policies and various programs
relating to inspection, licensing, enforcement, investigation,
governmental liaison, as well as emergency response within their
regional boundaries.
NRC employed approximately 2,900 people and had a total budget of
approximately $559 million in fiscal year 2002. Of that amount, the
Congress transferred about $23.7 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
[Footnote 7] The remainder was to be financed by a mix of revenues from
licensing, inspection services, and other services and collections, and
amounts from the general fund of the Treasury. These amounts were made
available in NRC’s annual appropriations and in an emergency
supplemental appropriation to support homeland-security-related
activities. Over half of NRC’s annual budget is used to pay staff
salaries and benefits. The remaining funds are used to support other
operating expenses, purchase technical assistance for regulatory
programs, and conduct safety research.
During the 1990s, various concerns were raised about NRC’s performance,
particularly the way NRC conducted inspections and promulgated
regulations. Agency officials told us that NRC’s former Commission
Chairman, Shirley Jackson, was concerned that NRC’s practices were
narrowly focused on ensuring that its activities and processes were
consistent with regulatory law without adequate attention to the
results of its activities. Both the nuclear industry and public
interest groups criticized NRC’s plant assessment and enforcement
processes as lacking objectivity, consistency, and predictability.
[Footnote 8] An NRC report also described its former regulatory
approach as punitive and reactive. According to a senior agency
official, the agency was concerned that the Congress would cut about
one-third of the agency’s staff from the NRC budget for fiscal year
1999 unless the agency changed the way it conducted business.
NRC took various steps to improve regulatory oversight and agency
management. These changes included a comprehensive strategic planning
effort from 1995 to 1997 to reassess and establish new baselines for its
programs, led by then-Chairman Jackson. NRC also charged the OCFO and
the former Executive Council [Footnote 9] with developing a new
planning, budgeting, and performance management process. NRC staff said
that PBPM changes also supported the agency’s efforts to implement
GPRA. NRC established PBPM in the fall of 1997 and implemented a pilot
project in NRR. In 1999, NRC extended PBPM to NMSS and RES for the
fiscal year 2000 budget. NRC plans to further develop PBPM to include
more detailed procedures, the products involved, and the roles of
various management levels.
Scope and Methodology:
To achieve our objectives, we interviewed selected NRC staff members
from the offices of the EDO, the CFO, and the Chief Information Officer;
from three headquarters offices in Rockville, Maryland (NRR, NMSS, and
RES); and from the Region II (Atlanta) office for their perspectives on
PBPM and how it supports resource decisions. The Region II office was
selected because, according to NRC officials, this region had been
instrumental in developing a cohesive operating plan—one of the PBPM
techniques used by NRC to enhance coordination among program offices
and regions. Within these organizations, we interviewed officials at
various levels of management involved in the budget decision-making
process, including office directors, division directors, and unit
managers. In total, we interviewed more than 30 NRC officials on the
various aspects of planning and budgeting practices. We reviewed NRC’s
planning, budget, and program documents, including strategic plans,
annual performance plans, budget requests, operating plans, and
performance reports, that support PBPM.
This report presents NRC’s budget and planning practices as described by
the NRC officials we interviewed and described in the NRC documents we
reviewed. The views of those individuals and the information in these
documents, which we have summarized for reporting purposes, may not
necessarily be generalized across NRC. We also did not observe or
evaluate the processes in operation, nor did we assess the program or
financial information contained in documents provided by NRC. We also
did not evaluate the completeness or accuracy of NRC performance goals
and measures or the effectiveness of NRC rule making, licensing,
inspection, and oversight programs. [Footnote 10] Our work was
conducted from February through May of 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
The Current Budget and Planning Process:
Implementation of PBPM is a work in progress. PBPM was created by NRC
to improve program and service performance by integrating NRC’s
strategic planning and budgeting processes. This section describes how
components of the process were designed to operate, while the next
section (“Planning and Performance Information Influences Resource
Allocation Decisions in Various Ways”) explains how performance
information informs resource decisions in those offices that have
implemented PBPM and its techniques.
PBPM: A Work in Progress:
NRC has gradually introduced PBPM techniques across the agency and has
allowed offices some flexibility during implementation of the process.
NRC began implementation in its larger program and mission support
offices. As NRC has gained experience, it is examining ways to extend
the process to the smaller program and mission support offices and to
more fully standardize PBPM techniques across the agency.
NRC designed PBPM as an integrated process that functions most
effectively when information from one component is used to inform
decisions in other components. Figure 2 shows how the four components
interact over a budget cycle. For example, the strategic direction
setting in Component 1 relies in part on the assessment elements in
Component 4. The effectiveness review element in Component 2 relies on
performance goals developed during strategic direction setting.
Finally, the assessment elements in Component 4 incorporate information
gathered from Component 3, performance monitoring, to identify topics
for program evaluations and self-assessments.
Figure 2: NRC’s Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management
Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a depiction of NRC’s Planning, Budgeting, and
Performance Management Process, indicating the interaction of the four
components.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Four Components of PBPM:
Component 1: Setting the Strategic Direction:
In Component 1, NRC establishes agencywide strategic direction by
formulating the strategic plan and by issuing Commission guidance
throughout the year. The plan includes NRC’s strategic and performance
goals and corresponding measures and identifies general strategies on
how best to achieve the agency’s mission. The plan is developed with
Commission and stakeholder involvement by a senior management group
with a broad perspective of the agency, and is approved by the
Commission. Although the plan covers 5 years and is reexamined every 3
years as required by GPRA, if circumstances warrant, the plan can be
changed more often.[Footnote 11] The plan also establishes a framework
called “strategic arenas,” each of which is composed of related
programs with a common purpose. [Footnote 12] NRC’s strategic arenas
correspond to program activities in the President’s budget. In
addition, the Commission provides direction to its managers on programs
and operations through various written directives.
Component 2: Determining Planned Accomplishments and Resources:
In Component 2, managers in offices using PBPM employ a set of
interrelated tools to translate agency goals and strategies into
individual office work activities,[Footnote 13] performance targets,
and resource needs. To determine how work activities contribute to
achieving NRC’s four performance goals,[Footnote 14] individual offices
conduct what are called effectiveness reviews. These reviews are not
comprehensive assessments of programs but rather a structured way for
managers to evaluate the contribution of work activities to achieving
performance goals prior to budget formulation. For example, an office
will examine each of its work activities and ask how a given activity
achieves each of the performance goals. Effectiveness reviews also
assist offices in identifying where there are gaps in activities or
where new initiatives are needed. Agency officials said that offices
that conduct these reviews have used various methodologies to rank
office activities relative to agency performance goals.
According to agency officials, if an office determines through an
effectiveness review that activities are not critical to achieving NRC
performance goals, the office will likely propose reducing or
eliminating resources for the activity in the upcoming budget year.
[Footnote 15] Effectiveness review discussions may begin prior to the
start of the annual budget process, concurrent with Component 1
activities establishing strategic direction. These discussions enable
senior management to provide guidance on expectations for work
priorities (targets).
The budget assumptions document is a tool used to plan work activities
based on workload and set performance targets. This document identifies
external and internal factors, such as anticipated number of license
reviews that will affect the agency’s workload over the next 2 fiscal
years. These assumptions are developed by the offices and approved by
NRC executive-level managers. These assumptions then become key inputs
for offices when formulating their resource needs for the upcoming
budget year.
Each budget assumption is supported by a summary of the factors that
were evaluated to produce the assumption and to indicate the likelihood
that this assumption will materialize. For example, the fiscal year
2003-2004 budget assumptions document estimates approximately 1,500
enforcement actions for each year. This estimate is based on historical
trends and anticipated results from implementation of the revised
reactor oversight process. In addition, the budget assumptions document
includes related information that may affect the assumptions. In the
above example, NRC is attempting to integrate Alternative Dispute
Resolution techniques [Footnote 16] into the enforcement program, a
decision that may require additional resources to implement.
Finally, through its annual budget call NRC provides instructions to
individual offices for developing office budget priorities. Individual
offices submit budgets to the NRC executive level by program. These
submissions address resources needed by each office to accomplish NRC
strategic and performance goals. A group of senior managers then
reviews office budget submissions by strategic arena and submits the
proposed office budget to the CFO and EDO. The CFO and EDO then submit
their proposed budget to the Chairman for Commission approval. After
Commission approval, NRC submits a combined annual budget and
performance plan to OMB for inclusion in the President’s budget. The
combined budget and performance plan also serves as the agency’s budget
justification to the Congress. Figure 3 shows how NRC’s performance
plan links program activities and funding allocations by goal.
Figure 3: NRC Linked Program Activities and Funding Allocations by
General Goal (Fiscal Year 2002):
[See PDF for image]
Agency: NRC;
Account: Salaries and Expenses;
Program activity in fiscal year 2002 (dollars in millions):
1. Nuclear reactor safety program areas ($259.2):
Reactor licensing ($56.0);
Reactor license renewal ($13.1);
Reactor inspection and performance assessment ($70.4);
Reactor incident response ($7.0);
Reactor safety research ($57.3);
Reactor technical training ($9.8);
Reactor enforcement actions ($1.8);
Reactor investigations ($4.1);
Reactor legal advice ($2.5);
Reactor adjudication ($1.2);
New reactor licensing ($10.0);
Homeland Security ($26.0);
General goal: Nuclear reactor safety ($259.2);
Performance goal: Maintain safety, protection of the environment, and
the common defense and security. Increase public confidence. Make NRC
activities and decisions more effective, efficient, and realistic.
Reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on stakeholders.
2. Nuclear materials safety program area.
3. Nuclear waste safety program program area.
4. International nuclear safety support program area.
5. Management and support program area.
Source: GAO table NRC figures.
[End of figure]
Component 3: Measuring and Monitoring Performance:
In Component 3, NRC executes the approved budget through office
operating plans [Footnote 17] based on appropriations, congressional
guidance, and Commission priorities. Each office prepares operating
plans to reflect the allocation of staff years and funds available
following appropriations action and OMB apportionment. The operating
plans, tailored by each office implementing PBPM, tie allocated staff
and other resources to each work activity and to performance goals and
define how success is measured for each activity.
As the budget is executed, operating plans also are used to compare
actual office resources to budget estimates and actual performance to
targeted performance, and to identify necessary programmatic and fiscal
actions. Based on targets established in the operating plans,
individual offices develop quarterly reports on the status of resources
and performance. Any performance issues identified in the quarterly
reports are discussed with the deputy executive director responsible
for that particular office. Generally, when an office meets with its
cognizant deputy executive director, it has prepared a course of
corrective action it intends to take. However, if an issue is
significant, senior staff members will meet with their deputy when they
become aware of the issue rather than wait for the quarterly operating
plan update. Follow-up actions are incorporated into the next scheduled
operating plan meeting as appropriate. The Office of the EDO does not
prepare quarterly reports summarizing its review of office operating
plans for the Commission. Instead, the Commission is kept informed of
operating plan issues throughout the year by various means including
Commission meetings, staff papers, the Budget Execution Report, and
individual briefings. Finally, performance results are reported
annually through a publicly available agency performance report.
Component 4: Assessing Performance:
In Component 4, NRC assesses agency performance. This component is
designed to use information from and feed information to other
components. Although this component is the least developed of the four
components, products are intended to both inform future planning and
budget deliberations and further improve performance. (A later section
of this report, “Challenges to Improving the NRC Budget and Planning
Process,” more fully discusses challenges to improving the assessment
component). When fully operational, this component should help NRC to
determine whether a program should be continued, restructured, or
curtailed and, as designed, may influence planning and budget decisions
in Components 1 and 2. In July 2002, NRC proposed that this component
include performance reviews conducted for the four major strategic
arenas as well as selected management and support offices. However, no
decision has been made on who in NRC will conduct these reviews. In
addition, individual offices can identify issues during the performance
monitoring component that they may select for internal self-assessments
during Component 4.
Planning and Performance Information Influences Resource Allocation
Decisions in Various Ways:
PBPM provides NRC with a framework through which it can use performance
information to influence planning and resource allocation decisions and
is consistent in key respects with our framework for budget practices.
[Footnote 18] NRC informs its resource allocation decisions by providing
strategic direction to operating units prior to budget formulation and
by monitoring actual performance against performance targets during
budget execution. PBPM also promotes agencywide coordination of budget
formulation and execution decisions by providing a common language and
common goals.
Strategic Direction Influences Resource Allocation Decisions:
A key principle driving PBPM is that the agency’s strategic direction
influences internal policy and resource decisions. NRC seeks to use PBPM
to identify general strategies to achieve goals, identify programs to
implement these strategies, and determine resources to fund and staff
programs. NRC practices are similar to those proposed in our framework
for budget practices. Under the framework for budget practices, agency
management should provide context during budget formulation in the form
of general guidance to program managers on proposed agency goals,
existing performance issues, and resource constraints—consistent with
Components 1 and 2 of PBPM. The following are examples of operation
and program decisions that link NRC’s strategic direction with
corresponding resource decisions made though PBPM.
One of the strategies used to implement the four performance goals in
the strategic plan is risk-informed regulation and oversight. This
strategy uses risk assessment findings, engineering analysis, and
performance history to focus attention on the most important safety-
related activities; establishes objective criteria to evaluate
performance; develops measures to assess licensee performance; and uses
performance results as the primary basis for making regulatory
decisions.
As part of its risk-informed regulation and oversight strategy, NRC
modified its reactor oversight program to help achieve its three
subordinate performance goals—developed through Component 1—while
maintaining its primary safety goal. [Footnote 19] The Commission
provided guidance throughout the development and implementation of the
revised reactor oversight program. This guidance included requirements
for staff reporting to the Commission, approval of a pilot program, and
instructions for future program development. In one modification to the
inspection process, NRC stopped inspecting some elements affecting the
plant operators’ work environments (e.g., how well lights in the plant
illuminate the operating panel). NRC determined that these factors did
not critically contribute to safety and created unnecessary regulatory
burdens to industry. Regional officials told us that NRC could now
focus on the significant work activities that maintain safety.
The reactor oversight program’s procedure for assessing nuclear plants
was also changed to increase public confidence in NRC operations by
increasing the predictability, consistency, objectivity, and
transparency of the oversight process. Each quarter, NRC posts the
performance of each nuclear plant on its Web site to provide more
information to the public. Regional officials told us that the overall
level of resources required to implement the revised reactor oversight
program is similar to that of the prior oversight program but that
significant changes have occurred in how they manage their inspection
program. Specifically, the new inspection procedure includes baseline
inspections of all plants but focuses more of the agency’s resources on
plants that demonstrate performance problems. Whether the revised
reactor oversight program will reduce costs is unknown, but regional
officials said that potentially fewer resources may be needed in the
future using this approach. NRC established a focus group to identify
where or how possible resource savings could occur.
As part of its risk-informed regulation and oversight strategy, NRC
developed the Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan (RIRIP),
which is updated periodically. The first RIRIP, issued in October 2000,
examined a range of staff activities including rule making to achieve
NRC performance goals. The Commission provided guidance throughout the
development and implementation of the new plan, including instructions
for future program development as NRC updates the plan. To facilitate
its use, the plan is organized around the strategic arenas. Organizing
the plan around arenas helps offices to establish priorities and
identify resources as part of PBPM. For example, the plan describes
activities designed to improve fire protection for nuclear power
plants. In this area, NRC plans to develop less prescriptive, more
performance-based risk-informed regulations to support its primary goal
of safety. NRC is working with industry to study alternatives to
existing fire protection standards and emergency postfire shutdown
procedures.
A senior NRC official gave additional examples of changes NRC has made
to its regulations to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees
without compromising safety. He cited the decision to have NRC oversee,
but no longer perform, examinations to qualify power plant operators
since the industry conducts its own examinations. In addition, this
official said NRC eliminated its regulation requiring all nuclear power
plants to install state-of-the-art equipment, for example, they could
continue to use analog rather than digital equipment, focusing instead
on whether use of the current equipment adversely affected safety.
NRC also changed its licensing regulations to support its performance
goals of reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees and
becoming more effective and efficient. One official said NRC changed its
regulation governing the length of a power plant license from 40 years
to 60 years in some circumstances. Before this change, NRC would only
license a power plant for 40 years. At the end of the 40-year license
period, the licensee would be required to shut down and decommission
the plant. [Footnote 20] The change in regulation means that NRC will
extend the term of a license from 40 to 60 years if it determines
through licensing review that existing plant design will support a
longer term. According to NRC officials, these license extensions can
eliminate extremely large costs to licensees while reducing NRC costs
because it is less costly to renew a plant operating license than to
review a request for a license for a new power plant. The Commission
directed the reorganization of NRC’s three major NRC program offices so
that they could become more effective and efficient. For example, in
NRR the reorganization established reporting lines consistent with
major NRR program functions—inspection, performance assessment, license
renewal, and licensing. An NRR official said the previous
organizational structure in NRC had contributed to inconsistent
processes for inspecting power plants and duplication of work.
To address the overall safety goal, NRC developed a program to measure
trends in industry nuclear power reactor performance. One part of the
safety goal is that there should be no statistically significant adverse
industry trends in safety performance. [Footnote 21] Performance
indicators are included in the NRC performance plan and are reported to
the Congress through the NRC annual performance report. Resources for
this new program are determined through PBPM.
Work Performance Influences Resource Allocation Decisions:
NRC uses performance information to inform resource allocation decisions
during budget execution by monitoring current year work performance and
by adjusting resource allocations as necessary. This practice is
consistent with our proposed framework for budget practices. As noted
previously, office operating plans track performance against
established targets for each planned work activity to call attention to
significant performance issues needing corrective action. For example,
shortly after September 11, 2001, NRC conducted a comprehensive review
of its security program. As part of this review, NRC examined lists of
prioritized work activities prepared during the effectiveness review
process in Component 2. These lists helped NRC determine which
activities to delete or modify as it prepared to use existing resources
to respond to security threats in the post-September 11 environment.
For example, NRC staffed around-the-clock emergency response centers
for significantly longer than originally anticipated.
As part of this comprehensive review of its security program, NRC began
research on the structural integrity of power plants if they were
attacked by large aircraft. NRC also delayed routine inspections at non-
power reactors for 3 months to help fund these new activities.
[Footnote 22] In addition, in April 2002, NRC established NSIR to
streamline selected NRC security, safeguards, and incident response
responsibilities and related resources. [Footnote 23]
Operating plans are also used to monitor performance and make necessary
adjustments. For example, NRR discovered that the May 2000 operating
plan report showed plant license renewal applications and associated
staff years well below annual expected target levels that year. NRR was
thus able to shift resources to other priorities. An NRR official said
this example showed NRR the importance of monthly monitoring of the
budget assumptions prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.
Furthermore, in another example, NRR management officials also reviewed
the fiscal year 2002 first quarter operating plan report and found that
the workload impact from the September 11 attacks would prevent NRR
from achieving annual licensing action targets. These officials
redirected additional staff resources to complete these licensing
actions. As a result, the third quarter projection is that NRR will
slightly exceed its annual target for these actions.
Enhanced Cooperation and Communication among Offices:
PBPM is designed to enhance cooperation and coordination among offices.
This practice matches our proposed framework for budget practices,
which states that agency managers should share information on policy and
programs among offices during budget decision making.
Sharing information during budgeting is important because many offices
share responsibilities for achieving NRC goals. NRC office managers said
they coordinate their work with others to determine if necessary skills
are already available elsewhere in the agency. For example, one
official said he relies on another unit’s expertise in conducting
environmental studies. In another example, regional officials reported
that they occasionally share specialized staff with other regions to
perform nonroutine inspections.
PBPM provides NRC with reference points such as common goals,
performance measures, and strategies that help offices communicate and
reach agreement on budget priorities. For example, NRR, which depends
upon research studies conducted by RES, meets regularly with that office
to discuss program and budget priorities for risk analysis, structural
integrity, and new reactor designs. [Footnote 24] NRR also meets with
other offices as it develops its budget proposal to coordinate its
resource requests for mutually agreed-upon priorities. For instance,
NRR shares information with NMSS to ensure that crosscutting
activities, such as rule making, have adequate resources. In addition,
the NRC crosswalk of all program activities into strategic arenas
allows NRC to clarify the relationship between budget requests and
agency goals. Our report on federal agency efforts in linking
performance plans with budgets found that NRC’s budget presentation
linked its program activities to performance goals, which showed
funding needed to achieve goals. [Footnote 25] NRC uses the arena
reporting structure to communicate its budget needs to audiences
outside the agency, including OMB and the Congress. [Footnote 26]
Challenges to Improving the NRC Budget and Planning Process:
When it introduced PBPM, NRC recognized that continued development of
the process would be necessary. After gaining experience for several
years, NRC is now in the process of addressing several challenges to
PBPM implementation. Agency officials noted challenges in (1) creating
performance measures that balance competing goals and keep performance
measures current, (2) associating resource requests with outcomes, (3)
standardizing PBPM practices and techniques but still allowing
individual offices to tailor the process to their needs, (4) developing
the assessment component, and (5) committing significant effort to
maintaining PBPM. In addition, NRC must continue developing a cost
accounting system to support PBPM.
NRC Efforts to Develop PBPM:
Issues in Creating Performance Measures That Balance Goals and Remain
Current and Linked to Resources:
As NRC officials create new performance measures or redesign existing
measures, they find it a challenge to refine performance measures so
that they balance performance goals. While safety is a paramount goal,
NRC also seeks to progress in reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on
the industry and improving public confidence in NRC’s operations. One
official said it is a balancing act to minimize the time and steps it
takes to license a facility while at the same time being sure that the
agency is licensing a safe operation. Several NRC officials also said
current performance measures track office efficiency well but capture
the quality of license review poorly. NRC officials said they are
beginning to develop performance measures that better capture quality.
For example, NRR is now using a template to assess the quality of its
evaluation of safety issues during review of licensing actions.
Officials believe that when measures of quality are in place, they can
be used to determine whether adjusting budget resources will have an
effect on the quality of their activities.
New strategies, such as risk-based regulation and oversight programs,
can dictate changes in performance measures. NRC must also keep its
performance measures relevant as the industry changes. Several examples
illustrate these points. NRC plans to develop new performance measures
for reviewing applications to upgrade power output from existing plants
because of concern that existing measures did not accurately measure NRC
performance in this area. In another example, NRC is studying new
performance measures to determine if it can predict, and thus avoid,
emergent problems in the Reactor Oversight Program. NRC and industry
representatives jointly developed a new set of performance indicators to
measure availability of nuclear plant safety systems. NRC believes the
new performance indicators will provide more accurate risk assessments.
Link between Expected Outcomes and Resource Requests Is Not Always
Clear:
NRC officials said that linking outcomes to resources is challenging for
several reasons. First, the budget process focuses on performance
targets and budget decisions for the short term while achieving some
outcomes may take many years. Therefore, it is difficult to know the
incremental effect of adjusting resources annually for longer-term
outcomes. For example, one official noted that research leading to
safer reactor design takes many years to bear fruit. Agency officials
said linking outcomes to resources is also difficult because achieving
many agency goals depends on the actions of others not directly under
NRC’s control. NRC’s strategic plan states that achieving its strategic
goals [Footnote 27] requires the collective efforts of NRC, licensees,
and the agreement states. [Footnote 28] Yet, as one NRC official noted,
neither NRC nor stakeholder representatives could identify how much each
contributes to achieving NRC strategic goals. Nonetheless, this
official said that both NRC and stakeholders strongly believe in
establishing quantifiable outcome measures so that all stakeholders
understand NRC’s goals. While the particular links and
interdependencies are specific to NRC, many of these challenges
permeate federal agencies. Many federal programs depend on other
actors. For many federal activities ultimate outcomes are years away,
but ways must be found to evaluate progress and make resource decisions
annually. [Footnote 29]
Standardizing Practices and Techniques while Maintaining Office
Flexibility Is Difficult:
A continuing challenge during PBPM implementation is to determine which
process techniques and information should be standardized across
offices. For example, NRC officials said the major program offices use
different procedures and methodologies to rank the contribution of
their work activities to achieving NRC performance goals. Nonstandard
weighing of priorities has made cross-office comparisons of activities
and related resource allocation decisions more challenging for NRC
officials. NRC officials said they established a task force to develop
a common methodology to prioritize the contributions of the major
program offices to NRC goals. They said their goal is to have aspects
of a common ranking process among the major program offices for the
fiscal year 2005 budget. In addition, NRC is in the process of further
defining the roles and responsibilities of participants in PBPM through
a management directive.
In a related example, an NRC official said the agency faces a challenge
to improve comparison of performance measures across both major program
and mission support offices. Major NRC program offices are required to
include agency strategic goals and performance goal measures in their
annual operating plans. These measures are reported in the annual
performance report by strategic arena. However, mission support offices
are not required to report on these strategic performance goals.
[Footnote 30] In addition, each office has been permitted to develop
additional, office-specific, detailed performance measures to provide
supplemental management information.
The Assessment Component Needs Further Work:
NRC officials describe NRC’s current assessment process as the weakest
component of PBPM. These officials said existing guidance does not
adequately describe what an assessment is or how to select programs for
evaluation. Since there is not a clear definition of what qualifies as
an assessment within Component 4, NRC performance reports vary and may
not capture the full range of assessments that occurred or are planned
at NRC.
Because information contained in assessments is intended to inform the
other PBPM components, NRC officials see the performance assessment
component as a critical element of its process. For example, performance
assessments can capture key information on how the agency is performing
that can be used for setting the agency’s strategic direction. This
practice, consistent with our framework for budget practices, can help
NRC to seek continual improvement by evaluating current program
performance and identifying alternative approaches to better achieve
agency goals.
NRC is taking steps to improve its assessment process by developing a
new procedure for selecting programs and activities for evaluation. In
July 2002, NRC established annual performance reviews for the four major
strategic arenas and an annual assessment plan that identifies subjects
for evaluation during the upcoming fiscal year. Programs will be
selected for evaluation where a strong potential exists for performance
improvement, cost reduction, or both. Results of the program
evaluations will inform the next strategic direction phase of PBPM and
may also result in changes during the performance monitoring process.
Implementation of New Processes Requires Commitment:
Agency officials describe the introduction of PBPM as a culture shift
requiring a commitment of time and effort by NRC employees. NRC
officials said the agency sought to facilitate this cultural change by
holding staff meetings at all levels and by using task force working
groups to introduce PBPM. The introduction and evolution of PBPM also
presents a continuing workload challenge to NRC. For example, one
official said the detailed work associated with PBPM had been added to
reporting requirements already in place. Nevertheless, key officials
reported that implementing PBPM has been worth the time and effort
because it provides a framework for more informed and focused resource
allocation decisions. According to one official, PBPM has resulted in
agency officials asking the key questions about why and how they
conduct an activity.
Cost Accounting System Not Fully Developed:
NRC faces the challenge of developing a cost accounting system that can
support budget decision making. Developing a cost accounting system is
important to budget decision making because it can help managers track
direct, indirect, and unit costs of activities and compare the cost of
activities to appropriate benchmarks. [Footnote 31] The October 2001
NRC Managerial Cost Accounting Remediation Plan noted that the prior
accounting system supported general financial reporting but did not
include a managerial cost accounting system. An example in the
remediation plan states that labor hour tracking systems were not
integrated with payroll systems. NRC officials said the agency has
since developed a cost accounting system to help in resource allocation
decisions. They said the new system will integrate payroll and
nonpayroll costs at a level that will enable NRC to compare total
direct costs of work activities with appropriate benchmarks. However,
officials told us that they only started using the cost accounting
system in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2002 [Footnote 32] and
plan to refine the information collected based on what is the most
useful and relevant. Agency officials estimate that fully implementing
the system will take 4 to 5 years.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from NRC. NRC expressed
appreciation for our recognition of its efforts and progress and the
fact that we note consistencies with our framework for budget
practices. [Footnote 33] NRC expressed some concern about our report
underrecognizing how far beyond conceptual stage PBPM is, about our
statement that a good cost accounting system was necessary, and about
our reference to operating plans. We modified our language to clarify
our views on the implementation of PBPM. The agency’s letter and our
response are contained in appendix I. NRC officials also provided
clarifying comments, which we have incorporated in the report as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and will make copies available to other interested
parties upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me on (202) 512-9573 or Denise Fantone, Assistant
Director, on (202) 512-4997 if you or your staff has any questions
about this report. Major contributors to this report are Robert Hadley,
James Whitcomb, and Robert Yetvin.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Paul L. Posner:
Managing Director, Federal Budget Analysis:
Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear
at the end of this appendix.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001:
November 22, 2002:
Mr. Paul L. Posner:
Managing Director, Federal Budget, Intergovernmental Relations,
Strategic Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Posner:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and submit
comments on the draft report, "Managing For Results: Efforts to
Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission" (GAO-03-258). We appreciate the time and effort
that you and your staff have taken to review the agency's Planning,
Budgeting, and Performance Management (PBPM) process and the
methodology for incorporating performance in the budget process.
We do have several comments on areas in the report that we feel require
further clarification. First, the draft report implies that the NRC's
PBPM process is not as developed as we find it to be. The PBPM process
has progressed much beyond a conceptual stage to the point where the
full framework was developed and implementation has taken place. As we
have gained experience over the years from implementing PBPM, we have
made and will continue to make refinements to the tools and
methodologies employed in this process. We recommend that the
discussion of the PBPM process be clarified to reflect these comments.
[See comment 1]
Second, the report discusses one system that supports the PBPM process,
our cost accounting system that was implemented at the beginning of FY
2002. While we agree that the cost accounting system produces important
information to support the PBPM process and budget decisions, it is not
the only agency system that provides meaningful information in support
of PBPM. We recommend not singling out one system in this report.
[See comment 2]
Third, we are concerned about the numerous references to NRC's internal
operating plan documents. As internal management tools used at the
office and region level, our operating plans contain a level of detail
on milestones and resources, most of which we treat as predecisional
information. The report's emphasis on these working-level documents, as
opposed to outcomes in the operational planning process, may result in
readers failing to appropriately focus on the NRC's processes, and may
lead to misperceptions and/or mischaracterization of operating plan
documents. [See comment 3]
Finally, the report mentions, in footnote 11, a conclusion from the
lessons-learned task force work on Davis-Besse. Since the conclusion is
presented out of context of the full report, it could be misleading and
should be deleted. In addition, the focus of the draft report is on NRC
performance and budget practices, not on Davis-Besse or any of the many
other specific oversight programs and activities the NRC has
undertaken. In fact, the body of the report indicates that the GAO was
not evaluating the effectiveness of NRC rulemaking, licensing,
inspection, and oversight programs, nor were any plant-specific
activities reviewed. The specific reference to the Davis-Besse task
force work, or to any plant-specific activities, is not appropriate.
[See comment 4]
We appreciate GAO's recognition of the progress that we have made. The
draft indicates that our practices are consistent in key respects with
the framework for budget practices that GAO developed.
We will continue to work with your staff on other clarifying and
editorial comments. Should you have any questions about this response,
please contact Mr. Richard Rough of my staff at (301) 415-7540.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jesse L. Funches:
Chief Financial Officer:
cc: Dwayne Weigel, GAO:
Robert Yetvin, GAO:
The following are GAO’s comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
(NRC) letter dated November 22, 2002.
GAO Comments:
1. Our point is not that the Planning, Budgeting, and Performance
Management Process is still at a conceptual stage but rather that
implementation is in various stages throughout NRC, and that refinement
of agencywide implementation is still necessary. This is consistent
with what we were told and saw at NRC. We modified wording to clarify
this point. (See pp. 4 and 9.)
2. We consistently have said that good cost accounting is critical to
linking resources to results/outcomes. For example, in our recent
testimony on performance budgeting we said that the integration of
reliable cost accounting data into budget debates needs to become a
key part of the performance budgeting agenda. [Footnote 34]
3. NRC uses operating plans to set milestones, track progress, and make
adjustments to improve program outcomes. This is—and was so described
in our interviews at NRC— an important part of PBPM.
4. The footnote was modified to clarify that this report neither
observed nor evaluated reported safety problems in the Davis-Besse
power plant. (See p. 9.)
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Other significant legislation includes the Chief Financial Officers
Act of 1990 and related legislation, which created a structure for more
businesslike management and reporting of the government’s finances, and
the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and the Paperwork Reduction Acts, which
required agencies to take an orderly, planned approach to their
information technology needs.
[2] The President’s Management Agenda, by focusing on 14 targeted
areas—5 governmentwide goals and 9 program initiatives—seeks to improve
the management and performance of the federal government.
[3] Office of Management and Budget, Program Performance Assessments
for the FY2004 Budget, M-02-10 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2002).
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: Initial
Experiences under the Results Act in Linking Plans With Budgets,
GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 1999); Performance
Budgeting: Fiscal Year 2000 Progress in Linking Plans with Budgets,
GAO/AIMD-99-239R (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1999); and Managing for
Results: Agency Progress in Linking Performance Plans With Budgets and
Financial Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 4, 2002).
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Budget Practices
in Federal Agencies, GAO-01-1084SP (Washington, D.C.: August 2001).
[6] NSIR was created after we conducted our fieldwork for this study.
[7] The Nuclear Waste Fund supports NRC’s High Level Waste Program,
which currently consists of the Yucca Mountain project. The High Level
Waste Program was authorized under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as
amended, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This legislation states
requirements for storage, transportation, and disposal of high-level
nuclear waste, and prescribes the respective roles of NRC, the
Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency in the
High Level Waste Program.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Regulation: Strategy Needed
to Regulate Safety Using Information on Risk, GAO/RCED-99-95
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 1999).
[9] The Executive Council consisted of the EDO, the Chief Information
Officer, and the CFO. The Executive Council was abolished without
replacement in 2000.
[10] For example, this study did not observe or evaluate recently
reported safety problems in the Davis-Besse power plant.
[11] For example, NRC reviewed its strategic plan after the terrorist
attacks of September 11 but determined that the plan did not need to
change at that time.
[12] NRC’s strategic arenas are Nuclear Reactor Safety, Nuclear
Materials Safety, Nuclear Waste Safety, Management and Support,
International Nuclear Safety Support, and the Office of the Inspector
General.
[13] NRC defines planned accomplishments as work activities that
implement a strategy in the strategic plan. A group of related work
activities is a program.
[14] Performance goals contribute to achieving strategic goals and
outcomes.
[15] According to an NRC official, NRC’s authorizing statutes provide
NRC with flexibility on which type of work activities it can perform to
accomplish its mission. This official stated that the agency is
required to license nuclear plants and ensure they are operated safely,
but that NRC is not specifically required to inspect these plants.
[16] Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to a number of processes,
such as mediation and facilitated dialogues, used to assist parties in
resolving disputes and potential conflicts.
[17] The OCFO is responsible for monitoring overall budget execution.
As part of this responsibility, the OCFO prepares financial plans with
each office to monitor resource utilization. In addition, offices
report staff years and contract dollars used to the Office of Executive
Director for Operations as part of its operating plan.
[18] GAO-01-1084SP.
[19] As mentioned previously, we did not evaluate the completeness or
accuracy of NRC performance goals and measures or the effectiveness of
NRC rule making, licensing, inspection, and oversight programs.
[20] “Decommissioning” is the process of shutting down and dismantling
a nuclear power plant so the plant site can be safely reused for other
purposes.
[21] The performance measure of no statistically significant adverse
industry trends in safety performance is one of several measures under
NRC’s performance goal of maintaining safety. Another measure, is
having no more than one event per year identified as a significant
precursor of a nuclear accident.
[22] NRC eventually received $36 million in fiscal year 2002 emergency
supplemental funds for new security-related activities.
[23] The new office combines NMSS responsibilities for protection of
fuel cycle facilities and materials with NRR responsibilities for
nuclear power plants and other facilities. Resources for the
consolidated functions, including about 90 staff members, were
transferred from existing NRC offices.
[24] RES funds approximately 190 separate activities, which serve the
immediate needs of other offices. It also funds long-term research.
[25] GAO-02-236.
[26] NRC’s budget guidance includes a detailed crosswalk of offices and
programs to specific planned activities.
[27] NRC strategic goals represent the agency’s fundamental mission and
the overall outcome NRC wants to achieve. Performance goals are the key
contributors to achieving the strategic goals.
[28] An agreement state is one that NRC has authorized to regulate
certain radioactive materials.
[29] A previous GAO report identified many federal agencies that shared
responsibilities with other entities for achieving their objectives.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Measuring Program
Results That Are Under Limited Federal Control, GAO/GGD-99-16
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 1998).
[30] According to NRC officials, although mission support offices are
not required to report on strategic performance goals in the
Performance and Accountability Report, some information on mission
support outputs is included in the Budget Estimates and Performance
Plan.
[31] GAO-01-1084SP.
[32] NRC experienced delays in developing and implementing its cost
accounting system because of problems it encountered with the
contractor initially selected to develop the core system. NRC
contracted with a new vendor and purchased a software package to
develop the core system. In our January 2001 report on NRC major
management challenges, we said NRC’s staff expected to have manager’s
time and labor charges for each strategic arena available by April
2001.
[33] GAO-01-1084SP.
[34] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting:
Opportunities and Challenges, GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19,
2002).
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports Order GAO
Products heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: