Search Options
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us

SECY-99-158

June 18, 1999

Attachments:

1. SRM on SECY-98-172, issued August 21, 1998
2. Federal Register Notice
3. Press Release
4. Congressional Letters
5. SBREFA Letters

Table of Contents

• SRM on SECY-98-172, issued August 21, 1998
• Changes to the Federal Register Notice
• Change to the Congressional Letter
• Changes to the Press Release
• 10 CFR Part 76, RIN: 3150-AF85, Certification Renewal and Amendment Processes
• Background
• Comments on the Proposed Rule
• The Final Rule
• Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
• Plain Language
• Voluntary Consensus Standards
• Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
• Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
• Regulatory Analysis
• Impacts on the Corporation
• Benefit
• Preferred Option
• Regulatory Flexibility Certification
• Backfit Analysis
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
• List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 76
• PART 76--CERTIFICATION OF GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS
• NRC Changes Regulations for Renewing or Amending USEC Certificates(DRAFT)
• Letters

SRM on SECY-98-172, issued August 21, 1998

August 21, 1998

The Commission has approved publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment subject to the changes provided in the attachment. The attachment also contains changes which should be included in the letter to Congress and the press release.

(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 9/18/98)

Attachment:
As stated

Changes to the Federal Register Notice

Change to the Congressional Letter

At the end of the second paragraph, add the following sentence. "The public's opportunity to follow each licensing action remains the same because licensing documents are placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, and the public continues to have an opportunity to file a petition for review."

Changes to the Press Release

10 CFR Part 76, RIN: 3150-AF85, Certification Renewal and Amendment Processes

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 76
RIN: 3150-AF85
Certification Renewal and Amendment Processes

Background

The regulations establishing NRC's requirements for the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) were published on September 23, 1994 (59 FR 48960). Subsequently, the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 was modified to increase the period for certificate renewals from 1 year to up to 5 years. The regulations implementing this modification to the AEA were published on February 12, 1997 (62 FR 6670). On March 3, 1997, the GDP's came under NRC's oversight. Since 1997, the NRC has implemented the initial certification and numerous certificate amendments. As a result, the NRC staff identified several areas where changes would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the certificate renewal and amendment processes.

On September 15, 1998 (63 FR 49301), the NRC published a proposed rule that presented amendments to 10 CFR Part 76 intended to make the certification renewal and amendment processes more effective and efficient.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

The Commission received one letter commenting on the proposed rule. A copy of the letter is available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, D.C. This letter came from the United States Enrichment Corporation (the Corporation), which leases and operates the GDPs. The Corporation supported the proposed rule, but had two specific comments.

Comment 1: "The proposed wording states that a certificate amendment will be effective when issued by the NRC staff. Immediate implementation upon issuance of the amendment may be possible in some cases; however, in most cases some implementation time will be required. USEC anticipates that in submitting amendment requests, it will continue the current practice of requesting that site implementation occur within a certain period of time (e.g., 30 days) or after completion of certain activities (e.g., equipment installation, testing) after the staff's issuance of the amendment. USEC assumes that the NRC, in granting an immediately effective certificate amendment, will continue to provide the requisite flexibility and time for effective implementation."

Response: The Commission agrees with the comment. When granting an amendment, the NRC staff intends to allow an appropriate implementation period (e.g., 30 days). To clarify this intent further, the regulatory text has been modified to make an amendment effective on a date specified by the NRC staff.

Comment 2: "These paragraphs [76.45(d) & (e)] specify requirements for obtaining the Director's review of the staff's determination and the Commission's review of a Director's decision on an amendment application. These paragraphs state that if the Director or Commission does not issue a decision or otherwise act after receiving a petition for review, the determination on the amendment application remains in effect. However, the ability of the Corporation to implement an effective amendment should a petition be received is unclear. Therefore, USEC requests that the proposed wording in �.45(d) and �.45(e) be clarified to indicate that, should a petition on an effective amendment be received, implementation of the amendment at the gaseous diffusion plants may continue, unless and until the Director modifies or sets aside the findings, conclusions, conditions or terms in the staff's amendment determination or the Commission modifies or sets aside the findings, conclusions, conditions or terms in the Director's amendment review decision. Should either the staff's decision or the Director's decision be modified or set aside, upon NRC notification, the Corporation would take the required actions with respect to implementation of the effective amendment. USEC's comments in this regard could be addressed with the addition of the following language to Ё76.45(d) and (e):

The pendency of a petition [for review] under this subsection shall not delay the effective date of the amendment as issued by the staff under �.45(c) above."

Response: The language of � 76.45(d) and (e) does not need to be revised. If a petition for review is pending, the Commission believes that the Corporation may implement an effective certificate amendment because of the statements in � 76.45(c), (d), and (e). In particular, if a petition for review is pending, it would not delay the effective date of the certificate amendment. The Corporation may continue implementation of an effective certificate amendment unless and until it is modified or set aside by either the Director or the Commission.

The Final Rule

This final rule makes the following changes:

Currently, � 76.37 specifies that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (the Director) shall publish a Federal Register notice of receipt of an application for renewal. This final rule replaces "shall" with "may, at his or her discretion," and inserts "for renewal" after the first occurrence of the word "application" in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). Replacing "shall" with "may, at his or her discretion," allows the Director to determine if a Federal Register notice is warranted for an application for renewal on a case-by-case basis. There are two reasons for this action. First, if the application does not address any new safety issues or there have not been any major changes to the facility or its operating procedures that would substantially increase the risk associated with the facility, the Director may decide that a Federal Register notice is not necessary. This flexibility allows the NRC to focus its resources on safety issues that have significant potential risk. Second, there is no requirement in the AEA to notice an application for certificate renewal. Furthermore, similar actions for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities are not noticed. Adding "for renewal" clarifies that the application is specifically for renewal.

In � 76.39, the phrase "for renewal" is being inserted after each occurrence of the word "application." This clarifies that the application being discussed in � 76.39 is specifically for renewal.

Section 76.45(a) is being changed to remove the responsibility for making the initial decision on an amendment application from the Director. This change allows the decision to grant or deny an amendment application to be delegated to the branch chief. This action contributes to a more efficient use of NRC resources and is comparable to the process used for facilities regulated by the Commission under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70.

Section 76.45(b) is being deleted. The first sentence currently requires that the Director determine whether the proposed activities are "significant" and, if so, follow the procedures specified in Ё 76.37 and 76.39. This sentence is being deleted because the procedures specified in � 76.37 to be followed by the Director will be discretionary, and the procedures specified in � 76.39 are currently discretionary. Accordingly, it would not be logical to compel the Director to follow either of them. This action eliminates the current distinction between "significant" and not significant proposed activities. This action also provides a more flexible and efficient regulatory process. However, the public's opportunity to follow each amendment remains the same because certification documents are placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, and the public will have an opportunity to file a petition for review of an amendment as described in revised � 76.45(d). In addition, the last sentence in � 76.45(b) is being deleted because decisions on certificate amendment applications will be delegated to the branch chief. This delegation is comparable to the process currently used for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities.

The current � 76.45(c) is being redesignated as paragraph (b) because the current paragraph (b) is being deleted.

In a new � 76.45(c), the first sentence provides that a certificate amendment will be effective on a date specified by the NRC staff. This allows the NRC staff to handle issues that need to be addressed quickly to avoid an unnecessary operational upset of a GDP, ensure adequate protection of public health and safety from radiological hazards, and/or provide for the common defense and security. The second sentence of � 76.45(c) provides that the NRC staff may, at its discretion, publish a notice of its decision on an amendment application in the Federal Register. The NRC staff will take this action when publication of a notice is warranted on a case-by-case basis. If the application does not address any new safety issues or there have not been any major changes to the facility or its operating procedures that would substantially increase the risk associated with the facility, the NRC staff may decide that a Federal Register notice is not necessary. This flexibility allows the NRC to devote its resources to safety issues that have significant potential risk. The AEA does not require that a certificate amendment application be noticed. Furthermore, the Commission does not notice similar actions for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities.

Currently, a decision on an amendment application may be appealed by filing a request for the Commission's review. A new � 76.45(d), concerning the NRC staff's determination on an amendment application, establishes procedures for the Corporation, or any person whose interests may be affected, to file a petition for the Director's review. Because the initial determination on a certificate amendment application may be delegated to the branch chief, it is logical for the Director to be the first level of review. This process contributes to a more efficient use of agency resources because an appeal issue may be resolved by the Director and not require the Commission's review.

A new � 76.45(e), concerning the Director's decision, establishes procedures for either the Corporation, or any person whose interests may be affected and who filed a petition for review or filed a response to a petition for review under � 76.45(d), to file a petition for the Commission's review. Because the initial review of an NRC staff determination on an amendment application is rendered by the Director, it is logical for the Commission to be the final level of review.

In revised � 76.62(c), the phrase, "who submitted written comments in response to the Federal Register notice on the application or compliance plan under � 76.37, or provided oral comments at any meeting held on the application or compliance plan conducted under � 76.39," is removed. This action eliminates restrictions that limit those entities who may file a petition requesting review of the Director's decision regarding issuance of a certificate and/or approval of a compliance plan. Eliminating these restrictions is consistent with the Commission's practice for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities. Further, if a Federal Register notice is not issued for a certificate renewal, a notice of the Director's decision will provide the first published opportunity for a person whose interest may be affected to be aware of the action.

The number of days specified in � 76.62(c) is being increased from 15 to 30 days. This provides more time for the Corporation or other members of the public whose interests may be affected to file a petition for review on a certificate renewal action. Because the time period for a certificate renewal was recently extended from annually to up to 5 years, the need to act within 15 days because of the time constraint formerly associated with annual renewals is removed.

The sentence, "Unless the Commission grants the petition for review or otherwise acts within 60 days after the publication of the Federal Register notice, the Director's initial decision on the certificate application or compliance plan becomes effective and final," is being revised to read: "If the Commission does not issue a decision or take other appropriate action within 90 days after the publication of the Federal Register notice, the Director's decision remains in effect." This change clarifies that the Director's decision is effective upon issuance and, if a petition for review is filed, eliminates a potential 60-day suspension of the effectiveness of the Director's decision. The Director's decision remains in effect unless it is changed by the Commission. This procedure is also more consistent with the process for license renewals pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. In addition, to accommodate the increased time for both filing a petition for review and responding to a petition, the time provided for the Commission to act is being increased from 60 to 90 days following publication of the Federal Register notice.

The changes made in � 76.62(c) are also being made in � 76.64(d) for the same reasons.

In the introductory text of � 76.91, reference to � 76.35(d) is being changed to � 76.35(f) to correct a typographical error.

In addition, Part 76 is being modified to remove references to the initial certification application or initial certification decision that are no longer relevant because the initial certificates have been issued. In Ё 76.33(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and (e), and 76.35, references to "initial" are being removed. Section 76.9(c) is being removed as no longer relevant because the condition of effectiveness at the time of the initial certification application has been satisfied. Phrases in Ё 76.21(a), 76.36(a), 76.60(e)(2), and 76.91(n) concerning initial certification are being removed. References in Ё 76.7(e)(1), 76.60(c)(2), 76.60(d)(2), and 76.60(e)(1) to the NMSS Director's decision on the initial certificate are also being removed.

Section 76.33 is being amended to correct a printing error in the regulatory text. In

� 76.33(a)(2), the redundant phrase "the names, addresses, and citizenship of its principal office," is being removed.

Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations

Under the "Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" that was approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), Part 76 is classified as compatibility Category "NRC". The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the AEA or provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Plain Language

The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, "Plain Language in Government Writing," directed that the government's writing be in plain language. This memorandum was published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). In complying with this directive, editorial changes have been made in the final revisions to improve the organization and readability of the existing language of the paragraphs being revised. These types of changes are not discussed further in this notice.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is amending the regulations governing the gaseous diffusion plants to modify the process used to renew or amend a certificate of compliance. The amended regulations are procedural and apply to a specific entity. Therefore, this action does not establish a technical standard of generally applicable requirements.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this regulation is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

The information collection requirements contained in this final rule of limited applicability affect fewer than ten respondents. Therefore, Office of Management and Budget approval is not required pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Analysis

This final rule modifies the process for certificate renewals, establishes a process for certificate amendments comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license, revises the appeal process for amendments, eliminates the "significant" designation for amendments, simplifies the criteria for persons who are eligible to file a petition for review of an amendment action, removes references to the initial application because the initial certificates have been issued, and lengthens the time periods associated with filing a petition for review.

Part 76 contains a process for amending a certificate and the GDP certificates have been amended several times. These actions identified several deficiencies in the � 76.45 process that should be corrected. The NRC staff examined how the process could be revised and improved so that it is more effective and efficient. The amendment process for GDP certificates as modified by this final rule parallels the process currently used for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities. This final rule also removes the ambiguity associated with determining who can petition the NRC for review of an amendment application decision.

Because the statute has been amended to allow up to a 5-year certificate renewal period instead of an annual certificate renewal requirement, the lengthened certificate period has permitted consideration of improvements to the certificate renewal process. Because the annual certification time constraint has been removed, the final rule makes appropriate changes to the time for appeals and lifts restrictions on who may appeal a certification decision. As a result, the certificate renewal process more closely resembles the process for renewal of materials and fuel cycle facility licenses under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70.

A no-change option retains the deficiencies and ambiguities identified in the current certification renewal and amendment processes and precludes an improved process that is more effective and efficient.

Impacts on the Corporation

An uncomplicated certificate amendment process provides a more timely regulatory process. If the identified deficiencies and ambiguities in the amendment process are not corrected, there is a potential for expense due to plant operational delays and reduced efficiencies that may be related to amendment requests.

Clarification of who can petition the Director for review of an NRC staff determination on an amendment application and/or extension of the period for requesting a review may result in additional petitions. Similarly, lifting restrictions on who can petition for review of a certification renewal decision and lengthening the time for this type of petition may result in additional petitions. This rulemaking is not expected to have any adverse economic impacts on the Corporation.

Benefit

An uncomplicated process for certificate amendment will result in a more effective and efficient NRC review process. This, in turn, provides for more timely completion of amendment reviews. Clarification of who can petition the Director for review of a certificate amendment determination will remove undesirable ambiguities. Specifically, the final rule removes a restriction on who can petition for review by eliminating the current requirement that a petition for review may only be filed by a person who had previously provided comments. The final rule will allow anyone whose interests may be affected to file a petition for review. The extension of the time periods associated with filing a petition for review provides more time for the public to participate in the amendment process. The final rule also removes the same restrictions on who may petition for review of a certification renewal decision and extends the time period for accepting petitions for review of a certification renewal decision. The final rule also provides for NRC staff discretion in publishing the Federal Register notice of receipt of the application for Certificate renewal. This discretion permits the NRC staff to use its resources in the most effective and efficient manner.

Preferred Option

The preferred option is amending the regulations to eliminate ambiguities, reduce inefficiencies, better define the processes for certificate renewals and amendments, allow immediately effective amendments, and allow more time for public participation, while continuing to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.

This constitutes the regulatory analysis for the final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only addresses the United States Enrichment Corporation or its successor. The Corporation does not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in 10 CFR 2.810 or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 76.76. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 76

Certification, Criminal penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Special nuclear material, Uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 76.

PART 76--CERTIFICATION OF GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1999.

NRC Changes Regulations for Renewing or Amending USEC Certificates(DRAFT)

D R A F T

(For SECY Paper)

NRC CHANGES REGULATIONS

FOR RENEWING OR AMENDING USEC CERTIFICATES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is changing its regulations that govern uranium enrichment plants leased and operated by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio.

NRC first issued regulations in 1994 to establish a process by which it would assume regulatory authority for the 43-year-old gaseous diffusion plants, which previously operated under the authority of the Department of Energy and the Atomic Energy Commission. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed that the Corporation operate the plants and required the NRC to certify them periodically to ensure compliance with its safety, safeguards, and security requirements.

The NRC assumed regulatory jurisdiction over the plants' operations in 1997, after issuing initial certificates of compliance. However, in implementing the certificate renewal and amendment processes, the NRC staff identified several improvements that should be made to make these processes more effective and efficient.

The amendments will:

After the Commission published the proposed changes in the Federal Register for public comment last September, it received one comment letter, from the USEC. As a result, the NRC changed the proposed rule to allow for an appropriate period for USEC to implement any amendments to the certificate issued by the NRC, rather than requiring immediate implementation as stated in the proposed rule.

Further details of the amendments will be contained in a Federal Register notice to be published shortly. The amendments will be effective 30 days after publication of the Federal Register notice.

###

Letters

The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Committee on Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed is a copy of a final amendment to 10 CFR Part 76 for the information of the subcommittee. This final rule is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. It will become effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

The proposed rule was published on September 15, 1998 (at 63 FR 49301) for a 60-day comment period. The Commission received one comment letter. This letter came from the United States Enrichment Corporation, which leases and operates the gaseous diffusion plants. The Corporation supported the proposed rule overall, and had only two comments. These comments are addressed in the Federal Register notice.

This final rule will amend the regulations that apply to the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. These plants came under Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight on March 3, 1997. When implementing the initial certification and amendment processes specified in the current regulations, the NRC staff identified several areas in these processes that needed to be improved so that they would be more effective and efficient. This final rulemaking addresses these areas and will: (1) modify the process for certificate renewals; (2) establish a process for a certificate amendment comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license; (3) revise the appeal process for amendments; (4) eliminate the significant designation for amendments; (5) simplify the criteria for persons who are eligible to file petitions for review of amendment actions; (6) remove references to the initial applications because the initial certificates have been issued; and (7) lengthen the time periods associated with filing petitions for review.

A Regulatory Flexibility Certification is not needed for this amendment because it will have no adverse economic impact on NRC licensees, certificate holders, or the public. An abbreviated "Regulatory Analysis" is included within the Federal Register notice.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed is a copy of a final amendment to 10 CFR Part 76 for the information of the subcommittee. This final rule is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. It will become effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

The proposed rule was published on September 15, 1998 (at 63 FR 49301) for a 60-day comment period. The Commission received one comment letter. This letter came from the United States Enrichment Corporation, which leases and operates the gaseous diffusion plants. The Corporation supported the proposed rule overall, and had only two comments. These comments are addressed in the Federal Register notice.

This final rule will amend the regulations that apply to the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. These plants came under Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight on March 3, 1997. When implementing the initial certification and amendment processes specified in the current regulations, the staff NRC identified several areas in these processes that needed to be improved so that they would be more effective and efficient. This final rulemaking addresses these areas and will: (1) modify the process for certificate renewals; (2) establish a process for a certificate amendment comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license; (3) revise the appeal process for amendments; (4) eliminate the significant designation for amendments; (5) simplify the criteria for persons who are eligible to file petitions for review of amendment actions; (6) remove references to the initial applications because the initial certificates have been issued; and (7) lengthen the time periods associated with filing petitions for review.

A Regulatory Flexibility Certification is not needed for this amendment because it will have no adverse economic impact on NRC licensees, certificate holders, or the public. An abbreviated "Regulatory Analysis" is included within the Federal Register notice.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed is a copy of a final amendment to 10 CFR Part 76 for the information of the subcommittee. This final rule is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. It will become effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

The proposed rule was published on September 15, 1998 (at 63 FR 49301) for a 60-day comment period. The Commission received one comment letter. This letter came from the United States Enrichment Corporation, which leases and operates the gaseous diffusion plants. The Corporation supported the proposed rule overall, and had only two comments. These comments are addressed in the Federal Register notice.

This final rule will amend the regulations that apply to the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. These plants came under Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight on March 3, 1997. While implementing the initial certification and amendment processes specified in the current regulations, the NRC staff identified several areas in these processes that needed to be improved so that they would be more effective and efficient. This final rulemaking addresses these areas and will: (1) modify the process for certificate renewals; (2) establish a process for a certificate amendment comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license; (3) revise the appeal process for amendments; (4) eliminate the significant designation for amendments; (5) simplify the criteria for persons who are eligible to file petitions for review of amendment actions; (6) remove references to the initial applications because the initial certificates have been issued; and (7) lengthen the time periods associated with filing petitions for review.

A Regulatory Flexibility Certification is not needed for this amendment because it will have no adverse economic impact on NRC licensees, certificate holders, or the public. An abbreviated "Regulatory Analysis" is included within the Federal Register notice.

Enclosure: Federal Register notice
cc: Senator Bob Graham