ML20059J654
| ML20059J654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/18/1994 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Kulikowski R ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059J658 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402010115 | |
| Download: ML20059J654 (3) | |
Text
--
]
C-gg f"\\
b[ ~ '
't UnilTED STATES i
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3, f.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555
[
h, January 18, 1994 CHAIRMAfv 1
Robert R. Kulikowski, Ph.D., Chairperson Organization of Agreement States Bureau of Radiological Health New York City Department of Health 111 Livingston Street, 20th Floor Brooklyn, New York 11201
Dear Dr. Kulikowski:
On behalf of my Comission colleagues and the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, I want to congratulate you on your assumption of the role of Chairperson of the Organization of Agreement States for 1994.- I am confident that you will find the position of Chairperson to be challenging, interesting, and a personally satisfying experience as well.
I can assure you that the Commission values the excellent working relationship we have with the OAS and looks forward to working with you during the coming year to ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected.
As you may know, your predecessor as Chairperson, Mr. G. Wayne Kerr, wrote to me on November 22, 1993, regarding Agreement State concerns expressed during the recent annual All Agreement States meeting (copy enclosed).
In view of his thoughtful and candid comments, I would like to direct the Commission's response to you.
The development cf a comprehensive compatibility policy is an undertaking that has the full s rort of the Comission. As you know, Mr. Kerr has participated in this effort by providing information to the compatibility policy task group.
The Comission is working very hard to produce a coherent, unambiguous policy that will appropriately balance uniformity and flexibility to allow NRC and the Agreement States to carry out our responsibilities effectively. The Commission and the senior managers of the NRC will be personally involved in monitoring its implementation.
The Comission is pleased that the OAS supports our intention to use workshops to address regulatory issues. We believe that these workshops will contribute to the overall enhancement of both Agreement State and NRC programs. We are currently planning a workshop on contaminated sites and the Site Decomissioning Management Program. The NRC staff believes, however, that it would be premature to have another workshop on sealed source and device evaluations during 1994 as Mr. Kerr had suggested.
The last Agreement State workshop on sealed sources and devices was held in September 24-27, 1991.
This year the staff will be looking at the program for evaluating sealed sources and devices and, upon completion of that effort, may find a workshop to be appropriate.
The staff will consider 0AS comments in deciding whether to use a contractor to evaluate the individual States' sealed source and device program.
9402010115 940118 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PDR 270033 g
4 Robert R. Kulikowski, Ph.D.
2 I agree with Mr. Kerr that the Agreement State Managers Workshop held in Hunt Valley, Maryland, was very productive.
From my perspective, there was good dialogue between the Agreement States and NRC managers.
The Commission supports his recommendation that such a workshop be held annually, and we will be pleased to work with you on an agenda and a convenient time and place.
Mr. Kerr expressed concern regarding a continued detriment to an effective working relationship due to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Commission recognized that FACA requirements might present problems when we sought to involve the Agreement States in our effort to review the medical use regulatory program. We are having discussions with the Office of the General Counsel on the various options available to the Commission.
Both the Commission and the staff are sensitive to 0AS' concerns over the use of numerical performance indicators and the concerns expressed during the r
discussions on this issue.
These concerns are being considered in the development and final Commission approval of the common performance indicators to be used in evaluating the Agreement States' and NRC Regions' radiation control programs.
Wa urge the Agreement States to reserve judgement on this new program until we have had the opportunity to develop more fully the best way to use the information that is provided in response to the performance indicators.
1 With respect to 0AS concerns about the Commission direction to the staff to consider the merits of codification of State Agreement program guidance in a new part of the NRC rules and regulations, we would note that the staff response in SECY-93-272 does not indicate that a decision has been made about codification of requirements applicable to Agreement States.
Some issues, however, like the establishment of requirements for reporting of certain events, will receive consideration. The NRC staff, in responding to the Commission's direction, will certainly consider your organization's views.
The issue of abnormal occurrence reporting and the apparent differences between the Agreement States and NRC-regulated states should be clarified in the future as both the NRC and Agreement States make use of more standardized reporting requirements.
With additional data in this area, we should be able to identify the basis for the differences in the numbers of abnormal occurrences.
Since all of the current proposed low-level radioactive waste facilities are located in Agreement States, or States intending to become Agreement States, the Commission is very sensitive to the desires of your organization for stability in regulatory requirements.
I can assure you that the NRC would not embark on a major revision to Part 61 without carefully considering the Agreement States' views of the problems associated with NRC's issuance of new low-level waste disposal requirements.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on Mr. Kerr's observation regarding our decision on the future operation of our Region V office in Walnut Creek, I
California. Since our objective from the beginning was to maintain essential i
s
Robert R. Xulikowski, Ph.D.
3 functions and services in Region V, there were no substantive issues requiring prior consultation outside the agency.
In particular, our Agreement States Officer will remain in Walnut Creek.
Nevertheless, it is our hope that increased efforts by NRC to interact and consult with the Agreement States will avoid some of the problems we have encountered in the past.
The Commission looks forward to a continuing cooperative relationship with the States.
Sincerely, 2
Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
Ltr fm G. Wayne Kerr dtd 11/22/93 cc:
G. Wayne Kerr Past Chairperson 0AS I
i i
_.