ML20128J013
| ML20128J013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/04/1996 |
| From: | Thompson T NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| DSI-4-00003, DSI-4-3, NUDOCS 9610100155 | |
| Download: ML20128J013 (2) | |
Text
_.. _
=
Is.r-y
~
~
~
11 I //J so From:
Thomas Thompson p#
h To:
STRATEGIC
/
os Date:
10/4/96 4:20pm
Subject:
Strategic Assess. Comment 007 -3 1996 f
See Attached file.
Office of the k
e Secretary
\\'
s n
S i
l l
hkC y61004 DR Ik PDR 3DS / 3 \\}
r Many professionals within the Radiation Safety field believe your 5 Options Je missing the best option.
Consider taking back Agreement State programs!!!
Why limit the Options to 1-5 in DSI 4?? Maybe NRC would be serving the public better by taking over the Agreement State programs!
Has any independent organization performed an evaluation to determine the qualitative difference between NRC's regulatory oversight and those of Agreement States? When you are replacing inspectors from NRC with individuals in State programs at 1/2 their salary one should be suspicious.
We should be careful in assuming our audits of Agreement State programs provide any confidence in state programs.
Lets not forget that these audits are highly focusd and relate more to paper work. Additionally we do not have a well establisi.ed enforcement policy with regard to our findings. The extent to which we aggressively provide oversight of these programs should be examined along with the costs to do this well.
We should be concerned about future criticism from Congress if we have a major incident at one of these Agreement States.
This includes establishing a clear understanding that the States bear the full cost and responsibility, and that Congress and the public understand this.
Thomas K. Thompson Sr. Health Physicist