ML20133A120

Ack Receipt of Forwarding from M Weidler Expressing Concern About NRC Policy to Discontinue Funding for Agreement State Training.Commission Initiated Strategic Assessment & Rebaselining Effort

ML20133A120
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/04/1996
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Richardson B HOUSE OF REP.
References
NUDOCS 9612300073
Download: ML20133A120 (7)

Text

. - . _ ._ _ . . _- .. _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _

y j

fm% j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES

& WASHINGTON, D.C. asseHoo1

% ** Decernber 4,1996 i

The Honorable Bill Richardson l United States House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515 f

Dear Congressman Richardson:

i t Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1996 which fonvarded a l September 18, 1996 letter from Mr. Mark Weidler, Secretary of the New Mexico l Environment Department, expressing concern about the Nuclear Regulatory Commiission policy to discontinue funding for Agreement State training. This

! policy went into effect on October 1, 1996.

i l As you may know, the Commission has initiated a Strategic Assessment and

Rebaselining effort that includes a review of the relationship between the NRC

and the Agreement States. Funding of Agreement State training is again being I addressed in this evaluation, and the NRC has conducted several public

! meetings to discuss this, along with other issues. While the Commission has

] not made a final decision on this matter, a majority of the Commission is i

{ preliminarily in favor of a compromise position in which the NRC would provide j l training to Agreement States without charge on a " space available" basis. '

i i Funding for travel and technical assistance would be borne by the Agreement i States. Our objectives in the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining effort l with respect to this issue are to determine an equitable method of funding and

an appropriate scope for NRC's Agreement State activities.

l The Commission believes that the stakeholders' comments (from Agreement and j i non-Agreement States, Agreement and non-Agreement State licensees, and members  !

i of the public) will be important in the final resolution of this difficult issue. Your comments certainly will be considered in the analysis.

Therefore, I have forwarded your October 30, 1996 letter with its enclosure to the Secretary of the Commission to be addressed as a comment on the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselinir.g effort, Direction Setting Issue 4, NRC's  ;

Relationship with Agreement States. We welcome your further comments on this )

4 and other Strategic Issues. For your information, I have enclosed the public j

! announcement and package of Direction-Setting Issues (DSI) that the Commission '

i released for discussion at the public meetings.

The Commission recently informed the staff that it does not object to the

! staff implementing its preliminary views on training discussed above. NRC

expects that space available training partially will reduce the need for

! Agreement States to seek training from other sources or to develop their own j training courses and the financial burdens of doing so. Additionally, a j

working group consisting of representatives from the NRC and Agreement States already has been formed to hvaluate the ongoing evolution of training programs

([

j for Agreement State personnel, the criteria for evaluation of Agreement State

programs in the area of training qualification, and possible training options j for Agreement State personnel.

i 9612300073 961204 PDR STPRC ESONM b

~

'" sHH9 i

NBC RM ETEl Can

The Honorable Bill Richardson The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and training reimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) from fees from our licensees. The Commission has long recognized the need to address the fairness and equity issues resulting from the expenditure of NRC fee-based budget resources on costs, such as funding for Agreement State training, that cannot be attributed to an individual licensee or class of licensees. In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy Review, the Commission described these fairness issues and recommended that legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately. The Commission reaffirmed that recommendation in a response to a question from Representative Dan Schaefer that resulted from the September 5, 1996 he4 ring before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. In that responsn, the Commission noted that the costs related to our work at Hanford had been placed outside the fee base, and we specifically mentioned Agreement State training and travel and international programs as areas needing similar legislative relief. We would welcome your support of such a legislative solution to the Agreement State training and travel issue.

Sincerely,

. s/'

es M. T lor ecutive irector for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated

J The Honorable Bill Richardson . The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and ,

training reimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast '

preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) from fees from our licensees. The Comission h6 long recognized the need to ,

address the fairness and equity issues resulting from the expenditure of NRC l

, fee-based budget resources on costs, such as funding for Agreement State training, that cannot be attributed to an individual licensee or class of licensees. In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy l

! Review, the Commission described these fairness issues and recommended that legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and 4 appropriate them separately. The Comission reaffirmed that recomendation in a response to a question from Representative Dan Schaefer that resulted from the September 5,1996 hearing before the House Subcomittee on Energy and Power. In that response, the Comission noted that the costs related to our work at Hanford had been placed outside the fee base, and we specifically mentioned Agreement State training and travel and international programs as areas needing similar legislative relief. We would welcome your support of such a legislative solution to the Agreement State training and travel issue.

Sincerely, MMU ammes u.Tarkr James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated Distribution:

ED0 RF (GT96844) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES X--

N0 )

SECY (CRC-96-1123)

DIR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis -

M j

M/[Q DSollenberger Reimbursement Cost File ,

New Mexico File l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ RICHARDSON.DMS *See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy P'/ -

0FFICE OSP l OSP:DDI OSP:D DEDS l EDO -

NAME DMSollenberger:kk* PHLohaus* RLBangart* HLThompson JMTaylort DATE 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/ /96 1.11f-/96 OSP FILE CODE: SP-R-14, SP-AG-19

The Honorable Bill Richardson The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement Stat travel and training reimbursement issue derives from the need to rec er the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level wast related expenses) l from fees from our licensees. The Commission has lon ecognized the need to i address the fairness and equity issues associated wi charging fees to NRC  !

licensees for activities which do not benefit them such as funding for Agreement State Training). In its 1994 report to he Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy Review, the Commission descri d these fairness issues and recommended that legislation be enacted to exc de these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately The Commission reaffirmed that recommendation in a response to a question f om Representative Dan Schaefer that resulted from the September 5, 1996 h ring before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. In that response, t Commission noted that the costs related to our work at Hanford had been aced outside the fee base, and we specifically mentioned Agreement State raining and travel and international programs as areas needing similar leg lative relief. We would welcome your support of such a legislative soluti to the Agreement State training and travel issue.

Sincerely, ,

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated 4

Distribution:

ED0 RF (GT96844) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES X N0 )

SECY (CRC-96-1123 DIR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart / 4 PLohaus /

SDroggitis

DSo11enberger/

Reimbursement Cost File New Mexico File

/

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ RICHARDSON.DMS *See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" - Copy without "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy attachment / enclosure 0FFICE OSP l OSP:DDl OSP:0 DEDS l ED0 l NAME DMSollenberger:kk* PHLohaus* RLBangart* HLThompson JMTaylor DATE 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/ /96 11/ /96

OSP FILE CODE

SP-R-14, SP-AG-19

l

, The Honorable Bill Richardson . l

, The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and  !

training reimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) from fees from our licensees. The Commission has long recognized the need to

. address the fairness and equity issues resulting from the expenditure'of HRC l

, fee-based budget resources on costs, such as funding for Agreement State i i training, that cannot be attributed to an individual licensee or class of licensees. In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy

~

, Review, the Commi'ssion described these fairness issues and recommended that legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately. The Commission reaffirmed that. recommendation in a response to a question from Representative Dan Schaefer that resulted from the September 5, 1996 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. In that response, the Commission noted,that the costs related'to our ,

. work at Hanford had been placed outside the fee base, and we specifically i- I

mentioned Agreement State training and travel, and international programs as i

areas needing similar legislative relief. We would welcome your support of. .

j such a legislative solution to the Agreement State training, and' travel; issue. l 1

\

Sincerely, .

~

/

'/ James M. Taylor

, Ewcutive Director j for Operations ,

Enclosures:

1 As stated ,'

} l Distribution.

ED0 RF (GT96844) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES X --

NO )

SECY (CRC-96-1123)

DIR RF  ;

JMTaylor i HLThompson RLBangart '

PLohaus

. SDroggitis j DSollenberger  ;

, Reimbursement Cost File New Mexico File i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ RICHARDSON.DMS To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without

attachment /enclosureo _"E" = Copy wJth attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy

) 0FFICE OSP /4h/, OSP:04 7 OSP:Dl'Is DEDS l EDO l l NAME DMSollenbergerb kk PHtohitIsh RLBanga K " HLThompson JMTaylor DATE 11/ n /96 11/fl/96 11/ M /96 11/ /96 11/ /96 OSP FILE CODE: SP-R-14, SP-AG-19

e, 2. .

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROMt DUE: 11/18/96 EDO CONTROL: G960844 DOC DT: 10/30/96 R:p. Bill Richardson FINAL REPLY:

TO:

Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN **

CRC NO: 96-1123 Executive Director

'DESC:

ROUTING:

ENCLOSES LETTER FROM MARK E. WEIDLER, NEW MEXICO Taylor ENVIRONMENT DEPT. RE NEW MEXICO'S PARTICIPATION Milhaon IN THE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM Thompson Blaha j DATEt 11/05/96 ,

ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

SP Bangart s_

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: --

Raf. GT96810 & GT96795.

u o ,s .

<= 4

!a

~

to

r .,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-96-1123 LOGGING DATE: Nov 1 96 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR:' REP. BILL RICHARDSON AFFILIATION: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE: Oct 30 96 FILE CODE: IDER 15

SUBJECT:

AGREEMENT STATES POLICY ON FINANICAL SUPPORT FOR TRAINING ACTION: Signature of EDO DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN SPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK CONSTITUENT: MARK-WEIDLER NOTES:

DATE DUE: Nov 96 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

i l

i EDO -- G960844 j

4 l , , .

sa c;.vRev. Ne** ue ne BILL RICHARDSON cou nr .

l l 2m nav.oT5'Szi su.or No CHIEF DEPUTY WHIP I

=2= - Yc = ,. - -

Huseau Couusssa ON HUuAN Revs l

1 E'ongrcss of the Enited #5tates 110DSC Of RCDCCSCHlatiDCS Hlashington, BC 20115-3103 October 30,1996 Chairwoman Shirley Ann Jackson United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Mail Stop: 016 GIS l Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairwoman Jackson:

l I am writing to you about an issue which was brought to my attention by an

important constituent. I am forwarding the attached letter to l appreciate assistance in resolving the relevant issues it raises.you and would grea t

I am concerned about the matter outlined in the attached, and I believe your office would both want to know of this situation and be able to effectively address the l concerns raised. I look forward to your response.

l Thank you for your attention to this matter. IfI can provide you further information please do not hesitate to contact me or John Sloan of my staff.

Wi warm regards, i

Bill Richardson Chief Deputy Whip BR/js l

I i

I I I s

, psTRcf 0FFcts EANTA FE: Guam Las VEGAa: Ro RANCHO; CLOVIS; i SAN <N 87 2No ANo Art & r rTs PO m Rio NM 87174 Cto a M0802 l

• Tau".*e"' at>'a"M" " ' * " " ' * '

• THt$ $YATON(RV PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF Rt. CYCLED FIBERS N [ ,

e, - A ,

if2% State ofNew Mexico

(( k; hk{

ENVIRONMENTDEPARTMENT Harold Runnels Building h"Qll . 1190 St. Francis Drive, P.O. Box 26110 R(Q/ Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502 (505) 827 2850 uAnx s. wtsDtra sEcRErn Y GARYE. JOHNSON sDGAR T. THORNTON,Ill GOVERNOR DEPUTYSECRETAR Y September 18,1996 The Honorable Bill Richardson United States Representative 2209 Rayburn House Of0ce Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Richardson:

New Mexico became an Agreement State in 1974. The 1978 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act requires the NRC to periodically review Agreement State Programs. New Mexico's Radiation Control Program has always met the requirements to protect the public health and safety. Amendments to the New Mexico Radiation Protection Regulations, which became effective in May 1995, kept the state's program in compliance with NRC requirements.

Historically, the NRC has maintained a continuing relationship with each Agreement State to assure continued compatibility of the State's regulatory program and its adequacy to protect health and safety.

This relationship included, among other things, training of Agreement State regulatory staffs at no l charge to the participants. Beginning October 1996, the NRC will begin charging the Agreement States  ;

such as New Mexico for all training needs. l New Mexico's Radiation Control Program is funded wholly from the State General Fund and monies are unavailable to support training programs for staff previously sponsored by NRC. j The Department believes that the minimal support (approximately $15,000 per year) provided to New Mexico through the States Agreement Program is a bargain for the NRC and should be continued.

Should the NRC be required to assume regulatory responsibility for the state byproduct programs based on rescission of the agreement, the cost to the NRC would be substantial compared to the minimal support now provided to New Mexico.

If financial assistance for Radiation Control Program personnel training is not restored New Mexico will have to look seriously at returning its emire Radiation Centrol Program to the NRC. Such an action would undoubtedly lead to the closure of many of the State's smaller businesses licensed to I possess and use radioactive materials, since they will be unable to conform to the NRC's ever-  !

escalating fee schedule.  !

Your assistance in petitioning NRC to amend its policy and restore financial support for the training needs of the Agreement States is strongly encouraged and will be greatly appreciated.

l Please contact Mr. Benito J. Garcia or Mr. William Floyd of my staff at (505) 827-1557 should you l have any questio .

1 Sincer ',

l

/

Mark E. Weidler, Secretary New Mexico Environment Department MEW:lr Attachment

p

/ S" umno states

\

g NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION l WASMH0STON, D.C. stees east j f* \,,,,, Decenber 4, 1996

.The Honorable Bill Richardson i United States House of Representatives ,

j Washington, D.C. 20515 l l

l

Dear Congressman Richardson:

. Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1996 which forwarded a i September 18, 1996 letter from Mr. Mark Weidler, Secretary of the New Mexico 4

! Environment Department, expressing concern about the Nuclear Regulatory i

Commission policy to discontinue funding for Agreement State training. This  ;

! Policy went into effect on October 1, 1996. l 1 i

! As you may know, the Commission has initiated a Strategic Assessment and l

Rebaselining effort that includes a review of the relationship between the NRC l t

and the Agreement States. Funding of Agreement State training is again being i addressed in this evaluation, and the NRC has conducted several public

meetings to discuss this, along with other issues. While the Commission has l not made a final decision on this matter, a majority of the Commission is preliminarily in favor of a compromise position in which the NRC would provide training to Agreement Stctes without charge on a " space available" basis, i Funding for travel and technical assistance would be borne by the Agreement j / States. Our objectives in the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining effort with respect to this issue are to determine an equitable method of funding and

! an appropriate scope for NRC's Agreement State activities.

! The Commission believes that the stakeholders' comments (from Agreement and non-Agreement States, Agreement and non-Agreement State licensees, and members 1 of the public) will be important in the final resolution of this difficult l issue. Your comments certainly will be considered in the analysis. 1 Therefore, I have forwarded your October 30, 1996 letter with its enclosure to i the Secretary of the Commission to be addressed as a comment on the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining effort, Direction Setting Issue 4, NRC's

! Relationship with Agreement States. We welcome your further comments on this j and other Strategic Issues. For your information, I have enclosed the public

{ announcement and package of Direction-Setting Issues (DSI) that the Commission J released for discussion at the public meetings.

The Commission recently informed the staff that it does not object to the j staff implementing its preliminary views on training discussed above. NRC

! expects that space available training partially will reduce the need for i i Agreement States to seek training from other sources or to develop their own i training courses and the financial burdens of doing so. Additionally, a 3

working group consisting of representatives from tae NRC and Agreement States already has been formed to evaluate the ongoing evolution of training programs 4

for Agreement State personnel, the criteria for evaluation of Agreement State  ;

programs in the area of training qualification, and possible training options  ;

{ for Agreement State personnel.

4 i

{' h wnsM y:

NRc Fill CENTEIrlC6W W H9 ,!

Th2 Honorable Bill Richardson ,

The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and training reimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) from fees from our licensees. The Commission has long recognized the need to

. address the fairness and equity issues resulting from the expenditure of NRC i fee-based budget resources on costs, such as funding for Agreement State training, that cannot be attributed to an individual licensee or class of licensees. In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy Review, the Commission described these fairness issues and recommended that i

legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately. The Commission reaffirmed that recommendation in

a response to a question from Representative Dan Schaefer that resulted from

. the September 5,1996 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and l Power. In that response, the Commission noted that the costs related to our

! work at Hanford had been placed outside the fee base, and we specifically j mentioned Agreement State training and travel and international programs as 4

areas needing similar legislative relief. We would welcome your support of

such a legislative solution to the Agreement State training and travel issue.

Sincerely,

. 2 /'

.s es M. T lor ecutive irector j for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated v

J 1

4 4

5 4

4 p

l The Hon::rable Bill Richardscn '

The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and training reimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) from fees from our licensees. The Commission has long recognized the need to address the fairness and equity issues resulting from the expenditure of NRC fee-based budget resources on costs, such as funding for Agreement State training, that cannot be attributed to an individual licensee or class of 4 licensees. In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy Review, the Commission described these fairness issues and recommended that legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately. The Commission reaffirmed that recommendation in a response to a question from Representative Dan Schaefer that resulted from the September 5, 1996 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. In that response, the Cosmiission noted that the costs related to our work at Hanford had been placed outside the fee base, and we specifically mentioned Agreement State training and travel and international programs as areas needing similar legislative relief. We would welcome your support of such a legislative solution to the Agreement State training and travel issue.

Sincerely, E

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated 4

I Distribution:

ED0 RF (GT96844) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES X NO )

SECY (CRC-96-ll23)

DIR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis -

M DSo11enberger Reimbursement Cost File OhM/7bg New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ RICHARDSON.DMS *See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy i 0FFICE OSP l OSP:DDl OSP:D DEDS l EDQ f !

NAME DMSo11enberger:kk* PHLohaus* RLBangart* HLThompson JMTaylopT DATE 11/27/96 11/27/96 q 11/27/96 11/ /96 111 p/96 OSP FILE CODE: SP-R-14, SP-AG-19 i

The Hon:rable Bill Richardstn '

The fundamental dilema which we face in the Agreement Stat travel and training reimbursemehl issue derives from the need to rec er the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level wast related expenses) from fees from our licensees. The Commission has lon ecognized the need to i address the fairness and equity issues associated wi charging fees to NRC l licensees for activities which do not benefit them uch as funding for l Agreement State Training). In its 1994 report to he Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy Review, the Commission descri d these fairness issues and recommended that legislation be enacted to exc de these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately The Commission reaffirmed that recommendation in a response to a question f om Representative Dan Schaefer that resulted from the September 5, 1996 h ring before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. In that response, t Commission noted that the costs related to our work at Hanford had been aced outside the fee base, and we specifically mentioned Agreement State raining and travel and international programs as areas needing similar leg lative relief. We would welcome your i support of such a legislative soluti to the Agreement State training and travel issue.

Sincerely, l l

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated Distribution:

EDO RF (GT96844) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES X NO )

SECY (CRC-96-ll23 DIR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis DSollenberge Reimbursemen Cost File New Mexico ile DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ RICHARDSON.DMS *See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C' - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy 0FFICE OSP OSP:DDl OSP:D DEDS ED0 NAME DMSollenberger:kk* PHLohaus* RLBangart* HLThompson JMTaylor DATE 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/ /96 11/ /96 OSP FILE CODE: SP-R-14, SP-AG-19 y

. {

l The Hon:rable Bill Richardson ,

The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and l training reimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast l l preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses)

, from fees from our licensees. The Commission has long recognized the need to

{ address the fairness and equity issues resulting from the expenditure of NRC

fee-based budget resources on costs, such as funding for Agreement State i training, that cannot be attributed to an individua licensee or class of

licensees. In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy

Review, the Commission described these fairness issues and recommended that i legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the C's user-fee base and j appropriate them separately. The Commission reaffi that recommendation in

! a response to a question from Representative Dan Sch for that resulted from

! the September 5,1996 hearing before the House Subcamoittee on Energy sand l Power. In that response, the Commission noted theti the costs related to our I work at Hanford had been placed outside the fee b6se, and we specifically i

! mentioned Agreement State training and travel and international programs as

! areas needing similar legislative relief. We Would welcome your support of j such a legislative solution to the Agreement State training and travel issue.

l Sincerely,

! /

l 1

/

/

l / James M. Taylor

! / Executive Director l

/ for Operations i ,

Enclosures:

/

l As stated '

1

) ,

1 l

i /

I , i i

Distribution:

l' EDO RF (GT96844) DCD (SP08) PDR (YES X-- NO )

SECY (CRC-96-ll23) <

DIR RF JMTaylor /

HLThompson /

RLBangart /

PLohaus SDroggitis DSo11enberger /

Reimbursement Cost File s New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ RICHARDSON.DMS To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" - Copy without attachment /enclosurea _'E" - Copy w; th attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy 0FFICE OSP NM OSP:DK q, OSP:Dfl e, DEOS l EDO l NAME DMSollenbergen tk PHLohh sk RLBangaW"' HLThompson JMTaylor DATE II/ h /96 II/f /$ ll/d?/96 11/ /96 11/ /96 05P FILE CODE: SP-R-14, SP-AG-19 I'

. . w

w. -o

. . ~ e s m, m...o g: . o.> . e.

e -

b Ok*g a ,

a >

' - 4 .+-

w' e 3 t .

.c y yn gg* ; %g' g h ";*

s ,@ g g . 7 gjg , we w.d

-4, Q 9:.yum

.a ny: e- .

W. ,,mmp+w:mdk= g hhiMk, ,h i y v... we 4.kkgwgew,.4 ;o wj

~

4, , p ..a4 r a.p

., a ,S~z m 9me,c .: ewm% w6 p np %wg V pwvv ew..

t .~ a .. y. najy

@w n w,wq

n. w n.c.

v9 ~ .

ace"Controln * ;"g xu W'p...

z . .,n,

,AeA . say 9,y -

i ~, .

.a ,, .

• n' a

. .' + ~

fQd.%%Qgp%y -.m W %Vr Q' W &uQ M W Q W;%.

kh%' NDl,N. L :;Q ' *V m,3@4W$

qg 3.%m4# i gME:ll/18/96 yyhDb$$YE% , g. peg

1. yng gn g.e; D N N)W ns k + bi@ q

% E'

'%. m $ w L J,CL DEDO. CONTROL: G960844 ,

y Q j,.& p y ;f g E h ei4 40CLDT q10/30/96

+Mhp!:&r:M . J.Rd@@gh.Q&M6fM@fiqE8Enmis uGQ&y @;p 4 46W w - tm -

h.&$ . m h h GWYW???D'YWT Y s M D.gh W VW 3 5NYNg & & j$ ?l$$0 hfW b 3:hairman

" %fy% G.

Jackson V4fd Q G a Q n; Q y p h.y dW $$M%$ WMO peg l $. @fMy$%M@WM 'W

%y%

MMMM,MD b**b,MAMfdC5tC QQQQQQ @.%f4 Noi'.j j'1123  ?

' " +Q

~C ~El ~

m Q&. 4R.wmf +

m TURE.0F I.

- ml.,&

m m f Z'Q M xQv ) . -

~~1 Lg.p%;&Q QLf.4%gi.;,.

96-s.

MM

'Esecutive'

. w^ gs # M e p Direc$ar NpW% $WFMMM:Qfgg*Q&v W WE ef4 SW- .y.Af$.2 -f 0

N rkg$9 M?h @9 @* %s,%;*G/1 * ' N@? u;jN

. hip: Idh *p@MW yd 2.e m.m .m n 4m & m.a W N Wg.% NeM M M,f =g W ROUTING:? $T5' -

SM 7 M r' @'. h(

y@My% q ,J o/g m '

b pfpe --

gy. %m@' m j..

ES . LE'ETER Fast 3EMtK ' E.1FEIDLER,+MU ~ IEEEICO . : ETaylor " g%"

, Lgg

. , WE IROIREENT DEPT. 4E NEW IEEEIC0f 8 MRTICIPATIOpt MOttilhaon , & W

.. yAGREEBEENT' STATE PROMAlf r ' Nd

1. h f ( ,

pg , ,7 h ,jeg N _ .h ; 7 S.jg

1. .. m'a"Vf%.e-Mn...R-lw .,;,- b M [ # .hkOkE,ff Thompson #e e S m J,d,

[h&[hM, N 1 e

l'. g, .4

.{"

Rh% %hlMl.MNMYNYNNN$$bh af((9@&, QQ W CMM -'

Mh a ll/05/J6<> j f y..p LA% Q.Q ju<.f &:Q

' / N h.7 } >/8 %f

b M., h f .f  % Ke~ ,o(

m- 4 'r w ,Q . , ',*Is . . ,

.Q as . . .a f I

. .m& w o 3, p ,stw-[: ' %[g' . t. m('M <*E,9,p L, tPe,,c / W[&

e  % ,t

.{ epm a, 4w , J E ,. 3 4F % ta/

3.

e '?E

, 1

,rt mo g wy WM, 4is 1

S *' .' , a{ '. vw. , b# ' 4 e a

t,<* n 4 jI; Ay, -

y y.

-ifeg;@ % q Mk.;;;hM#d&d%($3 Q omn s gm394 eP %v  :-% # q4 w.ge r&e-; e$g)3mg  ! '

e Qw%%n .,eqG @m . ggy e'.% Q@F' ' ]

m-atRiesTaucTsoNsusa- -: w

'g p gmgppqW +

%g> y_

~s % j W_ ~.68 1 F;4 W 5 3 5 $%

w q% A;ggyg "4W,.W @"A wt h 3#g@d@W4MW W s,49 W; v  : M e. M spusku#b+ds4MWpnWQt%gM%Wi8

- -  %. . ,. -g.y m

d

~ Q, . 's,VmMs , _oMh4 ,Mfnn n%[wddd s w ' _x'hh y k' w+h jd,k m .nx 3 1

[. +

• a gRL yhN~eg%.n&,Mfh,k,.k.b y1 fsy,

~ - ,

hM h p,,f Q.;I.[ fw p, p (*

%a 7 , D.: : jw.,, ,n Myib+, d; MF. ~t . ~+

g %[4 gf ., *i b 9

h.

s

- , m j,y~p?n; 9;;

4 .

( M'M 4p'4 . ' "g - 04 gs y yg% 2 w My.,' w 4 - , . m rMMe w *g p m yh_ r. ,

. g wv-r

.%,s% n ymyg+g,

.,  ;' y,0,1 n M,

'.W" y x o

__ Gy ge.c,

^^

s 1. s, - 1 pr . . dg' a e" > ;=<-.

y..

w'

• , y. >

J

{

C ,# a .

4;.

tm u f,a;.ee

,m- *+: * , . y' h. a rt p s .w . ** A .

,s.

g np :rqa ,f u j- ,+4

--..Os (ex* . g$$y$$ -

,. 'wS , Af *.

w . w m

g 1,% n. mr

.g

, z

' b,r - . y%,, y m%c; y,m.y .b.,pg% n. ;g4p  ; u w1-Y . ,. -

1 y-g ym -

kk.$m m s ~ m* &

h v g.,,s;r g*p~+npV, , , . ,.. , . PNA g *M 4

k c wsgg og m w A-,ve, i

w g

,g.,.,_y

<N*o y5 c [' .

'g r%*' .;

y m

__ M, .,

. y . s-F

~;p'

'?y 7.L .); 1 9, - s

+ : ;,% .

.% , y 'v. .

+ ~

y, k$',17 & SQ!7;fy ..9e4 A *i.;A,J.' W,~n- #FFICE OF THE SECRETARY ~

//20$P[,9 ' ' [1 Uhl74. Q 400RRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET

z. 's: n-G.g . .

. r. nv_ ,

.' r L, ,

rJd  ; W 1133

~

. IDGGING DATE: Nov 1 96 l g% .e..i,3 ; y, P&PER ,MRIBER: 'z * .c m -

1 . . ..

m*

g, o ' sACTION OFFICE: EDO y.

" ' -AUTHOR: REP. SILL RICHARDSON b AFFILIATION: U.S. MOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES i'

' ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE: Oct 30 96 FILE CODE: IDER 15 E ',,

SUBJECT:

AGREEMENT STATES POLICY ON FINANICAL SUPPORT FOR k TRAINING , . ,

v.

i. . ACTION: I

.K Signature of EDO i

.[ '

. DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN

q r' CPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK r

I CONSTITUENT: NARK WEIDLER Y. NOTES:

DATE DUE: Nov 96

?- 1

. SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

kn AFFILIATION: ,

i k,

p e

a rr

p.

• I v

• s i

K,3 r,, - . i Y; l a.

+

+ 4,g.

v;, ., i.

,9 ,

~

. rue .3

,.i

+. ,

% o ; '..% "

~jyg .<; e , p.  ; , r_ c  :(e , ,

n' . . , - ;. ;.~ n , 4;, ,, ,

. . , r y. >! s J.( w '** v t n.

n ,, s , t , .

q 9. .<, 4 .. ,. -,

,b . . . e ,- .

m v mp .- ,a .- ~w. w < -

f m n. m, F M ",= . ;. 1 , , 7 gp ,

4 ,

.s u

q. ,

r

-.c. .

%.s. ,

iL:t. t..jp ,f ,. - g.,

y ;;a ',. ,

. ml y-. eM,,

c,, R. t, - J ,,, a EDO -- G960844 w

1 .. s 4

• [ t.

• a y .- 3 "es . *M af - ! j.

J ,

y '*

i...,'*..w., ('y, , . "g' 5 s c 't ,

,, p .

+- ,. j, t

,,<.a

. . , . . w , . gn.4 ,,.7, w r.ce=. ss

- LIV 'i -

-e 4.5

' b ,, ' * , .. , (, :3v. ". s.;}

4

. } , . ,".. %: - a.t' e y ,r

't.

p4[:!AW,3.y.

7 .i,q-v,$:

. Q' *: e-

,, * , ge,s, 'b *n- ,, . ' ,. ..

] k' ' , . k f+4.N , . .

A

~

ho-T. * * "" c-nur BILL RICHARDSON em Ra *****"o,;,c,

% sou,,,,, CHfF DEPUTY WHtP

=a.. .-,c-,,_-.--

_ _ _ , . 1 I

l Eongress of the tinited #5tatts

$100st Of Representati0ts Washington, BE 20$15-1103 l October 30,1996 Chairwoman Shirley Ann Jackson United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: Ol6 GIS Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairwoman Jackson:

I am writing to you abor! an icoe which was brought to my attention by an I important constituent. I am forwarding the attached letter to you and would greatly I appreciate assistance in resolving the relevant issues it raises.

I am concerned about the matter outlined in the attached, arxi I believe your office would both want to know of this situation and be able to effectively address the concerns raised. I look forward to your response.  ;

i Thank you for your attention to this matter. IfI can provide you further information please do not hesitate to contact me or John Sloan of my staff.

Wi warm regards, Bill Richardson Chief. Deputy Whip tusTRCT OFFCES

$assia Ft: Gauur Las VrGas: Re Rasscno: Ctoms:

Saen 2mo aee Ar,s 8 ris i=,a NMn=7606 O 906 Reo Rae cwoIe.d8,717e CL 02 Gagmggi ta.=goi <=>= <=> =o TMS ETATossERV Pfue(TED ON PAPER htADE OF RECVCLED Festets y

~

stage 07 Ivew arexsco

- ~ ~ ~

ENV1RONMENTDEPARTMENT

{. } Harold Runnels Building  ;

1190 St. Francis Drive, P.O. Box 26110 l h.. .

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502 nwurs. wxwLER i, , (605) 827-2850 sacRRrARY GARYE. JOHNSON EDGAR T. THoRNroN.m l OOYEANOR DEPUTYBnCRETARY September 18,1996

)

The Honorable Bill Richanison United States Representative 2209 Rayburn House Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20515 l

Dear Representative Richardson:

New Mexico became an Agreement State in 1974. The 1978 amendroent to the Atomic Energy Act '

requires the NRC to periodically review Agreement State Programs. New Mexico's Radiation Control Program has always met the requirements to protect the public health and safety. Amendments to the New Mexico Radiation Protection Regulations, which became effective in May 1995, kept the state's program in compliance with NRC requirements.  ;

Historically, the NRC has maintained a continuing relationship with each Agreement State to assure continued compatibility of the State's regulatory program and its adequacy to protect health and safety.

This relationship included, among other things, training of Agreement State regulatory staffs at no charge to the participants. Beginning October 1996, the NRC will begin charging the Agreement States such as New Mexico for all training needs.

New Mexico's Radiation Control Program is funded wholly from the State General Fund and monies -

are unavailable to support training programs for staff previously sponsored by NRC.

The Department believes that the minimal support (approximately $15,000 per year) provided to New ,

Mexico through the States Agreement Program is a bargain for the NRC and should be continued. l Should the NRC be required to assume regulatory responsibility for the state byproduct programs based on rescission of the agreement, the cost to the NRC would be substantial compared to the minunal support now provided to New Mexico.

If financial assistance for Radiation Control Program xtsonnel training is not restored, New Mexico j will have to look seriously at remrning its entire Rmintion Control Program to the NRC. Such an action would undoubtedly lead to the closure of many of the State's smaller businesses licensed to possess and use radioactive materials, since they will be unable to conform to the NRC's ever-escalating fee schedule.

Your assistance in petitioning NRC to amend its policy and restore fm' ancial support for the traimng needs of the Agreement States is strongly encouraged and will be greatly appreciated.

Please contact Mr. Benito J. Garcia or Mr. William Floyd of my staff at (505) 827-1557 should you have any questio Since ,

[ _

l Mark E. Weidler, Secretary .

New Mexico Environment Department l MEW:Ir Attachment

_