ML20133A129
| ML20133A129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1996 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Schiff S HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612300077 | |
| Download: ML20133A129 (14) | |
Text
DG$P47) au d
UNITED STATES l
y g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001 Drw W r 4, 1996 The Honorable Steven H. Schiff United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Schiff:
Thank you for your October 9,1996 letter which forwarded a September 18, 1996 letter from Mr. Mark Weidler, Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department, expressing concern about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy to discontinue funding for Agreement State training. This policy went into effect on October 1, 1996.
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 j
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 preliminarily in favor of a compromise position in which the NRC would provide training to Agreement States without charge on a " space available" basis.
Funding for travel and technical assistance would be borne by the Agreement 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 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 9, 1996 letter to 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 and other Strategic Issues.
For your information, I have enclosed the public announcement and package 'f Direction-Setting Issues (DSI) that the Commission 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 training courses and the financial burdens of doing so. Additionally, a working group consisting of representatives from the NRC and Agreement States
)
already has been formed to evaluate the ongoing evolution of training programs for Agreement State personnel, the criteria for evaluation of Agreement State I
programs in the area of training qualification, and possible training options
(
for Agreement State personnel.
9612300077 961204 50
{g PDR STPRG ESGN NRR RE CEMIS BGPV sg o _ g
i The Honorable S. H. Schiff '
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 Dar, 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 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,
/
\\"esM.T[
1 or
- ecutive irector for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated i
i
i a
The Honorable S. H. Schiff 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 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 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, M
N mamm.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
EDO RF (GT96795)
)
SECY (CRC-96-1070)
DIR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis DSollenberger Reimbursement Cost File New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SCHIFF.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 OFFICE OSP OSP:DD OSP:D l DEDS l
QDp NAME DMSollenberger:kk' PHLohaus' RLBangart' HLThompson JMTaflor DATE 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/ /96
" 1 W '2/96 2M
/h
l l
The Honorable S. H. Schiff N The funda' mental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and training rsimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) x l
from fees from our licensees. The Commission has long recognized the need to address the fairness and equity issues associated with charging fees to NRC licensees for activities which do not benefit them (such as funding for Agreement State Training).
In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's License Fee Policy Review, the Commission described these fairness issues and I
recommended that legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the NRC's l
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 s
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 solhtion to the Agreement State training and travel issue.
\\
s Sincerely, James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
EDO RF (GT96795)
NO
)
SECY (CRC-96-1070)
DlR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis DSollenberger Reimbursement Cost File New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SCHIFF.DMS
'See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy ithout attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" ='No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:DD OSP:D DEDS \\l EDO NAME DMSollenberger:kk' PHLohaus' RLBangart' HLThompson JMTaylor DATE 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/ /96 11/ /96 i
OSP FILE CODE: SP-H-14, SP-AG-19
The Honorable S. H. Schiff 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 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 licensen.
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 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,
/
James M. Taylo'r
/
Executive Director
/
for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated j
Distribution:
EDO RF (GT96795)
)
SECY (CRC-96-1070)
DIR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis j
DSollenberger Reimbursement Cost File New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SCHIFF.DMS To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure
,"E" = Copy w%h attachment /englosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSPfQ ()
OSQyj OSP:D((j[(
DEDS l
EDO l
NAME DMSollenbergehkk PHLohaus RLBangart HLThompson JMTaylor DATE 110'{/96 11/)j/96 11py/96 11/ /96 11/ /96 OSP FILE CODE: SP-H-14, SP-AG-19
~
~
ACTION i
I i
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROMt DUE: 10/31/96 EDO CONTROL: GT96795 i
DOC DT: 10/09/96 FINAL REPLY:
l R p. Steven Schiff i
TO 4
4 Chairman Jackson i
FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO: 96-1070 Executive Director 8
ROUTING:
-ENCL. LETTER FROM MARK WEIDLER, STATE OF NEW Taylor 3
MEXICO, RE FUNDING FOR TRAINING IN AGREEMENT Milhoan STATES Thompson Blaha DATE: 10/21/96 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
a l
SP Bangart i
~
-SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
d 4
i I
l
4,
]*
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-96-1070 LOGGING DATE: Oct 16 96 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
REP. STEVEN SCHIFF AFFILIATION:
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES i
ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE:
Oct 9 96 FILE CODE: ID&R 15
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS RE AGREEMENT STATES ACTION:
Signature of EDO DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN SPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
/-
DATE DUE:
Oct 30 96 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
i EDO -- GT96795
,/'*
STEVEN SCHIFF PLEASE REPLY TO FinsjDstmet. ktw MEXICO C 2404 RaveuRN BulLDING suecou-m o%~e scsE.ac, (6ottgress af fl}c flititch $ tales
- ^;o";ygs & "
C s
COMMf7TEf oN SCIENCE liottse of }lepresetitatibes
%.lington, IIC 2a515-3101 O c2s Ev7a"A EN cou.meYoD"".Nr nE,onu i
,SW
^*
Atsuout E M 87102 (505) 766-2538 CouurrrEE ON THE JuoiciAny CouwmE ON STANDARDS OF oncAtco~ouct October 9,1996 The Honorable Shirley Jackson Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Dear Madam Chairman:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to me from Mark Weidler, Secretag of the New Mexico Environment Department. Secretary Weidler is concerned about a recent decision by the NRC to begin charging states, identified as Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act, for training regulatoy staffin state regulatory programs.
It is my understanding that the NRC has historically reimbursed states for their efforts in keeping their radiation control programs in compliance with NRC requirements.
In addition, Secretary Weidler maintains in his letter that NRC reimbursement for states carrying out these activities is less costly than would be the case if the NRC were to assume regulatoy responsibility.
Please review Secretay Weidler's letter and respond to me regarding the reasons that the NRC decided to cease reimbursement at this time. Also, I am interested in whether the NRC intends to revisit this matter given the arguments made by New Mexico's State Environment Department and others.
Thank you very much fc,r your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely, mS Steven H. Schiff 1
\\
l i
1 l
THIS STATIONCHY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE Of RECYCLED FIBERS b k.L 4 V
- b L/
}
-~ - ~~~~~"-~~~~~
,[0/1s/p6 CED 09:56 FAI 2022257815 BASIC RESEARCH StBCOMTE
@ 002
! ". # [
OCT-67-1996 14:10 FROM STEVE SCHIFF 5057661674 TO 912PO7X7815 P.22 i
,{l I
i.
>R
' State'ofNeto Mexico' i
- L.
i X
'l
[
ENVBONMENTDEPAKEnGNT 9
1; NeroWBuanaisRuddnig.
,., y. q
~-
i
,,,.o g,, y,,,,;, y,g;,, p_o, y,, yno
) si[ 'h y,
I i
Santa Fe, New Moeico 87509 m rzznunusa 1,
(505)stfdag n
adcurm
\\ ava'hizJanNaow I:
snedr:rnaawnw.m n
,,-r===
- j i ll
' September 18,1996
)
'i.
e
.I 4.,
i; h NhornblAStadenIf Schiff l
5@ENb E3 E Ef '
.! MtUnited@yburn.tates :psive' 1
i ;: 240("Ra d
~
! d. :Washinqgion, D.C.J20511..
p
.[' FE
Dear Reptementatif Schiff:
i
^
B;.;c MiM' a:n g. il.a:= 4 Statb.in:1974. The 1978 amendment to G
- s; L '" i h
t.
d.
... o
- 1-xico
'n i
M 1 l tog he NRC p--- k1y review' Agreement State Programs. ' New M@o's Radiation Control
.i t Prograni has;always. met the r' equirenwnes to protect the public ticalth and safesy.' Amendments to the i
1 ji.' New Mexico Radiadion Protection Regulations, which became effective in May 1995, kept the state's gi... program in compliance with NRC requirements.
d M.iilistorically,.$c NNC has m'aintainad a continuing relationship with each Agreement Statei to assure Qi sossianeid
~inc,ity of the State's regulatory program and its adequacy to protect health and i 4 This telations.
luded, amorg other things, tran' tixg of Apht State regulatory
- H such as $y%e participants. 'Beginmag October 1996 its ement States
'; :;p >
eiw Mexic,o for all traimatr needs.
lthheW MOlco's Radiation Control'1% gram is funded wholly from the State General Pund and m
[: f are unsMlableito support training programs for staff previously sponsored by NRC.
.WThe Dep'1artmeat believes that:the mirtimal support (approximanely $15,000 per yea i.
q; MexicoIt,prough theiStases Agreement Program is a. bargain for the NRC and shoud be continued y Sh6uld its NRC be' required to asisme regulatory responsibility for the state byproduct programs based 1, 'on rescission of the! agreement, the cost to the NRC would be substantini compared to the mini==!
' support'now provideid to New Mexico.
o q
,;.. If financial assistance for Radiation Control Program penonnel training is not restored, New Mexico U swill tinyplso,looie-
..at returnin y.Icad td thie'g its endre Ramarian Control Pidgram to the NRCa Su'ch o
>}d feijad,aug ~ "
closure of many 'of the State's smaller businesses Wa=i to 1 [possessfand use radioactive' niatdrials,i'ince they wm be unable to conform to the NRD's ever-s p1 escalatinkifee'sched Je.
in t
'd.,
U MoiirIaarMtance!in fedt!ba-NRC to amend its policy and restore financial support for thi training 4 needs efishe Agreement States is strongly encouraged and will be greatly appreciated.
i P y h
- [ Pjense cdistact lar. Benito J. Garcia or Mr. William Floyd of my staff at (505) 827-1557 should you
.: i,[have any/W.y.
- } W. ;
?
ll j Sinc '
i4iJ y.
- 4..
o y
t Mark'E. Wdidierfsh[:retpry.
',- i.NSarl$ciico On miukat Department ij n
f qh Md1 i
., s y
k UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
W ASHINGTON. D.C. 30886 4001 e% *****/
n, m b e 4, 1996 4
The Honorable Steven H. Schiff United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Schiff:
Thank you for your October 9,1996 letter which forwarded a September 18, 1996 letter from Mr. Mark Weidler, Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department, expressing concern about the Nuclear Regulatory Comission policy to discontinue funding for Agreement State training. This policy went into effect on October 1, 1996.
j 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
)
4 addressed in this evaluation, and the NRC has conducted several public I
i meetings to discuss this, along with other issues. While the Comission has not made a final decision on this matter, a majority of the Comission is preliminarily in favor of a compromise position in which the NRC would provide training to Agreement States without charge on a " space available" basis.
Funding for travel and technical assistance would be borne by the Agreement 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 Comission believes that the stakeholders' coments (from Agreement and non-Agreement States, Agreement and non-Agreement State licensees, and members of the public) will be important in the final resolution of this difficult issue. Your coments certainly will be considered in the analysis.
Therefore, I have forwarded your October 9,1996 letter to the Secretary of the Comission to be addressed as a coment on the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining effort, Direction Setting Issue 4,' NRC's Relationship with Agreement States. We welcome your further coments on this and other Strategic Issues.
For your information, I have enclosed the public announcement and package of Direction-Setting Issues (DSI) that the Comission
~,
released for discussion at the public meetings.
The Comission 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 training courses and the financial burdens of doing so. Additionally, a working group consisting of representatives from the NRC and Agreement States already has been formed to evaluate the ongoing evolution of training programs 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.
5 0 8 M-Itf NRC RT 075 CCPV g.y g tw 4 ber
!~l.
The Honorable S. H. Schiff,
The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and i
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 j
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 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
In that response, the Commission noted that the costs related to our i
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,
/
es
.T or ecutive irector for Operations i
Enclosures:
As stated l
o 4
The Honorable S. H. Schiff 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 hearing before the House Subconsnittee 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 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, M
U i
ammE j
James M. Taylor Executive Director l
for Operations
Enclosures:
t As stated Distribution:
EDO RF (GT96795)
)
SECY (CRC-96-1070)
DIR RF JMTaylor
]
HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis DSollenberger 4
Reimbursement Cost File New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SCHIFF.DMS
'See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indcate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD l OSP:D l DEDS l
dD,Q l
NAME DMSollenberger:kk' PHLohaus' RLBangart
- HLThompson JMfaflor DATE 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/27/96 11/ /96 "I tA W96
$Y1b
k The Honorable S. H. Schiff \\
The fundamental dilesnia which we face in the Agreement State travel and l
trainingre@ursementissuederivesfromtheneedtorecoverthevast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) from fees fromhur licensees. The Commission has long recognized the need to i
address the fairness and equity issues associated with charging fees to NRC i
licensees for acti ties which do not benefit them (such as funding for Agreement State Tra ng).
In its 1994 report to the Congress on the NRC's i
License Fee Policy R iew, the Comunission described these fairness issues and recommendedthatlegisktionbeenactedtoexcludethesecostsfromtheNRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately. The Commission reaffirmed that x
{
recommendation in a responge to a question from Representative Dan Schaefer i
that resulted from the Sept r 5,1996 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
In tha response, the Commission noted that the costs related to our work at Hanfor had been placed outside the fee base, and we specifically mentioned Agreemen State training and travel and international t
programs as areas needing simila legislative relief. We would welcome your support of such a legislative sol tion to the Agreement State training and travel issue.
Sincerely, James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
EDO RF (GT96795)
_X_
NO__)
SECY (CRC-96-1070)
DIR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis DSollenberger Reimbursement Cost File New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SCHIFF.DMS
- See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indcate in the box: "C" = Copy ithout attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" =
o copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD l OSP:D l DEDS \\l EDO 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-H-14, SP-AG-19
l{'
i 3-!I' The Honorable S. H. Schiff The fundamental dilemma which we face in the Agreement State travel and 1
training reimbursement issue derives from the need to recover the vast preponderance of our budget (other than high-level waste-related expenses) i from fees from our licensees. The Commission has long recq0'nized the need to address the fairness and equity issues resulting from t 4xpenditure of NRC fee-based budget resources on costs, such as funding fo reement State training, that cannot be attributed to an individual 1 ensee or class of licensees.
In its 1994 report to the Congress on t C's License Fee Policy Review, the Commission described these fairness iss s and recommended that i
legislation be enacted to exclude these costs from the NRC's user-fee base and appropriate them separately. The Commission rea#irmed that recommendation in j
a response to a question from Representative Darf Schaefer that resulted from the September 5, 1996 hearing before the Hous Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
In that response, the Commission no that the costs related to our work at Hanford had been placed outside th ee base, and we specifically mentioned Agreement State training and tr el 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, James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated
/
Distnbution:
/
EDO RF (GT96795)
)
SECY (CRC-96-1070)
DlR RF JMTaylor HLThompson RLBangert PLohaus SDroggitis DSollenberger f
Reimbursement Qost File New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SCHIFF.DMS To recehe a copy of this document, indcate in the box: "C" = Copy without ettechment/encloewe 3*E" = Copy wp attechment/enplosure
- N" = No copy OFFICE OSPM{ M OS Q L OSP:q @(
DEDS l
EDO l
NAME DMSollenbergeWkk PHLohsiuF RLSengart HLThompson JMTaylor DATE 11p'{f96 11p']/96 119 996 11/ /96 11/ /96 OSP FIL E CODE: SP-lt-14, SP-AG-19
1
(%.W','T*
,7. V' i u,
4
, f ",$, 7 ##
c
..,.f. f
,~$.?. ',D,
-i.
. 0,
,.d.kUs,.,.g:,
h ?E a
N s
f f[Y'44, NY,".
ya h
>+pp h
A *a?
%v %lg4.l, IY 4 'AQ. +
q,*e 3
~
hf W
.,/
ya
..w S.s w y
h n
3'
% ~ g ~ l, % % E P H % &
A%w ag.
5 Q $a,=Eh;d$@ ~
'yky, y
a.n w@htm.,3%@g~s
'.R e
C ' %,
w m. W f, jf.fr w.g Fw,a
.~
<; en y,
-[;, v g 4 E,.i i,*I6e d,% *w%a ~7
' ? '
g.
.$. 3.g?
.y
%f5M.h4
. &. Q' i Q W ' d & & d M* & M Q'"',b,,^
.. ~
d ;a D'
1
'{'s i
/
- .*\\"r Y v%*^'
p
- a6:5,* '
~'**"s
".u 4
-4, j
1
@ o,7 h/
f.
^
348
- 96
' 7pagf j
y p w W, s M%
~
R f,y W A $ _6 ~ W i hg
~
e, w
.e m* w.. '. 9 gm.;.
g
- w p%.. nh f4...
s.;.
Qp'
+:e n 4(% +T: e..
>%kh. - '
L%
"N*Yl
,. N- '.
. '.' 0.kh~'N h, b.%.
u
-A i
h 4e 3
4-w~ ?d " 8",C.2"
,b, f, w.. W Q
%T2t.,*:<., w / ~f.i,A,,.,.,..
eM
^
.y a,j
- 3. w,.
.'Jp '.s
..f.
ss-o y
- n. ~1 a
,m;..p'fM,,p. #'. '
y
-..w..og,,M.. 34-, w.
-.4 e.q...
)
?.
h
,.f p%
I..
%4.
'Jt 6
' 4?g M O rf
. y a,.,W. ~, f(~f.. */gg,g;"h:
s f' y
',.,Q* -
'47 9-
.. v %.v
- ?
w g
+
~y
..>.-v
.sw.t
,4
, -<, g g 9[, r f* y
, w s. + -
y.
s;
=N:
' kk$, Ysb Y,
- if@2..h,. S;y?h:r;lp%e) m? q ; M.,.d.mi.k,.. w#y
..M. ftMh.f.~E_ M, Nr.si.
M @fk e
p u e
.Y
'i A
[.
%kg g e, n M:
s.
t g:W ?,3W h %..
A p c,gigib..q$.'%.,b. d ^
" ' 2%_i.
b m,,s..,,L.
4..,,
S I
y -
ICDc8E4MNDING SOR:
R pp "y%gtp' ' fm N F '"
o-NdM$yMi$$
W,,,, M@bg5MFM ^$' U Md YMf.8 N.Nd N
T m s w e.pv g%a n e
4 % w,
. %;$ g y g rW%m@
J m
s o.
ggggy}
px wpMW g.
y WRWimgyMyf + +a(c g
. s. nn p'
..u.nys-m.
av 9,%,4 vpf,les'
.a
... g
"" 9 R
f
/
.pm-e e g.s.
,n
?l' 8W
$ Jr W' W 5 f h' W :Y a?N x
W ha n.3 s :, v;;-
eg TV ' W[Q
.,c w
I y'
- _ -j'..
h Ren$$r.f
.. n
~
h, xyw m f,.. m
. "IW.p!?% @@[.
W4
. ;A,
x.
hi%M h m' w;@,Q;A WL, '
. gin g
a sen.g w$ (, '., i.
.sw
+g
- .,k
- %5.k,.
. M.p.M u
.N'h
. &.y,
p.p;y ' 4~ m..,
, n-v
,e
+,
cjQ-E.( - g.v.,
b 4 g. Y.Q
";f M$;7 %
, Y,- l;f;[n.,l h
'yy _,
x d p 1 v
< $.. !.. f l
- 7. 24, R+ ;_
s 4
h *f
,, x.
4 s
Y#
y., if M.
- i. #
v.,,
- gjg (( g gy
., w cb
^ "' / ;
l
.3**
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
.Q.
i PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-96-1070 IDGGING DATE: Oct 16 96 i
c
~ ACTION OFFICE:
EDO 1
i AUTHOR:
REP. STEVEN SCHIFF AFFILIATION:
U.S. ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES r
ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRNAN JACKSON 1
LETTER DATE:
Oct 9 96 FILE CODE: IDER 15 i
l 2
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS RE AGREEMENT STATES 4
ACTION:
Signature of EDO DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN CPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK
+
1 CONSTITUENT:
y NOTES:
[,. / -
DATE DUE:
Oct 30 96 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
)
I
~
a r
Y u
s-
[
O p
3 g
5,A
- v
' ' ~
, A:.,
u.
t).
.e m
y d
- w y;.
i 7.
n
..tf 3-
+.
- e W
,q.
-( m,,3
. x v: - ::i,. ag, s y:
n
,: u -
.,s
,n e.
.e
.. v -
h u
. g.
^
e,
,a;mv..
,2~
,..'Wv!
m y,
s eq '
- e.,m
- g. ' " Mf/
,r,
..3
'm *,
a,,.
7 4
s
.J x
,x A +,E {3 ':', '.'m l.,
y,:n
,. L,, ;4, -
. yl;% gl-Q i " R
,j-f a
' fi.
.:-.;. - % i; ' 's z
~
y,.
m p;,,,.p.',5.:.
y
.q,
. L: i s W w w.
y, r
- f..j-N" u
<,~
3
. jf lW.: Q 3,";6f n_....y., '
~3 Q. np-x,p,:
- r,
g, m
,.. <, M.o s ; m,
a_s.s a
<y
. K '..
., kjg,"w%;p,;'pyg.N g.
n p.;,3,y ', ;t,b, ' %p/y,;' g.g'y. %p <
y
.l 4rr; n3
...; gg.s x '
EDO -- GT96795
(
g;, y,".u w,m,;>,c..n,s,,
, >. p,_
y
~
3; cyj;;,-
- < ~y 7,
A - e%m &@
s.
4 y:;, -
- ,m?.s.,,,,,.,,....
.y ep+%3.
+>
a
.yQ
,. +.
y' )
., p.,. f, de,[
n
, ' ' '-- - Q,
.g
-f.
r; y
'r.
'3.
n
~n 7
~
gi y
v-
-r weer m
- -v-v t < w oww w,--,.
gw--'g, re v,s ee-m y
's-w o - gy a+-pM*e-'"M
' ' ~ ' '
r
v
,e
- STEVEN SCHIFF PLEASE nEPLY TO Fvw',Dstruer. New MEXCo 0 24o4 nuem m.suito.ua s-["~a "c ao.c.ie Gongress of fl}e Kttitch ffiates
- g g 8l5'5
^
ca rm o sa..ca
%ouse of Eepresentatifres O e25s"*t
- "CE vce c.anunu ca.swiret os. Gowse atear Roorn, asigington, jlC 20515-3101 i
Anuva.sw
""U ALSUQUERQUE. NM 87102 (505)766-2538 ca wrra on w w co.mu o suun.no. o, October 9,1996 The Honorable Shirley Jackson Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville,MD 20852
Dear Madam Chairman:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to me from Mark Weidler, Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department. Secretary Weidler is concerned about a recent decision by the NRC to begin charging states, identi6ed as Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act, for training regulatory staffin state regulatory programs.
It is my understanding that the NRC has historically reimbursed states for their efforts in keeping their radiation control programs in compliance with NRC requirements.
In addition, Secretary Weidler maintains in his letter that NRC reimbursement for states carrying out these activities is less costly than would be the case if the NRC were to assume regulatory responsibility.
Please review Secretary Weidler's letter and respond to me regarding the reasons that the NRC decided to cease reimbursement at this time. Also, I am interested in whether the NRC intends to revisit this matter given the arguments made by New Mexico's State Environment Depariment and others.
Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Steven H. Schiff ma sTaroutnv PnwTao on enren uAoe or necycLeo riscas
'i G i 2 a v
?!
t
I " ] 0/16/p6 WED 09:56 FAI 2022257815 BASIC RESEARCH StJBCOMTE Id OO2 l ', # '.
OGT-Er7-1996 14:19 FROM STEUE SO41FF 5857661674 TO 912m77A7815 P. 82 i t..
! 7.
. d.
i j8 sseofNeinmzepo-i!
ii.'. - %
2NVD90NhmNTDRPARtRENT I
ji i
88P88dM3ud3dd4K 1%
,' h 6'
1100 St. hmnais Dnlee, P.O.Ran N110 e
i lil:
i 8sess Fe, NosoXamleo #7508
,ar4arz us er.ar
.i(Nn W g p gas; set 4asg
= * = = =.
i.
ame4u r==rar.ar i
=,a
n.
aw i. !.
rl i i.
s mad =r 18,1996 o
lI
,3 dneed; sidenIdSdhiai :
i 3
ihij k'In i
(- lE@EEY$
1.
l
- .;g y9 M 6.c. h ts.'.
aind mins 2,penakia R O C T.'t 1996 l
i $:iwa 3
l
.[ S.
Dear rim.,
l e Schiff: -
i i
,fi lhhh[,hh'h,? Y " I
'd974.b1978 to itsih Nct
.in I
.i l.
- hsquilsig be NRC te
.Agrummem Sube
. ' Nest Madco's Radisilon 1
ii.'.IPrograniNew Manco akspi esit the %insnsets to protect the bicaldt and safssy. Amendments to the
.I hts' i
i 1
Radts6an Protectica Regulations, which becens adsctive ist May 1995, kept the states
. i.;)rogram;in compliance with NRC requi 4..
- ,1 l
J J. Mity, me NWC has nahnsiwi a condaning r44= Air wkh each Agreanes Stat) to assure
, l,' '
ity of the Sisee's tegiflatory t
Y' inded, W other things,progrian andits adequacy to protect healt I
e.i
~
of Aareenset State regulatory. sadfs at no
.: 9
~ Wee peticqiams. 'Beginmag Ocsober 1996, We wD1begin charging the Asi States
. as $siw Madco for all training needs.
i
"; w..
cs r.
W..:Ne;E 1%'s IM Control' Program is funded who!!y from the State Osmeral Pund and mon l' r l.anetuantd.ilabic!to sinpport training programs for suff pemoody sponsored by NRC.
i t
i i
!i;'Ib6 p*ojM.
1 beijoves that!the minimal support (ap j
t) tough therStases Agreenset Progrun is a.proxianady $15,000 per year)
- y;1hs===
q
' tbr the NRC sad shoud be ennrimi,A
{
hki ht NRC be'$sgedred to andene regulatory fbr the soie byproduct programs based l
- 1. 'on 'escission or the'asremnew, me cost to the would be substantial s,,ami to ibe mini==1 r
1
- .shyport'abw providsh to New Mexico.
.If
==im=* tbr nadiarian Control Program 'zrsonnel trainig is not russoted, Nedr Mexico
- : i i w'on16hit ~ "
inhu' w me.
~
e es me. Rw. tion cammi Pusram to d= NRca swch ih Insa eie closure df medi of the sinte's==.nar businheems Fw to
!gioissess and nec matirists/since they wm be unatsis to ocmfoun to ste NRCs ever-i 6saks:wl f
ass :'
i l-i' i;
t; a
in NRC to aannd its policy and am W1 p fca itE training
'l assds efse Aqsee9 sat Stuks is stroegty encounged'and will be gunstly appsemated.
', h!.g:b$sess.ce'immict $r. Smisp J..Garcia er Mr
= 9s== ions.g.... -
a y.,
r e
-i l
- l-4 T.
s'.
4
{ p :. l r...;,
j
.t p
11 r
4
.,9 m
, ' - t j. i.,;
g.
-l(g J. d:h c i
i 1:
l aa I.
.I i
.--~7 7
7 : ---
.