ML20148G511
| ML20148G511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/13/1997 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706050328 | |
| Download: ML20148G511 (2) | |
Text
.-
\\
ff/L.
TIME SENSITIVE INFORMATION
- 'f
.s c3 O
l U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M WI OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS FAX: (301)415 3502 j
NUMBER OF PAGES:
2 including this page DATE:
May 13,1997 TO:
RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS IN AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKt AHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA NRC REGIONAL STATE AGREEMENTS OFFICERS NRC REGIONAL STATE LIAISON OFFICERS 4
FROM:
PAUL H. LOHAUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR I
OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS i
SUBJECT:
AGREEMENT STATE VIEWS ON NEED FOR REAFFIRMATION OR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING AGREEMENTS
- ']
4 i
The Office of State Programs held a conference call today with the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) executive committee, Bob Quillin, CO, Roland Fletcher, MD, and l
Richard Ratliff, TX. The purpose of the call was to obtain Agreement State views on the
{l attached " Conclusion" statement from a draft Commission paper entitled, "The Evaluation l
of Current State Agreements."
The purpose of the draft Commission paper, from which the conclusion statement is taken, is to inform the Commission of the results of the staff's evaluation of the 30 current State Agreement documents in light of recent policy statements affecting the Agreement State Program, " Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program" and
" Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs." The evaluation was performed to determine whether there was a need for each current Agreement State to reaffirm or modify its existing Agreement in light of these two policy statements. As stated earlier, the conclusion to this paper is attached.
l The OAS Executive Committee agreed with the paper's conclusion that there is no need to reaffirm or modify existing agreements. They suggested, however, that we provide you a copy of the conclusion statement for your review. If you hold a different view, or wish to comment, please respond by 2:00 om (EDTL tomorrow. May 14,1997 to:
l Point of contact:
Cardella H. Maupin Telephone:
(301) 415 2312 q
i Fax:
(301)415 3502 Internet:
CHM @NRC. GOV V
~~r i {
7 OU "
VERIFICATION - 415-3340 050051 FdP R R CENTER CP2V 6p.e.6 9706050328 970513 0
PDR STPRG ESGOH
' h 'X A 4
i
/
Ill.
Conclusion Derived from the Evaluation of the Current Agreements Although there are differences between the current Agreements and the Standard Agreements, staff believes that these differences do not result in a need for each current Agreement to be reaffirmed or modified in light of the new policy statements. The staff believes that the current 30 Agreements have adequate consistency with regard to compatibility, specification of authority, and termination and suspension of Agreements to fully implement the two new policies, in addition, from the evaluation, the staff does not identify any additional requirements or commitments which need to be included in the Agreements. Staff also believes that while there is the potential for some marginal improvements in the language of these existing Agreements (e.g., clarifying the NRC and Agreement State responsibilities for information exchange), the staff and Agreement States have not identified any significant impacts on Agreement State program effectiveness caused by their implementation. As such, any benefits gained from making changes to existing agreements would not be justified by the resources required to develop and finalize amendments to the current 30 Agreements. Moreover, staff does not believe that the Agreement States would favor the modification of Agreements since significant resource expenditures would be required by each State to obtain Governor, and possibly legislature, approval. While a few Agreement States expressed doubt about their willingness to remain an Agreement State while the two new fc4cy statements were in the early stages of development, no recent significant concern has been expressed. More recently, a few Agreement States informally indicated Agreement regulatory authority may be returned to NRC as a result of NRC's policy on the funding of Agreement State training and travel.
However, all Agreements contain the provision that upon request of the Governor, an Agreement can be suspended or terminated. For this reason, reaffirmation of Agreements is not necessary to provide an Agreement State the opportunity to return regulatory authority to NRC. The staff discussed the need for Agreement reaffirmation and modification with the Executive Committee of the Organization of Agreement States and provided all Agreement State radiation control program directors an opportunity to comment on the staff's conclusions. The results indicate that the Agreern.ent State radiation control programs would agree with the staff's conclusion that reaffirmation or modification of Agreements is not necessary. Thus, the staff has concluded, based upon its evaluation, that no modification or reaffirmation of current Agreements is necessary for implementation of the " Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program" and the " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs."