ML20154E375
| ML20154E375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/28/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Maggiore P NEW MEXICO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154E380 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9810080163 | |
| Download: ML20154E375 (3) | |
Text
_
Mr. Patsr Maggiore, Sscretary .SEP 2 81998 New Mexico Environment Department Harold Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, P. O. Box 26110 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-6110
Dear Mr. Maggiore:
This is in response to your letter of August 18,1998 and letter dated April 15,1998 from Mr. Weidler, concerning a request for assistance in funding training for the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau (HRMB),
Radiation Licensing and Regisatration Section (RLRS) staff in NRC sponsored courses. We have evahated your request using the Commission approved " Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States," (SP-97-085, dated December 12,1997, enclosed).
As a result of our evaluation, we have found that the New Mexico request for training assistance meets the criteria for funding assistance. In accordance with the criteria, the limit on the amount of funding for any State will be approximately 50% of the sbrtfall for the essential training needs identified for the Agreement State program. The New Axico request identified an essential training need of $24,042. Therefore, we have approved $12,000 in assistance for the RLRS staff training for attendance at NRC sponsored courses.
We noted in our evaluation that eight NRC cores were identified in the State's " Core Training
. Needs Breakdown for FY1999." Please note that in accordance with item 4," Determination of Availability of NRC Funds," page 5 of the enclosed criteria, that the NRC staff intends to provide epprovals on a course by course basis and will use the highest priority courses identified by each State. Therefore, we request that you review the list of eight NRC core courses submitted and prioritize the courses based upon the New Mexico Program's greatest needs, in addition, we would like to note that the re is a relative priority for class admission, as noted on pages 1 through 2 of the enclosed Decernber 12,1997 All Agreement States Letter Please be advised that class admission for Agreement State staff for whom NRC has funded tuition and travel, in whole or in part, is a class admission Priority 111. However, the special needs of the New Mexico program in light of the IMPEP findings and the high percentage of new staff will be <
balanced within that class admise!on priority.
OriginalSigned By Sincerely, RICHARD L BANGART Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs ' i
Enclosure:
As stated C 3 7C cc: B. Garcia, NM W. Floyd, NM Distribution:
{ I][]ihh '
DlR RF (8S230) . DCD (SP08) \
SDroggitis PDR (YES_f_ NO )
JLynch, Rlli l, ., n g's , .., C New Mexico File [
LMcLean, RIV i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NMEXLTR.WPD *See previous concurrence.
- Ts receive a copr of this document, Indicate in the bou: "C" = Copy without attachrnenvenclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N' = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD l OSP:D lb f l l NAME CHMaupin:nb:kk PHLohaus RLBangart lb/d DATE 09/24/98* 09/24/98* 09/J[/98 9810000163 980928 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-19 PDR STPRO ESGNM PDR
. . l l
Mr. Pct r Maggiore, Acting S cretary J
New Mexico Environment Department Harold Runnels Building i l 1190 St. Francis Drive, P. O. Box 26110 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-6110 l
Dear Mr. Maggiore:
This is in response to your letter of August 18,1998 and letter dated April 15,1998 from Mr. Weidler, concerning a request for assistance in fundingtraining for the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED), Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau (HRMB),
Radiation Licensing and Regisatration Section (RLRS) sta'ff training in NRC sponsored courses.
We have evaluated your request using the Commission a'pproved " Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States," (SP-97-085, dated Ddcember 12,1997, enclosed).
/
As a result of our evaluation, we have found that the N w Mexico request for training assistance meets the criteria for funding assistance. Ip accordance with the criteria, the limit on the amount of funding for any State will be approximaJely 50%of the shortfall for the essential training needs identified for the Agreement State program. The New Mexico request identified an essential training need of $24,042. Therefore, we have approved $12,000.00 in assistance for the RLRS staff training for attendance at NRC s onsored courses.
We noted in our evaluation that eight NRC cores were identified in the State's " Core Training Needs Breakdown for FY1999." Please note that jn accordance with item 4, " Determination of Availability of NRC Funds," page 5 of the enclose,d criteria, that the NRC staff intends to provide approvals on a course by course basis and will use the highest priority courses identified by each State. Therefore, we request that you review the list of eight NRC core courses
- submitted and prioritize the courses based upon New Mexico Program's greatest needs.
In addition, we would like to note that there is a/
relative priority for class admission, as noted on pages 1 through 2 of the enclosed Decemberf12,1997 All Agreement State Letter. Please be advised that class admission for Agreement State staff for whom NRC has funded tuition and travel, in whole or in part, is a class admission '
Priority lil. However, the special needs of the l New Mexico program in light of the IMPEP fjndings and the high percentage of new staff will be balanced with the class admission priority, and special consideration may be possible, on a course specific basis, with regard to RLRS/ staff attendance at NRC sponsored courses.
Sincerely, l
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
- DIR RF (8S230) DCD (SP08)
! SDroggitis PDR (YES.f_ NO )
. JLynch, Rlli LMcLean, RIV New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NMEXLTR.WRD n r.c.iv. . copy of thi. oocum.nt, indicate in th. box: /% b' without attachment / enclosure *E' = Copy with attachment! enclosure *N* No copy OFFICE QA3d Ip$ b@ OSP:D l l NAME CHMaWb' PHLbhihs ' RLBangart DATE 09/M98 09/2398 09/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-19 i
_. ~. -. .. -
pG
- p k UNITED STATES j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30866 4001 '
i l
- o September 28, 1.998 Mr. Peter Maggiore, Secretary New Mexico Environment Department Harold Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, P. O. Box 26110 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-6110
Dear Mr. Maggiore:
This is in response to your letter of August 18,1998 and letter dated April 15,1998 from ,
Mr. Weidler, concerning a rcquest for assistance in funding training for the New Mexico I Environment Department (NMED), Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau (HRMB),
Radiation Licensing and Regisatration Section (RLRS) staff in NRC sponsored courses. We have ovaluated your request using the Commission approved " Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States,"(SP-97-085, dated December 12,1997, enclosed).
As a result of our evaluation, we have found that the New Mexico request for training i assistance meets the criteria for funding assistance, in accordance with the criteria, the limit on the amount of funding for any State will be approximately 50% of the shortfall for the essential training needs identified for the Agreement State program. The New Mexico request identified an essential training need of $24,042. Therefore, we have approved $12,000 in assistance for the RLRS staff training for attendance at NRC sponsored courses.
We noted in our evaluation that eight NRC cores were identified in the State's " Core Training Needs Breakdown for FY1999." Please note that in accordance with item 4," Determination of Availability of NRC Funds," page 5 of the enclosed criteria, that the NRC staff intends to provide approvals on a course by course basis and will use the highest priority courses identified by each State. Therefore, we request that you review the list of eight NRC core courses submitted and prioritize the courses based upon the New Mexico Progem's greatest needs.
l 1
In addition, we would like to note that there is a relative priority for class admission, as noted on pages 1 through 2 of the enclosed December 12,1997 All Agreement States Letter. Please be advised that class admission for Agreement State staff for whom NRC has funded tuition and travel, in whole or in part, is a class admission Priority Ill. However, the special needs of the New Mexico program in light of the IMPEP findings and the high percentage of new staff will be balanced within that class admission priority.
Si re:y.
ll (21 u di ichard L. angert, Director /
Office of State Programs [ '
Enclosure:
As stated cc: B. Ge. cia, NM W. C loyd, NM
- pen .I i g k UNITED STATES P = NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 3008H001
- \.g December 12, 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES j OHIO, OKl.AHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-97-085)
Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:
}
- INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION...........
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION....XX CRITERIA FOR TRAINING ,
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR l AGREEMENT STATES l TRAINING COURSE INrURMATION................ I j
j TECHNICAL INFORMATION.............................
l OTH ER IN FORMATION....................................
1 Supplemantary Information: The Commission has completed its evaluation of issues
- associated with NRC funding for training of Agreement State staff. As directed by the
- Commission in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on DSI-4, the staff developed draft j criteria for potential NRC assistance for States that demonstrate a hardship due to lack of j funding for training and associated travel for their radiation control program staff. The draft staff criteria were sent to the Agreement States for comment on June 9,1997. Comments received were addressed and the revised staff criteria were sent to the Commission on August 7,1997 (SECY-97-183). On November 16,1997, the Commission issued an SRM on SECY-97-183 which directed the staff to add an additional criterion to the staff criteria and to adjust the priority for student selection for the training courses. The Commission also approved the staff's proposal for addressing Agreement State requests for technical assistance on a case-by-case basis using existing guidance. The revised criteria reflecting the Commission direction are enclosed.
The SRM on SECY-97-183 indicates the additional criterion is to establish a limit on the total number of training requests that the NRC will approve for an individual State over a three year period to ensure that States do not rely upon NRC funding as a matter of routine. This number should represent an appropriate fraction of the Agreement State's training needs, and be based on the size of the Agreement State program and the projected training needs of the individual States so as to provide an equal incentive for all States to seek funding to cover their training needs independent of the NRC.
The relative priority for class admission is as follow:
Priority 1 NRC staff and Agreement State staff fully funded by their State.
^
d \\
~
SP-97085 2 Priority ll Agreement State staff for whom tuition is funded by the NRC, i.e., space available training at no tuition cost to the State, and the State would be paying travel and per diem expenses.
Priority 111 Agreement State staff for whom NRC has funded tuition and travel, in l whole or in part. l
~
The NRC staff will begin using the criteria and the selection priorities immediately. Additional guidance will be issued in early 1998 specifying the process and methods for paying the tuition expense for NRC courses.
If you have any questions about this correspondence, please contact me or the individual .
- named below. l CONTACT
- Dennis M. Soltenberger TELEPHONE: (301)415-2819 FAX: (301)415-3502 l lNTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV
- 0. -
l( Al .- .
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs 6'st y
(<
f di 3
j
Enclosure:
- As stated j e
4 4
d i
1 4
i I
2- . _..m .._m_.-.
.. . ~. . .
< ) !
- - (.I l l
! CRITERIA TO EVALUATE AGREEMENT STATE TRAINING AND i TRAVEL FUNDING NEEDS i
By Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated March 19,1997, the Commission directed the staff to develop criteria to determine when Agreement States have demonstrated that State
- funds are not available er cannot be used for the purposes of training, travel, and technical i assistance. The direction was that the criteria should be stringent enough to provide adequate assurance to the Commission that the State has thoroughly explored funding attematives
! available to the State and a determination by a high ranking State official (e.g., State agency I
head or chief financial officer) has been made that funds are not available. In such cases,
- btates should also explore partial funding of costs. Such an approach must be designed to
- ensure that such certifications are not " pro forma" and that use of NRC-licensee funds for these purposes is in the public interest. The staff's proposals should provide for funding and should l be provided to the Commission in a time frame that would allow implementation of the modified
! policy beginning in fiscal year 1998. Otherwise, training should be made available on a " space 4
available" basis with Agreement States funding their own travel and per diem costs. 3 The staff has considered the area of technical assistance (defined for the purpose of NRC funding support as NRC !nspection of Agreement State licensees or NRC completing Agreement State licensing wetions) to Agreement States in the conduct of their licensing and I inspection programs. Since the NRC has not been requested to provide any such direct technical assistance in the last 3 years, the staff has removed any further discussion of technical assistance from the criteria and will address any such requests on a case-by-case basis if they occur in the future. Assistance on other technical matters should be a cooperative effort among regulators and cost reimbursement is not a consideration.
The staff understanding is that, as a minimum, the NRC will make training available to the Agreement States on a space available basis with NRC funding (at least in part) for States that have met the criteria developed by the staff. Students from an Agreement State agreeing to pay tuition for attendance at NRC training courses would be considered the same as an NRC student for purposes of selection. Slots remaining after selection of NRC and Agreement State students in the above category would then be filled by Agreement State staff for whom tuition is funded by NRC and lastly by Agreement State staff for whom NRC has funded tuition and travel, in whole or in part. State staff attending on a " space available" basis would pay all travel and per diem costs, except for students from States with approved training and associated funding support from NRC.
The staff will schedule the training courses to meet NRC training needs and the needs of Agreement States that will pay any tuition, travel, and per diem costs, or will pay travel and per diem costs, or will receive NRC approved funding support for training and associated travel costs contingent on availataility of funds. The staff does not plan to schedule additional courses in the future unless the demand would fill the additional courses.
1
- I (l
'O The staff's approach to the development of criteria has focused on four key areas: (1) a State determination of need for training and availability of State funds to meet that need; (2) a State demonstration of need for NRC assistance in funding the State need; (3) the NRC evaluation of the State request against NRC criteria and logic diagram; and (4) the availability of NRC funds to meet the sum of the State requests. Each area is discussed in further detail below. Each request from a State would need to include information identified in items 1 and 2.
To facilitate preparation of a State request, the staff has developed a questionnaire that the State will need to complete and submit, along with the statement on availability of funds, to the NRC in order to be considered for financial assistance in the training area. A table for tracking this information is also included at the end of this document. Submission of information identified in the questionnaire, at a minimum, is necessary for NRC to make a decision on funding support.
- 1. DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR TRAINING Each State should have a training program that would address items a and b below. A State should also examine a range of options or sources for fulfilling its training needs (item c below).
This information should provide the basis for the State's development of a realistic estimate of 4
their training needs ano costs to accomplish their training program. The Agreement State Radiation Control Program (RCP) should use this estimate to develop their State's budget request (item d below).
Therefore, the RCP should consider and address the items listed below in determining their need for training; in estimating the funds required to meet their training needs; and in determining whether their needs, or a portion of their needs, are met by their current budget.
- a. Documented training policy and qualification requirements to include:
j - Qualification of new staff.
Rr.,utine training (e.g., refresher and specialty training) of existing staff.
Training and qualification objectives that are consistent with the objectives of
- NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1246, Formal Qualification Programs in the Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Program Area.
- b. Training critical to performance of program:
- Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) finding regarding training of staff.
Needed to address a program weakness or deficiency.
- c. Sources of training-
- NRC training courses, workshops and meetings.
i 2
e O )
2
- Has the State evaluated other altomatives to meet their training need?
Did the State find no attematives or the altematives do not meet State needs?
- d. Documented financial information that includes
- The number and category (e.g., new hires versus more experienced) of individuals that need specific training courses not available in-house.
The number of courses and spaces in courses that the State can fund and those )
that cannot be funded given the current bedget allocation for training and travel.
l
- The total training and travel budget approved for the RCP and the portion of this ,
budget allocated for the radioactive materials program. This should be presented in total dollars and in the percentage of the budgeted amount and the percentage of the anticipated need.
i
- 2. DEMONSTRATION OF STATE NEED FOR NRC FUNDING
- a. The Agreement State should submit a certification by a high ranking official (agency I head, chief financial officer, or an equivalent officist) that funds are not available. This would need to be done each State fiscal year following the legislative approval and signing of the budget appropriation for the RCP.
This certification should include certain demonstrations by the RCP such as:
- The State has authority to spend funds on training ared out-of-State travel, or has requested such authority.
- The budget submitted to the legislature for the RCP included requests for the funds to meet the training and travel needs of the program.
- The agency management supported the budget submittal.
- The legislature has taken action on the budget submittal, but failed to approve the budget request in the training and travel area, or approved only a portion of tnis budget area.
- b. The submission of the demonstration of need will need to be done each State fiscal year, at a minimum, following the legislative approval and signing of the budget for the RCP. This would allow the maximum time for NRC planning before actual training or travel requests must be submitted. The State must submit background information used to develop their budget, if the budget does not contain a line for training and travel.
- c. The timing for the State's submission of the information needed by NRC to complete evaluation of the request should be as soon as possible after the legislature or administration approval decisions or when another unfunded training need is identified.
Considerations include:
3
b h '
- Most State fiscal years do not coincide with the NRC fiscal year. Thus, the NRC will need to allocate funds for States based on the State fiscal year or it may Save gaps in the training for individual States.
v$en a State receives a decision on their budget and funding for training and travel and they identify it's not sufficient, they will likely not have much time prior to the beginning of their fiscal year.
Any other time they identify a training need which cannot be met or fulfilled, they will likely not have any significant lead time.
- 3. EVALUATION OF STATE REQUESTS / DEMONSTRATION OF NEED AGAINST NRC CRITERIA The NRC staff would first evaluate the State's request / demonstration of need for NRC funding to confirm that the State has provided documentation that it has legal authority to spend State funds for training and travel. Requests from States that have authority, or have requested authority, would then be evaluated against a set of additional criteria. The flow diagram (see page 6) presents the logic flow to be applied. The evaluation will be made against the following criteria.
Evaluation Criteria
- a. The State has submitted a copy of its training and qualifications policy and program which documents the objectives of this policy and program are consistent with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1246, Formal Qualification Programs in the Nuclear Material '
Safety and Safeguards Program Area.
- b. The Agreement State has legal authority to spend State funds for training and travel out-of-State. In cases where an Agreement State does not have legal authority, the Agreement State has requested authority to spend State funds for out-of-State training and travel.
)
Agreement State programs that do not have authority to spend State funds on training !
and out-of-State travel, and do not request such authority, will not be funded, and would ]
not be evaluated further. NRC would further evaluate requests from Agreement States s having legal authority and Agreement States that have requested, but have been denied, authority to spend State funds for this purpose. Requests would be evaluated applying each of the additional criteria below. Amounts would be based on NRC review ]
of the State's estimate based on their documented program. i
- c. The Agreement State has requested funding to cover the required training and travel funds, but was denied funding for training and travel out-of-State, in whole or in part.
- d. The State agency head (cabinet level) or chief financial officer for the State has made l' and submitted a determination that State funds are not available for training and out-of-State travel, or are insufficient as described in Criterion e. below. After review, NRC 4
l
[) )
5 concurs that funds available for out-of-State training and travel are insufficient to satisfy Agreement State program training needs.
- e. The Agreement State RCP has limited funds. Of the requested budget amount of for Agreement State program training and out-of State travel, the State funded and, therefore, the RCP can fund percent of its needed training and travel expenses.
- f. The limit on the amount of funding for any State will be approximately 50% of the i shortfall for the essential training needs identified for the Agreement State program.
The shortfall is equal to the requested budget amount minus the approved budget ,
amount for essential training for the Agreement State program. l The NRC will evaluate each Agreement State's funding request that submits the information needed to make the above findings. The approval for full or partial funding will be limited to the State's budget period (1 or 2 years). Without submittal of new budget information, the NRC funding for training and travel for that State will terminate. The NRC will consider unanticipated training needs when fully supported by documentation and cost estimates. If the need covers several years, the need should be incorporated into the next year's budget estimate for the RCP.
- 4. DETERMINATION OF AVAILABILITY OF NRC FUNDS Approvals for NRC funding support for Agreement State training and associated travel costs will be in the form of identifying numbers of students attending designated NRC sponsored courses '
without the need to pay tuition. Travel costs will be paid by NRC through the approval of NRC travel authorizations and vouchers for invitational travel. If the total cost of valid requests for training and associated travel funding support from NRC exceeds the NRC budgeted amount, the approvals will be prorated using the following considerations:
- Evenness of distribution, such as assuring that all requesting States have the same or a comparable percentage of their total need satisfied.
Urgency of need. Ranking distribution based on (1) new staff meeting minimum training requirements, (2) specialty training to meet a program deficiency, (3) special training to broaden the program depth, and (4) refresher training for experienced staff.
The NRC staff considers that the number of approvals, based on the percentage of the training need being met together with urgency of need, as the most equitable method of distribution of funds if the total need exceeds the budgeted amount. The staff intends to provide approvals on a course by course basis and will use the information submitted by the State to determine, in conjunction with the State, the highest priority courses for each State.
5
/. )
U t
LOGIC FLOW DIAGRAM FOR FUNDING OF AGREEMENT STATE TRAINING ANDTRAVEL i I 1
l Does the State have a !'
j documented training j and qualifications y i policy and program that contains
! objectives consistent
. with IMC 1246?
1 j ,
r f Does the State have 11 0 Has the RCP NO , r No NRC
] authority tofund training '
requested n '
funding
! and travel? authority to assistance.
I fund training 4
YES and travel?
,, YES l
i Has the State requested funding for training NO
(] ;
and travel?
]
4 YES .
t j i r 1-
, Has a high ranking State gg l cfficial certifl6d need for ,
assistance from NRC?
YES
,r NRC will consider funding 50% of the ahortfall between appropriated amount IMC-Inspection Manual Chapter and budget request amount. Funding will be limited to a prorated amount if the RCP - Radiation Control Program total from all States is greater than OSP's OSP-Office of State Programs budgeted amount. .
6
. _ _ . - . . _ . = _ . .
h )
DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR AGREEMENT STATE TRAINING AND TRAVEL FUNDING This questionnaire was developed to collect the information needed to make a decision on whether NRC will fund all or a portion of an individual Agreement State's training and/or travel needs. Please complete the following information and submit it to the contact specified below.
Without this information, NRC will not be able make a decision on whether to fund your travel and training requests. Thank you for your assistance.
- 1. The State of has/does not have a program for training and qualification of its staff that has objectives similar to those of the NRC as described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1246, Formal Qualification Programs in the Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Area. The State should submit a copy of its training policy statement, if any, and a copy of its procedure that documents its training and )
qualification program. (if no training and qualification program documentation exists, the i State is not eligible for NRC funding support.)
l
- 2. The State of is on an annual _ or biennial _ budget cycle with the I current fiscal year beginning on and ending on .
- 3. Have you been authorized to spend State funds:
for travel to workshops out-of-State? Yes _ No _
for training including travel to training out-of-State? Yes _ No _
- 4. Given sufficient State funding, do State laws or regulations limit travel and training? (This question is requested to clarify the State's policy, not the funding issue.) Yes _ No _
- 5. Did you request full funding for your estimated training and out-of State travel needs in your budget? Yes _ No _
Did your management support your request by submitting it to your legislature? Yes _ No _
Did your legislature act on your training / travel request? Yes _ No _
Did your legislature support your request? In full _
in part _
No support _
- 6. What is yoyr total Agreement State materials budget?
- 7. What was your estimate for the Agreement State training and travel needs?
- 8. What was the RCP training and travel funding request for the Agreement State program?
- 9. What was the level of funding for training and travel approved by your legislature?
- 10. Are there any special considerations that you would like NRC to consider in determining potential assistance in the training and travel areas? -
Please explain below.
7
()
i- ,
1 I
l 1
INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NRC DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE I TRAINING AND TRAVEL AREAS 1
STATE' Cycle8 ASP Bdgt8 TRNG Estd TRNG Bdgts %' Comments' I ALABAMA 1,1, art 2ONA 1,M ,
ARKANSAS 2,2, CALIFORNIA 1,1, COLORADO 1,1, FLORIDA 1,1, GEORGIA 1,1, IOWA 1.1, ILLINOIS 1.1, KANSAS 1,1,7/1 KENTUCKY 2.2, LOUISLANA 1,1, MAINE 1,2, MARYLAND 1.1, MASSACHUSETTS 1,1, MISSIS $1PPI 1,1, NEBRASKA 1,2, NEBRASKA -(LLW) 1,2, NEVADA 2,2, NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,2, NEW MEXICO 1,1, NYDH 1.1, NYDOL 1,1, NYDEC 1.1, NYC 1,1, NORTH CAROLINA 2.2.
NORTH DAP.OTA 2,2, OREGON 2.2, RHODE ISA. AND 1.1, SOUTH CAROLINA 1,1, SOUTH CAROLINA -(LLW) 1,1, TENNESSEE 1.1 8
__ __m . _ ___ _ . - - _ . _ . ._..__.- _ _ ._ . _ .... _ ._ ____ _ _ ._.._.__ -
f, )
. L 3
STATE' cyde' ASP sdgt 8 TRNG Est* TRNG adgt' %' Comments' TEXAS. ARC 2.2.7/1 TEXAS.TNRCC 2.2.7/1 UTAH 1.1 l
WASHINGTON 1.2.7/1 oHlo 1.2 OKLAHOMA 1.1 PENNSYLVANIA 1.1
' The States listed are current Agreement States and the last three are those States which have submitted a letter of intent to become an Agreement State.
8 This column includes the legislative cycle, the budget cycle, and the beginning date for the budget, respectively (L,B,M/D). An M in the B space indicates that the State has a mixed budget cycle and NRC needs additional information from the State to determine whether the RCP budget is on an annual or biennial cycle.
8 ASP Bdgt - This column is for the Agreement State Program (ASP) Budget within the Radiation Control program.
l TRNG EST - This column is for the estimate of the training costs for the Agreement j State program, submitted in the budget request to the State legislature. We recognize j that this will only be a portion of the overall training costs for the RCP; however, NRC will only address this aspect of the RCP training program under this assessment.
- TRNG Bdgt - This column contains the amount the RCP budgeted for the Agreement j State program training.
% - This column will contain the percentage of the estimated training budget that was funded by the State. This will give the NRC a quick estimate of those States that might need assistance in funding their training, travel and technical assistance.
l Comments - This column is reserved for comments such as special conditions or special j hardships that have been identified by the State.
9 l
I