ML20210B936
| ML20210B936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/04/1986 |
| From: | Kunihiro D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Young F NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602100169 | |
| Download: ML20210B936 (8) | |
Text
,
.~
+
s c
nMEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank' Young, Office of State Programs
- -FROM:
Dean M. Kunihiro, Regional State. Liaison Officer-
SUBJECT:
. REGIONAL STATE LIAISON APPRAISAL QUESTIONNAIRE Enclose'd,.ih response to Jerome Saltzman's memo of November 27, 1985, to'the Regional Administrators, are my' responses to the subject questionnaire.
Dean M.
unihiro Regional State Liaison Officer I
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
R. Searano
.B. Faulkenberry Ji Martin.
bec w/ enclosure:
RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
>4 a
r' L-j REGION.Vg j
Kuni iso / dot' 2/ a /86 3
4 1
5-
~3 L
0602100169 Gh f4 I
/
ST LIAISON
. a
}
?
(
i
STATE LIAISON APPRAISAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE RSLO 1.
Characterize the relationship with each SLO as to frequency and degree of contact (never, once a year, twice a year, once a month, other; first name, need to be reintroduced each time, etc.).
What are specific
~
circumstances that bear on the frequency and degree? Are there back-ups for the SLO with whom you deal at the suggestion of the SLO?
A.
Alaska (Bill Ross).
Contact:
Approximately once per year. There are very few nuclear related matters of-interest to the State.
'Therefore, there is very little contact with the SLO. Since Alaska is a member of the Northwest Compact most interaction has been related to LLW issues. Stan Hungerford, Alaska's representative on the Northwest Compact Committee, works for Mr. Ross and is the
~
individual.most frequently contacted.
B.
Arizona (Charles Tedford).
Contact:
Approximately four times per year. We have established an excellent and informal relationship.
Due to Mr. Tedford's position as the radiation control program director he has a broad as well as intense interest in most nuclear related issues. No back-up exists.
C.
California-(Charles Imbrecht).
Contact:
Once per year. As Chairman of the California Energy Commission Mr. Imbrecht has little personal involvement or interest in nuclear related issues.' He has delegated the day-to-day information exchange to Gwen Quigg, with whom there is more frequent interaction. Most interaction with his office is one-way (State-to-NRC) in the form of specific requests.
D.
Hawaii (James Ikeda).
Contact:
Mr. Ikeda was appointed in November 1985 to replace Mel Koizumi as SLO. Because Mr. Ikeda is the Hawaii representative to the Northwest LLRW Compact, the RSLO would expect to see him approximately four times per year. Hawaii like Alaska has very little involvement in nuclear ~ issues. The two exceptions being LLRW and minor involvement by the radiation control program.
No back up exists.
~
E.
Nevada (Bob Loux)
Contact:
Approximately three to four times annually. There is a good first name relationship. Due, however, to Mr. Loux' position as Director of the High Level Waste Project j
Office his overriding. interest remains HLW. There has been established an open and excellent two way communication between himself and the Division of Waste Management. More frequent communications are made directly between himself and Waste Management staff than with or thru the RSLO. Waste management staff l
has done an excellent job of keeping the RSLO informed of significant communications with Nevada. No back up exists.
F.
Oregon (Bill Dixon) -
Contact:
Approximately six to twelve times l
per year. Excellent first name working relationship exists with Mr.
f Dixon. While no back up exists, Mr. Mike Alsworth and Mr. Daivd i
2 Stewart-Smith who are on Mr. Dixon's staff, frequently contact the RSLO on matters that have been delegated to them by Mr. Dixon.
G.
Washington (Curtis Exchels) -
Contact:
Approximately four to six times annually. Excellent first name relationship exists with Mr.
Eschels. As the Governor's advisor on nucleas matters, Mr. Eschels maintains a keen interest in all nuclear matters. Many of specific day to day tasks are delegated to his staff. Therefore more frequent communications are carried out between the RSLO and his staff, particular Bill Fitch, Executive Secretary of EFSEC.
2.
Describe any events where the RSLO or others have arranged for the Regional Administrator or other senior NRC management to interact directly with State or local officials.
In retrospect are there some additional situations where it might have been appropriate?
A.
On May 21-23, 1985 the RSLO and Director, Division of Radiological Safety and Safeguards (DRSS) participated in the annual EFSEC workshop.
B.
On February 27, 1985 the RSLO was instructed by the Regional Administrator to inform and invite the WA SLO to attend an enforcement conference to be held in the regional office. However due to oversight on the part of the RSLO the SLO was not notified in a timely manner to permit his or a representative's attendance.
C.
On January 22, 1986, the RSLO, Director, DRSS, and other regional staff met with Ann Vasquez, Division Chief, Radiological Emergency Planning, California Of fice of Emergency Services to discuss concerns related to an Unusual Event at the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant on December 26, 1985.
D.
On January 23, 1985 the Branch Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch, and Section Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section met with county, and State representatives to discuss concerns relating to the emergency event at Rancho Seco on December 26, 1986.
E.
On February 1,1985 a representative from the Oregon Department of Energy attended the Trojan SALP held in the regional office.
F.
On January 22, 1986 a representative from the Oregon Department of Energy attended the Trojan SALP and enforcement conference held in Portland, Oregon.
3.
Have there been any surprises or problems with States that you would have wished might have been anticipated?
There are no instances that come to mind.
4.
Is there anything more that can be done by OSP and the RSL0s'that has not yet been done?
No.
'3 5.
Can you identify any. developments or'new areas in working with the States in the foreseeable future?
A.
It is expected that the 274i agreements with HI and AK will be finalized since the Northwest Compact has received consent.
B.
Oregon has contracted with the Washington Nuclear Weste Advisory Board to cooperate in the review of the Hanford siting. The Division-of Waste Management has already received a request to testify before an OR joint Legislative HLW Committee in March. More interaction with OR on KLW matters is expected.
C.
Both OR an'd WA have. raised concern over DOE shipments of spent fuel through both states. The RSLO was informed by the WA SLO that WA was attempting to negotiate an NOU with DOE to establish procedures which were consistent with NRC requirements such as advanced notification. He wished to work with NRC to insure consistency.
D.
Preliminary discussions regarding possible technical assistance on licensing of a LLW site in CA have been ongoing. Specific assistance has not been finalized.
6.
iWhat has been the Region's contact with LLW compact negotiating groups or compact commissions?
(if covered in semi-annual report, omit here.)
A.
The RSLO routinely attends the quarterly meetings of the Northwest Compact Commission. Significant changes have taken place since the last meeting. The Chairman, Lynda Brothers has resigned, and the Compact has received consent. Near term developments resulting from these changes will be closely monitored.
B.
The other Compact monitored by the Region, the Western Compact, has not been adopted by California.
Both the status of the Compact Legislation in California, as well as, possible arrangements by AZ in the event CA does not join the Western compact, are major developments followed by the Region. Political sensitivity in both these areas makes tracking difficult.
7.
What compact and other LLW activity is expected in next 6 months? What' is the frequency of compact meetings and if infrequent, who do you contact to keep up to date on LLW?~ How do you get updated on compact meetings that you miss?
As noted in the response to question 6, significant developments are expected in both the Northwest and Western Compacts.
The RSLO has attended all Northwest Compact meetings except one. The Region IV, RSLO attended that particular meeting.
In the event the RSLO could not attend a meeting he would call any of the Commission members, or the Commission staff. The RSLO has established an excellent relationship with each of these individuals and would feel comfortable contacting any of them.
4 8.
What has been the nature of RSLO's liaison with interstate bodies, and regional. groups (other than waste coa. pacts)? Have you attended any of their meetings?
A.
The RSLO met with Patricia Spangler, Western Council of State Governments on January 16, 1985.
B.
The RSLO generally attends the annual regional CRCPD meetings (Regions IX and X).
9.
What MOU's are being negotiated? Is the present guidance sufficient? Is OSP support appropriate?
Two possible MOU's are contemplated regarding LLW inspections (HI and AZ).
Present guidance and OSP support on MOU's is excellent.
10.
What MOU's are anticipated? Can you think of any promising areas that could be explored for MOU's?
No additional MOU's are anticipated.
11.
Has the Region provided information at any regional CRCPD meetings or train.ng sessions? Is there a benefit to the Region in addition to the benefit to CRCPD?
Region V routinely participates in the CRCPD IX and X regional training meetings. There is a definite advantage in that it provides an opportunity to communicate significant NRC or regional changes in policies, practices, regulations, etc., and to obtain state feedback and perspectives on issues of mutual interest. With the addition of a State Agreements Representative to the regional staff there are fewer opportunities for the RSLO to obtain this level of dialogue with the radiation control program directors.
12.
Has the RSLO been called by NRR, NMSS, RES, Commission or other office for support? Be specific.
A.
In response to NRR request, RSLO provided project manager with information regarding state and local officials in San Luis Obispo, CA.
B.
Ongoing, almost routine communication between RSLO and Division of Waste Management on HLW-State related matters, to include attendance at State-NRC meetings with HLW staff.
C.
In response to ADM request, RSLO attended a job fair to represent Region V and answer questions from potential hirees.
D.
In response to IE (emergency response) request, RSLO provided NRC response to FEMA request for evaluation of Arizona emergency plan status.
5 4
E.
In response to request from NRR project manager (Palo Verde), RSLO provided information regarding state and local officials.
F.
In response to RES, RSLO coordinated response to OR request to
- attend a decommissioning workshop on July 30, 1985.
G.
In response to request from Division of Waste Management, RSLO obtained information from WA regarding location of mill sites.
H.
In response to request from IE (Grella) RSLO discussed w/HI (Anamizu), their interest in transportation training.
I.
Coordinated meeting between Waste Management staff and CA Health Department to discuss technical assistance.
~
13.
How are you kept routinely informed of events in the regional office?
Staff meetings. Other.
The RSLO attends weekly staff meetings and is on distribution for PNs, press releases, daily staff notes', etc.
14.
Has RSLO attended or coordinated NRC attendance at State hearings? What role did RSLO play? Is the present guidance sufficient?
A.
On February 27, 1985 the RSLO testified before the California Senate Committee on Toxics and Public Safety Management Committee.
Testimony focused on the establishment of interstate LLRW compacts and NRC support of states' efforts to comply with the LLW Policy Act of 1980.
B.
On August 19, 1985, John Davis, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, testified before the Nevada Legislative Committee on HLW. The request to testify was made directly to NMSS and although the RSLO attended the hearing he played no role in coordinating NRC's appearing before the committee.
15.
What role does the RSLO play on the emergency site team response?
The RSLO is the principal regional staff person designated to fill the Government Liaison Coordinator position. This position is responsible for coordination with all appropriate local, state, and federal officials during an emergency.
16.
What is the average number of nights per month you were out of town overnight in the past year? Approximately what percentage of your travel (requiring overnight stays) did not involve EP work?
A.
Approximately 25% of the RSLO time was spent on travel. This travel involved an average 2k nights out of town per month.
B.
Approximately 60% of travel requiring overnight stays did not involve EP work.
6 17.
To what degree does RSLO attend meetings of HQ Division of Waste Management staff with State officials re HLW7 How would you characterize your knowledge, understanding and familiarity with HLW issues and schedules compared to other material issues (e.g., LLW, transportation)?
During the past year the RSLO has attended two meetings with State officials and Waste Management staff.
In addition the RSLO attended a Nevada Legislative committee hearing wherein testimony was presented by the Director, NMSS.
The Division of Waste Management has an excellent system of apprising the RSLO of significant interaction with Region V states regarding HLW. The RSLO's level of knowledge on HLW issues is adequate to handle most of the situations he encounters.
18.
Who provides back-up in RSLO's absence?
The State Agreements Representative is the principal back-up.
Additionally, the Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, and the Branch Chief, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards provide additional back-up.
19.
Who answers phone in RSLO's absence?
In the RSLO's absence calls are received by the regional telephone console operator.
20.
Describe the clerical and other support received? What is turn-around time for correspondence and reports af ter preparation of draf t?
The RSLO, SAR and the Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch utilizes the Division Director's secretary. Typing of longer documents is done by the regional word processing section. Turn-around time ranges from hours to several days, depending on work load and length of document.
21.
What methods are used to report significant State contacts? Be specific.
(Weekly Events Report? Other?)
A number of methods are utilized including:
Region V Planned Major Events RSLO's Trip Reports Staff Meetings Conference Calls Preliminary Notifications 22.
Are there any activities that you have not been able to get to that you believe should be done?
Both the RSLO and SAR maintain files separate from the Divis'on, Branch, i
or Section files. This is done to relieve the Branch secretaries of a substantial work load. Because of the enormous amount of documents received and given other priorities and time constraints, there
i 7
continually exists a back log of filing. One goal for this coming year
~is to establish a system of filing that will at least partially alleviate this problem area.
- 23. Are there any activities that you believe you should not be doing?
No 24.
What action has been taken on recommendations in last year's appraisal?
On January 16, 1986 the RSLO met with Patricia Spangler, Western Council of State Governments (WCSG).
Passage of P.L.99-240 provided an excellent opportunity to review this legislation with cognizant WCSG staff, and to discuss other current issues of interest to both the NRC and WCSG. The RSLO committed to provide Ms. Spangler with the agenda of the annual Agreement States meeting which will be held in San Francisco in October 1986, and invited her to attend any sessions that might be of interest to her.
25.
How often do you refer to the RSLO guidance document? Do you find it useful? Now that you've been using it for a couple of years do you have any suggestions for changing it? Should it be more prescriptive?
The guidance document is not currently being referred to frequently. As more experience is gained through the use of the document there has been a corresponding decline in the need to rely on it.
However, periodic referral is extremely useful in refreshing and reinforcing the guidance contained therein.
Although the guidance document has not been reviewed with the specific intent of amending it, there are some specific changes that need to be made e.g. 1.c.l.h. (semi-annual reports) and 3 (Compact Commissions).
It is not readily apparent that the functions and responsibilities of RSL0s could be more successfully carried out by following prescriptive procedures or guidance.
- 26. Are there any questions that we haven't asked that you would like to answer anyway?
No.
.