ML20236K469

Responds to 980415 Request for NRC Assistance to Fund New Mexico Environ Dept,Hazardous & Radioactive Matl Bureau, Radiation Licensing & Registration Section Staff Training in NRC Courses.Listed Info Requested to Assist in Review

ML20236K469
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/11/1998
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Weidler M NEW MEXICO, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20236K472	List: ML20236K469 ML20236K498
References
NUDOCS 9807090337
Download: ML20236K469 (6)

Text

!

y -a pMth p t UNITED STATES l

y j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30656-4001

\g. g

• June 11, 1998 Mr. Mark E. Weidler, Secretary New Mexico Environment Department Harold Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive P.O. Box 26110 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502

Dear Mr. Weidler:

I am responding to your April 15,1998 request for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) assistance to fund the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau (HRMB), Radiation Licensing and Registration Section (RLRS),

staff training in NRC courses. In your letter you indicate the earliest you will be able to receive funding for New Mexico program staff training is beginning July 1,2000. We acknowledge the efforts you plari to take in July 1998 and those you are currently taking to address existing training needs. These include reallocation of $3800 from your contract budget to support contractor supplemental and refresher training.

We have conducted a review of your request in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in my December 12,1997 letter to the Agreement States entitled: " Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States"(Enclosure 1). Based on our review, we ask ,

that you provide additional information to assist in our further review of your request. To assist l you, we have outlined the request in accordance with the criteria in Enclosure 1.

DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR TRAINING:

1. Documented training policy. The *RLRS Licensing and Inspection Training Policy" describes the training policy for the New Mexico staff. The policy, however, refers to a training procedure, *HRMS-RLRS Radiation Protection Licensing and Inspection Training Procedure," which you indicate is under development. Without this procedure, we are unable to fully evaluate the adequacy of the New Mexico training program. We request a copy of your "HRMS-RLRS Radiation Protection Licensing and Inspection Training Procedure." (Please see item 1.a, page 2, of Enclosure 1, " Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States" and Section 1246-03, entitled, " Policy," on pages 1 (

and 2 of Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246, (Enclosure 2), for background information and guidance on the elements to include in a training policy statement.)

2. Documented training and qualification requirements (see item 1.a, page 2, of Enclosure 1). Please provide further specific information on the training and qualification requirements for new staff members and routine training requirements (refresher and speciality) for the existing staff. Although a Training Qualification Journal and Training i oe-

'j t

<_ , knp w. sy- ] ;, ~

~(EE g/ ,

9907090337 900611 .

PDR STPRG ESGNM PDR

r ,

Mark E. Weidler -2 JUN 111998 Matrix were included in your request, these documents do not provide sufficient information indicating that the New Mexico program has training and qualification objectives consistent with IMC 1246.

3. The Training Matrix Summary and the Training Qualification Joumal submitted with your request identify courses as " Core Training" and " Specialized Training." There are inconsistences between the courses identified as core and specialized in these documents and those in IMC 1246, or in the "NRC/OAS Training Working Group 1 Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs," October 1997 (Enclosure 3). For example, the Training Matrix Summary and Training Qualification Joumal lists the courses " inspection Fundamentals and Procedures," and " Licensing Practices and Procedures," as specialized training while the Working Group Report and IMC 1246 indicate that these are core or basic training. In addition, these documents indicate that courses "Well Logging and Tracers," and " Industrial Radiography," are core training -

courses while both IMC 1246 and the Working Group report categorize these courses as specialized training. In addition, your documents list the " Advanced Health Physics" course as core training while the Working Group Report indicates that this course is advanced training. Please review your Training Matrix Summary and Training Qualification Joumal for consistency with IMC 1246 and the Working Group Report (e.g., Appendix B of Enclosure 3). If there are significant differences, please provide a rationale or explanation for those differences.

4. Consistent with IMC 1246 and the Working Group Report, either in the training procedure being developed, or in the Training Matrix Summary and Training Qualification Joumal, you should indicate which courses are core courses for certification of staff to conduct independent license reviews or to conduct independent inspections. If the program plans that all RLRS staff are trained to perform both licensa reviews and inspections, this should be indicated in the matrix and the training procedure. The matrix should also indicate which courses have been completed by j each identified staff member and which courses need to be completed in order for that staff member to be qualified to perform independent licensing and/or inspection work.

Although the names of staff members were provided, toe matrix was not complete in this respect.

5. Please provide further information to address the State's training needs (for example, i please identify the number and category of individuals that need training not available in-house or through the contractor-provided training, the number of NRC courses and l spaces in courses that the State can fund, and those that cannot be funded. In addition, l it is difficult to determine from your submittal the amount of assistance being requested from the NRC. We assume that the request is for $3800 since $6500 was requested l

from the New Mexico legislature and $2700 was approved. Please provide a breakdown of the training needs and cost of that training which totals the requested amount of training funds for the period in which you are requesting the funding. In developing this information, please refer to item 1.d., page 3, Enclosure 1.

(

t t t Mark E. Weidler JUN 111l98 DEMONSTRATION OF STATE NEED FOR NRC FUNDING:

Your letter appears to be a certification to NRC that funds are not available. We request confirmation that the letter is intended to serve as a certification and that you have addressed all of the elements identified as needed in a certification (see item 2, on page 3, of Enclosure 1).

l For example, your response to question three of the questionnaire indicates that the RLRS has been authorized limited authority to spend State funds for travel and training to out-of-State workshops. We believe further information is needed to understand the scope of this limited authority.

We will resume review and consideration of your request upon receipt of this additional information. Please contact me at (301) 415-3340 or Ms. Cardelia H. Maupin at (301) 415-2312 or CHM @NRC. GOV if you have any questions or wish to discuss these information needs.

Sincerely,

( 4I /

Richard L. Bangart, DirectortJ u Office of State Programs [

Enclosures:

1. All Agreement States Letter SP-97-085

" Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States"

2. Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246

3. "NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs," October 1997 cc w/o encis: Robert Menke, Director, AMi, NMED Ed Kelley, Director, WWMD, NMED Benito J. Garcia, Chief, HRMB, WWMD William M. Floyd, Program Manager, RLRS, HRMB

f 9 Mark E. W;idi:r JUN 11 1998 DEMONSTRATION OF STATE NEED FOR NRC FUNDING:

Your letter appears to be a certification to NRC that funds are not available. We request confirmation that the letter is intended to serve as a certification and that you have addressed all of the elements identified as needed in a certification (see item 2, on page 3, of Enclosure 1).

For example, your response to question three of the questionnaire indicates that the RLRS hos been authorized limited authority to spend State funds for travel and training to out-of-State workshops. We believe further information is needed to understand the scope of this limitad authority.

We will resume review and consideration of your request upon receipt of this additional information. Please contact me at (301) 415-3340 or Ms. Cardelia H. Maupin at (301) 415-2312 or CHM @NRC. GOV if you have any questions or wish to discuss these information needs.

Sincerely, M L ANG RT Richard L. Bangart, Director j f Office of State Programs l l

Enclosures:

1. All Agreement States Letter SP-97-085

, " Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States"

2. Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246

3. *NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training Programs," October 1997 cc w/o encls: Robert Menke, Director, ASD, NMED Ed Kelley, Director, WWMD, NMED Benito J. Garcia, Chief, HRMB, WWMD William M. Floyd, Program Manager, RLRS, HRMB Distribution:

DIR RF (8S122) DCD (SP08)

SDroggitis PDR (YES_f_ NO )

JLynch, RSAO, Rlli CHackney, RSLO, RIV LMcLean, RSAO, RIV JHornor, RIV/WC New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NMEXICO. REQ *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.

T 3 receive a copf of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" =Copr with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy

~

OFFICE OSP OSP;DD OSP:D [\l R l l 1 NAME CHMaupin:nb PHLohaus RLBangart ' T DATE 06/04/98

• 06/04/98* 06/l /98  :

OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-19 j

r ,

Mirk E. W;idl;r i the requested amount of training funds for the period in which y u are requesting the funding.

In developing this information, please refer to item 1.d., page 3 Enclosure 1.

DEMONSTRATION OF STATE NEED FOR NRC FUNDING:

Your letter appears to be a certification to NRC that funds ar not available. We would appreciate your confirming that the letter is intended to serv as a certification and that you have addressed all of the elements identified as needed in certification (see item 2 on page 3 of Enclosure 1). For example, your response to question t ree of the questionnaire indicates that the RLRS has been authorized limited authority to s nd State funds for travel and training to out-of-State workshops. We believe further informatio is needed to understand the scope of this limited authority.

We will resume review and consideration of your reque upon receipt of this additional information.

(301) 415-2312 orPlease contact CHM @NRC. GOV me if youat (301) have any q415-3340 stions or wishor to %e. Cardelia discuss this H. Maupin at information needs.

S ncerely, Richard L Bangart, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

1

1. Criteria for Training Funding Assistance for Agreement States

2. Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1246

3. *NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for Agreement St e Training Programs, " October 1997 cc: Robert Menke, Director, ASD, NMED Ed Kelley, Director, WWMD, NMED Benito J. Garcia, HRMD, WWMD William M. Floyd, Program Manager, RLRS, HRMB Distribution:

DIR RF (8S122) DCD (SP08)

SDroggitis PDR (YES_f_ NO )

James L. Lynch, RSAO, Rlli M. Linda McLean, RSAO, RIV New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NMEXICO.RE / *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.

Ta receive a cop r of this document,ind6cate in the box: "C" = f fatiy'w bdut attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSIMi$/ OSP:D l NAME CHMaupin:nb PHLoha ut RLBangart DATE 06/04/98

• 06/ /198 l

06/ /98 j OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-19

f Mirk E. W: idler I i

, the requested amount of training funds for the period in which you are requesting the funding. l l

In developing this information, please refer to item 1.d., page 3, Enclosure 1.

DEMONSTRATION OF STATE NEED FOR NRC FUNDING:

Your letter appears to be a certification to NRC that funds are not available. We would appreciate your confirming that the letter is intended to serve as a certification and that you have addressed all of the elements identified as needed in a certifipa, tion (see item 2 on page 3 of Enclosure 1). For example, your response to question three of the questionnaire indicates l that the RLRS has been authorized limited authority to spend State funds for travel and training l to out-of-State workshops. We believe further information is 'eeded to understand the scope of

, this limited authority.

We will resume review and consideration of your requpst upon receipt of this additional information. Please contact me at (301) 415-3340 orMs. Cardelia H. Maupin at (301) 415-2312 or CHM @NRC. GOV if you have any questions or wish to discuss this information needs.

Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director 7

Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

1. Criteria for Training Fysnding Assistance for Agreement Sta,tes

2. Inspection Manua)Dhapter (IMC) 1246

3. "NRC/OAS Traiping Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Pro' " October 1997 Training / grams, cc: Robert Menke, Director, ASD, NMED Ed Kelle'y, Director, WWMD, NMED BenitslJ. Garcia, HRMD, WWMD William M. Floyd, Program Manager, RLRS, HRMB Ja/nes L. Lynch, RSAO, Rlli

. Linda McLean, RSAO, RIV Dis [ribution:

DlR RF (8S122) DCD (SP08)

,SDroggitis PDR (YES_f_ NO )

/

New Mexico File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NMEXICO. REQ T* receive a cop r of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without s'tachment/ enclosure "E" = Cop, enth attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy

} OFFICE Ohh\ OSP DD OSP:D l NAME CHMauki@b PHLohaus RLBangart DATE 06/t(/98 06/ /98 06/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-19 E_-__________.-____ _ _ _ . - - - . - - - .- - J

i r ,

' )

g fem UNITED STATES io' g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30056 4001

\, ,,,,,*/ December 12, 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-97-085) l' Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION...........

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION....XX CRITERIA FOR TRAINING FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR AGREEMENT STATES TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION................

TECHNICAL INFORMATION.............................

OTHER I NFORMATION....................................

Supplementary Information: The Commission has completed its evaluation of issues l l 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 criteria for potential NRC assistance for States that demonstrate a hardship due to lack of 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 19,1997, 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 4' 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 t enclosed. I

( 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 i NRC staff and Agreement State staff fully funded by their State.

1 I

in finn.1 n =,

j

v ..

• i SP-g7085 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.

Prionty til Agreement State staff for whom NRC has funded tuition and travel, in t whole orin part.

l The NRC staff will begin using the criteria and the selection priorities immediately. Additional

{

guidance will be issued in ear 1y 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.

CONTACT: Dennis M. Sollenberger TELEPHONE: (301) 415-281g FAX: (301) 415-3502 INTERNET: DMS4@NRC. GOV 0

( di .

f$st di -

Richard L. Bangart, Director -

Office of State Programs [

Enclosure:

As stated ,

l i

l l

! l l

\.

t t I

C .

e CRITERIA TO EVALUATE AGREEMENT STATE TRAINING AND TRAVEL FUNDING NEEDS 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 or cannot be used for the purposes of training, travel, and technical 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 head or chief financial officer) has been made that funds are not available. In such cases, States 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 ,

pumoses is in the public interest. The staffs proposals should provide for fundin/ and should 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 available" basis with Agreement States funding their own travel and per diem costs.

The staff has considered the area of technical assistance (defined for the purpose of NRC funding support as NRC inspection of Agrecment State licensees or NRC completing Agreement State licensing actions) to Agreement States in the conduct of their licensing and 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 effod 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 Sires 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 l funded by NRC and lastly by Agreement State staff for whom NRC has funded tuition and travel, in whole or in part. State staff a' tending on a " space available" basis would pay all travel and per diem costs, except for students from States with aoproved 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 availability of funds. The staff does not plan to schedule additional courses in the future un;ess the demand would fill the additional courses.

1 l

< , )

]

o.

The staffs 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 i 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 f 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 I items 1 and 2.

l To facilitate preparation of a State request, the sta*f 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 l this information is also included at the end of this document. Submission of informaton

identified in the questionnaire, at a minimum, is necessary for NRC to make a decision on

! funding support. {

1 f

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 their training needs and 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 quali6 cation requirements to include:

- Qualification of new staff.

Routine 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 td performance of program:

I Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) finding regarding j training of staff.

l -

Needed to address a program weakness or deficiency.

{ c. Sources of training:

NRC training courses, workshops and meetings.

l_

2

i Has the State evaluated other attematives to meet their training need?

Did the State find no altematives or the attematives do not meet State needs?

d. Documented financial information that includes 1 The number and category (e.g., new hires versus more experienced) of individuals that need specific training courses not available in-house.

4 The number of courses and spaces in courses that the State can fund and those that cannot be funded given the current budget allocation for training and travel.

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.

2. DEMONSTRATION OF STATE NEED FOR NRC FUNDING

a. The Agreement State should submit a certification by a high ranking official (agency head, chief financial officer, or an equivalent official) 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 and out-of-Fiate 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 j the budget request in the training and travel area, or approved only a portion of l this budget area.  !

b. The submission of the demonstration of need will need to be done each State fisca! ,

year, at a minimum, following the legislative approval and signing of the budget for the j 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 thse' gislature or  ;

administration approval decisions or when another unfunded training need is identified. l Considerations include:

i 3 4

)

u l

Most State fiscal years do not coincide with the NRC fisent year. Thus, the NRC will need to allocate funds for States based on the State fiscal year or it may leave gaps in the training for individual States.

When 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 pncr 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 /DEMONSTRA?lON 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

s. 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, Forma! 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 fundsd, and would not be evaluated further. NRC would further evaluate requests from Agreement States 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,

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 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 i

4 l

)

t a

=

)

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 i amount for essential training for the Agreement State program. l 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 l funding for training and travel for that State will terminate. The NRC will consider unanticipated i 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 j 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, 1 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 i 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 l 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 pnonty courses for each State.

5

t LOGIC FLOW DIAGRAM FOR FUNDING OF AGREEMENT STATE TRAINING ANDTRAVEL Does the State have a documented training and qualifications N0 polley and program that contains ,

objectives consistent I with IMC 1246?  ;

I m

,r Does the State have NO Has the RCP 11 0

,r

. No NRC authority to fund training requested a '

funding and travel? authority to assistance.

fund training YES and travel?

,r M Has the State requested funding for training N0

( ]  ;

and travel?

ir Has a high ranking State No official certified need for assistance from NRC7 m

,r i

NRC will consider funding 50% of the shortfall 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.

i 6

)

J' 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 specifed 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 ofits 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 ofits 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 State is not eligible for NRC funding support.)

2. The State of is on an annual ._ or biennial ._ budget cycle with the 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 your 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

l . .

.. i l

l' INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NRC DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE TRAINING AND TRAVEL AREAS STATE' Cycle8 ASP Bdgts TRNG Est' TRNG Bdgt' %' Comments' A1ABAMA 1,1, ARIZONA 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 l

KENTUCKY 2.2, LOUIStANA 1,1, MAINE 1.2.

MARYLAND 1,1, MASSACHUSETTS 1.1, MISSISSIPPI 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 DAKOTA 2,2, OREGON 2,2.

RHODEISLAND 1,1, SOUTH CAROLINA 1,1, SOUTH CAROLINA -(LLW) 1,1, TENNESSEE 1.1.

8

e .

I m

D' STATE' Cycle' ASP Bdst 8

TRNG Est' TRNG Bdgt'  %* Comments' TEXAS-ARC 2.2,7/1 TEXAS.TNRCC 2.2,7/1 UTAH 1,1, WASHINGTON 1.2.7/1 OHIO 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.

ASP Bdgt - This column is for the Agreement State Program (ASP) Budget wdhin the Radiation Control program.

TRNG EST - This column is for the estimate of the training costs for the Agreement State program, submitted in the budget request to the State legislature. We recognize 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 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.

7 Comments - This column is reserved for commente such as special conditions or special hardships that have been identified by the State.

9