ML20141B059

Informs Commissions Decisions for Dsis 2,4,5,6,7,10,13 & 14 Are Publicly Available

ML20141B059
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/03/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Maupin C NRC
Shared Package
ML20140G351	List: ML20140G345 ML20141B023 ML20141B059
References
NUDOCS 9705150116
Download: ML20141B059 (2)

Text

. ~. .. . - . _ . -- . - . . . . . _ - - . - - -. . . - - . . . . . _ . .-- - .. . . .

a * ,

, . t

.i ,

t t

From: Richard Bangart To: CHM Date: 4/3/97 8:55am

Subject:

DSI SRMs Cardelia, An April 2,1997 NRC press release indicates that Commission decisions for DSis 2,4, 5,6,7, 10,13, and 14 are publicly available. Please prepare an OSP letter to go to all Agreement  ;

States and SLOs distributing copies of these SRMs. I have a copy of the press release if you need one. Thanks. ,

CC: PHL,SCD,DMS4

/

I l

P i

i 9705150116 970429 PDR STPRO ESGC0 l PDR u.  !

1

l l

l 2-24-97 )

s Kathaleen:

J

^

SECY is tracking us on this.

When will we be getting  :

backtoRgliff? i m )

Margo *f.

l a r m  ;-

M a P

h i

m w F JM i l

.'~ b O '.

wp T

l

$ls%QAgybg)'

k O

i 1

i i

i I

a e

w 1

)

e UNITED STATES

• /

p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Distribution:

WASHINGTON, C.C. 20655-0001 g g g Decembe, 28, 1995 JMilhoan 1+,*****p[ HThompson JBlaha CHAIRMAN RScroggins, OC CPaperiello, NMSS JTurdici, OEDO RBangart, SP Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chair PLarkins, SP Organization of Agreement States CCameron, OGC Texas Department of Health DMorrison, RES Bureau of Radiation Control E00-837 1100 West 49th Street E00 r/f Austin, Texas 78756-3189

Dear Mr. Ratliff:

In response to your letter of November 14, 1995, I want to thank you for taking the time to express your appreciation of our efforts to provide a forum for discussion of issues of mutual concern to NRC and the Agreement States, at the 1995 All Agreement States meeting which was held in Chicago, Illinois, October 30-November 1, 1995. In your letter, you also identify a number of issues, comments, and concerns of the Organization of Agreement States (0AS).

We are providing the following responses to the issues of concern in the order in which they were raised.

On page 1 of your letter, you indicated that the OAS is very concerned by k NRC's policy to discontinue funding for Agreement State staff to attend NRC sponsored training courses and for future All Agreement State meetings starting October 1, 1996. The 0%S is concerned that this funding issue could lead to the demise of the Agrcuent States Program and significantly set g 3 radiation safety back in the United States.

a f Yey I recognize your concern, and in response to SECY-95-192, the Commission N[ Q decided'not to make any changes at this time, but to reconsider the issue as

_9> part of the current agency strategic assessment and rebaselining effort in order to include a broader perspective with respect to the Agreement States Program. The staff will keep you informed of any information regarding this issue provided by the management group tasked with performing a strategic assessment and rebaselining of NRC's operations.

Additionally, on page 1 of your letter, you indicated that the OAS realizes that the NRC has created a management group charged with making a strategic assessment and rebaselining of NRC's operations. The OAS unanimously passed a motion requesting the NRC to allow the Chair of the OAS to appear before this group to. provide Agreement States' input.

To facilitate our understanding of your interest in this area and to provide you with information about the strategic assessment process, James L. Milhoan, Co-Chairperson, sir:tegic Assessment and Planning Committee, held a conference call with you, and other 0AS and NRC staff, on December 4, 1995. During that call, Mr. Milhoan reviewed the principal phases in the strategic assessment process, as well as the substance and timing for upcoming activities. As a result of those discussions, it is our understanding that the OAS intends to provide a written record of specific views and c6ncerns by January 19, 1996, O <- ' l L )

f[ Originated By: P.Larkins,SP]

e Richard A. R 611ff 2 December 28, 1995 for consideration by the Strategic Assessment and Planning Committee. i Additionally, as indicated during the telephone conference, following senior NRC management review of an initial staff report on NRC functions, presently planned for the week of January 22, 1996, staff will be in touch with you to ,

j discuss further opportunity for 0AS to express their views in this area.

Enclosed is a response to the five resolutions and one motion discussed on i

., page 2 of your letter.

i Thank you for providing us your views on issues of concern to the OAS. We

- appreciate and encourage discussion and comment on NRC issues from the Agreement States and look forward to continued discussion and forums in which j NRC and the Agreement States can work together to improve the health and safety of the public.

We have enjoyed working with you during the past year, and look forward to continuing to work with you as the past Chair, and, Terry Strong, the new Chair, of the OAS. With respect to your interest in meeting, in the past 0AS has briefed the Commission in the January-February time frame following

! receipt of your letter. I suggest we consider following a similar approach;

we would be pleased to schedule a meeting at a convenient time.

Sincerely,

& L Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated cc: T. R. Strong Department of Health Olympia, Washington 4

d d

9 3 ,

Richard A. Ratliff 2 for consideration by thi. Strategic Assessment and Planning Committee.

Additionally, as indicated during the telephone conference, following senior NRC management review of an initial staff report on NRC functions, presently planned for the week of January 22, 1996, staff will be in touch with you to discuss further opportunity for 0AS to express their views in this area.

j Enclosed is a response to the five resolutions and one motion discussed on page 2 of your letter. 1

{

Thank you for providing us your views on issues of concern to the OAS. We appreciate and encourage discussion and comment on NRC issues from the Agreement States and look forward to continued discussion and forums in which J NRC and the Agreement States can work together to improve the health and safety of the public.

We have enjoyed working'with you during the past year, and look forward to {

continuing to work with you as the past Chair, and, Terry Strong, the new Chair, of the OAS. With respect to your interest in meeting, in the past 0AS I has briefed the Commission in the January-February time frame following  !

receipt of your letter. I suggest we consider following a similar approach; '

we would be pleased to schedule a meeting at a convenient time.

Sincerely, . l Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated cc: T. Strong, Washington Distribution: See next page.

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PML\0ASRSP.PL *See previous concurrence.

TD receive a copy of this document. indicate in the boc 'C" = Copy without attachment /enclosurc 'Er = Copy w3h attachment / enclosure 'N' = No copy 0FFICE OSP OSP:DD l OGC l RES:D NMSS:D l

NAME PLarkins PLohaus FCameron DMorrison CPaperiello DATE 12/8/95* 12/8/95* 12/12/95* 12/11/95* 12/11/95*

OFFICE OSP:D DEDS p / DEDR l @7 l NAME RLBangart HLThomps W JMilhoan JMTayloV DATE 12/12/95* 12/lj /95 12/13/95* 12hg/95 OSP FILE CODE:' SP-0-12 Distribution: See next page.

ENCLOSURE I

i RESPONSE TO ALL AGREEMENT STATES ISSUES

, 1. The OAS recommends that the NRC Office of State Programs establish a joint working group with the Agreement States to develop consensus on training issues.

NRC Response: We support your resolution and ask that you provide Mr. Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs (OSP), a point of contact to initiate action in the establishment of a joint NRC\ Agreement State working group on training.

2. The OAS requests NRC to revise its financial surety rules to allow additional options that are actually viable for small licensees who are unable to obtain surety under the current rules. If NRC thinks acceptable surety is available, then NRC should provide an Information Notice that describes who, where, what, and how to contact for information regarding the available surety.

NRC Response: Without further information, NRC does not plan to revise its surety rules and believes that existing rules provide sufficient i guidance and number of options for all classes of licensees. NRC staff previously responded to an inquiry from an Agreement State asking for guidance in this area. The response indicated that NRC's experience has been that many licensees use letters of credit for decommissioning financial assurances. Based on general information we have obtained, letters of credit are generally obtained for about 1 to 2 percent of the value of the instrument. Depending on the financial condition of the licensee, banks may request various levels of collateral as a function of the level of risk the bank is willing to accept. In some cases, financially insecure licensees may not be able to obtain letters of credit and will have to use another financial instrument. NRC staff does not maintain a list of banks that provide letters of credit. NRC decommissioning financial assurance regulations allow the use of a wic%

range of options including prepayment methods (trusts, escrow sc:::na, government funds, certificates of deposit, or deposits of government securities); surety, insurance, and guarantee methods (bonds, letters of credit, lines of credit, insurance policies, parent guarantee, and self-guarantees); external sinking funds; and statements of intent from government licensees. Additional information about acceptable instruments is in Regulatory Guide 3,66, " Standard Format and Content of Financial Assurance Mechanisms Required for Decommissioning under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72."

NRC regulations also designate possession limits below which licensees are not required to obtain decommissioning financial assurance. This provision takes care of most NRC licensees that are small businesses.

A

.- g , '

s ,

i

2 In cases wh'ere licensees are unable to obtain financial assurance, the '

States can assess whether a suitable mechanism can be negotiated with the licensee, under an exemption to its regulations, that can ultimately meet the intent of the regulations. If such negotiations do not provide ,

a suitable resolution, the State will need to decide whether the license i should be suspended. The State needs to balance its risk of having to remediate a site using taxpayer money against continued operation of a '

licensee who may not be able to fund decommissioning.

4 i In order to' increase our understanding of the specific concerns that Agreement State licensees may have in this area, we are prepared to set up a conference call between OAS representatives, the program directors j of the concerned specific Agreement States, and appropriate NRC staff.

l An OSP staff member will contact you to coordinate this effort. H i 3. The OAS urges the NRC to insure that representatives of both Agreement i

and non-Agreement. States are allowed to participate in early reviews of ,

the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on regulation of ionizing  !

{

radiation in medicine so that state perspectives and concerns are ,

recognized. -

3 NRC Response: We support your resolution and agree that the Agreement l

States should participate in the review of the NAS study in order that  ;

State perspectives and concerns are recognized. Upon receipt of an '

i

! official copy of the NAS. study, Mr. Richard L. Bangart, Director, OSP, will contact 0AS to provide for appropriate State participation in the early review of the NAS report.

, 4. It is iniperative that several de'initions in 10 CFR Part 34 be Division II or III, rather than Division I level of compatibility. The OAS requests that its S::utive Committee appoint a group to work with the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), the  !

1

) American Society of Nondestructive Testing (ASNT), and the NRC in 4

designing a program to coordinate industrial radiographer certification

> information to insure that reciprocity and enforcement actions are effective in-improving radiation safety.

l NRC Response: On November 29, 1995, we provided all of the Agreement L States with a copy of the proposed final 10 CFR Part 34 rule, that i addresses the subject of radiographer certification and the two-person  !

crew, for review and comment. We also included a copy of this  !

L resolution with our letter and asked for your comments on whether the rule adequately addressed your concerns. NRC staff plans to add l

language to the Statement of Considerations that we believe will address the substance of your concerns which we understand principally deal with the equivalence of the definitionssof radiographer assistant and 4

radiographer trainee. In our November 29, 1995 letter to All Agreement l

States, transmitting the proposed Part 34 rule for comment, we also  ;-

4 asked for your comments on how best to address this resolution.

i i.

}

4

--- . , -, , _ .- - , _4., -, , - ,e

i.

3 '

e

4 t

2 e

As we have in the past, primarily through workshops, we believe it is ,

important to work collectively with the OAS to ensure effective, 1 coordinated, review and discussion of program issues. relative to the j

Agreement States, such as designing.a program to coordinate industrial 1 l

radiographer certification information. We are prepared to work with l 1

j the group, appointed by 0AS, in coordination with tie CRCPD and the ASNT.

I 5. The OAS urges NRC to take immediate steps to provide the Agreement States with early and substantive involvement in developing policy on I. standardization, evaluation of sealed sources and devices (SS&D), and in j developing criteria for evaluating Agreement States which review and approve distribution of sealed sources and devices.

i NRC Resoonse: Relative to criteria that will be applied in the evaluation of SS&D, we plan to share, and will continue to share, early drafts as we continue to develop implementing procedures under the i Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), such as implementing criteria for the evaluation of SS&D. A draft copy of the l SS&D implementing procedures will be provided to the Agreement States in i

December 1995. In addition, the staff conducted an SS&D training i workshop on September 12-15, 1995, in which the Agreement States  !

j participated. We are open to any views and comments from the Agreement.

States.

During and subsequent to the SS&D workshop, we provided copies of all 1 guidance documents and the Standard Review Plan (SRP) that NRC would use in conducting such evaluations. Additionally, for your convenience, a l- diskette copy of the SS&D SRP was mailed out on November 16, 1995.

Plear,e note the SRP is in draft form, and NRC welcomes the views' of the OAS on the SRP or other guidance documents discussed during the workshop l training. We would also appreciate any suggestions to approach and-address this part of your resolution, as we have already provided ,

relevant information. We would appreciate receiving any comments that i you may have on the SS&D SRP by the end of February.

6. Finally, the OAS requests that the NRC revisit the comments and  !

suggestions made by the Agreement States on the Final Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement States Program and Procedures for Suspension and Termination of an Agreement State Program.

NRC Resoonse: As you are aware, the Commission approved two new policy statements but delayed their implementation pending development of j

supporting implementing procedures. An NRC-0AS Working Group is currently developing implementing procedures for the Adequacy and Compatibility Policy Statement. The Working Group was provided copies of all comments received in response to the Federal Reaister publication of the draft Statement of Principles and Policy for the

.' l .

4 Agreement States Program (Principles Policy). The Working Group has agreed to recommend changes to the Principles Policy, if such needs are identified as a result of their efforts to develop Adequacy and Compatibility implementing procedures.

The Commission also noted that during development of procedures for both policy statements, some modification of the policy' statements might be necessary to reflect experience or specific issues addressed in the implementing procedures. The NRC-0AS Working Group and the NRC staff '

responsible for the development of procedures will provide Agreement States the opportunity to comment on the implementing procedures and any proposed changes to the policy statements. In addition, while NRC staff believes that comments on the draft Principles Policy were appropriately considered, staff also believes that the criteria for emergency ,

suspension of an Agreement State program should be re-evaluated. I I

i