POLICY ISSUE

(Notation Vote)

August 24, 2007 SECY-07-0144

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations /RA/

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POLICY ON FUNDING

OF CERTAIN AGREEMENT STATE TRAINING AND TRAVEL COSTS

PURPOSE:

To provide the Commission with options for a revised policy for funding of certain Agreement

State training and travel, to request the Commission approve staff’s recommended option of

fully funding training and travel for Agreement State personnel, and to inform the Commission

that the staff will begin scheduling the State Liaison Officers’ meeting every other year and will

begin providing travel funding for one Agreement State representative from one Agreement

State to attend the annual U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Organization of

Agreement State (OAS) meeting in addition to the audiovisual and other meeting support

funding. This paper does not address any new commitments. 

SUMMARY:

This paper provides a condensed history of NRC’s funding of Agreement State personnel

training and associated travel to attend NRC-sponsored training courses related to materials

licensing and inspection. This paper also responds to the Chairman’s commitment to State 

CONTACT: Anthony S. Kirkwood, FSME/DMSSA

(301) 415-6140
The Commissioners -2-

representatives at the August 1-2, 2006, State Liaison Officers’ meeting, in which the Chairman

indicated that the NRC would consider its funding policy for Agreement State personnel training

and associated travel. The staff has prepared an analysis of four different options for

Commission consideration ranging from continuing the status quo of not providing funding to

fully funding training and travel costs for Agreement State personnel to attend NRC-sponsored

courses. The staff recommends the option of returning to the NRC’s previous policy of fully

funding training and travel for Agreement State personnel. 

BACKGROUND:

History of Funding for Agreement State Training

Since the creation of the Agreement State program in the early 1960s, the NRC has assisted

the Agreement States by funding training and travel. Two NRC informational documents,

NUREG-1311, “Funding the NRC Training Program for States,” issued in 1988, and

NUREG-1356, “State Cost Sharing of Training,” issued in 1989, discuss the Agreement State

travel and training program and its funding. These documents discuss, among other items, the

legislative history of the Agreement State program, the training program to support it, and the

costs of training through 1989. The summary of State perspectives from NUREG-1311 states

the following: 

The States view NRC training as essential to their ability to maintain programs

which are adequate to protect public health and safety. NRC funding of travel

and per diem costs for State personnel approved to attend NRC training is a

critical element in many States to obtain approval to travel out-of-state to NRC

training. Any change that would reduce or eliminate such NRC funding will, in

some States’ view, lead to a significant reduction of State staff attending NRC

training, and this will eventually impact upon the States’ abilities to adequately

protect public health and safety. 

Increased State user fees to enable State funding of these costs is not always a

feasible alternative. User fees do not normally go to State Radiation Control

Program’s (RCP) budget but go to State treasuries. State RCP funds are then

appropriated, but control and approval of expenditure of funds to pay out-of-state

travel, necessary to attend NRC training, is outside the RCP and sometimes

outside the State Agency.

State turnover creates a continuing need for NRC training for replacements. 

State in-house training is extensively used but is not a substitute for NRC

training. 

These documents estimated that, if there were no Agreement State program, the NRC’s

additional costs to regulate the Agreement State licensees would have been approximately

$13 million in 1988 and $18 million in 1989. A more recent estimate is not available. 
The Commissioners -3-

In 1994, the then Office of State Programs and the former Office for Analysis and Evaluation of

Operational Data (AEOD) began working to combine the training conducted by the two offices

into a single program which would be consistent for all regulatory personnel, whether from the

NRC or an Agreement State (i.e., a national training program). This combined program helped

ensure acceptable minimum qualifications for Agreement State licensing and inspection staffs. 

The offices developed and implemented a transition plan, and the combined program began in

fiscal year (FY) 1995. The primary goal of combining the training programs was to provide

consistent minimum technical training for all materials regulatory personnel. 

The attendance of Agreement State personnel at courses conducted by AEOD was not

considered unique since, in the past, certain technical training had been available on a limited

basis to non-NRC personnel at no cost. Examples of non-NRC personnel include foreign

students, non-Agreement State personnel, and personnel from other Federal agencies.

In conjunction with this coordinated training, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards and AEOD, with input from Agreement States, had completed development of an

Inspection Manual Chapter that specifically addressed training requirements for NRC materials

licensing and inspection personnel. An NRC/OAS working group used this Inspection Manual

Chapter to help identify basic courses or essential training necessary for Agreement State

personnel qualification. This basic set of training courses for qualifications of NRC and

Agreement State materials program staff was consistent with the goal of establishing a

nationally coherent materials regulatory program as described in the May 5, 1995,

SECY-95-115, “Final Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program.” 

Several of the required courses in the NRC list, although important, are not necessary for

Agreement State personnel since they address issues that are primarily unique to the NRC. 

The NRC has also had a longstanding practice of funding travel for Agreement State personnel

to attend meetings with the NRC to discuss regulatory issues. The NRC began informal

meetings with the Agreement States in the late 1960s. These meetings became more formal in

the 1970s with the annual All Agreement State meeting. In the past, the NRC arranged for

these meetings and paid travel and per diem for an individual from each State to attend. The

NRC has also paid for travel for Agreement State personnel to attend other meetings with, and

workshops conducted by, the NRC. At many of these meetings and workshops, the staff has

found that information about Agreement State experiences has benefitted NRC activities such

as rulemaking and guidance development. 

Change in Policy for Funding Agreement State Training and Travel

On November 5, 1990, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

(OBRA-90) requiring that the NRC recover 100 percent of its budget authority (less

appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund) by assessing fees to NRC applicants and

licensees. The NRC, in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, reported to the

Congress in February 1994 on the license fee policy, recommending that OBRA-90 be
The Commissioners -4-

amended to delete certain budgeted costs from the NRC fee base, including those associated

with the Agreement States program. Congress did not act on this recommendation at that time. 

Consequently, on January 25, 1995, the staff submitted SECY-95-017 (ML022830628),

“Reinventing NRC Fee Policies,” to the Commission. That paper addressed the longstanding

equity concern associated with NRC licensees’ receiving no benefit from the Agreement State

program even though the program is funded from NRC licensee fees. One of the

recommendations was to recover the costs for NRC services that directly support the

Agreement States through reimbursable agreements.

The Commission approved the staff recommendation, and the NRC informed the Agreement

States of the decision by an All Agreement States letter dated March 14, 1995. In addition, 

publication of this decision in the Federal Register (60 FR 14670, March 20, 1995) resulted in

the receipt of comments from the Agreement States and from NRC licensees.

The reactions of the Agreement States and the NRC licensees to the new Commission policy

on funding of Agreement State training and travel were predictable. Overall, licensees

supported the Commission decision, and Agreement States opposed it. The most significant

comments about the impact of the cost reimbursement policy decision addressed concern

about the quality of future Agreement State staff training. Training quality is acknowledged as

one of the strengths of the Agreement State program, and the consolidation of training for NRC

and Agreement State materials program staff, using the revised basic training concept, further

strengthens the training program. 

The Commission announced in the Federal Register notice for the final 1995 fee rule

(60 FR 32218, June 20, 1995) that, in FY 1997, the NRC would discontinue funding for

Agreement State training and travel and require that the Agreement States reimburse the NRC

for some of the training services. The process to implement this policy is discussed in SECY95-192, “Agreement State Reimbursement of NRC Costs” dated July 24, 1995 (ML023250185);

SECY-97-183, “Criteria for Funding Agreement State Training, Travel, and Technical

Assistance,” dated August 7, 1997 (ML992930015); and SECY-98-295, “Effectiveness of

Criteria for Funding Agreement State Training,” dated December 18, 1998 (ML992870018). 

These papers also discussed the effects of discontinued funding on the Agreement States.

Subsequently, in 1999, Congress enacted legislation that removed 2 percent of the NRC’s

budget authority from the fee base with an additional 2 percent to be removed each year until

10 percent of the NRC’s budget authority had been removed from the fee base in FY 2005. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 made 90-percent fee recovery permanent beginning in FY 2007. 

This is reflected in the Commission’s final fee rule for FY 2007, which the NRC published in the

Federal Register (72 FR 31401, June 6, 2007). As a result of the legislation and the increasing

NRC budgets, the costs of all NRC activities pertaining to the Agreement State program have

been removed from the fee base.
The Commissioners -5-

DISCUSSION:

Agreement State Personnel

During the question and answer session with Chairman Klein at the August 2006 State Liaison

Officers’ meeting, State representatives raised the issue of the NRC’s restoring funding for

training and associated travel to assist the States in maintaining a sufficient number of

adequately trained staff. The NRC staff has reviewed the history of the Agreement State

program funding for training and travel and the license fee equity issue. Since the NRC now

has 10 percent of its budget off the fee base, the equity issue appears to be less of a concern. 

In addition, the NRC’s annual budget appropriation has increased in recent years which has

made more funds available off the fee base for funding training and associated travel to assist

the States. As a result, the staff has developed the following four options for funding such

training and travel for Commission consideration: 

Option 1 - Maintain the Status Quo, which would continue the current policy of States funding

of their own training and associated travel.

Option 2 - Full Funding, returning essentially to the previous policy of the NRC fully funding

training and associated travel.

Option 3 - Tuition Funding, which would modify the current policy to provide for NRC funding

of the tuition for Agreement-related training with the States paying for the

associated travel.

Option 4 - Limited Tuition and Travel Funding, which would modify the current policy to fund

Agreement State training and associated travel for a limited number of training

courses.

The enclosure to this paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these options. 

Funding for limited numbers of Agreement State personnel is consistent with the Commission

direction for Increased Controls (IC) training and the proposed training associated with the

National Source Tracking System (NSTS) addressed in COMSECY-07-0009, “Strategy for

Funding the Agreement States for Training and other Activities that Support the Development

and Initiation of the National Source Tracking System” dated March 2, 2007 (ML063560444). 

The staff recommends Option 2, Full Funding.

Non-Agreement State Personnel

In preparing this paper, the staff considered funding of Agreement State staff training and

associated travel including States considering developing a regulatory program to become an

Agreement State and those States in the process of becoming an Agreement State (that is,

States that have submitted a letter of intent to the NRC from the Governor). Section 274i of the

Atomic Energy Act, as amended (AEA), allows the NRC to provide training, with or without

charge, for employees of any State as deemed appropriate considering the additional expenses
The Commissioners -6-

that a State may incur as a consequence of an AEA Section 274b Agreement with the

Commission. Although the staff’s understanding is that the NRC may fund training and

associated travel for personnel of Agreement States (including those who have submitted a

letter of intent), the staff does not believe that the NRC is authorized to fund training and

associated travel for non-Agreement State personnel. 

Invitational Travel 

All options would continue to fund invitational travel, at various levels depending on the option,

in accordance with the current NRC Management Directive 14.1, “Official Temporary Duty

Travel.” The staff would restore invitational travel funding for Agreement State personnel to

attend the annual OAS meeting, as provided in the past for one individual from each Agreement

State, as well as support funding for necessary meeting needs such as audiovisual support and

meeting room costs. In addition, the State Liaison Officers’ meeting, which has been held

every 3 years, will be held every 2 years based on the recent positive feedback on the

usefulness of the meeting in the current changing regulatory environment.

Alternatives for Training 

Alternative training methods, such as Web-based courses and video conferencing, have been

tried and found to be of limited utility because the length of most courses (a week or more)

makes these methods impractical. Other problems with using Web-based training and video

conferencing are related to technology limitations, time zone issues, and excessive costs. 

Other presentation methods (such as video/audio tapes) have been considered; however, they

need to be updated regularly, are expensive to prepare, and lack the teacher/student and

student/student interaction benefits that are essential parts of the learning experience. Remote

training locations, other than the NRC Technical Training Center (TTC), have generally been

successful when courses do not require such resources as specialized labs or facilities and are

currently part of the TTC training program. The NRC routinely supports individual Agreement

State requests for the conduct of a training course at an alternate location (e.g., at State

offices).

To the extent that NRC resources allow and course objectives are met, the NRC will continue to

work closely with the OAS and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors

(CRCPD) to seek innovative training methods that are not cost prohibitive, outdated too quickly,

or prohibited by law. Currently, the NRC is working with CRCPD to prepare limited

computer-based training modules, present NRC courses at various State locations, present

additional NRC security-related courses at OAS annual meetings (e.g., training on the National

Source Tracking System), and use train-the-trainer proposed courses.

Program Impacts 

The enclosure discusses the program impacts for each of the four options. The most

significant program change would be the funding and administration of the attendee selection
The Commissioners -7-

and travel processing if the Commission changes the funding policy. The overall number of

Agreement State staff requesting to attend NRC-funded courses could increase as the result of

an easier approval process for travel funded by the Federal Government and reduced impact

on Agreement State budgets. This increase may require consideration of scheduling and

contracting for additional courses if the Office of Human Resources (HR) receives additional

funding and the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management

Programs funding for State staff travel does not exceed the currently proposed level.

STATE COORDINATION: 

In developing these options, the staff considered the recent letter from the Executive Director of

the CRCPD, Ruth E. McBurney. In her letter (ML070670052) dated March 6, 2007,

Ms. McBurney indicated the critical need for funding of Agreement State training programs,

especially for States developing programs and are in the process of becoming Agreement

States. In addition to suggesting that alternative training modalities be cooperatively

developed, she suggested that: (1) the NRC might pay a percentage of the costs for state

personnel to travel to NRC sponsored training; (2) NRC staff participate at annual OAS and

CRCPD meetings for beneficial interaction (networking); (3) the NRC issue grants or contracts

supporting ICs, security inspections, detection, source tracking, and terrorist incident response

activities and the Department of Homeland Security provide assistance to States (neither are

within the scope of this paper); (4) the NRC have alternative training locations throughout the 

country; (5) the NRC provide training courses that can be given in conjunction with the annual

OAS and CRCPD meetings; and (6) the NRC and States jointly develop Web-based training 

programs. The development of this paper addressed these suggestions except where noted.

To further coordinate with the States, the NRC staff provided a draft of the Commission paper

to and held a conference call with the OAS Executive Board, Ms. McBurney and the CRCPD

Chairman. During the conference call, the State representatives expressed support for

restoration of full funding by NRC for Agreement State training and associated travel (Option 2). 

They also commented that, if the Commission chooses one of the partial funding options

(Option 3 preferred, Option 4 second), the States would like the flexibility on a State-by-State 

basis to select whether the State or the NRC would pay the tuition costs or the associated travel

costs. The State representatives also provided comments which have been incorporated in the

Advantages and Disadvantages in the enclosure to this paper. 

RESOURCES: 

The staff estimates that $630,000 would be needed during FY 2009 to support initial operations

under Option 2, Full Funding, which is being requested as part of the budget process for

FY 2009. The staff will explore training resources needs in the preparation of the FY 2010

budget. Although the staff considered funding in the amount of $500,000 for FY 2008, there

were no funds available from lower priority activities to be reprogrammed. 

If additional courses are needed to meet Agreement State training needs, additional funding for

contract costs may need to be reprogrammed to HR since the office’s FY 2009 budget did not

include any additional funding for the increased training demand by Agreement State staff. HR
The Commissioners -8-

may also need to increase the number of contract modifications to address the size, number,

and location of classes provided under contract. Slight increases in regional FTE may be

necessary to support the increase in teaching effort for NRC taught courses. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The staff recommends that the Commission approve Option 2, which would provide full funding

of Agreement State training and associated travel to support the Agreement States, thereby

helping to promote a nationally consistent training program for NRC and Agreement State

materials licensing and inspection staff. 

Note

1. The staff will begin scheduling the State Liaison Officers’ meeting every other year

instead of every third year.

2. The staff will begin providing travel funding for one Agreement State representative from

each Agreement State to attend the annual NRC/OAS meeting in addition to the

audiovisual and other meeting support funding.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has

no objection.

This document contains predecisional budget information which is considered sensitive

information and should not be released to the public. 

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure: 

Training Options and Costs
The Commissioners -8-

may also need to increase the number of contract modifications to address the size, number,

and location of classes provided under contract. Slight increases in regional FTE may be

necessary to support the increase in teaching effort for NRC taught courses. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The staff recommends that the Commission approve Option 2, which would provide full funding

of Agreement State training and associated travel to support the Agreement States, thereby

helping to promote a nationally consistent training program for NRC and Agreement State

materials licensing and inspection staff. 

Note

1. The staff will begin scheduling the State Liaison Officers’ meeting every other year

instead of every third year.

2. The staff will begin providing travel funding for one Agreement State representative from

each Agreement State to attend the annual NRC/OAS meeting in addition to the

audiovisual and other meeting support funding.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The

Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has

no objection.

This document contains predecisional budget information which is considered sensitive

information and should not be released to the public. 

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure: 

Training Options and Costs

ML072040436 EDATS: FSME-2007-0020

OFFICE DMSSA DMSSA DMSSA DMSSA DMSSA HR

NAME AKirkwood DSollenberger DWhite SMoore JSchlueter KGibson

DATE 08/08/07 08/08/07 08/08/07 08/08/07 08/08/07 06/26/07

OFFICE CFO OGC TechEd FSME EDO

NAME LBarnett

(ELegrand for)

FXCameron

(NLO)

CPoland

(HChang for)

CMiller

(GPangburn for)

LReyes

DATE 07/13/07 07/02/07 08/01/07 08/14/07 08/24/07

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY