ML20011D114
| ML20011D114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/15/1989 |
| From: | Harold Denton NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-89-346, NUDOCS 8911290224 | |
| Download: ML20011D114 (37) | |
Text
,p
[
e.....oooooooooooooooooo l
I RELEASED TO THE PDR
- 1
' '1 3/JP/9o cL l
\\e.....<Li !....ao.............f....:.
inma (Notation Vote)
November 15, 1989 SECY-89-346 For:
The Commissioners From:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Subject:
PROPOSED REVISION TO NRC POLICY STATEMENT " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS"
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval to aublish for public coment proposed revisions relating to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in pennanent disposal facilities, as well as other minor revisions.
Background:
On June 4, 1987, NRC published a final general statement of policy for evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs (5? FR 21132). During development of the policy statement, the staff stated plans in SECY-86-265 (September 8,1986) to consider future revision of the guidelines for States having programs regulating the permanent disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The revision would be proposed after the staff had gained additional experience with applying 10 CFR Part 61 or equivalent State regulations.
l
Contact:
V. Miller, GPA/SLITP 49-20326 by%
(6ct H AC1 Cal 4 XA 3 30'
~
[:t
.]
e 6
n.
The Commissioners 2
l 1
i Discussion:
There are currently 29 Agreement States. The most i
recent agreement with Illinois became effec'tive i
June 1, 1987. The 1987 policy statement and the staff's implementation of it, primarily through periodic onsite reviews of the Agreement State programs, has been successful in helping the Agreement States maintain programs that the staff
']
has determined to be adequate to protect public s
health and safety and compatible with NRC programs.
While overall implementation of the policy statement' has been effective in maintaining adequate and l
compatible Agreement State programs, the staff's l
experience has led it to conclude that the policy statement is in need of updating and clarification relating to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.
In 1988, the Commission staff initiated revisions to the policy statement to reflect the need to adequately review State regulatory programs for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal l
facilities. The Office of Governmental and Public Affairs solicited information for a proposed revision
. i from the Agreement States, NMSS, and the Regional offices. A preliminary draft of the proposed revision d
was sent to all 50 States on November 23, 1988, and 1
February 7,1989, for early comment. Comments were received from 21 States and have been incorporated as appropriate. The revised document will be used by NRC in its review of those State programs that regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.
It will also be used to strengthen the review of other State programs that regulate other aspects of radioactive waste management, such as packaging, treatment, storage, and transportation.
In the process of making revisions, major attention was given to the low-level waste guidelines. Some additiunal changes were made. The major proposed revisions are identified and discussed in the proposed Federal Register notice (pages 2 through 8)
(Enclosure 1).
The policy statement is meant to be general in nature.
It is meant to be applicable to all i
'i l
j The Comissioners 3
j I
radioactive materials programs conducted under an NRC agreement with a State. However, we have included i
in the past specific guidelines for uranium mill regulatory programs (which have as their origin the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended) and are proposing specific guidelines
)
relating to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in pennanent disposal facilities.
j i
Coordination:
The proposed revision has been concurred in by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
1 The Office of General Counsel has reviewed the proposed letter and has no legal objection to it.
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve publication for public comment of a Federal 4
Register notice proposing revisions relating to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in 1
permanent disposal facilities and other minor revisions.
2.
Note:
A 60-day public comment period will be provided.
l Copies of the Federal Register notice will be provided to the Agreement States and to other interested parties upon request.
Appropriate Congressional committees will beinformed(Enclosure 2).
Apublicannouncem,ent(Enclosure 3)will be issued when the policy statement is filed with the Office of the Federal r
Register.
/$ $
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
1.
Proposed Federal Register Notice 2.
Draft Congressional Letter 3.
Draft Public Announcement 6
{...
s 2
4 I
i commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Friday, December 1, 1989.
l t
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, November 24, 1989, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
l DISTRIBUTION:
GPA 1
REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACNW ASLBP ASLAP i
SECY O
P t
k 6
i a
h 9
i:
3 e an m
... ~. e c. - e, m eme++ e -<
-*---..*en.-+em,.e..,me.e, s,
j.uu
- ,,r up + ' s e c %gv
'y M;y
,r
<;e
'4
- 9,*3 4.m W
{A r ~"
f 4
8 i
p' f
', 5 9
4 w
l 4),
e 0
9 e
i f.
(,
r u
k
., g.%
.eg,
. < ew e. -.. m+ t o +-. st amme *- < -
6
P l
r
\\
i l
i Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs:
Proposed General Statement of Policy AGENCY: U $. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed revision to general statement of policy.
$UP9ERY: The Nuclear Re9ulatory Comission proposes to revise its general statement of policy, 'Gu'delines for NRC Review of A reement State Radiation Control Programs,' June 4, 1987. The proposed revis on to the guidelines i
was prepared by the NRC staff to incorporate changes specifically related to the regulation of low-level radioactive waste disposal in permanent j
disposal facilities. This statement of policy is being proposed to inforn the States and the public of the criteria and guidelines which the Comission j
intends to use in its periodic evaluations of Agreement State programs, including, where appropriate, the low-level radioactive waste disposal program. The Comission considers that these revisions are necessary given the present and potential low-level waste regulatory responsibility in Agreement States and is requesting coments on them.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
, 198,.
j l
ADDRES$[s:
Submit coments tot the Secretary of the Comission, i
U 3. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: Document and Services Branch. Coments may also be delivered to 7920 Norfolk l
Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through j
Friday. Copies of coments received by NRC may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.
FOR TURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yandy L. Niiler, State Local, and f
Indian Tribe Programs, Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555. Telephone:
(
301-492 0326.
$UPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On June 4, 1987, the NRC published in the Federal Register final revisions to its General Statement of Policy; (52 i
' Guide for Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs i
FR21132). The guidance as supplemented in that general statement of
?
policy was intended to apply to the review of all aspects of Agreement i
State Radiation Control Programs, including uranium and thorium recovery programs and low-level radioactive waste management programs.
i l
e-
d 2
i In the review of low-level waste disposal control programs within the franswork of the current guidelines, it has become apparent that some aspects of the low-level weste disposal control program for States regulating the disposal of low level radioactive waste in permanent disposal fact 11 ties would benefit from guidelines which are more specific to those activities. This circumstance, coupled with the fact that by 1993 as many as 14 additional Agreement States may be licensing the disposal of low-level weste in permanent disposal facilities in compliance with the requirements of the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, has prompted this proposed revision. All Agreement State Radiation Control Programs have regulatory responsibilities related to radioactive waste. However, in non sited States, these responsibilities related primarily to waste generator and transportation activities.
The NRC staff is proposing herein additional revisions to its General Statement of Policy " Guide for Evaluation of Agreenent State Radiation Control Programs' in order to specifically address the process for review of State programs which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive 4
waste in permanent disposal facilities. The revision will also be of use in reviewing State programs which regulate the packaging, treatment, 1
storage, processing, and transportation of low-level radioactive waste.
The supplemental guidance takes into account the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 61 and the experience of States with low-level radioactive waste i
regulatory programs. The guidance is considered to be flexible enough to i
be responsive to low-level radioactive waste disposal radiation control programs which predated 10 CFR Part 61.
Suggested major revisions in the guidelines are in the fom of additional I
considerations for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive weste in permanent disposal facilities.
These proposed revisions are not l
Agreement State'ge the policy or procedures by which other aspects of an intended to chan i
s radiation control program (RCP) is reviewed.
Major revisions suggested by the staff for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities and the reasons'for the suggested revisions are as follows:
I Leetslation and Regulations i
The staff recommends that Agreement States should have clear legal authority to issue regulations for low-level radioactive waste management and disposal and to regulate disposal pursuant to applicable laws and i
regulations including the technical requirements of 10 CFR Part.61.
Further, the staff reconmends that statutes provide for the separation of the regulatory function from the developmental and operational functions.
)
l
- * * - + ++ -ee==ecommer eses..wa..s
_7_ _
i j
p
. j The staff considers that in many States which will be regulating the disposal of low-level waste in pemanent disposal facilities, existing i
legislation which establishes the authority of the $ tate RCP may be
[
adequately broad. However, because of the complexity and diversity of t
low level radioactive waste (LLW) regulation, it is essential that States
{
which will have the responsibility of regulating the disposal of LLW in pomanent disposal facilities revisit their enabling legislation and t
l affect changes if necessary.
\\
States which will be hosting facilities for waste disposal have chosen j
diverse paths to implement the develoMnent and operational j
responsibilities for disposal under t te Low-Level Weste Policy and Low-Level Weste Policy Amendments Acts.
In the early stages of program f
development, it is sometimes difficult for States to separate the developmental and operational functions from the regulatory functions.
i The staff considers separation of the regulatory function from the developmental and operational waste management functions essential to j
assuretheavoidanceofconflictofinterestand,ultimatelyIng to protect public health and safety. Therefore, State statutes address j
radioactive weste management should clearly distinguish between and i
provide a mechanism for separation of waste management regulatory functions and waste management development and operational functions for i
the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in pemenent disposal facilities, j
Oreanization l
The staff has suggested a new Category !! indicator. ' Contractual
}
Assistance,* for $tates regulating the disposal of low level radioactive I
waste in pemenent disposal facilities. The indicator stresses the importance of having the capability to acquire a broad range of technical l
l and vendor services on a timely basis.
Regarding the regulation of LLW l
in pemanent disposa1 facilities, these services are likely to be both radiological and non radiological in nature.
Because of the potential i
for conflict of interest, the staff also suggests that the RCP avoid contractors which are affiliated in some way with the development or operational aspects of LLW management at the permanent disposal facility.
l Management and Administration 1.
Within the indicator " Quality of Emergency Planning," the staff i
recommends an emergency response plan specifically addressing emergencies associated with low-level waste for States regulating the disposal of i
low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities. The diversity of activities associated with the transportation, handling, i
storage, and disposal of LLW suggest the potential for both radiological l
and non-radiological emergencies or unusual occurrences which should be covered in the State RCP radiological emergency response plan. The plan
(
l-should at a minimum be reassessed in light of LLW regulatory responsibilities and its content evaluated against plausible LLW r
amergencies (spills, fires, sudden releases to the biosphere, etc.).
h f
~.
[
.d.
2.
Within the indicator ' Budget,' the staff has recomended the need for I
adequate budgetary resources in the RCP.
It should be recognized that the j
level of effort required of the RCP in States regulating the disposal of l
low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities will be a i
function of the life cycle of a low-level waste disposal facility. During licensing and operations, the regulatory program will be more resource intensive than during site development or post-closure. A State should i
have adequate budgetary resources to respond to the changing needs of the t
RCP in a way that is not disruptive to the program's mission. During resource intensive periods where growth is mandated, the budget shou d I
allow for the orderly mobilization of personnel and contractual resources as well as goods and services. During periods when less resources are required, the budget should allow for orderly demobilization that has i
minimal impact on esployee morale.
l 3.
Within the indicator " Laboratory Support," the staff has recomended the need for a diversity of laboratory services beyond those nornelly associated with a State RCP for States regulating the disposal of l
low-level radioactive waste in pennanent disposal facilities.
Since the j
non radiological performance of waste packages and engineering materials can effect the potential for radioactive releases from a waste site, the i
RCP should have acr.ess to laboratory facilities which can test the i
performance of the packages.and materials.
In addition, environmental l
monitoring associated with regulation of waste facilities involves a diversity of sampling media, sampling procedures, and testing procedures for both radioactive and nonradioactive constituents. Laboratory i
facilities should be available which can respond to this diversity of l
environmental monitoring needs.
l 4
Within the indicator ' Management," the staff has recommended the need i
for an overall Project Manager for complex licensing actions.
This i
recommendation is particularly applicable to the review of an initial license application or major amendment for a low-level radioactive waste i
permanent disposal facility. The project manager should have training or experience in one or more of the main disciplines related to the technical reviews which he or she will be coordinating such as health physics, engineering, earth science or environmental science. The complexity and diversity of reviews associated with such an action suggest the need for 1
one individual to plan the work effort, mobilire and direct the resources, specify level of effort and desired end products, and assemble and integrate the results of technical reviews.
j i
e
5.
Within the indicator " Office Equipment and Supplies," the staff has sugysted that a license document management system may be useful for des ing with the diversity and volume of documents associated with a LLW disposal licensing action. This may be as simple as an upgraded J
filing system which is responsive to all the various categories of LLW J
documents.
In its estreme it could be a highly sophisticated electronic data management system with a continuing need for database management.
Regardless, the staff believes that such a document management system greatly facilitates the licensing process.
6.
Within the indicator "Public Infomation," the staff has recommended the need for public involvement in major licensing actions associated with a LLW facility.
Public involvement has become a vital entity in the decision making process within developmental aspects of low-level waste management.
It is the opinion of the staff that this involvement can and should carry over into the licensing process.
The public should j
be infomed of major licensing issues as seen by the staff, given an opportunity to connent on or supplement those issues, and given an opportunity to participate in the resolution of those issues.
j Personnel 1.
'The staff considers that the cornerstone of an effective low. level I
waste disposal control program for States regulating the disposal of l
low-level radioactive weste in pemanent disposal facilities is a staff j
with training and experience in key technical disciplines related to waste management. As a minimum, these include health physics / radiation protection, engineering, earth science, and environmental science. The staff considers that there are a number of specialty areas within these umbrella disciplines and other separate technical areas which must be I
addressed in the process of licensing and regulation of low-level waste disposal. However, the staff understands that the $. tate RCP may not be l
represented by all of these disciplines on a full time basis.
In such cases the RCP must be able to demonstrate that various speciality disciplines can be accessed on a case specific basis through contract or i
interagency agreement. The staff considers a cadre of fu1% time staff l
with training and experience in the gsneral backgrounds specified above l
l necessary to direct the various specialty disciplines, to understand l
l and evaluate their products, to integrate those products into a regulatory l
suppoit document, and to take regulatory action based on the results of l
these activitiet.
l 2.
Within the indicator " Qualifications of Technical Staff " the staff l
has recommended the need for engineers, earth scientists, and environmental j
scientists for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste l
in pemanent disposal facilities in addition to staff with the type of i
training and experience usually associated with a State RCP, as discussed above.
I E
f j
J 3.
Within the indicator " Staffing Level " the staff has recomended i
en annual RCP staff effort of 3-4 pWfessional technical person-years for l
the regulation of the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.
Staff resources should be adequate to conduct l
inspections on a routine basis during operation of the LLW facility.
i including inspection of incoming shipments and licensee site activities.
The staff miterates that, during certain key periods, the RCP will need to be augmented with additional staff or consultants.
4.
Within the indicator " Training," the staff reconnends that the State should take advantage of opportunities for specialized training for staff l
responsible for regulation of uranium mill programs and low-level waste i
programs. This represents no change in the guidelines related to mill j
programs. It does seek to emphasize the diversity of regulatory activities associated with waste disposal in permanent facilities and, in many cases.
l the difference in these activities from those normally associated with the i
radiation control program. Specialized training in response to these differences is suggested.
t Licensina 1.
Within the indicator " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions," the staff recomends the addition of specific guidelines related to the technical quality of licensing actions associated with the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities. The additional guidelines are intended to address the elements of LLW licensing that may not be otherwise addressed in radioactive materials j
or facilities licensing. These include the evaluation of such elements as: (1) waste product and volume (2) personnel qualificationsl, (3' facilities and equipment; (4 operating and einergency procedures;
}
(Sf applicant's financial qualif cations and assurancest (6) closure and decomissioning procedurest and (7) institutional arrangements with other i
institutions.
l 2.
Within the indicator " Adequacy of Product Evaluations," the staff recopenends the systematic documentation of the approval process for waste i
packages, solidification and stabilization processes, or other vendor 1
products employed to treat radioactive waste for disposal. Within the 10 i
CFR Part 61 systems approach to radioactive waste disposal, the staff
{
considers the waste form to be a vital component of waste containment. For j
l this reason, approval of the systems, components, and products which t
l comprise the waste fors is as important to the overall performance of the permanent waste dispo. sal facility as the approval of the facility itself.
[
i i
I;
'e
"*+m-ee+==es=
eep
[.
o
?
l 7
i 3.
Within the indicator " Licensing Procedures," the staff recomends the l
development and use of licensing guides, standards, and procedures which i
apply specifically to LLW licensing. The reason for this recomendation relates to the uniqueness and complexity of the LLW licensing process.
j Specific procedures and approval standards will facilitate the licensing process for both the licensee and the regulator by allowing a comon i
understanding of the process by which an application will be reviewed and the standards against which an application will be evaluated, i
_Co_ se11ance i
1.
Within the indicator " Status of Inspection Program " the staff has specified that inspection procedures in all Agreement States should provide i
for the inspection of licensees' waste generation activities under the l
State's jurisdiction.
The staff recognizes that States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive wastos within their borders have little, if any, means to assure that wastes entering the State from another has i
been properly classified, packaged, and labelled.
Implementation of 10 i
CFR Part 61 requirveents for classification, treatment, packaging, and labelling of low-level radioactive waste by waste generators is considered i
a cornerstone of the systems approach to radioactive weste management.
Therefore, the staff considers that all agencies which regulate waste generator activities have the primary ob1'gation to ensure, through their l
regulatory activities, that generators are in compliance with these requirements.
~
2.
Within the indicator "$tatus of Inspection Program," the staff has recomended that the RCP should include provisions for the various types of inspections that will be required during the various phases of the LLW r
facility life cycle. Many of the inspections associated with a LLW facility will be non-radiological in nature, concerned instead with construction f
practices, performance of engineering materials and engineered systems, and verification of system perfomance. "his circumstance suggests the need for the multidisciplinary approach to compliance assessment that is suggested in l
other parts of the regulatory prngram.
l 1
In addition, inspections should be conducted on a routine basis during l
the operation of the LLW facility, including inspection of incoming t
i shipments and licensee site activities.
3.
Within the indicator " Inspectors Perfomance and Capability," the staff has recomended multidisciplinary team inspections. The reason for this recomendation is discussed in 2. above.
I 1
i l
-. = -
.. ~.
o 8
4.
Within the indicator "Confimatory Measurements." the staff has recommended that the RCP for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal faciltties have the capability of confirming non-radiological as well as radiological aspects of licensed operations. Because of the importance of soils and engineering materials in overall facility performance, the RCP should have the capability of confirming performance of the materials. Furthermore, because of the diversity of material which will be disposed of at the facility it is important that the RCP be able to confirm the presence or absence of both radiological and non-radiological constitutents in environmental analyses.
Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs 1989 Prepared by Office of Governmental and Public Affairs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission. Washington, D.C. 20555.
Introduction i
Section 274 of the Atomic Ene Act was enacted by the Congress in 1959 to recognize the interests of e States in atomic energy, to clarify the respective responsibilities of State and Federal Governments, and to provide a mechanism for States to enter into formal agreements with the j
Atomic Energy Consission (AEC), and later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
(NRC), under which the States assume regulatory authority over by-product.
l source, and small quantities of special nuclear materials, collectively l
l referred to as agreement materials. The mechanism by which the NRC discon-I tinues and the States assume regulatory authority ever agreement materials f
is an agreement between the Governor of a State and the Comission. Before entering into an Agreement, the Governor is required to certify that the State has a regulatory program that is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
In addition, the Commission must perform an independent f
evaluation and make a finding that the State's program is adequate from the health and safety standpoint and compatible with the Comission's regulatory program, t
Current Guidelines In 1981, the Commission published a major revision of the guide for review of Agreement State programs (two earlier revisions reflected
.primarily m' nor and editorial changes). These Guidelines constitute Consission policy in the form of a document entitled " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agmement State Radiation Control Programs." This document provides guidance for evaluation of operating Agreement State programs l
based on over 20 years of con 61ned AEC-NRC experience in administering the Agreement State program.
In 1985. Connission staff initiated minor updatingIththe1981policystatement. clarifying and editorial changes reflecting the experie gained w The revised document will be used e
i 1
i l
E.
e 3
by the NRC in its continuing program of evaluating Agreement State programs.
TNIMHHt/6MdN61/*lll/ ninth />t/tNIMt/It/ lit /H$tindift
- ffM/#f/#dledt#WNt####/8HH/PtedtdN/ Those channes were promulosted in June L987
' n 1988, the Comission staff initiated revisions to the Review Guidelines ho reflect tM need to ferove the babis for revfews of 5 tate regulator l >rogram i for',ne 611 esel of low-leve' reefonctive wante.
The revise
@comenu will te usa ' by sm, in its revfew of those 544te prt>orems wnich reculate tne 61sposh of low-level radfonctive waste Yn permanent 61s msal facilftfes.
It w11' also be used to strengthen the review of other 5:sts _
programs Wnich regulate other aspects of rectoactive waste management. Such as packaefnc. treatment. storage and transportatfon.
j The ' Guidelines" contain six sections, each dealin essential elements of a radiation control program (RCP)g with one of the which ares l
Legislation and Regulations. Organization, Management and Administration, Personnel, Licensinfi, and Compliance. Each section contains (a) a sunnary t
of the general sign'ficance of the program elements, (b) indicators which l
eddress specific functions within the program element, (c) cate which denote the relative importance of each indicator, and (d)goriesguidelines i
t which delineate specific objectives or operational goals, Categories of Indicators l
The indicators listed in this document cover a wide range of program f
functions, both technical and administrative.
It should be recognized
}
that the indicators, and the guidelines under each indicator, are not of i
equal importance in terms of the fundamental goal of a radiation control i
profiram, i.e., protection of the public health and safety. Therefore, the l
ind' estort, are categorized in terins of their importance to the fundamental goal of protecting the public health and safety. Two categories are used.
f t
Categor l
Indicators (y 1 - Direct Bearing on Health and Safety. Category Iand the Program Elements of !
o Legal Authority. (Leflislation and Regulation 0 o
Status and Compatibt'1ty of Regulations. [t.en'slation and t
Regulations)
Administration)gency Planning. (Management and Quality of Emer o
o Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. (Licensing)
I o
Adequacy of Product Evaluations. (Licensing) o Status of Inspection Program. (Compliance) o Inspection Frequency. (Compliance) i o
Inspectors' Performance and capability. (Compliance) o Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents. (Compliance) l 0
Enforcement Procedures. (Compliance) 9 e
t b
e,,eeme -e - =4 e en e e,. e, =
m
.m e
10 -
i These indicators address program functions which directly relate to I
the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If signifi-cent problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical. Legislation and regulations together form the foundation for the entire program establishing the franswork for the licensing and compliance programs. The technical review of license applications is the initial step in the regulatory process.
The evaluation of applicant qualifications, facilities, equipment, and procedures by the regulatory agency is essential to assure protection of the public from radiation hazards associated with the proposed activities.
Assuring that licensees fulfill the comitments made in their applications and that they observe the requirements set forth in the regulations is the objective of the compliance program. The essential elements of an adequate compliance program are (1) the conduct of onsite inspections of licensee activities; (2) the performance of these inspections by competent staff; and (3) the taking of appropriate enforcement actions. Another very l
important factor 's the ability to plan for, respond effectively to, and investigate radiation incidents.
Category !!-Essential Technical and Administrative Support. Category II j
Indicators are:
l o
Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization. (Organization) o Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program.
(0reantration) o Legal Assistance. (0reanization) o Technical Advisory comittees (Organization) l o
Contractual Assistance.
(Orcentration) i o
Budget. (Management and Admin 1utration)
I o
Laboratory support, managemen4 and Administration?
o Administrative Procedures. (management and Administration) i o
Management. (Management and Administration) l o
Office Equipment and support servfces. (management and i
Administration?
o Public Infomation. (Management und Administration) o Qualifications of Technical Staf". (Personnel) l 4
o Staffing Level. (Personnel) o Staff Supervision. LPersonnel) t o
Training. (Pe monnel) o Staff Continu11y. [PerHonnel) o Licensing Procedures.
.fcennino) i o
Inspection Procedures.
- como' fence) o Inspection Reports. (Compliance) o Confirmatory Measurements. (cone 11ance) t These indicators address program functions which provide essential i
technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.
Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e., those that fall under Category I r
l n
. _ +, -,.
?
J !
l indica tors. Category !! indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category indicators.
It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following manne r.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each coment made. If no significant Category I coments are prov' ded, this will indicate that the program is adeouste to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.
If l
one or more significant Category I comments are provided, the State will I
be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's i
ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of l
improvement in particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would request an imediate response.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the i
State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compati-bility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are f
examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.
If additional infomation is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the I
staff may request the infomation through follow up correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.
No significant items will be eft unresolved over a prolonged period. The Comission I
will be infonned of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement j
State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will i
be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have f
I developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be I
considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all l
or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act.
i Category II coments concern functions and activities which support l
the State pmgram and therefore would not be critical to the State's l
ability to protect the public. The State will be asked to respond to l
these coments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.
l It should be recognized that the categorization pertains to the l
significance of the overall indicator and not to each of the guidelines within that indicator. For example, " Technical Quality of Licensing l
Actions" is a Category I indicator. The review of license applications for the purpose of evaluating the applicant's qualifications, facilities, i
equipment, and procedures is essential to assuring that the public health and safety is being protected.
One of the guidelines under this indicator concerns prelicensing visits.
Th'e need for such visits depends on the nature of the specific case and is a matter of judgment on the part of the licensing staff. The success of a State program in meeting the overall objective of the indicator does not depend on literal adherence to each recommended guideline.
H 1
)
l
~
l l
i The ' Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control its onsite reviews of Programs" will be used by the NRC staff during #ttH/dt/d#NylWidif/18 Agreement State programs. W#l#61#t/6N/t#
j NnU/HiiH61ti/6f/Hitlif/6kNd/Midt ttttilliff tMNI$N/M/ilWititHL UttNtt/1/HWN$ttillMitt611/Nt/HitM/tM/Htttid1/NtMHINtlNilt6 i
- t6#1Widiff!A/##tM. At least once each year, there will be ensite l
conaiunication betanen the = starr ans eacn state ef tner as a resuit of a r9utine review or, i rev1ew $11e visit. A routine rev19w 15 a total ascess.
{
ment of each Atr$8 tent 5 tate program and 11 con 60 cit 6 at least biennla'ly.
A rev1ew visit is a short trip to the Agreoment 5 tate to assess the status of the 3 tate progrom ang has the flexfb111Ly to address any special concerns Ehtnthestate program. Acettfonal contacts may also be made throvoh special or fo' low-up reviews,
{
In making a finding of adequacy, the NRC considers areas of the State program which are critical to its primary function, i.e., protection of j
i the public health and safety.
For example, a State that is not carrying i
out its inspection program, or fails to respond to significant radio-
[
i i
logical incidents would not be considered to have a program adequate to l
protect the public health and safety. Basic radiation protection standards, such as exposure limits, also directly affect the States' t
ability to protect public health and safety. The NRC feels that it is l
important to strive for a high degree of unifomity in technical defini-ions and teminology, particularly as related to units of reasurement and i
radiation dose. Maximum pemissible doses and levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactivity in unrestricted areas as specified in 10
(
CFR Part 20 are considered to be important enough to require States to be
}
essentially equivalent in this area in order to protect public health and i
4
. safety. Certain procedures, such as those involving the licensing of l
products containing radioactive material intended for interstate commerce, r
also require a high degree of unifomity.
If no serious performance l
problems are found in an Agreement State program and if its standards and program procedures are compatible with the NRC program, a finding of
(
adequacy and compatibility is made, j
lt should be noted that the categories of indicators, and the significance
{
thertof. ap >1y eoually to the reculation of urantum and thortum recovery and associa ;ed wastest Tow-leve' rectoactive wasto management; as well as the overall radiation control program. Any spec 1"1e ceviations in the quidelines for review of urentum mill to111nos program, or low-level waste i
programs are spectried within the indiv : dual program e' ements.
]
PROGRAM ELEMENT:
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS The effectiveness of any State radiation control program (RCP) is dependent upon the underlying authority granted the RCP in State legislation, and i
implemented in the State regulations. Regulations provide the foundation upon which licensing, inspection, and enforcement decisions'are made.
Regulations also provide the standards and rules within which the regulated must operate. Periodic revisions are necessary to reflect changing i
i
' technology, in5 roved knowledge, current recommendations by technical i
advisory groups, and consistency with NRC regulations.
Procedures for l
providing input to the NRC on proposed changes to NRC regulations are necessary to assure consideration of the State's interests and requirements.
i The public and, in particular, affected classes of licensees should be granted the opportunity and time to comment on rule changes, j
. Indicators and Guidelines t
Legal Authority (Category !)
o Clear statutory authority should exist, designating a State radiation control agency and providing for promulgation of regulations, i
licensing, inspection and enforcement.
i l
o States regulating uranium or thorium recovery and associated
{
wastes pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 i
(UMTRCA) must have statutes enacted to establish clear authority for the l
State to carry out the requirements of LMTRCA.
o Staten regulatine the disposal of low-level radioactive waste i
in pemanent 6thposal facilities asst have statutos that provide authority i
for the issuanco of re gulations fo* ~ow-level wasSe management,ino disposal.
i i
The statutes should s' uo Drovide reculatory procram autt.ority one provide for the separation of reou atory funct 'ons from developments' and operational i
func.ttons. "
l 1
Status and Compatibility of Regulations (Category !)
i o
The State must have regulations essentially identhal to 10 CFR l
Part 19 Part 20 (radiation dose standards, effluent limits, waste manifest rule and certain other parts), Part 61 (technical definitions and requirements, performance objectives, financial assurances) and those required by (MTRCA, as vmplemented by Part 40.
o The State should adopt other regulations to maintain a nigh i
degree of unifomity with NRC regulations.
For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, o
State regulations shou d be amended as soon as practicable but no later than 3 years.
1
.* The level of separation (e.e.
neparate toencies) should be detemined I
L for each state Instvidually.
In selecting tnis level, each state shou 16 j
have a system of checks to demons; rate that conflictn of interest between 1
I the reculatory function and sevelopmental and operat' onal functions will not occur.
t
)
\\
-.... -.. =
=.
14.
o The RCP has established procedures for effecting appropriate amendments to State regulations in a timely manner, normally within 3 years of adoption by NRC.
o Opportunity should be provided for the public to coment on proposed regulation changes (required by UMTRCA for uranium mill regulation).
o Pursuant to the tems of the Agnement, opportunity should be provided for the NRC to coment on draf t changes in State regulations.
PROGRAM ELD 4ENT: ORGANIZATION The effectiveness of any State RCP may be dependent upon its location within the overall State organizational structure. The RCP should be in a position to compete effectively with other health and safety programs for budget and staff.
Program management must have access to individuals or groups which establish health and safety program priorities. The RCP work functions, and comunications.gh degree of efficiency in supervision, should be organized to achieve a hi Indicators and Guidelines Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization (Category !!)
o The RCP should be located in a State organization parallel with comparable health and safety programs. The Program Director should have access to appropriate levels of $ tate management.
o Where regulatory responsibilities are divided between State agencies, clear understandings should exist as to division of responsibilities and requirements for coordination.
Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program (Categorv II) o The RCP should be organized with the view toward achieving an acceptable degree of staff efficiency, place appropriate emphasis on major program functions, and provide specific lines of supervision from program management for the execution of program policy.
o Where regional offices or other government agencies are utilized, the lines of comunication and administrative control between these offices and the central office (Program Director) should be clearly drawn to provide unifomity in licensing and inspection policies, procedures and supervision.
C I
e 15 -
Legal Assistance { Category !!)
o legal staff should be assigned to assist the RCP or procedures should exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously.
Legal staff should be knowledgeable regarding the RCP program, statutes, and regulations.
Technical Advisory Comittees (Category !!)
o Technical Coanittees Iederal agencies, and other resource organizations should be used to extend staff capabilities for unique or j
technically complex problems.
o A State Medical Advisory Comittee should be used to terovide I
broad guidance on the uses of radioactive drugs in or on humans.
The Connittee should represent a wide spectrum of medical disciplines. The Comittee should advise the RCP on policy matters and regulations related to use of radioisotopes in or on humans.
o Procedures should be developed to avoid conflict of interest.
even though Comittees are advisory.
This does not mean that represen-tatives of the regulated community should not serve on advisory comittees i
or not be used as consultants.
Contractual Assistance (Cateoory !!)
o Becoune of the diversity and complexity of low-level radioactive l
waste 410posal fcenstne and regulation. 5tates reculdino the disposal of f
i Tow.' eve' radioactive waste in per1hanent disposal facif tfel should have procedfirts und mecnantsms in place for tirely aCQuf silloh 0" lechnfCal and I
l vender serv' ces necessary to support these functions that are not otherwise
(
available within the ucr.
o The RCP should avoid the selection of contractors which have been selected to proyfde serv 5ces associated with the state's LLW fac111t.v 6evelopment o'r coeretions.
i PROGRAM ELEMENT: MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION State RCP tenagement must be abis to meet program goals through strong.
l direct leadership at all levels of supervision. Administrative procedures are necessary to assure unifom and appropriate treatment of all regulated parties.
Procedures for receiving infomation on radioloffical incidents, emergency response, and providing information to the pub 1' c are necessary.
Procedutts to provide feedback to supervision on status and activities of I
the RCP are necessary. Adequate facilities, equipment and support l
services are needed for optimum utilization of personnel resources.
t Laboratory support services should be administered by the RCP or be i
readily available through established administrative procedures.
In order to meet program goals, a State RCP must have adequate budgetary support. The total RCP budget must provide adequate funds for salaries, travel costs associated with the compliance program, laboratory and survey l
r
~ _
o 1
16 -
1 instrumentation and other equipment, contract services, and other administrative costs. The program budget must reflect annual changes in the number and complexity od applications and licenses, and the increase ir. costs due to normal inflation.
i Indicators and Guidelines Quality of Emergency Planning (Category !)
{
i o
The State RCP should have a written plan in response to incidents et licensee facilities which takes into account such incidents as spills, l
overexposures, transportation accidents, rfre or explosfon, theft, etc.
Plans for States regulatire the dicposal of low-level radioactive waste in l
personent disposal fac111ttes unov'd include response to emergencies i
associated with the disposal o" low-level radioactive waste.
o The plan should define the responsibilities and actions to be taken by State agencies. The plan should be specific as to persons responsible for initiating response actions, conducting operations and j
cleanup.
s i
o Emergency communication procedures should be adequately established with appropriate local, county and State agencies.' Plans should be distributed to appropriate persons and agencies.
NRC should be provided the opportunity to coment on the plan while in draft form.
o The plan should be reviewed annually by Program staff for
?
adequacy and to determine that content is current.
Periodic drills should i
be perfomed to test the plan.
I Budget (Category !!)
l c
Operating funds should be sufficient to support program needs such as staff travel necessary to the conduct of an effective compliance program, including routine inspections, follow-up or special inspections, (including pre-licensing visits) and responses to incidents and other i
emergencies, instrumentation and other equipment to support the RCP, administrative costs in operating the program including rental charges, printing costs, laboratory services, computer and/or word processing support, preparation of correspondence, office equipment, hearing costs, etc., as appropriate. States reov14 ting the disix) sal of low-level t
radioactive weste in pemanent 61s >osal fac111t1os should have adequate budeotary resources to allow for ciences fn fund' no needs durtno the LLW fac1'ity life cycle. The sources of program funding should be stable and protected from competition or,fnveston by other State programs.
i I
(
O O
- o Principal operating funds should be from sources which provide continuity and reliability,btained through contracts, cash grants, etc.
' e., general tax, license fees, etc.
Supplemental funds may be o Laboratory Support (Category 11) o The RCP should have laboratory support capability in house, or readily available through established procedures, to conduct bioassays, analyre environmental samples, analyze sampics collected by inspectors, etc. on a priority established by the RCP.
o in addition. States regulatine the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in Demanent 41sposal fac111tten should have access to laboratory suaoort for rectolostcal and non-reef o"oefcal analyses associated v1 :n the licenstne and regulation of Iow-level waste disposal.
Yncludinq so1's testino, testine of environmental media. testing of e_nq1neer"no properlies of waste DeCaales and waste foms, and testing of other engineering materials usec in 11e disposal of low-level radioact,1v.e,e weste.
Administrative Procedures (Category !!)
o The RCP should establish written internal policy and administrative procedures to assure that program functions are carried out as required and to provide a high degree of unifomity and continuity in j
regulatory practices. These procedures should address internal processing o
l of license applications, inspection policies, decommissioning and license temination, fee collection, contacts with communication media, conflict of interest policies for employees, exchange-of-information and other j
functions required of the program. Administrative procedures are in addition to the technical procedures utilized in licensing, and inspection j
and enforcement.
i Management (Category !!)
o Program management should receive periodic reports from the staff on the status of regulatory actions (backlogs, problem cases, l
inquiries, regulation revisions).
I o
RCP management should periodically assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services and funding, d
o Program management should perfom periodic reviews of selected I
license cases handled by each reviewer and document the results. Complex i
licenses (major manufacturers, low-level radioactive waste disposal in pemanent disposal facilities, large scope-Type A Broad, potential for i
i I
J l
I i
. - r
' l significant releases to h environment) should receive second party review (supervisory, e tee, consultant). Supervisory review of inspections, reports and enforcement actions should also be perforined.
o For the implementation of very complex licensing actions, such 4s inf tfill 11 Cense r$vf tw fcense ritnewals an6 licensing actions AssocTai;<t6 Wf th 4 low-levi ll r44104Ctive weste 61s W>stl T4C1111;y. there en Overall Pro! PCT Ren< Oer resDons1 Die Mr thi ! coortrination and shoulf' M Completion C120114 Lon of the < If ve r' H P techn cal revfews necesi,4 ry or tht '
o* tht ! Tftensfot acLfon. The Pro 5tCT Renacer shou'6 hi ive tra'ning or eKDer' ence in one or more of the mstn 61sciplines relale6 to the technical rtvfews Wnich the Project Men < lter w111 De Coore1nating such as engineerfog.
e4rth science or envf ronmenta l science.
l 1
o When regional offices or other governnent agencies are utilized, program management should conduct periodic audits of these offices.
Office Equipment and Support Services (Category !!)
o The RCP should have adequate secretarial and clerical support, Automatic typing and Automatic Data Processing and retrieval capability
)
should be available to larger (greater than 300-400 licenses) programs.
Similar services should be available to itgional offices, if utilized, o
States regulating the dispecal of low-level radioactive waste i
in perin inent disposal facilities snould covelo ) and implement a license documen ; manecement sysuem conenensurate wEth t w volume and diversity of i
materials assocf ated with a low-level waste 41sposal facility 11 cense, j
o Frofessional licensing, inspection, and enforcement staff should 4
not be used for fee collection and other clerical duties.
l Public Inforination (Category !!)
l i
o Inspection and licensing files should be available to the public i
consistent with State administrative procedures, it is desirable, i
i however, that there be provisions for protecting from public disclosure l
proprietary inferination and infonnation of a clearly personal nature.
l o
Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance i
with LMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedure laws during the process of major licensing actions associated with LMTRCA and the disposal of low-level radfonctive waste in pertsenent disposal facilities.
l i
l PROGRAM ELEMENT: PERSONNEL i
The RCP must be staffed with a sufficient number of trained personnel.
The evaluation of license applications and the conduct of inspections require staff with in-depth training and experience in radiation I
l l
- * = - -
-o
~
y 1
- Ig -
protection and related subjects.
In addition. in States reculatinn the i
<lisp %l1 of low-level raq ioactive weste In permanent etspusal rect':Itfes, f
s.e w s. oui..e sierr.c wi m in,v,.vais witn irainine ano e,wrience
'n et linetrfati eerin hC' enti ta and environgmental hcTence, le s'Larf must
.e 6e yte in numer ;o assure ifcensing, "nspec31on, and enforcement actions of appropriate quality to assure protection of the public health and safety. Periodic training of existing staff is necessary to maintain capabilities in a rapidly changing techno ogical environment.
Progres management personnel must be qual' fied to exercise adequate supervision in i
all aspects of a State radiation control program.
1 Indicators and Guidelines Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category !!)
o Professional staff should have bachelor's degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Additional training and f
experience in radiation protection for senior personnel including the i
director of the radiation protection program should be comunensurate with i
the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.
For States i
reculatine uranium riills and mill tailines, staff training and experience l
shoul6 also include hydro on". eeolony, and htructural enntneerine.-
[
For procrom; wnica roculate une cioposal or 'ow-lovel raciouctive waste in pernemnu rac111t' es. start tra' ning and expor 'ence snoy e include c1v11 or mecnanical enntnoertnct oeolony, nycro' ony, or otter earth sCfencel and environmenta' science.
I o
Written job descriptions should be prepared so that professional l
l qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.
Staffing Level (Category !!)
j o
Professional staffing level should be approximately 1-1.5 person year per 100 licenses in effect.
The RCP must not have less than two professionals available with training and experience to operate the RCP i
l in a way which provides continuous coverage and continuity.
[
l o
for States regulating uranium mills and mill tailings, current l
indications are that 2-2.75 professional person-years of effort.
[
l including consultants, are needed to process a new mill license (including in situ mills) or major renewal, to meet requirements of Uranium Mill l
t Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
7Mit/Wffdt!/#tt/IMiddd i
HHttild/#f ft6161 Nit ti/Nititti/> tit 61 Nil /H6166tiltM/t ttit tttti i
- dM#t#d!
j i
r I Additional guidance is provided in the Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption l
Thereof by States Through Agreement (46 FR 7540, 36969 and 48 FR 33376).
l l
I
=-
e l
. to.
s I
o States which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive I
waste in permanent 61*posal rac111tteu shouTo allow en annual baseline l
n r starr errort of 3-4 profesuf onal ",ecnnical per,on-years.
5tarr researcus shout 6 be odecuate to conouct fespectfonn on a routine basis duri y opera' son or une LLW Tac 111ty, inclueine Ynspection of inconine
,nism ens en< I 11consoe $1 Je activitfo1, purtne pertoes or peut activsty.
t oesst onal surf or houtfalty consu1Sonti should be on a tfme y basfs.
'or i ts 1510 Droci t is' pl a 11 conte ap f 1c if f on would r$0;1ri r a m1himum or e Gif $44r7-3 L 's.
)1us Contractual m,s1 stance, to e mp ett a review l
y1tn1n 15 monte
' rom
- he este or recef T ; Of tne app 11 cation, as reeutree uncer Wection v m or the tow-.evel Raetoective waste Policy i
amenaments Act or lyst.
Staff Supervision (Category !!)
}
o Supervisory personnel should be adequate to provide guidance and a
I review the work of senior and junior personnel.
i o
Senior personnel should review applications and inspect licenses
)
independently, monitor work of junior personnel, and participate in the
[
establishment of policy.
l; o
Junior personnel should be initially limited to reviewing license applicatioris and inspecting small programs under close supervision.
Training (Category II) l l
o Senior personnel should have attended NRC core courses in J
licensin orientation, inspection procedures, medical practices and industri 1 radiography practices. ffff/$f11/$gdidit/pf11/fffft/pg/gSd7d
[
alt 6/H/fMJ66 Nil /
l l
o The RCP should have a program to utilire specific short courses j
l and workshops to maintain an appropriate level of staff technical competence in areas of changing technWogy.
l l
in $tates with regulatory responsibility for uranium mills or
{
l o
the ets >osol or low-level racioactive waste in pemenent elsposal rec 111 ties l
nterr stou 6 be afforces opportunities for trafntna which is consistent w1 E,
l
(
uhe neecs of those programs.
Staff Continuity (Category !!)
o Staff turnover should be minimized by combinations of f
opportunities for training, promotions, and competitive salaries.
j o
Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional qualifications.
Salaries should be comparable I
to similar employment in the geographical area.
o The RCP arganization structure should be such that staff l
turnover is minimited and program continuity maintained through opportunities for aromotion.
Promotion opportunities should exist from
G*
s I
i l-21 I
junior level to senior level or supervisory positions. There also should be opportunity for periodic salary increases compatible with experience and responsibility.
j i
PROGRAM ELEMENT: LICENSING it is necessary in licensing by-product, source and special nuclear materials that the State regulatory agency obtaIn information about the i
proposed use of nuclear materials, facilities and equipment, training and experience of personnel, and operating procedures appropriate for deter-mining that the applicant can operate safely and in compliance with the regulations and license conditions. An acceptable licensing program includes: preparation and use of internal licensing guides and policy memoranda to assure technical quality in the licensing program (when appropriate, such as in small programs, NRC Guides may be used)(;
conovitation and prelicensing inspection of conelex fec111 ties e.g.,
i walle 61sposa' sites, mill 1 irradiators, etc.); and the implementation of j
adminfstrattve procedures
- o assure documentation and maintenance of adequate files and records.
I Indicators and Guidelines
{
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category !)
o The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and that these elements meet current i
regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, i
qualifications of persons who will use material, facilities and equipment, j
and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. Additionally. in States which reculute the disposal of low-level radioactive ~wante in ponnenent disposal foc111- :1es, the RcP should assure that esheatfe' elemen :s of weste dispone' applicatfons meet current rect atnr> ov'6ance for wa Ae product and vo'ume. cual1F1 cations of I
personnel. "actitutes and toutomenu. operating and emergency procedures, j
financial cualtffcutionn and assurances. closure and decospissioning procedures and insaftut onal arranoements in a manner sufficient to
)
establish a bes1s for 1consInc action. L1cenning activities should be j
adeoostely documented inc' 961ng safety evolvat' on reports, product cert' f1ceDions or steller cocumentation of the license review and i
approval process.
o Pre 11 censing visits should be made for ' complex and major f
licensing actions, o
Licenses should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, authorized uses, and persIssive or restrictive conditions.
o The RCP should have procedures for reviewing licenses prior to renewal to assure that supporting information in the file reflects the current scope of the licensed program, e
,__.,._._.,___8_.,_..
E 3.'
tt.
Adequacy of Product Evaluations (Category !)
o RCP evaluations of manufacturer's or distributor's data on sealed sources and devices outlined in NRC, State or appropriate AN$1 Guides should be sufficient to assure integrity and safety for users, o
The iCP should review manufacture.r's inforination in labels and brochures relating to radiation health and safety, assay, and calibration procedures for adequacy, o
Approval documents for sealed source or device designs should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, foms, quantities, uses, drawing identifications, and pemissive or restrictive conditions, o
Approval docents for radioactive waste packages, uolidfffection and stt>1',1 ration media or other vendor products used to Dreat reefoactive waste for 61sposal should be conelete and accurate as to the use, capab11 ties, limitations and site specific restrfetfons assoCfated with each product.
Licensing Procedures (Category !!)
o The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice.
o in $tates which regulato the disposal of low-level radioactive l
waste Yn periennent 61sposal fac11' ties. the Rcr should have prociram-s >ecific ITcensfne Qufdef plans and procedures for 11 Cense ri rview, minimum ap)roval standerfs, and pol 1C9 memorandh which relate to spec f1C aspects of waste l
dispolel.
' M Drogr< im should ' nClv6e the preparation of safet_y evaluation -
reporns product Cer%171 cations or $1m1' er documentation of license revfew and approval process.
o License applicants (including applicants for renewals) should be l
furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.
o The present compliance status of licensees should be considered in licensing actions.
o Under the NRC Er. change-of-Information program, evaluation sheets, service licenses, and licenses authorizing distribution to general licensees should be submitted to NRC on a timely basis, o
Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide uniforinity in the licensing process.
o Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information end documentation of discussions and visits.
i,
_._.,.s_. - -,-. -_,_,,.
,--,,-~,._.._-.____,.-_,.,-,-.....,,-...,-._.,,,_,,-,,-.-.----,_._,,,,..-,,v,...
}*
)
p.
23 PROEMM ELEMENT COMPLIANCE Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to assure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirenents and consistent with good safety practices. The frequency of inspections depends on the emeunt and the kind of material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. The capability of unintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the compli.
ance program is necessary. The regulatory agency must have the necessary legal authority for prompt enforcement of its regulations.
This may include, as appropriate, administrative remedies, orders requiring corree-tive action, suspension or revocation of licenses, the impounding of materials, and the imposing of civil or criminal penalties.
indicators and Guidelines Status of Inspection Program (Category I) o State RCP should maintain an inspection program adequate to assess licensee compliance with State regulations and license conditions.
"he inspection proerem in all States should provide for the inspection of
- 1censees' waste centration activities under the 5 tate's Jurtsdiction.
o "n Status which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in pemanen ; its msel facil"ttes, the Rcr should includo provisions for Drq HO MPP411oh ll o Waltonel end post-operi llion< ll fac111';y insDect10ns.
The in<,peculonu should cover all program elemenus wh 'ch are relevant at the
~
t18 ! o' ' f ne In' LDection and be perfomed Indopendently of any resident 1Asl @Clor progr4m.
In a661110n. inspection 1 should be Conducti 66 on a F9W,1ne basis dur160 the oper; 31on of the
-,W fac111ty. Includ'ng inspection py uncontne shipments and 11consee sito activities, o
The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate to permit Program Management to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic basis Ifnfomation showing the number of inspections z
conducted, the nusber overdue, the length of time overdue and the priority categories should be readily available, o
At least semiannual inspection planning should be done for number of inspections to be perforined, assignments to sentor vs. junior staff, assignments to regions, identification of special needs and periodic status reports. Wen backlogs occur, the program should develop and implement a plan to reduce the backlog. The plan should identify priorities for inspections and establish target dates and milestones for assessing progress.
Inspection Frequency (Category 1) o The RCP should establish an inspection priority system. The specific frequency of inspections should be based upon the potential hazards of licensed operations, e.g., major processors, and industrial e
l
- ~ - -
~~~-- - ~
~
3
,s 24 l
I radiographers should be inspected approximately annuallyly/ Qmaller c,r I
less herardous operations may be inspected less frequent The minimum inspection frequency including for initial inspections should be no less j
than the NRC systm.
i Inspectors' Performance and Capability (Category !)
j I
o Inspectors should be competent to evaluate health and safety problems and to detemine compliance with $ tate regulations.
Inspectors l
must demonstrate to supervision an understanding of regulations, inspec.
l tion guides, and policies prior to independently conducting inspections.
o For the inspection of complex licensed activities such as pemanent f
low-level rectoactive waste c15posal racilftfes, a multfeiscipliner.y team approach 15 desf reable to asrure a complete compliance auessment.
i o
The compliance supervisor (may be RCP manager) should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and i
assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides.
Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Category !)
l o
Inquiries should be promptly made to evaluate the need for onsite investigations.
l I
o Onsite investigations should be promptly made of incidents requirin types.) g reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days fl0 CFR 20.403 l
i o
For those incidents not requiring reporting' to the Agency in less than 30 days, investigations should be made during the next scheduled inspection.
o Onsite investigations should be promptly made of non-reportable incidents which may be of significant public interest and concern, e.g.,
t transportation accidents.
o Investigations should include in-depth reviews of circumstances l
l and should be completed on a high priority basis. When appropriate, investi ations should include reenactments and time-study measurements l
(nomal y within a few days).
Investigation (or inspection) results should be documented and enforcement action taken when appropriate.
[
I o
State licensees and the NRC should be notified of pertinent information about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed operations (e.g.,equipmentfailure,improperoperatingprocedures).
o Information on incidents involving failure of equipment should be provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency.
' \\
w i
o The RCP should have access to medical consultants when needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries. The RCP should use other technica) consultants for special problems when needed.
Lnforcement Procedures (Category !)
o Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements.
Provisions for the levying of monetary penalties are mconspended.
I o
Enforcement ptW#dNi letters should be issued within 30 days j
following inspections and should employ appropriate regulatory language 1
clearly specifying all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters identified during the inspection and referercing the appropriate regulation or license cot 41 tion being violated.
o Enforcement letters should specify the time period for the i
licensee,to respond indicating corrective actions and actions taken to prevent re-occurrence.(normally 20 30 days). The inspector and compliance j
supervisor should review licensee responses.
a o
Licensee responses to enforcement letters should be promptly i
acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved items, j
o Written procedures should exist for handling escalated enforcement cases of varying degrees.
l 1
o Impounding of material should be in accordance with State 3
administrative procedures.
o Opportunity for hearings should be provided to assure impartial administration of the radiation control program.
InspectionProcedures(Category!!)
o Inspection guides consistent with current NRC guidance, should be used by inspectors to assure unifom and complete inspection practices and provide technical guidance in the inspection of licensed programs.
NRC Guides may be used if properly supplemented by policy memoranda, agency, interpretations, etc.
o Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, following up and closing out previous violations, interviewing workers and observing operations, assuring exit interviews with management, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems.
o Procedures should be established for maintaining licensees' compliance histories.
O j
n
[
j 1
y
)
i
> q l
1 l
o Oral bricfing of supervisors or the senior inspector should be perfomed upon return from non-routine inspections.
o For States with separate licensing and inspection staffs procedures should be established for feedback of information to license l
reviewers.
l Inspection Reports (Category !!)
o findings of inspections should be documented in a report describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of i
noncompliance and health and safety matters, describing the scope of i
licensees' programs, and indicating the substance of d'scussions with i
licensee management and licensee's response.
l o
Reports should unifomly and adequately document the result of
(
inspections including confirmatory measurements, status of previous i
noncomplisnce and identify areas of the licensee's program which should receive special attention at the next inspection. Reports should show t
the status of previous noncompliance and the results of confirmatory l
measurements made by the inspector, j
Confirmatory Measurements (Category !!)
i o
Confimatory measurements should be sufficient in number and type to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the i
licensee's measurements.
In States which regulato the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in perm lnent disposal fac"11 ties, measurements Should also De adeouste to cont"re non-ractolocteel aspects of licenting operations t ucn ils ho115 and materials teistine er.d environmental semoline and ana' ys' s to demonstrat3_ comp' tance with 10 cru Part 61 and i
assure facility performance.
j o
RCP instrumentation should he adequate for surveying license operations (e.g., survey meters, air samples, lab counting equipment for smears,identificationofisotopes,etc).
j o
RCP instrumentation should include the following types GM
{
Survey Meter 0-50 mr/hrt Ion Chamber Survey Meter, several r/hrt micro-R-Survey seter Neutron Survey Meter Fast and The< malt Alpha Survey i
Meter 0-1000,000 c/mi Air Samplers. Hi and Lo Volumet Lab Counters, i
Detect 0.001 uC/wipet Velometerst Smoke Tubest Lapel Air samplers.
l o
Instrument calibration services or facilities should be readily available and appropriate for instrumentation used. Licensee equipment l
t and facilities should not be used unless under a service contract.
Exceptions for other State agencies, e.g., a State University, may be unde.
[
i l
9I i
,o 27 -
i i
Lt l
i t
i o
Agency instrueents used for surveys and confirmatory measurenents should be calibrated within the same time interval as l
roovired of the licensee being inspected, r
Dated at Rockville, MD t
this day of
.l t
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO*!$$10N e
i L
.o Samuel J. UM1R f
Secretary of the Connission j
i i
I I
i i
t i
[
I i
f i'
t f
i
- -.~w...-...
-7 t
{
f, e'i'.%
= '4' r
I li.
s j
m' i
.' 9
. i e
i
' p <j J'l t
f 1
1,
',-if, i 1l.
1 ti.j '
d e.
i 6 6
o V
e e
i t
4 8
't e
e f
Y e
J 1.
\\
.\\
.?
k 1
, k.
',J.r 4
.'.h, e
5.
I t
(
1 o
4
'\\..
(
i
,f,
,-b,
, s_
t' I
i',.,
I in a
4
'f t'a.p-ps'4 1w
)
l i 9 5 e'.f 5*
g L
,g
{.l
[
n 1
J 4-1 Draft letter to Congress forwarding Federal Register Notice The Honorable Mo ris K. Udall, Chairman l
Subcosmittee on Energy and the Environment i
Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives j
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
)
Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee are copies of a public announcement and a proposed revision to the NRC Policy Statement,
" Guidelines for Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" which is to be published in the Federal Register.
- The Policy Statement was last amended June 4,1987. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing revisions to update the Policy Statement and to incorporate editorial and other minor changes.
The Commission is issuing the proposed revision amendment for a 60-day public consent period, i
L Sincerely, e
Harold R. Denton,-Director l
Office of Governmental and 1
Public Affairs Enclosures.
1.
Public Announcement (to b3 attached when the an%uncement is issued) 2.
Federal Register Notice (to be attached by OCA when the FRN is signed) l i
cc: Representative James V. Hansen IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO THOSE ON ATTACHED LIST.
1 1
e v es ;n,+. e g w..M,.w
'm-
- o r
t j
i i
l l-i L
The Honorable John D. Breaux Chairman F
Subconnittee on Nuclear Regulation i
Connittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate j
Washington, DC 20510 4
cc: Senator Alan K. Sfcoson i
F The (Ecorable Philip Sharp, Chairman l
$4h.twtitee on Energy.and Power Casnittee on Energy and Conserce Mted States House t' Representatives l
,.'D Washington, DC 2051b cc: Representative Carlos J. Moorhead 4
6 g
L A
e i
O
,A e
F F
l 9
-vgs
. j
. J e e, p.'
i
[-
y g.
l s.
_ f' i
~ l
, ' e, g\\
t a
' 9 l
r
}
i.
. I i
l l
l
',*4, m
l
- i-I
, [ /,4
.i i
I j
t i
l i
i i
)
l 1
I I
'\\
t 1
i l
g*
l I
i l
i 4
l, W
s)'
il I.
4 i
i i
se i
'l,
J f
e k
\\
h d'.
g,)
t.
5
(
r l
6 i
t.
a'% % y --
0 6 4386 M9 N. gug. 9
t J
c' i.,
.i Draft Public Announcement i
NRC Proposed Revisions to Policy Statement for Evaluation
)
of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs j
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is publishing for public coment j
proposed revisions to its policy statement, containing guidelines i
for review of A9reement State radiation control programs.
The guidelines were last revised June 4, 1987. They are used by the NRC
{
staff wnen reviewing the radiation control programs of the 29 States who regulate certain by-product, source and special nuclear materials i
' licensees under agreements with NRC. NRC staff has found the guidelines to be effective in helping ensure that these State radiation control programs remain adequate to protect public health and safety and 1
compatible with NRC's program.
Revisions are being proposed to update the guidelines and to incorporate t
editorial and other minor changes, The proposed revisions were published in the Federal Register on
, 1989 at FR Interested persons are invited ~to suliiiiit written coments to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555, ATTN:
- Document and Services Branch by e
i l
L l
l l
,