ML20042D780
| ML20042D780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/09/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Harold Denton NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9004060318 | |
| Download: ML20042D780 (18) | |
Text
_
UNITE D STATES
/N 1
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ~
i i
m muaron.on.ma.......................
-O RELEASED TO THE PDR
'e s,'
rebruary 9, 1990 ggg p
of fICE Of THE I
f
==
$(CRfTARY b
esseessee.............
MEMORANDUM TORT Harold R. Denton, Director, GPA TROM:
$ /m 1 J. Chilk, Secretary l
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-89-34 6 - PROPOSED l
REVISION iN) NRC POLICY STATEMENT " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" This is to inform you that the Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) approved the staff's proposal to publish for public comment proposed revisions to the NRC policy statement on the guidelines for NRC review of agreement state radiation control programs, subject to the following comments:
1.
The staff should add a sentence or two to the second page of the supplemental Information to acknowledge the States' input to the proposed revisions.
Several minor changes to be incorporated are also attached.
2.
The Commission encourages the staff to investigate the use of the underlining or some other method of highlighting the proposed changes in the published Federal Reaister notice.
The Federal Reaister notice should also be rewritten to l
reflect a " Commission" or "NRC" position rather than a
" staff" position.
The Federal Register Notice should be revised as noted, reviewed by the Regulatory Publications Branch, ADM, and returned for signature.
(GPA)
(SECY Suspenset 3/9/90)
Further, during the public comment period on the proposed revision and in preparing the final revision to the Policy Statement, the staff should evaluate NRC's regulatory program for low-level waste disposal to confirm that it meets or exceeds the proposed guidelines for the Agreement States' programs.
If it does not, the staff should either make the appropriate improvements, or relax the proposed guidelines if such measures are not necessary to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety.
The evaluation should consider such things as the following NOTE:
This SRM and the Subject SECY Paper will be released to the Public upon publication of the Federal Register Notice.
9004060310 900209 f
s i
diversity of laboratory support services; availability of a license document management system j
computerized data basest ability to ensure compliance with waste classification, characteristics, packaging, and lubeling requirements; i
6 ability to confirm radiological and non-radiological constituent concentrations and material characteristics a t d i s p o s a l f a c i l-i t i e s.
i In addition, the staff should consider whether additional revisions to the guidelines might help resolve EPA's concern-about deferral to Atomic Energy Act Agreement State authorities l
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
In doing so, the NRC staff should be j
mindful of the reasons for EPA's 1983 policy decision not to i
defer to the Agreement States under Superfund.
The Commission also emphasizea the need to further pursue the elimination of dual regulation with the EPA.
Finally, the staff should provide for Commission review, a summary of the information received frca States and incorporated i
in the Commission paper along with the staff's evaluation of comments received during the public comment period.
(GPA)
(SECY Suspenset 9/28/90)
Attachmentst j
As Stated cc Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner curtiss Commissioner Remick i
OGC i
OCA l
I r
I
i 2
In the review of low-level waste disposal control programs within the framework of the current guidelines, it has become apparent that some aspects of the low-level waste disposal control program for States i
regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive weste in permanent disposal facilities 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 waste in peman Mposalfacilitiesincompliance with the requirements of the Lowdeve ste Policy Amendments Act of X {
1985, has prompted this proposed revis on.
All Agreement State Radiation i
Control Programs have regulatory responsibilities related to radioactive
(
waste.
However, in non-sited States, these responsibilities related j
primarily to waste generator and transportation activities.
. e.P i
The NRO' Mt-staff is proposing herein additional revisions to its General i
t l
Statemen olicy " Guide for Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" in order to specifically address the process for review i
t of State programs which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in pemanent disposal facilities.
The revision will also be of use in reviewing State programs which regulate the packaging, treatment, 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 'evel radioactive waste 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 4
considerations for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.
These proposed revisions are not l
intended to change the policy or procedures b Agreement State's radiation control pro ram (y which other aspects of an i
RCP) is reviewed.
I I
Major revisions suggested hyssNe for States regulating the disposal I
I of low-level radioactive waste in. permanent disposal facilities and the reasons for the suggested revisions are as follows:
Lecislation and Reculations i
4,dd&[fA; ' I.hd[ Agreement States should have clear legal aut}or' ty to issue regulations for low-level radioactive waste management and disposal and to regulate disposal pursuant to applicable laws and regulations including the technical requiremgn of 10 CFR Part 61.
Further,latory function from the development 1 and operational function!
P: :P - r the regu Skc)
_ _._ ___.. _,._. ____. - _ _ _ _ _ _.... ~
)
u
? i i
The-staff-centteers 1 hat in many States which will be regulating the disposal of low-level waste in pennenent disposal facilities, existing legislation which establishes the authority of the State RCP may be adequately broad. However, because of the complexity and diversity of i
I low-level radioactive waste (LLW) regulation, it is essential that States which will have the responsibility of regulating the disposal of LLW in j
permanent disposal facilities revisit their enabling legislation and i
1 C Affect changes if necessary.
States which will be hosting facilities for waste disposal have chosen
'{
diverse paths to implement the development and o i
4 responsibilities for disposal under the Low-Leve1 a gs e Policy M j
nal 1
3 t-Leve! ";;te relicy ':,c.c,;a9Actx.
In the early stages of program y>
l development, it is sometimes difficult for States to separate the
{
developmental and operational functions from the regulatory functions.
l The staff considers separation of the regulatory function from the
}
i j
developmental and operational waste management functions essential 'to i
j assure the avoidance of conflict of interest and, ultimately, to protect j
public health and safety.
Therefore, State statutes addressing l
radioactive waste unagement should clearly distinguish between and provide a mechanism for separation of waste management regulatory l
functions and waste management development and operationa' functions for i
the disposal of low-leve" radioactive waste in pemanent disposal facilities.
j
]
Organization ll The staff has suggested a new Category II indicator, " Contractual
}
Assistance," for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.
The indicator stresses the importance of having the capability to acquire a broad range of technical and vendor services on a ti,nely basis..
Reganiing the regulation of LLW in permanent disposal facilities, these servicas are likely to be both radiological and non radiological in nature. Because of the potential for conflict of interest, the staff also suggests that the RCP avoid i
contractors which are affiliated in some wey with the development or i
i operational aspects of LLW management at Mpermanent disposal facilith Manacement and Administration 1.
Within the indicator " Quality of Emergency Planning," the staff I
reconmends an emergency response plan spec' fically addressing emergencies associated with low-level weste for States regulating the disposal of i
low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.
The diversity of' activities associated with the transportation, handling.
?
storage, and disposal of LLW suggestf the potential for both radiologien1
/(
and non-radiological emergencies or unusual occurrences which should be covered in the State RCP radiological emergency response plan.
The plan should at a minimum be reassessed in light of LLW regulatory responsibilities and its content evaluated against plausible LLW emergencies (spills, fires, sudden releases to the biosphere, etc.).
7 I
-4 2.
Within the indicator " Budget," the staff has recommended the need for noecuate budgetary resources in the RCP.
It should be recognized that the level of effort required of the RCP in States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in pemanent disposal facil' ties will be a 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 have adequate budgetary resources to respond to the changing needs of the RCP in a way that is not disrvative to-the program's mission. During resource intensive periods where growth is mandated, the budget shou' d allow for the orderly mobilization of personnel and contractual resources as well as goods and services.
During periods when less resources are reovired, the budget should allow for orderly demobilization that has minimal impact on employee morale.
3.
Within the indicator " Laboratory Support," the staff has recommended the need for a diversity of laboratory services beyond those nomally associated with a State RCP for States regulating the disposal of low level radioactive waste in pemanent disposa' facilities. Sine,e the non radiological perfomance of waste packages and engineering materials can effect the potential for radioactive releases from a weste site, the RCP should have access to laboratory facilities which can test the perfomance of the packages and materials.
In addition, environmental 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 facilities should be available which can respond to this diversity of environmental monitoring needs.
4 Within th indica r ' Management," the staff has reconmended the need for an overall reject neger for complex licensing actions. This X
recommendation s parti ularly applicable to the review of an initial license application or major amendment for a low-level radioactive waste pemanent 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 one individual to plan the work effort, mobilize and direct the resources, specify level of effort and desired end products, and assemble and integrate the results of technical reviews.
I
j 1
-5 3
i 5.
Within the indicator *0ffice Equipment and Supplies," the staff I
has suggested that a license document management system may be useful for cea ing with the diversity and volume of documents associated with i
a LLW disposal licensing action.
This may be as simple as an upgraded i
filing system which is responsive to all the various categories of LLW 1
J l
documents.
In its extreme it could be a highly sophisticated electronic l
data management system with a continuing need for database management.
Regardless, the staff believes that such a document management system i
t J
greatly facilitates the licensing. process.
.i
{
6.
Within the indicator "Public Infomation," the staff has reconsnended 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 l
can and should carry over into the licensing process public should i
f be informed of major licensing issues as seen by th given an
'M k"?
t opportunity to conenent on or supplement those issues iven an I
opportunity to participate in the resolution of those issues.
6 Personnel 1.
The staff considers that the cornerstone of an effective low-level i
waste disposal control program for States regulating the disqpsal of l
low-level radioactive waste it;:m:n::t di;;~.ei i.dinu; 1s a staff I
with training and experience in key technical disciplines related to waste management. As a minimum, these include health physics / radiation i
protection, engineering, earth science, and environmental science. The i
staff considers that there are a number of specialty areas within these umbrella disciplines and other separate technical areas which must be addressed in the process of licensing and regulation of low-level waste disposal. However, the staff understands that the State RCP may not be 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 3g i
/
i interagency agreement.
The staff considers a cadre of ful'-time staff with training and experience in the general backgrounds specified above i
necessary to direct the various specialty disciplines, to understand and evaluate their products, to integrate those products into a regulatory i
i support document, and to take regulatory action based on the results of these activities.
l 2.
Within the indicator " Qualifications of Technical Staff," the staff i
has reconsnanded the need for engineers, earth scientists, and environmental scientists for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste i
in permanent disposal facilities in addition to staff with the type of i
training and experience usually associated with a State RCP, as discussed i
above.
1 1
j r
i l
l 6-
{
I
.f,t.- d i
l
)
3.
Within the inoicator " Staffing Level," the staff has reconnended en annual RCP staff ef. fort of 3-4 professional technical person-yea i
the regulation of thedhan? dow-level radioactive waste
(
disposal facilities.
Staff resources should he adequate to conduct j
inspections on a routine basis during operation of the LLW facility, i
j including inspection of incoming shipments and Ifcensee site activities.
i The staff reiterates that, during certain key periods, the RCP will need to l
be augmented with additional staff or consultants, i
4 Within the indicator "Trainin'g," the staff reconnends that the State
~
should take advantage of opportunities for specielized training for staff respcnsible for regulation of uranium mill programs and low-level waste programs. This represents no change in the guidelines related to mill j
programs. It does seek to emph4312e the diversity of regulatory activities i
associated with waste disposal in permanent facilities and, in many cases, j
the difference in these activities from those nomally associated with the t
)
radiation control program. Specialized training in response to these
}
differences is suggested.
i Licensino
}
l 1.
Within the indicator " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions," the
{
staff recommends the addition of specific guidelines related to the l
technical quality of licensing actions associated with the disposal of j
low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.
The l
additional guidelines are intended to address the elements of LLW licensing that may not be otherwise addressed in radioactive materials
{
i or facilities licensing. These include the evaluation of such elements (1) waste product and volumet (2) personnel qualificationst i
as:
(3) facilities and equipment; (4) operating and emergency procedurest (5) applicant's financial qualificetions and assurancest deconnissioning procecures; and (7.) institutional arrangem(6) closure and institutions, ents with other l
i 2.
Within the indicator " Adequacy of, Product Evaluations," the staff i
reconnends the Js M g,7 : v ian af the amoroval m. m s for westd pM htsty so'id u et on anc sta&
' unan sene. nase or at ter vendorf i
products emp"oyed to treat radioactive waste for disposal, Within the 10 i
i CFR Part 61 systems approach to radioactive waste disposal, the staff t
considers the waste form to be a vital component of waste containment. For this reason, approval of the systems, components, and products which i
comprise the waste fem is as important to the overall perforinance of the perinanent waste disposal facility as the approval of the facility itself.
i l
i l
l l
i
t 7
I 3.
Within the indicator "Licensin Procecures," the staff recomends the I
development and use of licensing gufdes, standards, and pmcedures which l
apply specifically to LLW licensing.
The reason for this recomendation I
relates to the uniqueness and complexity of the LLW licensing process.
i Specific procedures and approval standards will facilitate the licensing i
process for both the licensee and the regulator by allowing a comon understanding of the process by which an application will be reviewed and the standards against which an application will be evaluated.
Comoliance i
1.
Within the indicator " Status of Inspection Program." the staff has specified that inspection procedures in all Agreement States should provide l
for the inspection of licensees' waste generation activities under the t
State's jurisdiction.
The staff recognizes that States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive westes within their borders have lj,gle, if any, means to assure that wastes entering tM Otee from another4has Ai been properly classified, packaged, and labelled.
Implementation of 10 l
CFR Part 61 requirements for classification, treatment, packaging, and labelling of low-level radioactive waste by weste generators is considered i
a cornerstone of the systems approach to radioactive weste management.
l Therefore, the staff considers that all agencies which regulate waste l
i generator activities have the primary obligation to ensure, through their i
regulatory activities, that generators are in compliance with these requirements.
2.
Within the indicator " Status of Inspection Pro ram." 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 t
facility life cycle. Many of the inspections associated with a LLW facility l
will be non radiological in nature, concerned instead with construction practices, performance of engineerin verification of system perfomance. g materials and eqpineered systems, and
+
This ; M n t = r suggests the need for the mult1 disciplinary approach to compliance assessment that is suggested in i
other parts of the regulatory program.
In addition, inspections should be conducted on a routine basis during the operation of the LLW facility, including inspection of incoming shipments and licensee site activities, t
3.
Within the indicator " Inspectors Perfomance and Capability " the I
staff has recomended multidisciplinary team inspections. The reason for this recommendation is discussed in 2. above.
l
?
i
t l
l j I
4 Within the indicator "Confimatory Measurements " the staff has l
reconsented that the RCP for States regulating the disposal of low level l
j radioactive waste in pemanent disposal facilities have the capability of I
confiming non-radiological as well as radiological aspects of licensed i
i operations. Because of the importance of soils and engineering storials
(
)
in overall facility perfomance, the RCP should have the capability of l
confiming perfomance of the materials. Furthemore, because of the
{
diversity of material which will be disposed of at the facility, it is i
important that the RCP be able to.confim the presence or absence of both
{
j radiological and non-radiological constitutents in environmental analyses.
1 i
t Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs,1989
{
t Preparetty Offic JerulatoryJommt(t_of Govern =Atal and pubTi'c Affair 7V.S. Nuclear stosMngton 0;C. 20555. '
l
~
1 l
Introduction Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act was enacted by tne Con 1959 to recognize the interests of the States in atomic energy, gress in to clarify the respective responsibilities of State and Federal Governments, and to I
provide a mechanism for $tates to enter into femal agreements with the Atomic Energy Connission (AEC), and later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
(NRC), under which the States assume regulatory authority over by-product, i
source, and small quantities of special nuclear materials, collectively referred to as agreement materials. The mechanism by which the NRC discon-j tinues and the States assume regulatory authority over agreement materials s
is an mgreement between the Governor of a State and the Connission. Before entering inta en Agreement, the Governor is required to certify that the I
i State has a regulatory program that is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
In addition, the Connission must perfom an id.ependent evaluation and make a finding that the State's program is adequate from the health and safet regulatory program. y standpoint and compatible with the Connission's l
Current Guidelines In 1981, the Comission published a major revision of the guide for review of Agreement State programs (two earlier revisions reflected A
primarily m' nor and editorial changes).
These Guidelines constitute Comission policy in the fom of a document entitled " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement $ tate Radiation Control Programs." This document i
provides gu< dance for evaluation of operating Agreement State programs based on over 20 years of combined AEC-NRC experience in administering the l
Agreement State program.
In 1985 Conunission staff initiated mino'r Updating, clarifyinq and editorial changes reflecting the experience 9ained ith the 198L policy statement.
T W L M n ;,; f, e _.. g f
_ _ _ _ _ _, - _ -. - _ _, ~. _ _ _ _. _
.. ~
a
t I
l 9-l 3
yi by ~.., ~.
a.
_s
+ w-
,o wn.nm., vivvi
.ns o m
(
peepream 15d/Nittid/66tdN$t#111/H/ddHInt/IMim/HITit/tHilMitt
- fMA/e f/Hsidd1Md/4N#Nef /8tild/PN6hM/ Those chances were promulcated in June 1987 In 1988, the Comission staff initiated revisions to the Review Guidelines t o --"Y
~ ^: n-"Ymprove r r "c -
! Teviews of 5 tate roculatory X!
prT> oram, "or the c1tpos41 of low-evel ra6 oi lctivtt we' itt.
The tvise6 documen : will be used by m in its review 0'r Inn:u t 5' ;a tit procr4ms wntch i
re901sto the 41sposal of low-level radioactive Wi ls'.*'n
>erm inent 61' Loo'ial l
fac1110 es.
It will also be used to stren' 'inen no reytow o'
- r
- ata-
- e 4
programs which reculate other aspects of rH61oactive was';e management, tuch l
as pactacing. trestrent, storage and transportation.
f i
The ' Guidelines" contain six sections, each dealin essential elements of a radiation control program (RCP)g with one of the which aret Legislatien and Regulations. Organization Management and Administration Personnel Licensing, and Compliance.
of the general significance of the program element /n contains (a) a sum Each sectio ' (b? indicators which l
address specific functions within the program element.p)d m;
e,ic :=:t: th;,ehth; t;;rt: ;; M ::;h M5t:r. an guidelines i
which delineate specific objectives or operational 9041LhW mh ihdor Categories of Indicators The indicators listed in this document cover a wide range of program functions, both technical and administrative.
It should be recognized that the indicators, and the guidelines under each indicator, are not of ecual importance in terms of the fundamental goal of a radiation control i
program, i.e., protection of the public health and safety.
Therefore, the indicators are categorized in terms of their importance to the fundamental goal of protecting the public health and safety. Two categories are used.
l Categor Indicators (y 1 - Direct Bearing on Health and Safety. Cstegory !
and the Procram Elements of which they are a part) aret o
legal Authority. fleoislation and Reculations) l o
Status and Compat9b111ty of Regulations, u.ectslation and Regulations h Qual t uy of L'mer o
Administration)gency Planning. (Management and o
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. (Licensino)
Adequacy of Product Evaluations. (Licenstnes o
o Status of Inspection Program. (Compliance) o inspection Frequency. (Compliance)
Inspectors' Performance and capability. (Compliance) o o
Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents. Lcompitance) o Enforcement Procedures. (Compliance)
I I
.--.~-_.,..-..--.,----m.
, - - - - -, _ _ _,.. _. ~, - -.,..... _,.. _ - _ -,.. _-
-.w-.
.-e.,
--r
l 10 -
i i
These indicators address program functions which directly relate te f
Y the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.
If signifi.
cant problems exist in one er more category ! indicator areas, then the j
need for improvecents may be critical.
Legislation and regulations together form the foundation for the entire program establishing the l
framework for the Itcensing and compliance programs.
The techn' cal review l
of license applications is the initial step in the regulatory process.
i The evaluation of applicant qualifications, facilities, equipment, and procedures by the regulatory agency it. essential to assure protection of i
the public from radiation hazards associated with the proposed activities.
Assuring that licensees fulfill the comitments made in their applications
?
I and that they observe the requirements set forth in the regulations is the j
objective of the compliance program.
The essential elements of an adequate I
compliance program are (1) the conduct of onsite inspections of licensee i
l Activitiell (2) the performance of these inspections by competent staff; and (3) the taking of appropriate enforcement actions. Another very l
l important factor is the ability to plan for, respond effectively to, and investigate radiation incidents.
j Category !!-Essential Technical and Administrative Support.
Category !!
j Indicators gre g
o Location of Radiation Control Program Within State l
Organization.(0roanizatip_nl t
o Internal Organ 1:atton of IFdiation Control Program.
l (0reanization) o Legal Assistance. (0roanization) o Technical Advisory comittees. (0rqanitation) o Contractual Assistance.
(Orcantre ; ion?
t o
Budget. (Management and Administration?
I o
Laboratory support. (Management and Adninistrationi o
Administrative Procedures. (Mansouent anc Administration) o Management. (Management ane Aamin'stration)
I o
Office Equipment and support services. (Management and Administration?
o Public Information. (Management and Administration) o Qualifications of Technical staff. (Personnel) o Staffing Level. (Personnel) i o
Staff Supervision. (Personnel) t o
Trair.ing. JPersonnoij o
Staff ContEnu1ty.
< Personnel) o Licensing Procedures.
(',1cennine) o Inspection Procedures.
.como'tance) o Inspection Reports. (Cole 11ance) o Confirmatory Measurements. (como11ance)
These indicators address program functions which provide essential technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.
i, Good perforinance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is I
essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of l
thej program opose i.e., those that fall under Category I g.
i
i l
11 -
I t
I I
indicators. Category !! indicators frecuently can be used to identify I
underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in l
Category indicators.
l It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following i
manner.
In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate I
the cate9ery of each coment made.
If no significant Category ! coments
(
)
are prov'ded, this will indicate that the program is adeoutte to protect j
the public health and safety and %s compatible with the NRC's program.
If i
one or more significant Category 3 coments are provided, the State will I
be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and that the need of i
improvement in particular program areas is critical.
The NRC would
(
request an imeciate response.
If, following receipt and evaluation, the l
l State's response appeart, satisfactory in addressing the significant i
Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adecuacy and compati.
l l
bility as appropriate or defer such offering until the $ tate's actions are 6
i examined and their effectiveness confimed ' n a subsequent review.
If i
additional infomation is needed to eyalvate the State's 6ctions, the staff may request the infomation through follt,w up correspondence or
)
perfom a follow up or special, limited review.
NRC staff may hold a i
special meeting with appropriate $ tate representatives.
No significant I
items will be eft unresolved over a prolonged pe
.AThe Comission l
will be infonned of the results of the reviews he individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review corm pondentt_to.tha.itates-will i
be placed in the NRC Public D gument r%,me or FadditioneT sigf'lf' cant CRoomFthe $ tate program does not i afegory I deficiencies have A @;
[ developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all i
or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section 274j of the Act.
___J 5
Category !! coments concern functions and activities which support the $ tate program and therefore would not be critical to the State's i
ability to protect the public.
The State will be asked to respond to these coments and the $ tate's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review, t
1 It should be recognized that the categoritation pertains to the h
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 l
l for the purpose sf evaluating the applicant's qualifications, facilities, equipment, and procedures is essential to assuring that the public health and safety is being protected. One of the guidelines under this indicator concerns prelicens' no visits.
The need for such visits depends on the nature of the specif< c 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.
I l,
l The ' Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" will be used by the NRC staff during its onsite reviews of Agreement State programs. HO/NH Nt/ A NH #ddt f H/d t HMNif# tdJt/J8 N#U/U NH611tHf /166 t/lf /H6Nd/MHitt ttillit /tNHH H/MHIVifMHS itNMitulHNMitt/tNHttif/Nt/6tHM/tM/UttH61/HINNINHHilt6
- $1WtHt/H/NetM. At loest once each your. thore will be nnuito comunicatten between the m.
.tarr un6_eacn 5%te < rinner us a ro,v' n< if a hliutine review or a ri rvfew sfD ' v f-if' A r%1' he ri ty '
i PW f, a 10' il < r i
, ell-l nent or each Aertemen; M ate
> noted pe fu conewcti n f A 1< rust D' i 'nn' o iy l
A revTew vtutt is e osemenro
- 0 une Acreom >nt it, s
n i a-
,e-
,im slatch l
of the 5tato procram an6 M r
o 46t t M any &
M 'Cle' ci >ncerns y
7 within the Utote program. A61 'T :10ma' c0ntuCts mby a W be matle throut m special or re Tow up reviews, i
in making a finding of adecuacy, the NRC considers areas of the State program which are critical to M ;Mr ""
'^
protection of the public health and safet For example, a State that is not carrying f
out its inspection program,y.or fails to respond to significant radio-t t
logical incidents would not be considered to have a program adequate to protect the public health and safety.
Basic radiation protection standards, such as exposure limits, also directly affect the States' i
ability to protect public health and safety.
The NRC feels that it is important to strive for a high degree of unifomity in technical defini-ions and teminology, particularly as related to units of measurement and 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 nafety.
Certain procedurgs, such as those involving the licensing of products containing radioactive material intended for interstate comerce, I
also require a high degree of uniforinity.
If no serious perfomance problems are found in an Agreement $ tate program and if its standards and program procedures are compatible with the NRC program, a finding of adequacy and compatibility is made.
j j
It should be noted that the catocorius of indicators, and the sienificance thereof, apply eque11y to the roeulution of urantum and thorium recevory j y #g.s8 r and associated wa,tesi Tow-leve rai Foactive waste menagementt as wol' as the overall racia;1on controi proeros. Any :::: ::
- ' ".r
- nn
- ne y
ou< oeitnes for revtew of urentum n' 1 tailfnes proeram, or li nt leve' weste i
programs are spectftee witntn the 'ncivtevai procram e ementu.
PROGRAM ELEMENT: LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS The effectiveness of an State radiation control program (RCP) is dependent upon the underlying av ority granted the RCP in State legislation, and implemented in the State regulations-Regulations provide the foundation i
upon which licensing, inspection, and enforcement decitions are made, t
Regulations also provide the standards and rules C. M which the r" w ~ id m 44, i
must operate.
Periodic revisions are necessary to reflect changing
~ ~ ~
bl l
I i
0 1
0
, i i
l 1
l
\\
j significant releases to the environment) should receive second party J
review (supervisory, com'Titee, consultant).
Supervisory review of i
l inspections, reports and enforcement actions should also be perfortned.
0 ror the implementation of very comlem licensing actions, such as inft141 11i4nue revtew license renewals one 11cenntne actions j
i a isociates wi ;n anc implement a iicense f
oocument menacement systee comensurate w' tn t
- volume on6 ef versity of l
J materials associated with i low-level waste 0100:a1 recultty license.
(
1 Professional licensing, inspection, and enforcement staff should l
o not be used for fee collection and other clerical duties.
{
Public Infor1 nation (Category !!)
i o
inspection and licensing files should be available to the public i
consistent with State administrative procedures.
It is desirable, j
however, that there be provisions for protecting from public disclosure j
proprietary information and inforination of a clearly personal nature, i
I Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance o
with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedure laws durine the process of me.ior licensing actions associated with UNTRCA and the disposal t
I of low-level rectoactive waste in perinanent disposal facilities.
1 j
PROGRAM ELD 4ENT: PER$0NNEL I
The RCP must be staffed with a sufficient number of trained personnel.
i The evaluation of license applications and the conduct of inspections require staff with in-depth training and experience in radiation I
l t
I l.
I 19 -
i I
{
protection and related subjects.
In addition, in States reculating the I
. disposal of low-level radioactive waute in permanent disposal fx1'1tles, f
the MF should be staffed with in41v duals witn training anti ex > Prience
{
in engineerin0. eartn science. and enytronmental science, le s ;aff must l
Le adequate in number to assure (1 censing, inspecuton, and enforcement actions of appropriate cuality to assure protection of the public health and safety. Periodic training of existing staff is necessary to maintain capabilities in a rapidly changing technological environment.
Program j
management personnel must be qual' fied to-exercise adequate supervision in all aspects of a State radiation control program.
[
Indicators and Guidelines i
Qualifications of Technical staff (Category !!)
I I
o Professional staff should have bachelor's degree or equivalent i
j training in the physical and/or life sciences.
Additional training and experience in radiation protection for senior personnel including the I
director of the radiation protection program should be Commensurate with i
the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.
For $tates regulating uranium mills and mill tailines, staff training an6 experience l
l should also include hycrology, coology, and htructural enetneering.-
l For prograft wnlen regulate tne 41SDosal of ' ow-litve radfo4ctive waste in pemanen : facilities, staff tra' nine and expr ence snould include i
civil or mechantcal engineer 1not otolony. nycro ogy, or otner eartn t
i sciences and environmental science.
.,A 7
Written job descriptions should be prepared so that professional o
}
qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified, fr Staffing Level (Category !!)
Professional staffing level should be approximately 1-1.5 i
o person-year per 100 licenses in effect.
h RCP must not have less than two professionals available with training,Thg,d experience to operate.the RCP an in a way which provides continuous coverage and continuity.
for States regulating uranium mills and mill tailings, current o
indications are that 2-2.75 professional person-years of effort,(inclu t
including consultants, are needed to process a new mill license i
in situ mills) or major renewal, to meet requirements of Uranium Mill t
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. 7pfg/dffftg/gggg/fsgiggg it>6ttitillhiJ inniftitif61 )til61669tt1/Nttitii/M$$t616gfi/gg616gfl/gpiltit6tidtti i
1 Additional guidance is provided in the Criteria for Guidance of States f
and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption t
Thereof by States Through Agreement (46 FR 7540, 36969 and 48 FR 33376),
i 1
l
- 20 States which reculate the dispose) of low-level radioactive o
waste in pennanent oisposal facilities sneuld allow an annual boseline Ecr steer errort of 3-4 professional technical person-years.
Snart resourcel shi>vid be aceouste to conouct inspectionq on a routine behis curing oaers' ion of the LLW racility. Inclue1nti inhotchton of incom'ne sn1pment',and licensee sito activ1 tion, purinqpo*10cu of pod activity.
eg add 1ttonal staff or spects ty consu1 % nth nhou's ->eton e u m 1 m u, For emanele. process 1no a 11 cense ao) fcotEon wou le Teovire a min mum of elont staff-years, plus contractual a-,sistance. to complete a review witnin J months from
- ne cate of recet >, of the 400'1 cation. as rw vireu unger section ym of the Low. ovel Rac104ctive waste Policy Amenceents Act o" 1955.
Staff Supervision (Category !!)
Supervisory personnel should be adeouste to provide guidance and o
review the work of senior and junior personnel.
9 Senior personnel should review applications and inspect licenses o
indepenoently, monitor work of junior personnel and participate in the establishment of policy, Junior personnel should be initially limited to reviewing o
license applications and inspecting small programs under close supervision.
Training (Category !!)
Senior personnel should have attended NRC core courses in o
licensing orientation, inspection procedures, medical practices and industrial radiography practices, f ff f/$ill/3 gig 6//pf11/gfdif f 4/QHid alk/HilM1% Nill The RCP should have a program to utilize specific short courses o
and workshops to maintain an appropriate level of staff technical competence in areas of changing technliTogy.
"n States with regulatory responsibility for uranium mills or o
the els>osol of low-level racloactive weste in po w nent cisposal roc 111 ties, ataff siou a be afforeec opportunities for tratn' no which is constsuent with
- he needs of those orograms.
Staff Continuity (Category !!)
Staff turnover should be minimized by combinations of o
opportunities for training, promotions, and competitive salaries.
Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons o
of appropriate professional qualifications. Salaries should be comparable to similar employment in the geographical area.
The RCP organization strveture should be such that staff o
turnover is minimized and program continuity maintained through opportunities for promotion. Promotion opportunities should exist from
~
, radiographers should be inspected approximately annually lesshazardousoperationsmaybeinspectedlessfrequentiy/ splier or he minimum inspection frequency including for initial inspections should be no less than the NRC system.
Inspectors' Perferinance and Capability (Category !)
Inspectors should be competent to evaluate health and safety o
problems and to detemine compliance with State regulations.
Inspectors must demonstrate to supervision an understanding of regulations, inspec-tion guides, and policies prior to independently conducting inspections, For the inspection of complex licensed activities such as pemanent o
low-level radioactive waste otsposal racilities, a multicisciplinary team approach is destrDable to assure a complete compliance assessment.
A6 The compliance supervisor (may be RCP manager) should conduct o
annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides.
Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Category !)
o Inquiries should be promptly made to evaluate the need for
- onsite investigations.
Onsite investigations should be promptly made of incidents o
requirin types.) g reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days. f!0 CFR 20.403 For those incidents not requiring reporting to the Agency in o
less than 30 days, investigations should be made during the next scheduled inspection, Onsite investigations should be promptly made of non-reportable o
incidents which may be of significant public interest and concern, e.g.,
transportation accidents.
investigations should include in-depth reviews of circumstances o
and should be coneleted on a high priority basis. When appropriate, investipations should include reenactments and time-study measurements (norinal y within a few days).
Investigation (or inspection) results should be documented and enforcement action taken when appropriate.
State licensees and the NRC should be notified of pertinent o
information about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed operations (e.g.,equipmentfailure,improperoperatingprocedures),
Information on incidents involving failure of equipment should o
be provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency.
I
e 26 Oral briefing of supervisors or the senior inspector should be o
performed upon return f rom non-routine inspections, o
for States with separate licensing and inspection staffs procedures should be established for feedback' of infomation to license reviewers, inspection Reports (Category !!)
Findings of inspection ~s shoilld be documented in a report o
describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters, describing the scope of licensee licensee _s' programs, and indicating the substance of d'scussions with management and licensee's response.
Reports should unifomly and aceouately document the result of o
inspections including ccnfirmatory measurements, status of previous noncompliance and identify areas of the licensee's program which should receive special attention at the next inspection.
Reports should show the status of previous noncompliance and the results of confinnatory measurements made by the inspector.
Confimatory Measurements (Category !!)
Confirmatory measurements should be sufficient in number and o
type to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensee's measurements.
In States which reculate the disoosal of low-level radioactive waste in oemenent d1s00:41 fac111ttes, measurements gould also be accouate to confirm non-ractolocical espects of n;;n; r;De bl%
operations such as soils and materials tettino and environmental samplino and analysis to comonstrate como tance with 10 cru Part 61 and assure f acility perfomance, RCP instrumentation should be adequate for surveying itcense o
operations (e.g., survey meters, air samples, lab counting equipment for smears,identificationofisotopes,etc).
RCP instrumentation should include the following typest GM o
Survey Heter 0-50 mr/hrt Ion Chamber Survey Meter, several r/hrt micro-R-Survey metert Neutron Survey Meter Fast and Thennait Alpha Survey Meter 0-1000,000 c/ml Air Samplers, Hi and to Volumet Lab Counters, Detect 0.001 uC/wipet Velometerst Smoke Tubes; Lapel Air samplers.
Instrument calibration services or facilities should be readily o
available and appropriate for instrumentation used.
Licensee equipment and facilities should not be used unless under a service contract.
Exceptions for other State agencies, e.g., a State University, may be made.
I l
1