ML20042F910

Proposed Rev to General Statement of Policy, Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs. Rev Addresses Process for Review of State Programs Which Regulate Disposal of Low Level Radwaste in Permanent Disposal Facilities

ML20042F910
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/19/1990
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
References
FRN-55FR10851, RULE-PR-MISC MISC-90-2, PR-900319-01, NUDOCS 9005100148
Download: ML20042F910 (57)

Text

,

I' P

P SE UE%

iso,id"E M

COLKE1ED USNRC i

i l'

W MAR 21 P4 :10 i

[7590-01)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N fo2E[ik,3%.E l

binNc4 Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs:

Proposed General Statement of Policy AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

ACTION:

Proposed revision to general statement of policy.

SUMMARY

. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes to revise its general statement of policy, " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs.

The proposed revision to the guidelines was prepared by the NRC to incorporate changes specifically related to the regulation of low-level radioactive waste disposal in permanent dispostl facilities. This statement of policy is being proposed to inform the States and the public of the criteria and guidelines which the Comission 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 reculatory responsibility in Agreement States and is requesting comments on them.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 22. 1990.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to The Secretary of the Comission, U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Coments may also be delivered to the Commission at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:45 am to 4:15 pm Monday through Friday. Copies of comments received by NRC may be examinedattheNRCPublicDocumentRoom,2120LStreet,NW(LowerLevel)

Washington, DC.

3 r= mn p

c

d'I 2

• l FOR FURTHER lt,FCRMATION CONTACT: Yandy L. Miller, State Prcgrams.

Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1

Commission, Washington, CC 20555. Telephone: 301-492-0326.

i l

SUPPLEMENTARY INF0F.MATION:

On June 4, 1987, the NRC published in the Federal Register final revisions to its General Statement of Policy,

'" Guide for Evaluation of Aoreement State Radiation Control Programs" (52 FR21132).

The guidance ai supplemented in-that general statement of-policy was intended to apply to the review of all aspects of Agreement State Radiation Control Pregrams, including uranium and thorium recovery programs and low-level radioactive waste management programs.

]

In the review of low-level waste disposal control programs within the j

frcrework of the current guidelines, it has become apparent that some aspects of the leb-level waste disposel control program for States regulating the disposal of low level radioactive waste in permanent' i

disposal facilities '71d benefit from guidelines which are more specific to these 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 permanent disposal facilities in

(

?

compliance with the requirements of the Low-Level Radioactive Weste I.

Policy Amendments Act of 1905, has prompted this proposed revision. All Agreement State Radiation Control Programs have regulatory responsibilities related to radioactive waste.

However, in non-sited l~

states, these responsibilities related primarily to waste generation l

and transportation activities.

~

1 l

l l

. ~... _. _,. _

~_

~,

l 3

l l

The NRC is proposing herein additional revisions.to its General Statement j

of Policy, " Guide for Evaluation of Agreement State Programs," in order to specifically address the process for review of State programs which 1

regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities. The revision will also be of use in reviewing State programs which regulate the packaging, treatment, storage, processing, 1

)

and transpcrtation of low-level radioactive waste.

The supplemental 3

guidt.nce takes into account the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 I

and the experience of States with low-level radioactive waste regulatory programs. The guidance is considered to be flexible enough to be responsive to low-level radioactive waste disposal control programs which predated 10 CFR Part 61.

e Suggested major revisions in the guidelines are in the form of additional considerations for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.

These proposed l

revisions are not intended to change the policy or procedures by which L

other aspects of an Agreement State's radiation control program.(RCP) is t

reviewed.

The revisions are highlighted by arrows to facilitate l

idenitifcation of the changes to the guidelines, f.

The NRC in the development of these revisions received input from State radiation control programs. A preliminary draft of the proposed revisions were sent to all 50 States.

Comments were received from 21 States and these comments were incorporated where appropriate.

I i

4

.)

Major revisions suggested for States regulating the disposal of low level i

radioactive weste in permanent disposal facilities and the reasons for the suggested revisions are as follows:

Legislation and Regulations

-i 1.

Agreenent States should have clear legal authority to issue regulations for low-level radioactive waste managenent and disposal and to regulate disposal pursuant to applicable laws and regulations.

Further, statutes should provide for the separation of the regulatory function from the developnental and operational I

functions.

In many States which will be regulating the disposal of l

low-level waste in permanent disposal faci 11tias, existing legislation which establishes'the authority of the State RCP may be adequately broad. However, because of the complexity and diversity oflow-levelradioactivewaste(LLW) regulation,itisessential that States which will have the responsibility of regulating the I

disposal of LLW in permanent disposal facilities revisit their enabling legislation and effect changes if necessary.

L States which will be hosting facilities for waste disposal have chosen diverse paths to implement the developmental and operational responsibilities for disposal under the low-Level Radioactive Waste q

~

i 1

l

5 Policy Act, in the early stages of program development,it is sometimes difficult for States to separate the developmental and operational functions from the regulatory functions. The Comission considers

,eparation of the regulatory function from the developmental and

' operational waste management functions essential to assure the avoidance of conflict of interest and, ultimately, to protect-public health and safety. Therefore, State statutes addressing radioactive waste management should cleasly distinguish between and provide a mechanism for separation of waste management regulatory functions and waste management developmental and i

operatiunt.1 functions for the disposal of low level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.

Organization 1.

The Commission suggests a new Category 11 indicator, " Contractual i

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 timely basis.

Regarding 1

the regulatton of LLW in permanent disposal facilities, these 1

i i

~

6 services are likely to be both-radiological and non radioiegical in nature.

Because of the potential for conflict of interest, the Comission also suggests that the RCP avoid contractors which are affiliated in some way with the developmental or operational aspects of LLW management at permanent disposal facilities.

Management and Administration 1.

Within the indicator

• Quality of Emergency Planning" the Commission recomends an energency response plan specifically addressing emergencies associated with low level waste for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities. The diversity of activities associated with the transportation, handling, storage, and disposal'of LLW suggests the potential for both radiological 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, suddenreleasestothebiosphere,etc.).

2.

Within the indicator " Budget," the Comission recomends adequate budgetary resources in the RCP.

It shot.1d be recognized that the' l

1evel of effort required of the RCP in States regulating the 4

i

O 7

i disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities will be a function of the life cycle of a low-level waste i

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 l

disruptive to the program's mission. During resource-intensive periods where growth is mandated, the budget should allow for the orderly mobilization of personnel and contractual resources as well I

as goods and services. During periods when less resources are required, the budget should allow for orderly demobilization that has minimal impact on employee morale.

t 3.

Within the indicator " Laboratory Support," the Commission recommends a diversity of laboratory services beyond those normally associated with a State RCP for States regulating the disposal of low-level l

l radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.

Since the non-radiological performance of waste packages and engineering materials can affect the potential for radioactive releases from-a waste site, the RCP should have access to 16boratory facilities l

which can test the performance of the packages and materials.

In addition, environmental monitoring associated with regulation of waste facilities involves a diversity of sampling media, sampling O

4 h

.m...

. ~..

-.--..I

8 procedures, and testing procedures for both radioactive and j

non-radioactive constituents.

Laboratory facilities should be available which can respond to this diversity of environmental monitoring needs.

P I

4 Within the indicator " Management," the Comission recommends the use

.f of an overall project manager for complex licensing action:. This l

recomendation is particularly applicable toi he review of an t

initial liceme appnication or major amendment for a low-level radiot.4.tive waste permanent disposal facility. The project manager l

should have training or experience in one or more of the main disciplines related to the technical reviews which he will be i

i L

coordinating such as health physics, engineering, earth science or i

l environmental science. The complexity and diversity of reviews associated with such an action suggest the need for one inoividual to plan the work effort, robilize and direct the resources, specify.

level of effort and desired end products, assemble and integrate the results of technical reviews, and promulgate the results. Depending on the State's organizational. structure, the results may be in the form of a licensing decision made by the project manager in concert with his or her imediate management or in the form of-recomendations passed on to an independent licensing authority.

1 5.

Within the indicator " Office Eouipment and Supplies," the Comission

\\

i

,,,.n..

n L

...n.,

,,n

,. ~,, -

+

i.0

-Q 9'

suggests that a license document management system may be useful for dealing with the diversity and volume of documents associated with a LLW disposal licensing action.

This may be as simple as an upgraded filing system which is responsive to all the various categories of LLW documents.

In its extreme it could be a highly sophisticated electronic data management system with a continuing need for database management. Regardless, the Comission believes that such a document management system greatly facilitates the licensing process.

6.

Within the indicator "Public Information," the Comission. recomends 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 Comission that this involvement can and should carry over into the licensing process.

The public should be informed of major licensing issues, given an opportunity to coment on or supplement those issuat and given an opportunity to participate in the resolution of those issues.

Personnel 1.

The Comission considers the cornerstone of an effective low-level waste disposal regulatory progr ti for States is i

o l

i 10 g

l.

a staff with training and experience in key technical l

disciplines related to waste management. At a minimum l

these. include health physics or radiation protection, engineering, earth science, and environmental science.

7' i

The Comission 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 Comission understands that it is unrealistic to expect that State RCP will be represented by all of these disciplines on a full-time basis.

It.is more realistic to expect that the various specialty disciplines will be accessed L

on a case' specific basis through a contract or an interagency l

agreement. The Commission does consider a cadre of full-time I

l staff with training and experience in the general backgrounds specified above necessary to direct the various specialists, to t

understand and evaluate their products, to integrate those products into a regulatory support document, and.to take regulatory action based on the results of these activities.-

2.

Within the indicator Qualifications of Technical Staff," the L

Comission recomends the use of engineers, earth scientists, and l

l environmental scientists for States regulating the disposal of-s l

l

L 11 low-level radioactive waste in addition to staff with the type of training and experience usually associated with a State PCp. as ciscussed above.

3.

Within the indicator " Staffing Level," the Comission recommends an RCP staff effort of 3-4 professional technical person-years for the regulation of the operation of low-level radioactive waste cisposal facilities.

Staff resources should be adequate to cenduct inspections on a routine basis during operation of the LLW facility, including inspection of incoming shipments and licensee site activities.

The staff reiterates that, during certain key periods, the RCP will need to be ougnented with additional staff or consultants.

l 4

Within the indicator " Training," the Commission recommends that the State take advantage of opportunities for specialized training-for staff responsible for regulation of. uranium mill programs and l

l low-level waste programs. This represents no change in the guidelines related to mill programs.

It does seek to emphasize the diversity of regulatory activities associated with waste disposal in permanent facilities and, in'many cases, the i

difference in these activities from those normally associated with the radiation control program. Specialized training in response to these differences is suggested.

1

c -

12

)

)

Licensing i

1.

Within the indicator

• Technical Quality of Licensing Actions,"

the Comission recomends the addition of specific guidelines related to the technical quality of licensing actions associated with the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The additional guidelines are intended to address the elements of LLW licensing that may not be otherwise addressed in radioactive materials or i

I facilities licensing. These include such elements as:

(1)wasteproductandvolume;(2)personnelqualifications; (3)facilitiesandequipment;(4)cperatingandemergencyprocedures; (5) applicant's financial qualifications and assurances; (6) closure and decomissioning procedures; and (7) institutienti arrangements with other institutions.

2.

Within the indicator " Adequacy of Product Evaluations," the I

Comission recommends the systematic documentation of the approval process for waste packages, solidification and stabilization processes, or other vendor products employed to treat radioactive waste for disposal. Within the 10 CFR Part 61 systems approach to l

radioactive waste disposal, the Comission considers the waste form 1

1 to be a vital component of waste containment. For this reason, j

approval of the systems, components, and products which comprise the J

l

\\

l q

~

1 o

y 13 waste form is as important to the overall performance of the

)

permanent waste disposal facility es the approval of the-facility itself.

3.

Within the # *icator Licensing Procedures," the Commission recommends the development and use of licensing guides, standards, I

and procedures which app'iy specifically to LLW licensing. The reason for this recomnendation relates to the uniqueness and complexity'of the LLW licensing process.

Specific procedures and 1

i approval standards will facilitate the licensing process for both 1

the licensee and the regulator by allowing a connon understanding of the process by which an application will be reviewed and the j

standards against which an application will be evaluated.

l Compliance l

1.

Within the indicator " Status of Inspection Program,".the Commission specifies that inspection procadures in all Agreement States should provide for the inspection of licensees' waste generation activities under the State's jurisdiction.

The Commission recognizes that States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes within their borders have little, if any, means to assure that wastes entering from another State has been properly classified, packaged, and labelled.

Implementation of 10 CFR Part 61 w

i

. ~....

l i

14

• l i

requirements for classification, treatment, packaging, and labelling of low-level radioactive waste by waste generators is considered a i

i cornerstone of the systems approach to radioactive waste management.

Therefore, the Comission considers that all agencies which regulate waste generator activities have the primary obligation to ensure, through their regulatory activities, that generators are in compliance with these requirements.

2.

Within the indicator " Status of Inspection Program," the Comission i

recommends that the RCP should include provisions for the various types of inspections that will be required during the various phases of the LLW facility life cycle.

Many.of the inspections associated i

with a LLW facility will be non radiological in nature, concerned instead with construction practices, performance of engineering materials and engineered systems, and verification of system performance. This suggests the need for the multidisciplinary approach to compliance assessment that'is suggested in other parts

[

of the ' regulatory program.

In addition, inspections should be conducted on a routine basis l

during the operation of the LLW facility, including inspection of incoming shipments and licensee site activities.

o i

_h

O 15 3.

Within the indicator " Inspectors Performance and Capability," the Comission recomends multidisciplinary team inspections. The reason for this recomendation is discussed in 2 above.

4.

Within the indicator " Confirmatory Measurements", the Comission recomenes that the PCP for States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste facilities have the capability of confirming non radiological as well as radiological aspects of licensed operations. Because of the importance of soils and engineering r.aterials in'overall facility. performance, the RCp should have the capability of confiming 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 6ble to confirm the presence or abserte of both radiological 6nd non-radiological constituents in environmental analyses.

I

16 GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW of AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS, 1990 Introduction Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act was enacted by the Congress in 1

1959 to recognize the interests of the States in atomic energy, to

'i clarify the respective responsibilities of State and Federal Governments, and to provide a mechanism for States to enter into formal agreements with the Atomic Energy Comision (AEC), and later the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), under which the States assume regulatory

)

authority over typroduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear meterials, collectively referred to as agreemen.

,L :ials.

The riechanism by which the NRC discontinues and the Stan assume regulatory authority over agreement materials is an Agreement between the Governor i.,

of a State and the Commission.

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 Comission must perform an independent 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.

l l

11:.

i l

17.

l 4

Current Guideline _s In 1981, the Comission published a major revision of the guide for reviewofAgreementStateprograms(twoearlierrevisionsreflected 3

primarilyminorandeditorialchanges). These Guidelines constitute Consnission policy in the form of a document entitled " Guidelines for j

NRC Review cf Agreement State Radiation Control Programs." This P

document provides guidance for evaluation of operating Agreement State prograins based on over 20 years of combined AEC-NRC experierce in administering the Agreement State program.- In 1985 Consnission staff initiated minor updating, clarifying and editorial changes reflecting the experience gained with the 1981 policy statement.

>Those changes were promulgated in June 1987.4

• In 1908, the Consnission staff initiated revisions to the Review Guidelines to improve reviews of State regulatory programs for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The revised document will be used by NRC in its review of those State programs which regulate the disposal of low level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.

It will also be used to strengthen the review of State programs which regulate other aspects of radioactive waste ma'nagement, such as packaging, treatment, storage and transportation.*

l 9

n.-

l 18 The "Guicelines" contain six sections, each dealing with one of the essential elements of a radiation control program (RCP) which are:

l tegislation and Regulations, Organization, Management and Administration, Personnel, Licensing, and Compliance.

Each section contains (a) a summary of the general significance of the program element, (b) indicators which address specific functions'within the program element,and(c)guidelineswhichdelineatespecificobjectivesor operational goals under each indicator.

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 i

of equal importance in terms of the fundamental goal of a radiation control 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.-

l Two categories are used.

l Category 1 - Direct Bearing on Health and Safety.

Category 1 Indicators (andtheProgramElementsofwhichtheyareapart)are:

i

19 i

• Legal Authority (Legislation and Regulations)

' Status and Compatibility of Regulations (Legislation and Regulations)

• Quality of Emergency Planning (Management and Administration) i i

1

' Technical Ovality of Licensing Actions (Licensing)

' Adequacy of Product Evaluations (Licensing)

• StatusofInspectionProgram(Compliance)

' Inspection Frequency (Compliance) l

• Inspectors'PerformanceandCapability(Compliance)

^

• Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Compliance)

'EnforcementProcedures(Compliance) l These indicators address primary program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety.

If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, 1

then the need for improvements may be critical.

Legislation and l.

l

20 regulations together form the foundation for' the entire program

~

establishing the framework for the licensing and compliance prograins.

u The technical review of license applications is the initial step in the regulatory process.

The evaluation of applicant qualifications, i

facilities, equipment, and procedures by the regulatory agency is essen-tial to assure protection of the public from radiation hazards associated 1

with the proposed activities.

Assuring that licensees fulfill the consnitments 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 j

l program are (I) the conduct of onsite inspections of licensee activities, 1

(2) the performance of these inspections by competent staff, and (3) the taking of appropriate enforcement actions. Another very important f actor is the ability to plan for, respond effectively to, and investigate radiation incidents, r

i Category II - Essential Technical and Administrative Support. Category II Indicators (ano the program Elements of which they are a part) are:

4

' Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization (Organization)

• Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program (Organization) l

21 LegalAssistance(Organization)

Technical Advisory Comittees (Organization)

ContractualAssistance(Organization)

Budget (Managertent and Administration)

LaboratoryEupport(ManagementandAdministration)

Administrative Procedures (Managenent and Administt ation)

Management (ManagementandAdministration)

Office Ecuipment and Support Services (Management and Administration)-

Public Information (Management and Administration)

Qualifications of Technical Staff (Personnel)'

StaffingLevel(Personnel)

StaffSupervision(Personnel) l Training (Personnel) r 4

,,v.--

- w

I 22

• StaffContinuity(Personnel)

• 1.icensingProcedures(l.icensing)

• InspectionProcedures(Compliance)

• InspectionReports(Compliance) r

• Confirmatory Measurements (Compliance)

These indicators address program functions which provide essential 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 primary program functions, i.e., those that fall under Category I indicators.

Category 11 indicators frequently can be used to identify underlying problems that are causing, or contributing-to,_ difficulties in Category I indicators, it is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the followingL manner.

In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each coment made.

If no significant Category I comments' i

I l

23 are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program.

If one or more significant Category I connents are provided, the State will 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 improvement in particular program areas is critical. The NRC would request an immediate response.

If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I connents, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review.

If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's' actions, the staff may request the information 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 left unresolved over a prolonged period.

If the State program does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement in accordance with Section i

274j of the Act. The Commission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

L 24 Category 11 comments concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's abiliti.

to protect-the public.

The State will be asked to respond:to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next regular program review.=-

-l l

l It should be recognized that.the categorization pertains to the.

significance of the overall indicator and not to each of the guidelines h

within that indicator.- For example,4 "Technica1' Quality of Licensing 1

Actions" is a Category 1 indicator. The. review of license applications:

i for the purpose of evaluating the applicant's qualifications, facilities, equipment,andprocedurescisessentialtoassuringlthat-thepublichealth

.i and safety is be %g-protected. One'of-the guidelines under_this ci indicator concerns prelicensing visits. The need forEsuch visits-depends j

on the nature of the specific' case and.is a ' matter of_ judgment on the j

art of the licenting. 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.

1 J

The " Guidelines for NRC Review of-Agreement St' ate: Radiation Control-l.

f Programs" will be used by the NRC staff during its onsite reviews of q

Agreement State programs.s At least once. each year, there will be' a

}

i 1

1 f

m 25 onsite' communication between the NRC staff and each State either as a result of a routine review or a review site visit. A routine review is a total assessment of each Agreement State program and is conducted-at least biannually. _A review visit is a'. trip to the Agreement State.

1 to assess the status;of the State program and to address any special i

concerns within the State program. Additional contacts may also be;

_l made through special or follow-up reviews ~.*

In making a finding of adequacy, the' NRC considers areas of the' State

-!a program which are critical to protection of the public health and safety..

q For example, a State that is not' carrying'.out its inspection program,

]

or fails to respond to significant radiologicalt incidents would not'be considered to have a program adequate to protect the public health and-safety.

Basic radiation protection standards, such as exposure l

limits, also directly affect the State's. ability to protect public health 1

and safety.

The NRC feels that it is important to.-strive for a high i

degree of uniformity in technical definitions and terminology..

particularly as related to units of measurement and radiation dose, Maximum permissible doses and levels of radiation and concentrations of 1

radioactivity in unrestricted areas as specified in 10 CFR rart 20 are.

considered to be important enough to require States to be essentially equivalent in this area in order to protect public health and safety.

1

il 1

.26 6

H Certain procedures, such as'those involving th'e licensing of products-containing radioactive material ir. tended for-interstate commerce, also require a high~ degree of uniformity.

If no serious performance problems:

1 are found in an Agreement State program and ifcits standards and. program j

d

procedures are compatible with the NRC program, a finding of adequacy and q

l

' compatibility is made.

1 i

1

>1t should be noted_that the categories of indicators, and the' significance i

thereof, apply' equally to the regulation of uranium and thorium recovery and associated wastest ' low-level radioactive waste management;'as.well as f

the overall radiation control program. Anyl differences in the guidelines 1

+

for review of uranium mill tailings-programs or low-level waste programs are specified within the' individual program elements.*

Program Element: Legislation andLRegulations The effectiveness of any State radiation control program (RCP) is dependent upon the underlying authority = granted the RCP. in. State legislation, and implemented in the State' regulations.

Regulations provide the foundation upon which licensing, inspection.and enforcement decisions are made.

Regulations also provide the standards andirules'by a

which the licensee must operate. Periodic. revisions are necessary to reflect changing technology, improved knowledge, current recommendations t

i

7_ _ __ ____-

27 by w,hnical advisory groups, and consistency with NRC regulations.

j Prre9dures for providing input to the NRC on proposed changes to NRC regulations are necessary to. assure consideration of the State's interests and requirements, The public and,-'in particular,-affected classes of licensees should be granted the opportunity and time to l

comment on rule changes.-

il Indicators and Guidelines 1

Legal Authority (Category I).

' Clear statutory authority should exist, designating a State

{

radiation control agency and providing for promulgation of

.i

}

regulations, licensing, inspection and enforcement.-

{

• States regulating uranium'or thorium recovery and associated

.i wastes pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 1

Act of 1976 (UMTRCA) must have statutes enacted to establish clear authority for the Stete'to carry out the requirements' o

of UMTRCA.

q 1

• • States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.must have statutes j

that provide authority for the issuance of.tegulations for low-level waste management and disocsal. The

)

1,

28 statutes'should also provide regulatory program authority and provide for the separation of regulatory functions from developmental and operational functions.I

~

t Status and Compatibility'ef Regulations (Category I)-

' The State must have regulations essentially' identical to 10 CFR rart 19, Part 20 (radiation dose standards,' effluent limits, weste manifest rule and certain ^other parts), Part 6'1 (technical' definitions and requirements, performance. objectives, financial. assurances) and those required by UMTRCA,.as 1

implemented by Part 40.-

• The State should adopt other regulations-to maintain a high degree of-uniformity with NRC regulations.

l i

• For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, State regulations should be amended as soon'as practicable but i

no later than three years.

The level of separation (e.g., separate agencies) should be: determined f

a for each State individually.

In selecting.this-. level, each State-should have a system of checks to demonstrate that conflicts of interest between the regulatory function and developmental and operational functions will not occur.,

i l

3 "a

~

4 29 o

• The RCP:has established procedures for effecting l appropriate.

j 4

amendments to State regulations. in a timely manner, normally-

~

Lwithin three-years of adoption by NRC.

o i

.I

• Opportunity should be provided for the public to comment on (j

i

~

li iproposed changes (required by UMTRCA for uranium mill regulation).,

l I

' Pursuant to the terms ~of the. Agreement, opportunity should be

~ provided for.the NRC.-to comment on' draf t-changes 'in State-i regulations..

(

4 Program Element:. Organization l The' effectiveness of-any State RCP may be' dependent upon!its location:

j i

i-

- within the overall State organizational structure.- The RCP should be in a position to coinpete effectively,with other health and safety

- programs for budget and staff'.

Program management must have. access to L

individuals or groups which establish health and safety program priorities.

I The RCP should be organized:to achieve a high' degree of efficiency'in' supervision, work-functions, and communications.

Indicators and Guidelines t

i Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization I

c-.

(Category II) i C

o a

v

~

a

-.m-.

.s

s 30' 4

• The RCP should be located inTa State organization paralb

e with comparable health and safety programs.- The Program Director should have access to appropriate levels ofi i

State management,

• Where regulatory responsibilities are-divided between~

State agencies, clear understandings should' exist as-q i

to division of responsibilities andlrequ1_rements for-l

~

coordination.

q

-i

^

Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program (Category II))

• The RCP should be organized with the' view toward achieving.

an. acceptable degree of staff efficiency, place appropriate f'

i emphasis on major' program functions, and provide specific q

lines of_ supervision from program management for the execution of program policy.

• Where regional offices or other government agencies are utilized, the_ lines of communication-and administrative control between these offices and the central office (Program Director) should be clearly drawn to provide uniformity in licensing and inspection policies, j

procedures and supervision.

1 3

~

1 I

31 Legal Assistance (Category !!)

l J

^

' Legal:staf_f should be assigned'to assist the RCP or l

procedures.should exist to~obtain legal. assistance expeditiously.- Legal staff'should be knowledgeable regarding the.RCP program,-statutes,_and regulations _

l 1

/I Technical Advisory Comittees:(Category ~II) l l

• Technical comittees Federal agencies, and other resource organizations should be-used to extend staff capabilities i

i for unique or technically complex problems.

.i

• A State Medical Advisory Committee should be used to provide broad guidance on the uses of radioactive drugs in or on humans. The Comittee should represent a wide spectrum of medical disciplines. The Comittee~ should advise the RCP on policy matters and regulations related to use of'-

l radioisotopes in or on humans, a

• Procedures should be developed to avoid conflict of interest.

even-though comittS?s are advisory. This does not mean that i

representatives of the regu' lated comunity should not serve on advisory conwittees or not be vted as consultants.

l

-32 Contractual Assistance (Category 11)~

• • Decause-of the diversity and complexity-of low-level radioactive-waste disposaltlicensing-and regulation, States regulating the'-

disposal of-low-level radioactive waste in. permanent. disposal-facilities should have procedures and mechanisms in place for-

-3 1

timely' acquisition of technical and vendor services necessary to support these functions that-are not otherwise available-

-]

within the RCP.

'l

• The RCP should avoid-the selection of contractors who have been selected to provide developmental or operational services 1

1 associated with the LLW facility.

l l

1 Program Element: lianagement ~and Administration-i l

State RCP management must be able to; meet program goals through strong, direct leadership'at all levels of. supervision.

Administrative procedures are necessary to assure uniform and: appropriate' treatment of all regulated parties.

Procedures for receiving information on radiological incidents, emergency response, and providing information to the public are necessary.

Procedures to provide feedback to supervision -

on status and activities of the RCP are necessary. Adequate facilities, equipment and support services are needed for optimum utilization of personnel resources.

Laboratory support services should be administered by the RCP or be readily available through established administrative procedures.

t

I l-33-In order to meet program goals, a State RCP must have adequate budgetary

-support. The total RCP budget must provide adequate funds for salaries, l

travel costs associated with the compliance program, laboratory and survey instrumentation and other equipment, contract services, and other-

' administrative costs. -The program budget must reflect annual changes in-the= number and complexity of applications and licenses - and the increase in costs'due to normal inflation.

l Indicators and Guidelines Quality of Emergency Planning (Category I)

I

]

• The State RCP should have a written plan in response to incidents-at licensee facilities which takes into-account such incidents as i

spills, overexposures, transportation accidents, fire or explosion, l

theft, etc. > Plans for States regulating the disposal of l

low-level radioactive waste in: permanent disposal facilities j

?

should include response to emergencies associated with the disposal of low-level radioactive waste."

l 1

• 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 cleanup.

% sas

34

' 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 comment on the plan while in draft form.

• The plan should be reviewed annually by Program staff for adequacy and to determine that content is current.

Periodic drills should be perfor W to test the plan.

Budget (Category II)

" 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 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 regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities should have adequate budgetary resources to allow for changes in funding needs during the LLW facility life cycle. The sources of program funding should be stable and protected from competition from or invasion by other State programs.d

,4 1

i 35

• Principal operating funds should be from sources.which provide continuity and reliab'ility, i.e., general tax,-license fees,'etc.

Supplemental funds may be obtained through contracts, cash grants, etc.

Laboratory support (Category 11 '

x 1

i

• The RCP should have laboratory support capability in house, or readily available through established procedures,.to conduct bioassays,. analyze environmental samples, analyze samhles, collecte'd by inspectors, etc. on a priority established by the i

RCP.

.i 1"

e' In addition, States regulating _the disposal;offlow-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities should s

have access to laboratory support.for radiological and non-radiological analyses associated with the licensing and.

- l regulation of low-level waste disposal, including testing of soils, testing-of environmental media,1 testing of engineering properties of waste packages and waste-forms, and testing of i

other engineering materials used in the disposal of low-level radioactive waste."

j

k I'

'36-AdministrativeProcedures(CategoryII)

\\

i

• The RCP should establish' written internal policy.and i

administrative procedures-to assure that program functions are carried out as required and to p'rovide a high degree of j

uniformity and continuity in regulatory practices..;These procedures should address internal processing-of license applications, inspection policies,. decommissioning and license termination, fee collection, contacts with communication media,.

-j conflict of interest policies for employees, exchange'-of-F information and other functions required of_the program.

Administrative procedures are in addition to the' technical' procedures utilized in licensing, and inspection and enforcement.

Management (Category II)

.i

-l

• Program management should receive periodic. reports from the staff on the status of. regulatory actions.(backlogs, problem cases, inquiries,. regulation revisions).

• RCP management should periodica11y' assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast-needs for increased staff,.

equipment, services and funding.

a N

7

]

37-

-- ' Program management should perform periodic reviews of selected license cases handled by each reviewer and docurent the results.

4 Complex licenses (major manufacturers,* low-level radioactive waste disposal facilitiesr= Type A broad scope licenses, and any.

licenses which have;the potential.for significant, releases to:

the-environment) should ~ receive second party review (supervisory,-

committee, consultant). Supervisory: review of inspections, reports; and enforcement settons should also be performed.

• • For the -implementation-of very complex licensing-actions, such 1

as initial license reviews, license. renewals and-licensing actions associated with a low-leve11 radioactive. waste disposal facility, there should be an overall Project Manager, responsible i

for the coordination and compilation of the diverse technical.

reviews > necessary for the completion of the licensing action.

[

The Project Manager should have-training or exper.ience-in one or:

1 i

more of the main disciplines related to the' technical reviews which the Project Manager'will be coordinating, such-as engineering, earth science or environmental science.**

i

• When regional offices or other government agencies.are utilize'd, program management should conduct periodic audits of these offices.

i Office Equipment and Support Services (Category II) l,

1 38 i

• The RCP should have-adequate secretarial and clerical support.

Automatic typing and Automatic Data Processing and retrieval-capability should be a'vailable to.large-(greater than 300-400 I

^

licenses) programs. Similar services should~be available to-q regional offices,.if utilized..

-l

>' States regulating the disposal of low-level radioactive waste l

in permanent disposa'l facilities should develop and. implement a license document management system coninensurate with the volume i

and diversity of materials associated with a low-level waste disposal facility license.* -

1 i

• Professional licensing, inspection, and enforcement staff should not be used for fee collection and other clerical duties.

. 7 1

Public Information (Category II) l I

• Inspection and licensing files should be avai.lable to the public consistent with State administrative procedures.

It is desirable, however, that there be provisions,fo'r protecting proprietary information and clearly personal information from public 5

disclosure.

• Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedure laws t

l

'39

=.

J during the process of major licensing actions associated with UMTRCA and low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.

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.

[

protection 'and related subjects. >In addition, in-States regulating low-level radioactive waste facilities, the RCP should be staffed with' individuals with training-and experience in engine'ering, earth science, 1

and environmer.tal science.* The staff must be adequate in number to assure licensing, inspection, and enforcement actions of appropriate l

quality to assure protection of the public health and safety.

Periodic I

i training of existing staff is necessary to maintain capabilities in'a.

rapidly changing technological environment.. Program management personnel i

must be qualified to exercise adequate-supervision in all aspects of a J

State radiation control program.

Indicators and Guidelines.-

)

Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category II)

i 40-

)

• Professional staff sh'ould have bachelor's degree or equivalent'

-)

training in the physical and/or life sciences. Additional training and experience in radiation protection for senior personnel including the director of the radiation protection 1

program should be commensurate with-the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.> For! States regulating: uranium l mills-and mill tailings, staff training;and experience should also include hydrology.. geology, and structural engineering.2' For L

programs which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive l

waste in permanent facilities, staff training and experience' i

should include civil or mechanicaliergineering, geology, hyorology, and other earth science and environmental science..

4

• Written job descriptions should be prepared so that professionali 1

1 qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.

t!

s 2 Additional' guidance is provided in the Criteria for Guidance of States j

and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and. Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement (46 FR 7540; January 23,1981, 46 FR 36969; July 16,1981, and 48 FR 33376; July 25,1983).

l l

l

-o.

41 StaffingLevel(CategoryII)

• Professional staffing level should be-approximately 1-1.5 person-years per 100 licenses in effect. The RCP must not'

'have less than two professionals available with training-and experience-to operate the RCP in a way which provides continuous coverage and continuity, o

' For States regulating uranium mills and mill-tailings,. current indications are that 0-?.75 professional person-years of effort,.

j (including in sit'u mills) or major renewal, to meet requirements of f

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.

• • States which regulato the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities should allow an annual' baseline _

j RCP staff effort of 3-4 professional technical person-years.

Staff resources should be adequate to conduct' inspections on a roetine basis during operation of the LLW facility,-including inspection of incoming shipments and licensee site activities.-

f During periods of peak activity, additionalistaff or speciality consultants should be available on a timely basis.

For example, processing a license application would require.a minimum of eight staff-years, plus contractual assistance, to complete a review I

i 4

-42 within 15 months from-thr, date of receipt of the application, as

' required under Section 9(2) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste

{

l Policy Amendments Act of 1985.

-Staff Supervision (Category II) q j

t

• Supervisory personnel should be adequate to prov'ide guidance and review the work of senior and junior personnel.

• Senior personnel should review applications and inspect licenses-independently, monitor work of junior personnel, and-participate in the-establishment of' policy.

l

• Junior personnel should be initially limited to reviewing license-applications and inspecting small programs under close supervision.

]

. i Training (Category II) 1 i

' Senior personnel should have attended NRC core courses in licensing orientation, inspection procedures, medical practices and industrial-I radiography practices.

i s

)!

d 43-The RCP should have a program to utilize specific.short courses andf 5

workshops to maintain an appropriate level of_ staff technical.

competence-in areas of changing technology.

f

• • In States with regulatory.. responsibility for.. uranium mills or the-

.lq disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal-j facilities, staff should be_ afforded opportunities for training-

,d which.is consistent _with the needs of-those programs.*

Staff Continuity (Category II)

Staff turnover should be trinimized by combinations of.

opportunities for training, promotions, and. competitive salaries.-

1

• Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons'of

~

appropriate professional qualifications. Salaries'should be i

comparable to similar employment in the geographical area.

q i

The RCP organization structure should be.such'that' staff turnover is minimized and program continuity maintained through.

~ !

opportunities for promotion. Promotion opportunities should exist from junior level to senior level or supervisory positions.' There also should be opportunity for. periodic salary increhses compatible with experience and responsibility.

--mens------mmi

-mum m

i i

'44 Program Element:

Licensing It is necessary in licensing by-produ6t, source, and-special nuclear.

materials that the State regulatory agency obtain information about the. proposed use of: nuclear materials, facilities and equipment, training-and experience of personnel, and operating procedures appropriate for'

' determining that-the applic, ant can operate safely and in compliance with the regulatioris and license conditions. An acceptable licensing progr w 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 roay be used);

consultation and prelicensing inspection ef complex facilities (e.g.,

"' waste disposal sites,* mills, irradiators, etc.); and the implementation-of administrative procedures.to assure documentation and traintenance of' adequate files and records.

Indicators and Guidelines Technical Quality of Licensing Actions--(Category I) ~

' The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and that these elements meet current regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, qualifications of persons who will use material, facilities and equipment, and operating and-emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing i

~

'\\

]

l

(.

J 45 l

actions > Additionally, in States which regulate the disposal.of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities, the-q RCP should assure that essential elements of waste disposal.

]

applications meet current ~ regulatory guidance _ for waste-product

-and volume, qualifications of: personnel,_ facilities and equipment, i

' operating-and emergency procedures,. financial qualifications and assurances, closure and decommissioning procedures and r

1 institutiona1' arrangements in a manner sufficient-to establish a-basis for licensing action -' Licensing activities.should be adequately cocumented including safety evaluation reports, product certifications or similar documentation of the license review and

i approval process.d

' Prelicensing visits should be made for complex and major t

licensing actions, l

1 i

• Licenses should be clear, complete, and accurate as to isotopes e 1

forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or. restrictive conditions.

1

• 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,-

a L-

46 Adequacy of Product Evaluations (Category 1).

• RCP evaluations of manufacturer's or distributor's data on sealed I

sources and devices-outlined in'NRC, State or appropriate ANSI

' Guides should be sufficient to assure integrity and' safety for users.

• The RCP should review manufacturer's information in labels and brochures relating to radiation health and safety, assay, and' I

calibration procedures for adequacy.

' Approval documents for sealed source or device designs:should be-i clear, complete and accurate as to' isotopes, forms', quantities,

]

I uses, drawing identifications, end permissive-or restrictive j

i conditions.

4

• • Approval documents for radioactive waste packages,: solidification and stabilization media, or other vendor products used to treat

)

radioactive waste for disposal should be complete and accurate as to the use, capabilities, limitations, and site specific-restrictions associated with each product.*

i Licensing Procedures-(Category II) i i

- ~_. __ - - _ -

~.- -_

g

'iThe RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists,land policy memoranda; consistent with current NRC practice, i-v' In States which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent disposal facilities.the RCP should have program specific licensing. guides, plans and procedures for-license. review, minimum approval standards, and policy

-l memoranda which relate to specific aspects of weste

. disposal. The-program should include the preparation i

of safety evaluation reports, product certifications, or 3

similar documentation of-license review.and approva1' process.*:

1

-)

I

• License applicants (including applicants for renewals) should be.

~

[

furnished copies.of applicable guides and regulatory positions.-

l-

' The present compliance status of licensees should be considered in' licensing actions.

• Under the NRC Exchange-of-Information' program, evaluation sheets, l

service licenses, and licenses authorizing distribution to general 3

l-licensees should be submitted to NRC on a timely basis.

i p

• Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard e

license conditions should be used to expedite and provide 1

uniformity in the licensing process.

{-

('

i L

~

48

• ~ Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions-and visits.

Program Element:

Compliance l

Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to assure that-1 activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements _

f and consistent with good safety practices. The frequency of. i.nspections depends on the amount and the kind of material,:the type of: operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. The capability of-maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the

.j compliance program is necessary. The regulatory agency must.have the

-j necessary legel authority for prompt enforcement of.its regulations. This l

may include, as appropriate, administrative remedies,; orders requiring j

corrective action, suspension or revocation of' licenses, the impounding:of l

materials, and the imposing of civil or criminal penalties.

Indicators and Guidelines

.l

.1 Status of Inspection Program (Category 1)

• State RCP should maintain an inspection program adequate to assess licensee compliance with State regulations and_ license-conditions >The inspection program in all States should provide 3

f l

l i

q

-]

49 l

for.the inspection of licensee's waste generation activities under' the State's' jurisdiction. "

i

• In States which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permanent' disposal facilities, the RCp should include provisions for pre-operational.1 operational, and post-operational facility 1 inspections. The inspections should cover all program-elements which are relevant'at.the time of the inspection and be-performed independently-of any resident inspector' program.

In_

f addition, inspections should be conducted on a routine basis q

during the operation of the LLW facility, including inspection of' incoming shipments'and'11censee site activities.*

i a

i i

• The RCP should maintain statistics which are adequate-to permit Program Management to assess the status of the-inspection program on a periodic basis. -Information showing;the number of inspections conducted, the number overdue,-the length of time overdue and the priority categories should be readily available, s

• At least semiannual' inspection planning should be done for number of inspections to be performed,-assignments to senior versus junior staff, assignments to regions, identification of special needs=and periodic status reports. When backlogs occur, the program should -

i 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.

1

50-

-l inspection' Frequency (Category I)

• 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

.i and industrial: radiographers should be inspected approximately-

'annu' ally. Smaller or less hazardous operations may be inspected' less frequently. The minimum inspection frequency including for Ll initial inspections should~be no less than the NRC system.

l Inspectors' Performance and Capability (Category I)

• Inspectors should-be competent = to evaluate health ~ and -safety l

\\

problems and to determine compliance with: State regulations.

I a

Inspectors must demonstrate to' supervision an' understanding of

{

regulations, inspection guides, and policies, prior to 4

independently conducting inspections.

>' For the inspection of complex licensed' activities'such as l

permanent low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, a multidisciplinary team approach is desirable to-assure a i

complete compliance assessment.*

l

' The compliance supervisor (may be RCP manager) should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance I

and assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and

. uides, g

q

!i Response to Actual and Alleged Indidents'(Category I).

• Inouiries should be promptly made.to evaluate the need for onsite:-

investigations.

• Onsite investigations should.be promptly made of incidents requiring reporting' to the Agency in less than 30 days.

10 CFR 20.403 types, i-;

• For those incidents not requiring. reporting to-the' Agency in less I

than 30-l days, investigations should be made during the next-

-i scheduled inspection.

i

• Onsite investigations should be promptly' made of non-reportable incidentswhichmaybeofsignificantpublicinterestandconcern, e.g., transportation accidents.

- f I

q

-i f

L

n-i 52 i

• Investigations should include in-depth reviews of circumstances and should be completed on a high priority basis. 'When appropriate, investigations should' include reenactments and i

time-study measurements (normally within a few days).

Investigation (or inspection) results should be documented and l.

enforcement action taken when appropriate.

• State licensees and the NRC should be notified of pertinent information about arc incident which could be relevant to other licensed operations (e.g., equipment failure, improper operating procedures).

• Information on incidents involving failure of equipment should be provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessnent of post;ble generic design deficiency.

• The RCP should have access to medica 1' consultants when needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries. The RCP should use other technical consultants for special problems when needeo.

Enforcement Procedures (Category !)

l r

• Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient.to provice a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements.

Provisions for the levying of monetary penalties are recommended.

t i

..u.

.2...

1 53 l

Enforcement letters shculd be issued within 30 days following inspections and should employ appropriate regulatory language j

clearly specifying all items of noncompliance and health and sgfety matters identified during the inspection and referencing the appropriate regulation or license condition'being violated.

i Enforcement letters should specify the time period for the licensee to respond. indicating corrective actions and actions takentoprevertreoccurrence(normally2030 days).The l

inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee t

responses, Licogee responses to enforcement letters should be'promptly acknowleoged at to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved items.

l l

Written procedures should exist for handling escaleted enforcement l

cases of varying degrees.

l Impounding of material should be in accordance with State acministrative procedures.

Opportunity for hearings ~should be provided to assure impartial administration of the radiation control program.

l f

s

,+,

+

l 54 l

I inspection Procedures (Category II)

)

i Inspection guides consistent with current NRC guidance, should i

be used by inspecters to assure uniform and complete inspection i

r-actices and provide technical guidance in the inspection of licensed programs. NRC Guides may be used if properly q

supplemented by policy memoranda, agency interpretations, etc.

Written inspection policies shculd be issued to establish a policy

]

for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, fo11 ewing up and closing out previous violations, interviewing workers and observing operations, assuring exit j

interviews with mangement, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety probitms.

Procecures should be established for maintaining licensees' compliance histories, l

Oral briefing of supervisors or the senior inspector should be j

performed upon return from non-routine inspections.

For States with separate licensing and inspection staffs, l

procedures should be established for feedback of information to Ifeense reviewers.-

.4 e

s

-F r

r r w

g 9.-

p ut r

+

i I

i FS Inspection Peports (Category II)

• Findings of inspections should be documented in a report describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of noncomplie.nce and health and safety atters, describing the scope.

l of licensees' programs, and indicating the substance of discussions with liu nsee's management and licensee's response.

I

' Reports sFculd unifortaly and adeccately document the result of inspections including confimetory measurements, stetus of previous noncompliance'and identify areas of the licensee's program which t,hould receive special attention at the next

+

inspection.

Reports should show the status of previous

~

noncompliance and the resultr of confirmatory measurements t

made by the inspector.

Confirmatory Heasurements (Category !!)

r l

' Confirmatory measurements should be sufficient in nunber and type to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the I

l licensee's measurements.>ln States which regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive weste in permanent disposal facilities, measurements should also be adequate to confim non-radiological aspects of facility operations such as soils and materials testing and environmental sempling and analysis to demonstrate compliance l

with 10 CFR Part 61 and assure f acility performance.*

h

{

l

'y j

i j

56 j

I RCP instrumentation should be acequate for surveying license

]

operations (e.g., survey meters, air samples, lab counting i

1 equipmentforsmears,identificationofisotopes,etc).

l RCP instrumentation sheuld include the following types:

GM Survey Meter, 0-50 mr/hr; lon Chamber Survey Meter.

several r/hr; micro-R-Survey meter; Neutron Survey Meter, i

fast and Thern1; Alpha Survey Meter, 0-1000,000 c/m; j

Air Samplers, Hi and Lo-Volume; Lab Counters, Detect 0.001

)

uC/ wipe; Velemeters; Smoke Tubes; and Lapel Air samplers.

f Insttwent calibration services or facilities should'be readily evailable and appropriate for instrumentation used.

Licensee eauipment and facilities should not be used unless under a i

service contract.

Exceptiens for other State Agencies, e.g.,

)

J a State University, ray be made, i

l l.

l l

}

i 1.

w

+cg-

+#

e

1. 'e' r

e-+

w sr

e

^

ht

$7

~

l

• Agency instruments used for surveys and confirmatory measurements should be calibrated within the same time interval as required of the licensee being inspect.

b cay of \\b-@ Nib '

Dated at Rockville, MD this For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

f k

a

\\

Samuel J. Chilk,. Secretary of the Comission l

l

[

1.

l

...