ML20057E697

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Results from Two Workshops: State Radiation Control Programs Developing and Amending Regulations and Funding
ML20057E697
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/30/1993
From: Parker G
NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:
References
NUREG-1479, NUDOCS 9310130049
Download: ML20057E697 (34)
v • d • e


Text

i NUREG-1479 Resu f:s From Two Worxshops:

Deve.oping and Amencing Regula': ions anc! Funcing S:a^e Racia': ion Control Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs

. y ncug k

d!I 9y01 g g 930930 1479 R PDR

.- ;~

~-

-: i

}

.i AVAILABILITY NOTICE '

i l

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following i

sources:

i 1.

The NRC Pubhc Document Room, 2120 L Strcot, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC

[

20555-0001 l

2.

The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP,

'j I.

Washington, DC 20402-9328 3.

The National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA ' 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-f tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

l Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public l

Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of.

i inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investi-f gation notices: Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceed-'

ings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regula-l tions in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series

[

reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by j

the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

l Documents available from public and special ischnical libraries include all open literature-j,_

items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions, Federal Register i

notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained

-i

?

from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC l

conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the.

publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

.i roguest to the Office of information Resources Management, Distribution Section, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

.l Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copy-righted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the ' American National Standards institute, 1430 Broadway,

-l New York, NY 10018.

t r

NUREG-1479 aussays.,>>

c4-

-':...e. -. - - :-

- - m:

i Resu::s From Two Wor:<saops:

Developing anc Amencing P

Regu:a~: ions ancL Funcing S~: ate i

Racia~ ion Corr:ro: Programs i

I i

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs i

. f...,,.

f,hk!.0 l8A 18n ; *

I

AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1.

The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street. NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001 2.

The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, J

Washington, DC 20402-9328 3.

The National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investi-gation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceed-ings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides NRC regula-tions in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by othei federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special,achnical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register J

notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these hbraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NPC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the pubbcation cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon wntten request to the Office of information Resources Management. Distribution Section U.S.

)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555-0001.

l l

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Maryland, and l

I are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copy-righted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute.1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

1 L_..__._.__

NUREG-1479 Results From Two Workshops:

Developing and Amending Regulations and Funding State Radiation Control Programs Manuscript Completed: September 1992 l

Date Published: September 1993 l

l i

Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 p =m,

e

>~

f

  • %...'.. /

His publication was prepared by employees of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion. It expresses opinions that do not necessarily represent a staff position of the NRC;.

this publication has neither been approved nor disapproved.

ABSTRACT

'The first section of this document presents the results of a proceedings of a technical workshop, also sponsored by technical workshop on the process of regulations devel-the NRC, on funding radiation control programs that opment and amendment sponsored by the Nuclear Regu-emphasized fee schedules and effective strategies for the latory Commission (NRC). His workshop focused on 1990s. This workshop focused on determining the true methods for reducing the time it takes to promulgate costs of running a program on setting realistic iees for the regulations to help those States that are having difficulty various categories of licenses, and on the most efficient meeting the three-year deadline for adopting new NRC methods for sending invoices. recording receipts, deposit-regulations. Workshop particip: nts responded to six ing money received, and issuing licenses. Workshop par-questions, reviewed the procedures used by various States ticipants responded to seven questions; reviewed the for revising and adopting changes to their regulations, and methods various States use to determine true costs; re-reviewed the time-flow charts used by various States.This viewed the procedure that the various States use to pro-workshop was designed to provide guidance to States that duce invoices and licenses: reviewed the procedures that are promulgating and revising regulations.

the States are required to abide by when they receive money; and reviewed the method used by the NRC to

'Ihe second section of this document summarizes the determine the cost of its various programs.

I J

\\

iii NUREG-1479

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i

Dr. Gerald Parker, moderator of the workshops, prepared the manuscript for this report with assistance from staff members of the Office of State Programs.

I The contents of Section 1 of this report are the product of a workshop of 30 States and Federal representatives, most of whom have regulatory responsibilities for radiation safety. In addition, representatives of the NRC met with representa-tises of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the National Governors' Association (NGA), and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), both before the workshop and after the workshop.

Representatives from the NRC, EPA. FOA.

the Conference ofRadiation Control Representatiws pom the States Program Directors. NAAG. NGA. and NCSL Rita Aldnch, NY Ruth McBurney, H Carlton Kammerer, NRC 3

Virgil Autry, SC Michael Mobley, TN William Lahs, NRC Edgar Bailey, CA Charles Pierson, AZ*

Cardelia Maupin, NRC i

Harold Borchert, NE Robert Quillin, CO Vandy Miller, NRC Matthew Dunn, IL*

Terry Strong, WA Sheldon Schwartz, NRC l

Donald Flater, IA Diane Teft, NH Charles Froom, FDA

{

Jerry Goad. CO*

John Volpe, KY Floyd Galpin, EPA Robert Hallisey, MA Kirk Whatley, AL Stephanie Highley, CRCPD Thomas Hill, GA Gerald Parker, M A Eric Nelson, NAAG Wayne Kerr,IL Greta Dicus, AR Laura Armstrong, NGA Jill Lipoti NJ Eddie Fuente, MS Janet Trettner, NCSL t

  • Asustant Attorneys General The contents of Section 2 of this report are the product of a workshop of 28 State and Federal representatives.

State NRC I

Edgar Bailey, CA Carlton Kammerer OSP Hall Bohlinger, LA Vandy Miller, OSP Harold Borchen, NE Sheldon Schwartz, OSP l

William Floyd, NM Richard Blanton, OSP f

Terry Frazee, WA Jesse Funches OC j

Eddie Fuente, MS James Holloway, OC i

Aubrey Godwin, AZ Glenda Jackson, OC l

Robert Hallisey, MA Charles Emigh, EDO l

Thomas Hill, GA William Upshaw, OIP Bruce Hokel IA Gerald Parker, OSP Jill Lipoti, NJ

[

Daniel Nash, FL i

Dennis O'Dowd, NH Ray Paris, OR

[

Shelly Robinson, RI

(

Mary Helen Short, TN j

Jared Thompson. AR Tim Walker, OH Without the participation of the State and Federal representatives, the Conference of Radiation Control Program l

Directors, the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the National Conference of State Legislatures, these workshops would not have been possible.

NUREG-1479 iv i

i c~

CONTENTS 1

Page i

Abstract...

iii Acknowledgments iv i

Foreword..

vn 1 Workshop on the Process of Developing and Amendmg Regulations........

I I

1.1 Responses at the Technical Workshop.,......

1.1.1 What are your State's political and fiscal obstacles or other limitations in adopting

)

three-year time period established by NRC?........ patibility within the regulations which have been designated as matters of com 1

l 1.1.2 What are the advantages and disadvantages of coordinating Federal and State i

2 rulemaking on major issues?........

1.1.3 Are there things the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, other Federal agencies, or the

)

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors can do to assist in the rulemaking 1

process in your State?.

3 1.1.4 How helpful are the Suggested State Regulations in the development of regulations in your State?.

3 3

1.1.5 Are there any changes you would suggest in improving the SSR system?.....

1.1.6 Are there categories of regulations which can be adopted by reference?......

3 3

1.2 State Procedures for Revising and Adopting Changes to Regulations....................

3 1.3 How Regulations are Promulgated 1.4 Conclusions 4

5 1.5 Recommendations..

2 Workshop on Funding Radiation Control Programs with an Emphasis on Fee Schedules-Effective 5

Strategies for the 1990s..

6 2.1 Responses at the Technical Workshop....

2.1.1 How does your State calculate program costs for budgeting? How are fees (if any) 6 determined?

2.1.2 If your State charge,s fees, what is the system for-generatmg invoices receiving and recording receipts follow up invoices 6

issuance of the license after fees are paid?.....

e 2.1.3 1s the Radiation Control Program responsible for the tasks in the question 6

in Section 2.1.2? If the answer is no, what organization is respoitsible?

2.1.4 If your State charges fees, what problems have occurred in the process of collecting them?..

6 7

2.1.5 Should the States develop standard fees?........................................

i 2.1.6 If your State has a dedicated fund, what were the strategies used to convince the i

legislature to authorize it? If your State considered but did not adopt a dedicated fund, 8

what were the arguments agamst it?..

2.1.7 If your State has considered but not adopted fees (or considered, but not passed legislation allowing fees,) what were the arguments against them?........

8 I

9

-l 2.2 Conclusions.....

9 2.3 Recommendations..

v NUREG-1479

~

APPENDICES i

Page A Apnl 11.1991, Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor and Harold R. Denton.

11 B June 25.1991. Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor and 13 Harold R. Denton.

C Comments on the Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation: Talk Given by 15 l

Eddie Fuente at the First Workshop.

D Eight Rulemaking Requirements Common to Most States 21 E NRC Fees for Fiscal Year 1992 and Proposed Fees for Fiscal Year 1993.

23 J

3 I

t i

r j

t i

i i

i NUREG-1479 u

t

~. -.

FOREWORD His document summarizes information from the proceedings of two workshops on subjects selected for their timely importance to both the Agreement States and to the NRC.The first workshop was held in the fall of 1991 on the process of adopting regulations, and the second workshop in the spring of 1992 on licensing fees and State program funding. I believe that this information will be useful to the Radiation Control Program i

Directors of current Agreement States, as well as to those Non-Agreement States contemplating an agreement with the NRC.

J From our reviews of Agreement State Programs we have noted two areas that need focus. The first is the e

States' ability to provide continuing financial support for their programs, and the second is the States' ability to adopt those new NRC regulations considered matters of compatibility within three years. The sharing of cxperiences and information about what works and why during these workshops provided some ideas on how to meet these challenges. Particularly noteworthy were several unique suggestions on rule-adoption strategy j

i and fee-schedule design.

1 We appreciate the participation of those Agreement States that sent their representatives to participate in the workshops. In a wider sense, all of the Agreement States contributed by submitting information that the workshop participants used.

The participation of a number of members of the following organizations is also recognized and appreciated:

the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Organization of Agreement States, and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. The combined effort of many individuals and organizations was required to hold the workshops and to assemble the information for this report.

Special thanks must go to Dr. Gerald Parker, who moderated the workshops and prepared the manuscript.

Thanks also to the NRC staff members, both from the Office of State Programs and from such other NRC Offices as Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, the General Counsel, and the Controller who contributed to the success of these workshops.

i N

I f

I

  1. tsmg x

arlton Kammerer, Director Office of State Programs i

a t

i l

l.

I vii NUREG-1479 r-

-w.s

i 1

WORKSIIOP ON THE PROCESS regulatory programs of the State and the Com-

~,

OF DEVELOPING AND AMEND-mission for protection against hazards or radia-

' i " ""d * ^**"'" *^* 8'^' * ""d C * *i'Si "

ING REGULATIONS programs for protection against hazards of ra-diation will be coordinated and compatible.

Congress enacted section 274 in an amendment to the The State will use its best efforts to cooperate Atomic Energy Act in 1959.nis amendment authorized with the Commission and other Agreement State governments a role in regulating nuclear matters.

States in the formulation of standards and Although the Constitution delegated the protection of regulatory programs of the State and the Com-public health and safcry to the States, the States were not mission for protection against hazards of radia-authorized a role in byproduct materials regulation until tion and to assure that the State's program will the passage of the 1959 amendment. He amendment continue to be compatible with the program of provided a statutory basis for the Federal government to the Commission for the regulation oflike ma-relinquish its authority to the States.De States, however, terials. The State and the Commission will use are required to adopt regulations that are compatible their best effons to keep each other informed with Federal regulations. NRC's policy statement re-of proposed changes in their respective rules quires that:

and regulations and licensing, inspection and enforcement policies and criteria, and to obtain "The State rnust have regulations essentially the comments and assistance of the other party i

identical to 10 CFR Part 19, Part 20 (radiation thereon."

dose standards, effluent limits, waste manifest rule and cenain other parts), Part 61 (technical His technical workshop met on September 18 and 19, i

definitions and requirements, performance ob-1991, to determme possibilities for making it easier for jectives, financial assurances) and those re-States to adop; NRC regulations. Participants addressed quired by UMTRCA, as implemented by Part how a regulation r developed and the time regm, red to 40.

adopt it. To prepare for the workshop, participants were (1) given a list of six questions that they were to answer "The State should adopt other regulations to and (2) given a compilation of the Agreement States' maintain a high degree of uniformity with NRC mp nses to the request to " describe your State's proce-regulations.

dure for revismg and adopting changes to regulations.

Participants were requested to prepare a time-flow chart indicating how long it takes to adopt as a final State "For those regulations deemed a matter of r egulation an NRC regulation that is a matter of compati-compatibility by NRC, State regulations should (gty.

be amended as soon as practicable but no later than 3 years."

1.1 Responses at the Technical Furthermore, before an agreement between the Com-Workshop ion and States can be finalized, the Commission must 1.1.1 What are your State's political and fiscal obstacles

^

or other limitations in adopting regulations which e een e na e as maners d compaMy "Whereas, the State and the Commission rec-within the three-year time penod established by ognize the desirability and importance of coop-NRC?

I eration between the Comnussion and the State t

in the formulation of standards for protection Although panicipants did not believe that they encoun-i against hazards of radiation and in assuring that tered significant political problems within their r* spec-l State and Commission programs for protection tive agencies, they did encounter delays when the regula-against hazards of radiation will be coordinated tions were sent to other governmental bodies such as i

and compatible." (Page 1, paragraph 4 of an legislative committees, the secretariats, the governor's l

Agreement between NRC and a State) office, the secretary of State or advisory committees, and j

the regulated community or advocacy groups. Too often 1

Finally, each signed agreement states (in Anicle VI):

the regulations disappeared into one of these offices and "Ite Commission will use its best effons to co-operate with the State and other Agreement A simple solution would be for a sentence to be included States in the formulation of standards and in the transmittal letter stating that failure to receive a 1

NUREG-1479 i

i i

response within 3 months would indicate that a particular 1.1.1.4 Education l

cntity had no objection to the regulation. However, if i

appr'ovalis required by an Administrative Procedures Act The public, the regulated community, and the poh..tical (APA) or by statute or regulation, the Commissioner or establishment must be educated about the necessity for Director to whom the Director of Radiation Control Pro-developing these regulations. The educational process gram (RCP) reports should write a letter to the office should emphasize th e health and safety reasons for devel-l promulgating the sistute or regulation asking for an im.

oping the regulations and the benefits of having the State j

mediate reply.

rather than a Federal agency regulate the programs.

1.1.1.5 He Regulated Communities i

The participants expected that significant fiscal problems j

would have to be addressed during periods of fiscal re-The regulated communities need to be mere involved in straint. Addressing these problems is particularly impor-developing regulations. A broad-based a&isory commit-tant for small RCPs because, as they transfer people into tee should include representatives from the utilities, aca-rulemaking, they are reducing the staff available to do demia, and producers of nuclear materials. This commit-regulatory work. For all RCPs, financial resources will be tee could be helpful in resch'ing controversial regulatory needed to cover the costs of conducting hearings, printing language to fit local conditions and in facilitating the j

the regulations, and postage. He fee structure should formal promulgation process.

i include the resources needed for these costs.

l 1.1.1.6 The Public j

I Additional problems that were mentioned during the dis-Since the pubh..c is somewhat suspicious of both regula-cussion of the first question are as follows:

tory agencies and the regulated communities, the pubhc at large should be amply represented on advisory commit-1.1.1.1 Process tees. The people chosen should be representative of all

(

points of view on the radiation questions, which may pre-i The process itself is time consuming and costly because vent allegations that the committee is partial towards one f

the person-hours that have to be devoted to writing regu-side or another.

lations could be better spent on regulatory matters. The language that is used in NRC regulations is sometimes 1.1.2 What are the advantages and disadvantages of co-not compatible with State requirements. Seeking infor-ordinating Federal and State rulemaking on major l

mation from the States early in NRC's regulation devel-issues?

opment process would help to alleviate this problem. In

}

addition, some States have a style manual that facilitates Invohing the States in NRC rulemaking makes sense l

promulgating regulations by indicating what is required because two-thirds of the materials licensees are regu-r either by the APA or by another statute.

lated by the States. The States are required by their agreement to coordinate rulemaking with the NRC.The signed agreement also requires the NRC to coordinate its j

1.1.1.2 Time Constraints rulemaking with the States. Both the States and the NRC should clearly understand that developing a regulation is j

Some States have to complete writing a regulation within a distinct process from implementing a regulation. The a certain period, or they have to begin the process as States have requested that they become m, yolved with the outlined in the APA all over again. Other States have NRC rulemaking process at the earliest possible moment, j

Sunset laws that require them to renew their regulations and the NRC staff has been directed to comply with this every few years. Thus, some States are renewing their request (Appendices A and B). However, the States be-l existing regulations at the same time they are trying i lieve that they should participate in the discussion about i

adopt new regulations.

whether a regulation is necessary and whether the States'

.l regulations have to be compatible with any new NRC i

1.1.13 l_cgislation and Regalations regulation. lf the States are involved from the beginning l

in discussions about new regulations, the language and l

Non-Agreement States that wish to enter into an agree-the rationale for these regulations will be developed in a t

ment with the NRC need time to have the enabling legis '

form that will reduce the time it takes for State regula-lation passed. Agreement States also need time to obtain tions to be promulgated. The States will also better un-l the authority to regulate new areas. All states would derstand why these regulations are necessary.

l benefit from receiving the Suggested State Regulations i

(SSRs) in a more timely fashion. (The SSRs will be dis-ne biggest problem that the States face is the impossi-i cussed in greater detail in Section 1.1.5.)

ble task of developing and promulgating regulations NUREG-1479 2

i i

i simultaneously with the NRC. However, if the process section and can determine what the rationale was for outlined in the previous paragraph were fol' owed. this adopting that section.

problem would be reduced.

1.1.6 Are there categories of regulations which can be 1.1.3 Are there things the Nuclear Rgulatory Commis-adopted by reference?

l sion, other Federal agencies, or the Conierence of Radiation Control Program Direc? ors can do to as-Some States do adopt cenain categories of regulations by sist in the rulemaking process in your State?

reference. However, most panicipants believed that the language in the regulations had to be changed to meet The NRC can play a sigmficant role in getting State regu-State requirements. Furthermore, the time it takes to lations promulgated by appearing at public hearings and develop a regulation could be shonened if regulations supporting the States' efforts to protect the public health were developed by the CRCPD and the NRC with appro-and safety. However, the NRC should only appear at priate language and rationale statements. His would re-r hearings if it is invited as there are several States in which quire that the CRCPD and the NRC closely cooperate an NRC presence may cause problems. The participants with the States in the rulemaking process.

indicated that the NRC is very responsive to requests to attend meetings.

1.2 State Procedures for Revising and Adopting Changes to Regulations Participants stated that States do not have the resources to conduct research, ther efore, the NRC is encouraged to Appendix D is a summary of the information from 24 supply the States with the background material on the States. Note that only about three-founhs of the report-scientific reasons for developing the regulations.

ing States must hold public hearings. The public interest can only be protected if a public hearing is held. All States ne participants thought that the NRC and the Confer-should be encouraged to conduct public hearings to re-ence of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) ceive comments from the public and the regulated com-should review proposed regulations and return the com-munity.

ments in a more timely fashion. Rey also felt the CRCPD should supp!y the SSRs in a more timely fashion.

Clearly, regulations may be delayed as they go through If the CRCPD and the NRC are able to reduce the time it legal review ot when they are submitted to another office t

takes to review and return States' material to them, this within the government. Everything possible must be done reduction would in turn reduce the pressure on the States to eliminate the bottlenecks that prevent some States and make meeting the 3-year timetable easier.

from getting their regulations promulgated within 3 years. As suggested previously, deadlines should be 1.1.4 How helpful are the Suggested State Regulations placed on the government body to which the regulations in the development of regulations in your State?

are transmitted.

The summary of responses for Section 1.1.5 includes the 1.3 How Regulations are Promulgated responses for this question.

Each State has to follow its own APA.The staff working 1.1.5 Are there any changes you would suggest in im-on the regulations must be thoroughly familiar with the proving the SSR system?

APA. Because the style and language of a regulation are prescribed by a State, each State needs to develop a style i

Before this topic was discussed. Eddie Fuente from Mis-manual consistent with the requirements of all organiza-sissippi provided background information on the SSRs tions involved so that regulations will not be rejected by (Appendix C).

another governmental body because the style is incorrect.

l Apparently the SSRs have greatly assisted the States with To reduce the time that it takes for governmental bodies their regulatory process. In addition to the comment to officially review a regulation, these bodies should be made previously about the timeliness of the production of involved in either drafting the regulation or resiewing it the SSRs, the participants wanted to expand the rationale before it officially reaches their respective offices, i

statements for their regulations. He NRC, as indicated i

in Section 1.1.3, could help the States in this area. De Some States take as little as 6 months to promulgate a SSRs should always include the date that a section was regulation, while other States take as long as 3 years. An adopted so that the States will know who worked on that example of a 6-month time line is as follows:

3 NUREG-1479

process, a State may take only 6 months to implement a i

Day Action regulation.

Advisory committees should be given a limited time to 1

Receives NRC regulation review the proposed regulation before it is published. By 2-7 Assigns staff to prepare State regulation the time the regulation is published, it should have been reviewed by interested parties, and the staff should have 8-37 Determines where it belongs in state regula-had an opportunity to consider their comments.

tions; regulation developed from SSRs or 7

from NRC regulations with proper State The advantage of this process is that other governmental words and format bodies and the regulated community as well as the con-cerned community will have already reviewed the regula-38 Distributes proposed regulation to-tion before the public hearing. Consequently, most con-cerns will have been addressed before the regulations are Board of Health (approving authority) discussed at a public hearing.

Advisory community (includes regulated i

community)'

The RCPs should not E.ttempt to repromulgate their ex-

[

Other State decision makerst isting regulations while attempting to adopt new NRC regulations.The process becomes very complicated when t

64 Board of Health meets and authorizes pro-two different sets of regulations are being worked on ceeding:if not, resolves objections and starts simultaneously. The individual States should work with

(

over the NRC to determine when new regulations required by -

the NRC can best be adopted while sunset law require-66 Files notice of intended action ments are being met.

68 Receives comments from NRC, advisory When a change in a State statute is required for the State l

committee, and other State agencies to promulgate a regulation compatible with a new NRC i

68-82 Changes regulation as the result of com.

regulation, States with legislatures that meet only once ments received every 2 years will find it almost impossible to meet the 3-year deadline. Therefore, the NRC should work closely 83 Publishes regulation as notice of intended ac-with the States so that new NRC regulations will not-

[

tion require changes in State statutes or,if a State statute must be changed, the NRC should attempt to ensure that the F

104 Holds public hearing to receive comments State will have adequate time to obtain legislative ap-from the general pubhc proval.

i 105-126 Changes regulation as the result of com-ments at public hearing 1.4 conclusions 127 Returns regulation to Board of Health for ap-(1) The SSRs have proven to be very useful. States have

+

proval of adoption notice: if not approved, re-and should continue to take advantage of this re-solves objections and starts over source.

129 Files regulation as adopted (2) Some States have no problem in meeting the 3-year deadline by working closely with other State agen-i 143 Publishes notice of adoption cies, the regulated community, adsisory committees, 178 Regulation becomes effective and the NRC while the regulation is being drafted.'

By doing this, all of the groups enumerated have had their concerns aired and hopefully addressed before t

the regulation is officially advertised.

[

When other governmental agencies, concerned citizens.

(3) States historically have not been involved early in

'h the regulated comrnunity, and an advisory comnuttee are NRC's rulemaking process or compatibility determi-i myolved from the time the RCP initiates the drafting nations.

  • Die Commission has attempted to address this problem in the April 11 and June 25, 1991, 9hese groups have 30 days to submit comments.

memoranda.

NUREG-1479 4

t l

4 (4) The costs of the mlemaking process usually have not 2

WORKSIIOP ON FUNDING RA-been included in fees. The fees should be changed DIATION CONTROL PRO-to include the rulemakmg process costs, which have continued to rise. The NRC, using information from the States, should determine these rulemaking costs ON FEE SCIIEDULES-EFFEC-and include them in the fees as a separate item.

TIVF STRATEGIES FOR THE t

1990S 1

(5) Some States whose legislatures meet every 2 years have had prob 1 cms meeting the 3-year deadline if The Federal Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 the regulation change required a change in State law (OBRA-90) requires that the NRC recover approxi-l or other 1cgislative approval.

mately 100 percent of its budget through fees for Fiscal Years 1991 through 19953 This requirement means that the NRC has to collect fees to fully cover the costs of conducting its programs, including the collection of fees 1.5 Recommendat. ions from State and local governments, which had previously l

been exempted from paying fees. As a result of the regu-(1) He States and the NRC should become true part-lations promulgated to comply with OBRA-90, only non-ners. The NRC should invite State representatives profit educational institutions are exempted from annual to be present when the decision-making process fees in Part 171 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regula-about new regulations is initiated. Subsequently, tions (10 CFR Part 171). Both nonprofit educationalinsti-State representatives should be consulted when the tutions and Federal agencies are exempt from licensing compatibility determinations are being considered.

and inspection fees (10 CFR Part 170).

He NRC had to examine its budgeted costs and allocate

      1. CU 8U*
            • U

""* #8 "

(2) ne States should be involved in the development of i

e es mat wouM generate suWent revenue m NRC regulations to ensure that thelanguage of the c ver the budgeted costs. The NRC is required to charge regulations is compatible with State requirements.

a fee f r any services provided, such as reviewmg an ne NRC should develop the underlying rationale application or an amendment, or developm, g regulations; for each regulation so that this mtionale can be and fm odeaWuding de cost of mnnmg the Mce presented during NRC and State public hearings.

of State Programs.

j ne present economic emironment is forcing nearly all (3) The States, through the CRCPD, should develop government agencies to carefully review the need for the SSRs in a more timely fashion as delays have each of their programs and their related funding. State occurred when the SSRs were not available. Addi-RCPs have not been excluded from this review process.

tional resources may be required to accomplish this.

Some RCPs already recover full program costs through fees. ne NRC expects that in the nearfuture, most if not all State RCPs will be required to generate sufficient j

(4) The NRC should review proposed regulations from revenue to recover approximately 100 percent of their the States in a more timely fashion.

budget from fees just as the NRC is now required to do.

i The technical workshop that took place on April 28 and (5) When requested, the NRC should continue to tes-29,1992, syst ematically explored the budgetary pressures tify at State public hearings.

RCPs are facing and reviewed funding alternatives to identify effective strategies for funding these RCPs in the future. The determmation of real costs was addressed.

I (6) He States must include the expenses of rulemaking l

as part of their fee structure.

Before the workshop, participants were given a list of seven questions for which they were request ed to prepare answers that would be presented at the workshop.

j (7) NRC specialists should be present at State work-shops when their specific area of expertise is associ-ated with the topic being discussed.

2For an example of the NRC fee structure, see Appen&x E 5

NUREG-1479

~.

2.1 Responses at the Tecimical

00) Costs of instruments, including purchases, mainte-nanc, c nbr ti n, rep ir, shipping, and replace.

Workshop ment i

2.1.1 IIow does your State calculate program costs for (11) Building costs, including rent, energy, and tele-budgeting? Ilow are fees (if any)determmed?

phone and water senice and their maintenance Some of the RCP panicipants described novel methods (12) Travel costs, including automobiles, gas, mainte-l for determining and then assessing their fees. These nance, and replacement

'j ranged from fees based on the quantity of radioactive (13) Fiscal, administrative, pelage, copier, and comput-i material licensed to fees as a percentage of NRC fees.

ing costs and costs for supplies, new equipment. and However, most sought to correlate the fees with their word processing program cost. Methods used to determine costs mcluded j

time studies, activity reports, estimates of the number of

94) Costs of regulations, including meetings of advisory full-time equivalent staff positions needed to conduct committees, preparation of regulations, printing programs, utilizing data collected by nearby States, and and distribution of regulations, advertising the hear-adding a percentage for indirect costs and fringe benefits, ings on the regulations, and legal senices where appropriate.

i (15) Emergency response costs j

Clearly, many State RCPs did not know what their true Only when managers of the RCPs are able to determine

~

costs were because other governmental programs within their real costs will setting fees that will pay for their their agency or State were paying for the costs of tele-programs be possible.The panicipants believed that from -

phone senice, energy, rent, maintenance, and calibration a programmatic point of view, setting fees and adjusting l

of instruments, legal support, transponation, admirustra-them within a short time because they were set incorrectly tive support, hearings, publishing and disseminating would be inappropriate. The anticipated effect of infla-i regulations, and emergency response costs.

tion during the period for which the fees are being estab-lished must be factored into the fee determination. Ad-6 To help prepare for the day when all States will be re-justing fees frequently can cause serious political

{

quired to generate revenues to recover the true cos s of problems both with governors' offices and with State leg-l their programs, the RCPs should begin to gather data on islatures as well as with the regulated community and the i

the following costs that were identified from presenta-public. The setting of fees must be undertaken with the tions at the workshop:

utmost care and must be done only after carefully gather-ing data on the costs of each of the items previouslylisted.

l (1) Time for licensing and registration activities:

In addition, States should consider the effect that raising the fees will have on local inflation.

Application review 2.1.2 If your State charges fees, what is the system for-Issuing of licenses and registrations generating invoices Issuing of amendments receiving and recording receipts a

(2) Time to prepare for inspections and investigations followup invoices issuance of the license after fees are paid?

(3) Inspection and investigation time i

The summary of responses for Section 2.1.4 includes the (4) Report writing and compliance correspondence responses for this question.

time 2.13 Is the Radiation Control Program responsible for i

the tasks in the question in Section 2.1.27 If the (5) Travel time answer is no, what organization is responsible?

i (6) Training time The summary of responses for Section 2.1.4 includes the

.I responses for this question.

(7) General office time 2.1.4 If your State charges fees, what problems have oc-curred in the process of collecting them?

(8) Supenisor's time Overall, States that utilize computers (1) to send out (9) Secretarial time invoices, (2) to generate licenses after fees have been L

NUREG-1479 6

t l

received, and (3) to track each licensee appear to most ments are not interested in filing a claim or prosecuting a efficiently carry cut these functions. These States use a company for the small amount of money that is typically data system that has allowed them to reduce the staff involved. One State reported that its legal department required to complete these functions.

was unwilling to take action agamst the offenders. An-l other State reponed that it was considering taking these For example, a State that generates invoices and receipts offenders to small claims court to collect fees.

l l

by hand needs a f ull-time clerk for every 400 licensees in a Most States reponed they did not have any problems Radioactive MateriaI Program, while on the other hand, a c llecting fees from the radioactive materials users. Prob-l State that utilizes the most up-to-date equipment and lems occasionally arise when money is received by Non-software is able to oversee approximately 4000 registrants Radiation Control Program staff who are unable to re-in an X-ray Registration Program with one clerk. Al-sp nd to questions from the licensees or when the RCP though administering a Radioactive Material Licensing staff request additional information from the Non-Radia-Program is more difficult because of the complexity of the tion Control Program staff, With the exception of the program (which includes application review, amend, panicipants from one State where problems occurred ments to the license, frequent inspections, and a higher some years ago, the participants believe that having the level of risk), the participants concluded that a difference RCP mvolved with the whole process of collectmg the i

of a factor of 10 in productivity between these programsis fees and generating the licenses is most efficient. In this too great a difference.

way, the RCP staff are more easily able to respond to any i

problems that may arise. When the RCP staff indirectly l

The syst em the NRC tees is an example of another option receives notification that the fees have been received, the available. While many States send their own invoices, the ini rmation may be mislaid and the license may not be NRC has a contract with a mailing service to send its generated. A real problem occurs when the RCP is re-l invoices.De contractoris responsible for assembling and gutred to send all of the mvoices sunultaneously, and j

folding up to five pages of material to be mailed, insening temporary employees have to be recrtuted to do ilus the docurnents into a window envelope with the address w rk.Those RCPs that spread the workload out over a showing. scaling the envelopes. stamping the envelope year find it much easier to keep track of all the invoices, with the return address, and delivering the envelopes to a licenses, and receipts. The panicipants concluded that specified U.S. post office. De cost of this service is ap-every attempt should be made to have this pan of the proxtmately 20 cents an envelope for approximately pr gram operate continuously through the year.

10,000 annual fee invoices.

In many States, the technical review of a new license ne great majority of States that receive money are re-cannot begin until the application fee has been paid.

quired to deposit it every day. However, some States can Once paid, issuance of the hcense can then proceed with-i take from a week to a month to deposit money. In the case out funher concern about the fees. License renewals and of the NRC, money is not received by the agency but is amendments may also proceed freely where separate fees sent directly to a "lmck Box" bank at no cost to the NRC for these actions are not charged. However, when renew-because the bank receives payment from a treasury con-al and amendment fees are charged, the State should i

tact through a "cornpensating balance" arrangement.

consider a mechanism to prevent renewal or amendment his bank is responsible for receipt and deposit of billed issuance until the appropriate fee has been received. In i

fees. Payment data is downloaded from the "Imck Box" some States, a review of the fee status is included as part bank to the NRC's accounts receivable system on a daily of the technical review, thus providing an opportunity for basis.

the RCP to take appropriate action.

The States may wish to contact their local banks to deter.

Some States have developed a pattern of hand delivering mine whether such banking arrangements are possible new licenses, complicated licenses, or unusual amend-and also to check with other State agencies, such as the tax ments to a license. This gives the RCP staff an opportu-office, to see if such a contract already exists between the nity to meet with the new licensees and to develop rap-State government and a bank that the RCP could utilize.

port that will make their subsequent regulatory work casier. Hand delivery also gives the RCP staff the time to explain their programs, especially the health and safety The NRC and some States generally issue followup in-issues.

voices after 30 days. If licensees fail to pay, some States and the NRC issue orders suspending or terminating the 2.1.5 Should the States develop standard fees?

license while other States refer the matter to either their State agency's legal department or to the Office of the ne particip4nts believed that standard fecs were unnec-State Attorney Genemi. However, most legal depart-essary and that standard fees might cause problems in 7

NUREG-1479 I

i j

some States if the fees collected were greater than the staffs have to better explain to registrants the advantages standard fees. The panicipants did not want to see any of having dedicated funds because the RCP will only be j

fers mandated or become an issue of compatibility.

ab!c to get dedicat ed funds when they have the suppon of j

the majonty of the regulated community.

However, participants were in favor of having a suggesud list of minimum fees that could be used by any State that The executive branch in some States believes that all i

wished to use it. The participants believeG that the listed programs, including the RCP, should be self-supporting.

minimum fees should reflect some reasonable estimate of In some States obtaining dedicated funds is very easy. In minimum costs and may induce a State to review its fee other States, dedicated funds are not popular because the structure if the State's fees only recover a small percent-administrative side of the executive branch loses some I

age of the RCP costs. In States in which low fees have control over the expenditure of funds. Legislators in sev-been set by agencies other than the RCP, the RCP may eral States who want to keep a tight rein on purse strings i

4 use the suggested list of minimum fees to justify an in-also feel that they lose some control once a dedicated crease.

fund is established. In at least one State, the licensees and the registrants aren't even aware that the funds collected Participants diffcred about the necessity of having stan-are not going into the RCP. One State reponed that all of l

dard categories. Comparing fees is very difficult when its dedicated funds were appropriated by the legislature States do not use the same terms to describe the types of after large surpluses accumulated in them. Several States licenses. States are not able to compare fees charged by have language in their statutes that allows them to carry

{

adjacent States when the categories are unclear.

over surpluses in their dedicated funds from one year to another. This concept is important because fees will Some participants believed a suggested standardized fee change less often as the surplus is averaged over time.

category would be helpful. Participants also felt that The surpluses from the first few years should cover the these standardized fee categories should not become an increased costs caused by inflation. However, a ceiling issue of compatibility and should not be mandated.

may be placed on the amount that can be carried over.

Three examples of such language are 2.1.6 If your State has a dedicated fund, what were the strategies used to convince the legislature to "The moneys in this fund may be carried over authorize it? If your State considered but did not from one fiscal year to the next provided that l

adopt a dedicated fund, what were the arguments any unencumbered funds in excess of against it?

$ 1'00,000.00 on September 30 of each year shall revert to the State ----- general fund."

The summary of responses for Section 2.1.7 includes the j

- responses for this question.

"All monies in the fund in excess of that amount necessary to administer such program I

2.1,7 If your State has considered but not adopted fees shall remain in the fund, to be invested by the i

(or considered, but not passed legislation allowing treasurer, until such time as either State or l

i fees) what were the arguments against them?

Federal funds become unavailable for these purposes.These excess funds shall be retained In a number of States, agencies received authorization to forthe purpose of supplantinglost and reduced i

establish dedicated funds. In most cases, the radioactive State environmental funding, or Federal envi-materials users were not the main proponents of estab-ronmental funding presently granted to the lishing dedicated funds but rather members of industries State."

j were-members such as the oil and chemical industry

,y,here shall be established in the Department who already pay large amounts in taxes. These industries wanted their fees to be used by the people that were a non-lapsing revohing fund. The fund shall

. regulating them rather than have the fees go mto a State contain a separate subaccount for fees imposed general fund.They wanted to be sure that their fee dollars f r each specific program.

)

were being used on their behalf "Ihe radioactive materiaf users were in favor of dedicated funds and their support was also helpful. Without their support, problems may States that are in the process of establishing dedicated

-i arise in obtaining dedicated funds. Generally speaking, funds should attempt to have sumlarlarignage included in the most vocal opponents to both fees and dedicated their statutes so they will be able to carry over iunds from funds are the registrants involved with x-rays. The RCP one year to the next.

NUREG-1479 8

I

i I

t 2;2 Conelusions 7.

The support of the regulated community is desirable when attempting to establish a dedicated fund.

I 1.

True costs of running an RCP must be determined before fees are set so that the fees will be realistic 2.3 Recommendations

(

and will rcflect rcal costs.

1.

The States through the CRCPD should develop a 2.

The regulated community is rnore responsive to an manual and software for a computer system that will efficiently run RCP; that is, an RCP that is responsi.

allow those States which are not as yet usmg a mod-ble for generating invoices, receiving and recording ern system to' do so, thereby reducing the staff i

receipts, generating followup invoices, and issuing needed te send invoices, collect fees, and generate licenses; and an RCP that sends invoices continually licenses.

throughout most of the year, if not year round.

3.

The relationship between the RCP and the regu-2.

The CRCPD or the Organization of Agreement f

lated community profits when the RCP explains an States should develop a list of suggested standard-original license or a complicated amendment to the ized categories and a list of suggested minimum fees -

-i licensee. This explanation gives the RCP an oppor-to be used by those States wishing to do so.

l tunity to explain other aspects ofits program, includ-l ing fee structure.

3.

The States should enlist the support of the regulated community to get a dedicated fund that can be used 4.

Replacing hand written invoices, receipts, and li-exclusively to support activities involving that regu-censes with computer generated materials will m, -

lated community.

l crease efficiency.

4.

The Statute establishing the dedicated fund should 5.

Developing suggested license categories would al.

mclude language that will allow any money left at i

low States to compare these categories among States, but not as a mandatory action or as a matter the end of the fiscal year to be carried over to the of compatibility.

next fiscal year.

t 6.

Developing a suggested list of muumum fees for 5.

The States should develop the same relationship each category would also be helpful, but not as a with other parts of the regulated community as they -

(

mandatory action or as a matter of compatibility.

have with radioactive material users.

(

i i

U l

i i

9 NUIGG-1479 c.,y

(

x

+.%

i

-t-

.y3

+--- -

m-

-.-4

)

i Appendix A April 11,1991, Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor and Harold R. Denton I

i 9

6 NUREG-1479 f

i j

l

[sw*g umTro ITaf ts rs NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMCION i.*i'8 was oweton.oz.aones

~%.. 4 *[

April 11,1991 creeroe m stcattany MEMORANDW4 TOR:

Jknes M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Governmental a Public Affairs TROM:

Samuel J. Chilk, Secrets [ =y

SUBJECT:

COMKC-91-007 - IMPROVINtJ CC, OPERATION WITH AGREEMENT STATES i

8 The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) directs the staff to develop a process that will ensure early and substantial involvement of the Agreement States in rulemakings and other !!RC regulatory efforts that affect facilities licensed under 10 CPR 30, 40, 61, and 70 or their State equivalents.

In developing an efficient process for Agreement State cooperation, the staff, in consultation with the General Counsel and the Organization of Agreement States ( C AS ) ', should consider adopting the following ce=ponents as a part of that process:

Agreement State review of NRC's regulatory agenda o

(NUREG-0936) to identify rulemakings of importance to r

State programs.

Provide opportunity for substantive consultation between the Agreement States and staff during the development of potential rulemakings of i=pertance to the States.

consultation-on compatibility determinations that vill be included in proposed rules.

Inclusion of Agreement state views in a separate i

section of Commission papers that transmit proposed rules, which have the potantial to affect Agreesent State licensees.

A tracking system to ensure that issues and concerns o

raised by the Agreement states are resolved in a timely manner.

11 NUREG-1479

2 The Commissien notes that GpA verking closely with the OAS in developing the process should help ensure that the process will have the suppcrt of all concerned.

While werk moves forward en establishing t.he process, though, it would he helpful to emphasize to t.he OAS that the ceraission is looking forward t:

further discussions with the CA5 at the upce=ing Commission meeting.

(EDO/GPA)

(SECY Suspense:

6/26/91)

The Commission also directs the staff to defer any further action to resolve the " Illinois 1 millirem issue" until the Commissien

=akes a decision on SECY-91-039.

cc:

Chairman Carr Commissicner Rogers Commissicner Curtiss Commissicner Remick OGC 1

l a

i NUREG-1479 12

i Appendix B June 25,1991, Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor and Harold R. Denton i

l l

NUREG-1479 i

t a

/'p ***uq*o UNITED STATES l

T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i I

wAsumctou.or rosas IN RESPONSE, PLEASE l

June 25, 1991 REFER TO: M910611A OFF #CE OF THE SECRETARV i

MEMORANDUM FOR:

James M. Taylor i

Executive Director for Operations Harold R. Denton, Dire Governmental and Public

" fairs

)

FROM:

Samuel J. Chilk, Secrey b

SUILTECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BlJt PING BY AGREE-MENT STATES ON COMPATIBI(ICTY ISSUES (SECY-91-039), 10: 00 A.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1991, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVIILE, MARYIAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

The Commission was briefed by members of the Organization of Agreesent States on issues of compatibility in the Agreement -

t State programs.

The Organization of Agreement States was l

i represented by:

Thomas E. Hill, Chairman Organization of Agreement States Wayne Kerr, Assistant Director Office of Radiation Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Chairman, Agreement States Task Force on Compatibility Greta Dicus, Director Division of Radiation control and Esergency Management

+

Arkansas Department of Health David K. Lacker, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control i

Texas Department of Health Larry Anderson, Director Bureau of Radiation Control Utah Department of Health 13 NUREG-1479

h -

The Commission requests that the staff seek the comments of interested parties other than the regulatory (e.g. materials users and waste generators) on the general matter of compatibility and the advantages and disadvantages of a uniform national approach to radiation safety matters.

The staff should also seek comments on appropriate mechanisms to provide the States flexibility to address local needs and conditions.

The staff should provide to the Commission an analysis of the issues raised in these and the Agreement i

States' ce=s,ents, along with recommendations on the process we should follow Lo develop a policy on compatibility issues.

Staff's recommendation should consider the joint NRC/ Agreement State task force process recommended by the Organization of Agreement States as well as suggestions from other interested parties.

This will serve as an added basis for Commission action on SECY-91-039.

l (EDO/GPA)

(SECY Suspense:

10/1:B/91) cc:

Chairman Carr Commissioner Rogers Co=missioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick i

OGC ACRS PDR - Advance DCS - P1-24 i

I

)

i i

NUREG-1479 14

Appendix C Comments on the Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation Talk Given by Eddie Fuente at the First Workshop NUREG-1479

SUGGESTED STATE REGULATIONS FOR CONTROL OF RADIATION D.e Atomic Energy Act of 1954, initiated itself in response to President Eisenhower's " Atomic Power for Peace" address to the United Nations General Assembly in December 1953, added impetus to the private development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. The develop:nent of peaceful uses of atomic energy, under the guidance and oversight of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (formed in 1946, then reorganized as the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comminion in 1975) focused public attention on many problems regarding this new industry. Along with the benefits of this technological advance came the realization that many products, such as x-ray machines, long in public use, created problems similar to those associated with the new atomic industry. Widespread interest in radiation protection led eventually to the enactment of Public Law 86-373. The Atomic Energy Commission worked closely with the Council of State Governments and many state officials in developing Public Law B6-373.

Accordingly, the Council of State Govemmen[the Atomic Energy Commission and the U. S.

Public Health Service prepared a draft of proposed succested State Recuintions for Control of Radiation to implement state radiation control acts. They were widely distributed among public officials and private sectors for comments. The first suggested regulations were published by the Council in September 1962. These suggested regulations provided for regulation of all sources of radiation in that they were not only designed to incorporate provisions wury to qualify a state to assume certain of the regulatory respor.sibilities of the Atomic Energy Commission pursuant to Public Law 86-373, but also to provide for regulations of sources of radiation over which there has never been federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the suggested regulations are not only for the states which develop an overall radiation control program but also for those states which desire to regulate only those sources of 15 NUREG-1479 j

ndadon not subject to the NRC regulations.

Updated and revised regulations were published in 1964,1966,1970,1974,1978, and 1982.

  • ne 4th Edition (1970), dealing with radiation machines, was a revision to be consistent with the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation PrnLW and Measurements (NCRP).

De 5th Edition (1974) included provisions of the electronic product radiation safety performance standards. It also included three new parts: Pan H (Radiation Safety Requirements for Analytical X-ray Equip:nent); Part I (Radation Safety Requirements for Paniele Accelerators) and Part J (Notices, Inscuctions and Reports to Workers; Inspections).

Pan J addresses the requirements of the Occupanonal Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. bepanment of Labor by incorporating provisions from Tide 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 19.

The 6th Edition (1978) reflected changes in the NCRP recommendations, new amendments to the NRC regulations and amendments to the electronic product radiation safety performance standards issued by the Bureau of Radiological Health (now the National Center for Devices and Radiological Ecalth.

The 7th Edition (1982) included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Standards (Tide 40 CFR), amendments to NRC and FDA regulations and a new Pan W addressing requirements for Wireline Services and Subsurface Tracer Studies.

Also in 1982, Volume II, Nonionizing Radation (12sers) was published.

An interim Edition of Volume I (Ionizing Radiation) was issued in 1984. His revision provided companion regulations consistent and in conformity with certain amendments to federal standanis. A new Pan M (Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste) was also included.

Enough for history, let me turn to more current events.

The CRCPD's Suggested State Regulations Working Groups, which currently total 10, consisting SUREG-1479 16 i

of state, local and federal government employees and in some cases consultants develop the revisions to the regulations. For many years, the revised regMme were reviewed by a hard-working, dedicated group known as the Technical Review Committee. The CDRH published in the Feder21 Rerirter a notice of availability of the latest revisions of the SSRCR and invited inbe persons to submit comments.

However, credit for the coordinadon and publication of the Suggested State Reguladons goes to Charles Froom, Of5cc of Standards and Regulations, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Chuck Froom has been mon helpful to me in the transition fmm the CRCPD Technical Review Committee to the Regulations Overview Committee (ROC) established by the CRCPD Executive Board in September 1988. The ROC, which I chair, and four SSRCR Working Group chairp=,ons with resource persons from NRC, EPA and the CDRH provide technical and clarity review of proposed and revised regulations; transmit to the Executive Director of the CRCPD revised additions and revisions of the SSRCR; and ensure the SSRCR are consistent with adopted policies and positions of the CRCPD.

In June 1989, NRC, EPA and FDA were provided the final Draft of the 8th Edition (current revision) of Volume I (lonizing Radiation) of the Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation and were requested to approve the 8th Edition for publication.

Two of the federal agencies forwarded their concurrence letters to the CRCPD Executive Director in Atsgust and November 1989. The third federal agency requested that some changes to certain Parts of the Draft regulations be adopted. Upon adoption of these changes to the draft copy of VolumeI of the 8th Edition, the third federal agency provided their concurrence in April 1990. At the 1990 CRCPD annual meeting, the Executive Board of the CRCPD approved the publicadoo of the 8th Edition of the SSRCR. New Parts T (Transportation of Radioactive Material) and U (Ucensing Requirements for Source Material Milling Facilities) were added to this Edition.

17 NUREG-1479

l In June 1990, the Executive Director of the CRCfD provided to aII Radiation Control Program I

Directors the final printed copy of the 8th Edition of Volume I o.'the SSRCR whut the new Part U.

An updated draft Put U was submitted to the Part U Working Group in March of this year by the NRC for their review and consideration.

i As soon as the final draft of Put U receives concurrence by the participating federa] agencies, 1

it will be sent to the states for inclusion in the 8th Edition of the SSRCR.

In November 1990, the CRCPD assumed the responsibility for the coordation and publication of the SSRCR. In January of this year, the CRCPD published Policies and Procedures for the Preparation and Publication of the Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation which have been provided to the SSRCR working groups. The CRCPD has implemented a new system of publication.

The SSRCR are now a dynamic document. Initially, a complete document will be given to all Radiation Control Program Agencies and participating federal agencies and sold through the CRCPD to other interested groups or persons and thereafter, individual pages will be furmshed as revisions occur.

Cunent regulations being reviewed by the respective working groups:

1)

NRC's Revisions to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 2)

Part F regulations addressing diagnostic x-ray machines and facilities.

New Parts submitted to ROC:

1)

Part X, Therapeutic Radiation Me**s 2)

Put N, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM)

Two new Puts join Lasers in Volume II (Nonionizing):

1)

Tanning Facilities 2)

High Intensity Discharge Lamps In summary, I have presented some of the history in the early development of the SSRCR, NUREG-1479 18 i

i 1

briefly described the transition from CDRH to CRCPD for the coordination and publication of the SSRCR, and identified some cunent issues being addressed by the SSRCR working groups.

t 6

l i

i 19 NUREG-1479

Appendix D Eight Rulemaking Requirements Common to Most States f

6 n

J i

?

f 9

NUREG-1479 i

?

Appendix D

'IIERE ARE EIGE (8) IHOAD W GDEPAL AREAS "O390N" 20 POST SIKES:

-O' e APPRNAL Bf BQhBD OF HEAImf (m SIMIIAR BODf):

54%

O

  • I2EAL PEVIDf: INCIDDING THD IOORUNG AT 1HE E038tMIC IMPACP:

54%

O

  • RJBLIC NOTIG: 110SE NDP IRVING RJBGIC N7FIm UrrTJzm OIHER ME3100S Ed TO M7fIFY 1HE "RJELIC" INC[UDING RJBLICATIM CR IEED 1HE TH:TRfATURE:

67 %

  • NRC REVIDf:

58%

O

  • RJHLIC HEhRDG:

71%

O

= OIHER FILDIGS: 'IHESE INCIDDE GOVEENOR'S OFFIm, AGENISTRATIN 46%

OEFICES, IEISIATIVE COWCIIS, AIO MIsrTrIANEOUS l

O l.

42%

f

. SB2E3NE OF STEIE:

k 38%

l x

e RFULISHED: POSTLY SUGE pyr:76 mO i

e i..J...

-..~..~~~,m,,~._,..,J-....m.

-,-. ~.~,...,.. --.,....~..- - - --..--,.-. - -..

... - ~

m

... ~. _,.

Appendix E NRC Fees for Fiscal Year 1992 and Proposed Fees for Fiscal Year 1993 i

4 NUREG-1479

Appendix E i

NRC Fees

}

P i

in general, the structure of the NRC system of fees con-NRC is required to charge these fees under the terms of sists of two parts, a set of fees for identifiable senices (as the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C.

i adopted in 10 CFR Part 170) and an annual flat fee (as 9701) and must review the estimates on which the fees are adopted in 10 CFR Pan 171). The total fees paid by an based at least every 2 years under terms of the Chief NRC licensee in a given year will be the sum total of the Financial Officers Act (PL 101-576).

i annual fee plus the sum of all senice fees charged for senices rendered during the year.

The Part 171 (flat) fees are based on the requirement to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget, less amounts recovered by Part 170 fees or by appropria-tion from the Nuclear Waste Fund. These fees cover gen.

The Part 170 (senice) fees are based on the cost of staff crally the Commission's overhead and the cost of activi-time and the estimated staff time expended in providing ties that do not directly benefit one specific class of specific senices, such as the evaluation of an application licensees.

and issuing a license or amendment, the renewal of a license, or the conducting of a license inspection. Differ-The following table lists the type of fees assessed in Fiscal ent classes of licenses will have different costs for each Year 1992 for several types of materials licenses and the service. thus different fees.

fee proposed for Fiscal Year 1993.

d l

t k

t i

1 i

23 NUREG-1479 I

Example of NRC fees: FY92 and Proposed FY93

+

Proposed License Fee type FY92 fee FY93 fee i

Medical, Broad Scope hrt 170:

k 7B Application

$ 2,500 5 2.600 Amendment 390 500 Inspection 1 1,700 8.600 l

hrt 171:

Fee 12,200 26,4(0 Surcharge 1,750 1,720 l

Medical, Community Hospital hrt 170:

{

7C Application 760 1.100 Amendmen.I 460 500 l

Inspection 1,100 2,1(0 j

Part 171:

Fee 4,600 5,000 Surcharge 150 120 Industrial Radiography Part 170:

I 3O Application 3.200 3,800 t

Amendment 520 690 l

Inspection 1,300 3,500 hrt 171:

l Fee 12,S00 17,000 i

Surcharge 150 120 Well Logging Part 170:

5A Application 3,600 3,700 Amendment 580 650 i

Inspection 860 3,600 i

Part 171:

Fee 10,300 11,100 i

Surcharge 150 120 Nuclear Laundry hrt 170:

l 6A Application 1,500 4,500 1

Amendment 370 700 I

3 a

Inspection 1,300 4,500 hrt 171:

Fee 5,100 13,700 Surcharge 1.750 1,720

{

Portable Gauge hrt 170:

3P Application 540 570 Amendment 410 360 Inspection 1,300 1,500 hrt 171:

Fee 2,100 2,(XX)

Surcharge 150 120 D

Tor FY92, NRC charged wpara te fees for routine and nonroutine mspectons. Only the fee for the routine impection is shown. For l'Y93, the NRC has proposed that the nonroutme mspection fee be drop;ed.

i L

f NUREG-1479 24 f

/

NRC FORM 335 U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. REPORT NUMBER (2-89)

( Assigrcd by NRC. Add Vol.,

NRCM 1702, Supp., Rev., and Accendum Num-acci. 3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET bers. " anyl (See instruct ons on t. r vers.)

NUREG-1479

2. TilLE AND SU6 TITLE
3. DATE REPORT PUBUSHED Results From Two Workshops: State Radiation Control Programs Developing and l

YEAR uONTs Amending Regulations and Funding.

September 1993

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER L AV I Nm b s
6. TYPE OF REPORT Technical Dr Gerald Parker, NRC Consultant 8 PERFORMING ORGA*4Z ATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (11 fJRC, proveoe Omsior., Omce or Regron. U. S. Nuclear RegWatory Commasse. 3~J rradrng address; if Contractor, prov#de riatre and mailsng address. )

Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E SPONbORIN3 ORG ANi2ATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, type "Same as above* ; H ontractor, prov$de NRC Dmsson. Office or Region, U.S. Nudear RegJatory Comrmssion. and mailing address )

Same

10. SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTE S
11. ABSTR ACT (200 worcs or 6ess)

The first section of this document presents the results of a technical workshop on the process of regulations development and amendment sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This workshop focused on methods for reducing the time it takes to promulgate regulations to help those States that are having difficulty meeting the three-year deadline for adopting new NRC regulations. Workshop participants responded to six questions, reviewed the procedures used by various States for revising and adopting changes to their regulations, and reviewed the time-flow charts used by various Stat es. This workshop was designed to provide guidance to Stat es that are promulgating and revising regulations.

The second section of this document summarizes the proceedings of a technical workshop, also sponsored by the NRC, on funding radiation control programs that emphasized fee schedules and effective strategies for the 1990s. This workshop focused on determining the true costs of running a program, on setting realistic fees for the various categories oflicenses, and on the most efficient methods for sending invoices, recording receipts, depositing money received, and issuing p

licenses. Workshop participants responded to seven questions; reviewed the methods various States use to determine true costs; reviewed the procedure that the various States use to produce invoices and licenses; reviewed the procedures that the States are required to abide by when they receive money; and reviewed the method used by the NRC to determine the cost of its various programs.

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12 KEY WORDS/DESCRiPTORS fL'st words or p% rases t*.at was assrst researchers in locating t*ie report. )

Unlimited M. SECURW CLASSFICALON Agreement States

"*""")

State Radiation Control Programs Unclassified Radiation Control ma scrom NRC Fees NRC Regulations Unclassified is. NoMeER Or exaEs State Regulations Radiation Control Costs

16. PRICE i

NRC FORM 335 (2-89)

i i

i h

b L

i I

e Printed on recycled l

paper r

Feceral Recycling Program i

,jt h

, j e

t' i

1 i

m a

399 O

1 t

A R

tlF 7

E AS 6

B ME l

E G

d SF C S DRO l

A N NN P

LC A ST

=

UI E

E M

S TS G R

RA' E

I T

P

+

F S

v, O

P w

w r

e w

e S

M a

w G A w

NR D G s

I w

N O e

r e

ER w

P

[

M t,

f A L O

r 7

D c

R N T y

{

7, N

r UO j

]

NC a

I t

?

PN i

  • dO

^'

LI E T 1

{

V A

[

I E D f

f, D A m

1 C r

R S

1 u r

PE OT

r. n _,

i "

A l

7 q3.

iT S

_t n

~.

S K

c* -

RG ON C n_1 u.

1

  • I c-m WD n

fe?-

a N

egt c a,

O 7i mr" i,,

U WF r

T D MN OA RS FN SO fI lT lUA SI E U

' RG ER N

O I

1 S0 S0 0

I 0

0 M-3 5

M 5 E

SO5 sS EC0 sU T

2 E

Y NE A

I T R.

S A TS O C.

U V

Bt TD n

DA,

A L

P EL N

I R

TU C

O I

O ING T FFF UE G O Y 9

R T

m 7

N L

k RI A

A H N

1 G

E S E

m P

LA k iR CW U

f t N

N 1^

A 4

39 r

_9

_1' D

ig I

A

_R LP I

7

.E' AS 6

B ME G

E M

SF C E

S DRO.

T A N NN F

LC A S T UI E-E M

T S

S G R

A E

R! T P

f S

O P

l

~

e w

. 5 e

1 GO

.NL

.i.

=

I

+

ID G w

w G

N O

~.

E R P

M 1

f e

AL e

O

.D R

=

t N T v

[t A N r *

{

}

GO aa NC

}

PN

?

I OO 1

w

. LI

{

E T V A

(

I I

E D f.r D

. :M T'

r S

d.

I PE n

t

^

s OT

- iA T 1$.

7 T

l S S i - " o q,

- K t rN n e

RG C'

ON

a. i e

+

e*

!U w

I WD e ?. a e

)i

.a N

ntt O

t WF y,

rDy U

T D

MN

+

OA w

w RS FN u

SO JI T

lU A e

L SEU m

RG E

~

R N

O w

I 1

S0 IS0 0

0 0

M-3

=.

5 M5 E

SO5 S S w

EC0 S U T

2 E

A Y NE e

I T

R.

S T

A S O C.

U 4

V BI TD R

DA P

LA N

IC EL R

TU I

O I

O m

TF NG T F

UE G O Y 9

R T

7 N

L 4

RI A

m A H N

1 S

E G

E P

LA E

- R CW U

UN

.N a

a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20057E697&oldid=4478116"