ML20083J066

Impacts of NRC Programs on State and Local Governments

ML20083J066
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/1983
From:	Lubenau J, Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:
References
NUREG-1041, NUDOCS 8401090663
Download: ML20083J066 (15)

Text

-

NUREG-1041 Impacts of NRC Programs on State and Local Governments Task Force Report U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs Edited by D. A. Nussbaumer, J. O. Lubenau e " coq s

f7 g

2,. -

]

I 2" '

!!8BuRee 1041 R PDR l

f,

~

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

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555

2. The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

3. The National Technica! Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation 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 NRC/GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Feueral Regulations, ar.d 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 the Atorric Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are ?.vailable for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draf t reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tech nical information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Hegulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

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 copyrighted 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.

GPO Pnntea :.opy pnce. $3 <25_

l 1

NUREG-1041 Impacts of NRC Programs on State and Local Governments Task Force Report Manuscript Completed: Decen.ber 1983 Date Published: December 1983 Edited by D. A. Nussbaumer, J. o. Lubenau St:te Agreements Program Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Weshington, D.C. 20565 p... 9,

/

4 s

i d

j This report was prepared by employees of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

It expresses opinions that do not necessarily i

represent a staff position of the NRC. The report has been neither approved nor disapproved.

C d

6 i

e.

I-i

-\\

il

(

ABSTRACT This document reports the results of an NRC staff examination of the

~

inpacts of NRC regulatory programs on State and local governments.

Twenty NRC programs are identified. For each, the source of the program (e.g., statutory requirement) and NRC funding availability are described and the impacts upon State and local governments are assessed.

Recommendations for NRC monitoring and' assessing impacts and for

-enhancing NRC staff awareness of the impacts are offered.

iii

?

CONTENTS ABSTRACT...............................iii PREFACE...............................vii

1. INTRODUCTION..........................

1

2. ANALYSES OF IMPACTS.......................

2 2.1 NRC-State Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding l

2.1.1.

Section 274b................... 2 2.1.2.

Section 2741................... 2 2.1.3.

Memoranda of Understanding............ 3 2.2 Nuclear Power Plants 2.2.1.

Need for Power Assessments............ 3 2.2.2.

Environmental Impact Statements......... 4 2.2.3.

Amendments to Reactor Licenses.......... 5 2.2.4 Environmental Surveillance............ 5 2.3 Emergency Planning 2.3.1.

Power Reactors

..6 2.3.2.

Fuel Cycle and Material Facilities........

7 2.4 Radioactive Materials

2. 4.1.

Li ce n s i n g....................

7 2.4.2.

Inspections................... 7 2.4.3.

Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material............... 8 2.5 Radioactive Waste 2.5.1.

Shallow Land Burial of Radioactive Waste..... 6 2.5.2.

High-Level Waste Disposal Licensing....... 9 l

2.5.3.

Decommissioning.................

10 l

2.5.4.

High Volume, Low Specific Activity Waste.....

10 l

l 2.6 Transportation l

2.6.1.

Route Surveys..................

11 l

2.6.2.

Notification to Governors............

11 2.7-' Revisions To and New NRC Regulatory Programs 2.7.1.

Proposed Regulations, Regulatory Guides and Branch Technical Positions............... 12 2.7.2. Amendments to Power Reactor Licenses (See 2.2.3.).

5 I

3. - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................

13

4. REFERENCES...........................

15 i

v L

PREFACE In early 1982, the National Governors' Association (NGA) published a report of its study of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conotission (NRC)

Agreement State Program. Although the NGA report did not make a recommendation on the impact of NRC programs on State and local governments, some concern in this area was expressed.

NRC staff concluded that there was a need to consider the collective impact of existing programs as well as new prograns. The NRC Office of State Programs established a Task Force for this purpose and to develop recommendations to improve staff awareness of NRC program impacts on State and local governments, vii

i IMPACTS OF NRC PROGRAMS ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION In early 1983, the National Governors' Association (NGA) published a report of its study of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conriission (NRC)

Agreement State Program (Ref. 1). Although the NGA report did not make a recommendation on the impact of NRC programs on State and local governments, some concern in this area was expressed. There are a number of. NRC programs which impact on State and local governments; some are of a cooperative nature, some are mandated by law and others result fron requests by the State and local entities themselves. Some examples are the Agreement State Program, cmergency preparedness for power plants, routing and notification of shipments of spent fuel and waste, environmental surveillance, licensing of power plants, etc. Although each no doubt has merit, NRC staff identified a need to consider the collective impact of existing programs as well as any new programs.

The NRC Office of State Programs established a Task Force for this purpose.

In addition to representatives from various NRC program and regional offices, the Conference of Radiation Control Progran Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) was also asked to serve on the Task Force. The members of the Task Force were:

Donald A. Nussbaumer, Assistant Director for the State Agreenent Program, Office of State Programs, Chairman

'Joel 0. Lubenau, Office of State Programs, Coordinator Kathleen M. Black, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Optrational Data Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Robert J. Doda, Regional Representative Robert L. Fonner, Office of the Executive Legal Director Charles'M. Hardin, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors,

(

Inc.

Michael T. lamgochian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Justin T. Long, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Jerome D. Saltzman, Office of State Programs l

-Sheldon A. Schwartz, Office'of Inspection and Enforcement, u

l l

I f

r

The results of the Task Force study were reviewed by State Radiation Control Program Directors and by NRC Office Directors and Regional Administrators. Their comments were accommodated es appropriate.

2. ANALYSES OF IMPACTS Twenty NRC prograns were identified which impacted or had the potential to inpact upon State and local governments. The source of the program (e.g., statutory requirement) and funding sources for the State and local government are identified. An analysis of the impact upon State and local governments is also_given.

2.1. NRC - State Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding

2.1.1. PROGRAM

Section 274b State agreements.

PROGRAM SOURCE: Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as anended authorizes NRC to enter into agreements with States whereby NRC

-relinquishes and the State exercises its authority over byproduct material, source material and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to cause a critical mass.

NRC FUNDING:

There is no direct Federal funding for operation of Agreement States programs.

Training, exchange of information and technical assistance are provided by NRC. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act authorized the NRC to provide one-time grants to States to assist _ them in meeting requirenents of the Act, The total amount authorized was $500,000 for FY 1980.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: There is a positive impact on States because the State makes its own regulatory decisions. As a result, the State has a local source of technical knowledge.for dealing with all sources of radiation

.in the State, including emergency planning for nuclear power plants and transportation. State costs vary with the size of the program ranging from S100,000 to over $3 million annually.. Sources of funding include general revenues and user fees.

Eighteen of the 26 Agreement States have authority to collect user fees.

Start-up costs for new Agreement States cannot be covered by State fees, however, and the NGA recommended NRC seek authority to grant seed monies to such States. The NRC training program for State personnel has a positive impact in helping to maintain staff capabilities.

For example, in 1982 the Office of State Programs offered 21 training cources which 289 State and 22 NRC students attended. The NRC pays the travel and per diem costs incurred by State participants in these courses.

=2.1.2 PROGRAM: Operational relationships betweea the NRC and the State of Louisiana pursuant to an Agreement under section 2741 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

PROGRAM SOURCE: The Commission is authorized to enter into agreements, under.Section 274i, with States to perform inspections or other i

functions on a cooperative basis. The activities covered by the 274i :

=.

agreement with Louisiana concern NRC licensees, such as radiographers or well logcers, ooerating in offshore waters under NRC jurisdiction.

Other States having offshore waters may also enter into'similar agreements in the future. State involvement is voluntary.

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: The State impact thus far is minor. Over the past 10 years, Louisiana has t< pended only a few person-days per year for investigation or other technical assistance to NRC related to offshore incidents involving NRC licensees. This agreement provides benefits to the NRC in that the State is closer and, in some cases, is able to respond more quickly to radiological incidents and, thus, relieves the NRC from responding to these incidents.

2.1.3. PROGRAM

Memoranda of Understanding between the States and the NRC for the purpose of avoiding duplication of effort and to speed the licensing process.

PROGRAM SOURCE: Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act. Memoranda of Understanding fall into two broad categories. The first, umbrella memoranda of understanding contain general statements and principles of cooperation and have been developed where the parties expect there will be a mutual substantive licensing interest but are not prepared or able to address these issues simultaneously. Umbrella memoranda become the basis of subsequent detailed subagreements.

The second category, specific or detailed subagreements contain a detailed set of procedures and commit the parties to undertake certain actions or responsibilities.

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: The impact on States is viewed as.being positive and memoranda of understanding continue to be a popular vehicle for States and NRC to delin'eate and memorialize areas of neighboring interest in nuclear regulation.

Four umbrella memoranda have been executed and about a dozen specific or detailed subagreements have been entered into in areas such as water quality permitting activities, joint licensing hearings, protection of proprietary information, resident inspections, inspection of transportation activities, environmental reviews, coordinated public information releases at emergency centers, and regulation of in-situ uranium _ mining. A number of such memaranda are anticipated in the. area of State inspections, pursuant to interstate l

compacts, of packaging and shipments of low-level waste.

1 I

2.2. Nuclear Power Plants

2.2.1. PROGRAM

NRC assistance to States 'or conducting assessments of need-for-power for.the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.

l PROGRAM SOURCE:

It is the Commission's policy to place substantial reliance on State assessments of need-for-power, energy conservation, l --

l and alternative erergy source analyses.* An Appeal Board opinion, ALAB-490, stated that reliance could be placed on State bodies for doing need-for-power assessments but that the State review must meet the same standards that the NRC must meet if it were doing the review.

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

Impact is minimal. States which requested assistance to improve their capabilities to meet NRC standards for doing need-for-power review were provided computer tapes and user manuals coni.oining the model and description of the NRC process for forecastino energy demand (the primary factor in doing a need-for-power assessment).

Eight States received additional assistance from Oak Ridge National Laboratory staff who developed the model. Workshops were sponsored by NRC to provide exchange of informatior, with States seeking to improve analytical capabilities.

Funding far these activities is termineted due to absence of funding and somewhat limited interest of State agencies.

2.2.2. PROGRAM

Environmental impact reviews for nuclear power plant operating licenses and for certain fuel cycle and materials licenses.

PROGRAM SOURCE: NEPA as interpreted in NRC's re detailed environmental impact statements (EIS's)gulations requires for the issuance of a permit to construct and a license to operate a nuclear power reactor and for certain fuel cycle and materials licenses.

In developing an EIS, the NRC staff routinely contacts various State and local agencies to obtain background information or opinions on possible impacts of the power plant. Such agencies are those responsible for environmental controls, fish and wildlife, land use, economic development, and cultural resources. Occasionally NRC staff may confer with appropriate State or local officials during the review. Appropriate State and local agencies are asked to comment on the draf t EIS. When a hearing is held on a license, the State or local government may participate in the proceeding.

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

Information gathering usually imposes only a small burden of time and effort on officials. Occasionally an environmental or cultural recource issue will require more than routine attention.

Hearings are held at the OL stage only when significant safety or environmental issues are identified. State and local participation in hearings varies widely according to the issues and interest. Over the next three to four years nuclear power plants at thirteen sites will undergo an operating license review. Historically, the individual and collective burden on States and localities is small, however, in those

• These evaluations are now only required at the Construction Permit stage. By rulemaking ir 47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982 these were eliminated at the Operating License (0L) stage unless there is a showing of special circumstance.,

cases where a State chooses to perform comprehensive reviews of environmental analyses, the impact upon resources can be significant.

2.2.3. PROGRAM

Amendments to power reactor operating licenses.

PROGRAli SOURCE:

Public Law 97-415, secticn 12(a), amended secticn 189a of the Atomic Energy Act to recuire that the Commission consult with the State in which a facility is located in determining whether a proposed amendment to the facility's operating license involves no significant hazards consideration. Specific procedures have been established to inform the State official designated to consult with the NRC of proposed amendments on a timely basis. The level of involvement and effort in reviewing and commetiting on the amendment is at the State's discretion.

URC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: The impact appears to be generally minor depending on the interest of the State but can vary State to State. A potential does exist for more than minor involvement, especially for proposed doendments which go to hearing.

2.2.4. PROGRAM

Environmental surveillance for measuring concentrations of radioactivity and radiation leveh in the environment of Commission-licensed facilities.

PROGRAM SOURCE: The program w'as established by the NRC for the purpose of enabling independent measurements by a State of concentrations of radioactivity and radiation levels in the environment of Commission-licensed facilities. The principal objectives of the program are:

(1) to provide reasonable assurance that environmental measurements made by the licensee under Commission requirements are valid and (2) to independently monitor direct radiation levels in the environs of nuclear facilities. State involvement, which is voluntary, is through a contract with NRC.

NRC FUNDING: The program is funded jointly by the State and the NRC through a cooperative agreement. Typical contracts call for payments by NRC to the State of approximately $12,000 per year per monitored site.

The State must contribute an amount of in kind services equal to or greater than the Commission's commitment.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: Positive State impacts are (1) a firm contract, usually of 3 years duration, for environmental surveillance activities; (2) partial payment for environmental surveillance activities that the State might well perform on their own; (3) the completion of efforts under a Federal contract which provides the State with a broader base of experience in environmental monitoring and (4) review of the quality of the State's laboratory work by a third party.

In the States' view, there is a negative impact in that the States' shares of resources committed to the contract exceed the amount received under the contracts. ____-__ _________- _ __ -

i 2.3. Emergency Planning

2.3.1. PROGRAM

Emergercy plans and preparedness in support of conriercial nuclear power stations.

\\<

PROGRAM SOURCE: Each applicant for an operating license is required by Section'50.34(b) of 10 CFR 50 to include in the final safety analysis report plans t or coping with emergencies. Appendix E of 10 CFR 50 establishes minimum requirements for emergency plans for use ir, attaining an acceptable state of emergency preparedness. Each plan must describe provisions for the conduct of emergency preparedness exercises, including participation by appropriate State and local governrent agencies.

NRC FUNDING:

None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: The necessity for State and local governments to participate in emergency preparedness exercises at the frequency set by current NRC regulations are consuming vast amounts of staff time to the detriment of other aspects of States' radiation protection programs

-which provide substantial protection to the public.'

It has been estimated that the likely expenditures by State and local governments for implementation of the current emergency preparedness crite'ia are r

about $1 million per site in c typical State. For a site with a relatively high population within the 10-mile Emergency Preparedness Zone, the initial cost might reach $2 million. Annual updating costs, including exercises, could reach up to $100,000 to $200,000 per year.

For most operating stations, initial costs have already,been incurred.

Updating costs, including exercises, stili remain a major expense. s An August 1982 compilation by the Atomic Industrial Forum showed that.17 States had enacted legislation authorizing means.for funding emergency preparedness activities.

Legislation was pending in 4 States.

The Conraission has recentlyl approved.for publication in the Federal

-Register a proposed rule change that provides flexibility to the requirement for frequency of emergency response exercises which, if approved, may provide some relief to' State and local agencies. NRC is also considering other changes to reduce the impact. These include eliminating " unusual events"'as an emergency' class (which could reduce response frequency) and graduations of risk within the 10 mile emergency planning zone (which could reduce the/ scope of response depending on the risk).

State involvenent in emergency planning and in exercises has resulte6 in some benefits, for example:

intra-agency interfaces and responsibilities are clbNrly o

defined in the State Emergency Plans and associateo procedures which are subjected to a formal review and approval proc'ess, Communicationcapabilities(physicallyand-organizationallyl o

between State agencies, with adjoining States and among the States and Federal agencies have improved in recent years, and 5

' \\g O'

i l

i t

Enhen:$oequipmertandpersonne!.trainingaspectsrequiredfor

'e

/ part.icipation in exercises har other beneficial espects to the o

States, i.e. ar. impreved capability for.respondinc to

, er:er;ef.ry situaticas at Statelicensed facilities, transportatien accident's,'etc.

l y

2.3.2. PRCCRAM

Cor.diration.with 1xal emergency response services for radiological contingQr.cy plans fr$ myor fuel-cycle and materials licensees.

v

/

PROGRAM SOURCE: Scme 27'na,ior f tp1 cyde and materials iicentees are required by Order In implement ensite tadiological contingency plans (See 46 FR 12566).~t.ocal agencies (police,. fire, anbulance, hospital) are asked to provide letters of agreasant to provide services in radiological emergencies "nd tc. participate in training and drfils. NRC staff is considering a p nrosed rulemaking to codify the requirement and to extend the scope to ot hite planning.

Some contacts 6 th' States ir

.this reoard have been initiated by officials of the Federal Energency Management Agency.

/

NRC FUNDING:

Nor,e.

.~

IMPACT ANALYSIS: Nc State invelvecent at present; -local government involvement is minor.

Extension of the scope of contingency plans to otfsite plarring would impact upo'n local and State emergency responce

, offices particularly in those States not already having radiological emergency plans for power reactors in that they will reed to develop and implement plans for taking appr3priate protective measures.

2.4. Radioactive Materials

2.4.1. PROGRAM

Licensing of byproduct material activitiec.

PROGRAM SOURCE: Under certain circumstances, NRC recuests applicants for naterials licenses to provide information as to whether their proposed activities are in accordance with State and local requirements.

These cases usually involve incinerators, onsite burial of radioactive wastes, or field studies involving deliberate release of radic1ctive material to the environment. State and local governments are occasionally asked by NRC to comment on applicants' preposals and confirm that State and iocal requirenents are not violated.

4 NRC FUNDING: Ncne.

flMPACT ANALYSIS: State and local involvement can include State and

}

local evaluations of the proposal, and in seme cases, approvals, e.g.,

for an incinerator. The impact has normally been small.

4 G.4.2. PROGRAM: NRC offer to non-Agreement State radiation control

,f programs to accompany NRC inspectors on inspections within the State.

/

PROGRAM SOURCE: The NRC regional offices offer tne opportunity for State radiation control personnel in non-Agreement States to accompany NRC inspectors on technical inspections of radioactive materials licensees within the State. This offer is made as a courtesy to States that have an interest in these activities.

State involvement is voluntary.

!4RC FUNDING:

None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: Variable, since State involvement depends entirely on the State's interest in NRC inspections on a case-by-case basis.

State resources are expended only if they wish to accompany an NRC inspector on a particular irspection.

The impact upon the State should be positive by expanding the experience base of State personnel with regard to the use of radioactive materials within the State.

2.4.3. PROGRAM

Naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM).

PROGRAM SOURCE: NRC is authorized to re tailings and waste (See Section 11(c)(2)gulate radium in uranium mill of the Atomic Energy Act).

NRC has no other authority over NARM.

s NRC FUNDING:

Except for a one-time sum of $500,000 that was authorized end appropriated by Congress for use in FY 1980 by States interested in developing regulatory programs for control of uranium mill tailings and waste that would mt:et the requirements of Section 2740, there is no NRC funding available to the States to regulate NARM.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: Since NRC has no authority to regulate fiARM (except for nill tailings) the State impact arises from a lack of authority to regulate rather than from any requirements or program which NRC imposes.

The States have not been able to regulate NARM in a consistent manrer over the years and they believe incorporatio. of NARM into the NRC regulatory program (including the Agreement State program) would benefit the public by establishing minimum standards for State regulation and licensing of NARM.

In 1977 an NRC Task Force studied the regulation of NARM and found it to be fragmented, non-uniform and incomplete at both the Federal and State level. Yet, these radioactive materials are widely used. Because of the fragmented and non-uniform controls over radium and other NARM, it is difficult to know, in an overall sense, whether proper protection is being provided to workers and the public (Ref. 2).

(OSP plans to update this Task Farce report and make a recommendation to the Commission in FY 1984 on whether or not NRC should seek authority to regulate NARM.) NRC has been repeatedly requested to seek Congressional authority tc regulate NARM, most recently by the National Governors' Association (Ref. 1).

2.5. Radicactive Waste 2 5.1. PROGRAM: Licensing requirements for shallow land burial of radioactive waste.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

PROGRAM SOURCE: Regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 61.

NRC FUNDING: None from NRC.

(The U.S. Department of Energy (D0E) is providing funds for the development of State compacts, for State dssessments of the low-level radioactive waste disposal problems and for development of site selection procedurus.)

IMPACT ANALYSIS: The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 places the responsibility on the States to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. The NRC low-level radioactive waste program assists the States by providing a consistent set of performance objectives and technical requirements for the establishment and licensing of new sites and can provide technical assistance. Agreement States regulating or planning to regulate a low-level waste disposal site must adopt rules which are compatible with 10 CFR Part 61.

All Agreement States must adopt regulations providing requirements for a transfer for disposal and manifest system which are equivalent to section 20.311 of 10 CFR Part 20.

In addition, some States may have to serve as landowners for disposal sites and accept the long-term care responsibility. Designated State and local agencies will need to maintain records of the location and the quantity of radioactive wastes contained in the disposal site at the time a license is terminated (10 CFR 61.80(e)).

Beneficiel impacts are the making available of NRC Staff to States to discuss information srbmitted by a license applicant, NRC regulations, licensing procedures, schedules, and the type and scope of State participation in the NRC license review process. The NRC will al:.o consult and cooperate with State gevernments in developing a proposal for State participation in the NRC license review process.

Such participation, however, will require State resources.

2.5.2. PROGRAM

Disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories: Licensing procedures.

PROGRAM SOURCE: Regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 60.

NRC FUNDING: None by NRC. There is funding from DOE from the Nuclear Waste Fund (See Sec. 302 of Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982).

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

Participation by States in the Part 60 proceedings is voluntary; therefore, no impact occurs unless the State chooses to participate. Adverse effects on States that participate are personnel required to (1) maintain an awareness of the progress of site characterization; (2) review and comment on information submitted to NRC by DOE in accordance with 10 CFR 60; and (3) preparation of proposals for State participation in the review of the Site Characterization Report and/or license application as provided for in 10 CFR 60.62.

Beneficial impacts include:

(1) State attendance at DOE /NRC technical meetings as provided in the DOE /HRC procedural agreerrent; (2) NRC staff that will be made available to consult with the State with respect to any aspect cf NRC's review of DOE's site characterization activities;

_g.

4

and (3) provision of Conmission services for the purpose of enhancing its communication with the State regarding the site characterization or license reviews.

2.5.3. PROGRAM

Potential NRC requirement for measures to assure the availability of funds for decommissioning licensed facilitiet.

PROGRAM SOURCE:

As part of the Commission's generic reevaluation of its deconmissioning regulations and policies, the staff is considering several methods for financing decommissioning. A proposed rule including possible financing requirements is currently scheduled to be issued for public comment by the end of 1983.

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: The proposed regulations, if presented to and approved by the Conmission in their current state and if substantively unchanged as a final rule, would require licensees to choose from a range of funding options for decommissioning their facilities.

Because the staff is currently considering proposing a range of funding options as being acceptable, and because one of the funding options does not present any increase in ccst to licensees or their customers, the financial impact is expected to be minor. However, because financial mechanisms being considered by the NPC for nuclear power plants have traditionally been regulated by State public utility commissions, the NRC's promulgation of decommissioning financing regulations may force the commissions to ccnsider financing issues earlier than they might otherwise do. Thus, some impact can be expected but cannot be predicted at this time.

2.5.4. PROGRAM

Local jisposal of high volume radioactive waste containing low concentrations of source material at contaninated sites.

PROGRAM SOURCE: Section 20.302 of 10 CFR Part 20 requires that, for the disposal of low-level wastes, the licensee must opply for and obtain specific NRC approval prior to the disposal. NRC has prepared a Branch Technical Position (46 FR 52061) that provides four disposal options, depending on the amount and kind of radioactivity, for the burial of soil contaminated by uranium or thorium. There is no continuing NRC licensing of the material under any of the options. Two of the options limit the land use, and the recorded title documents must be appropriately conditioned.

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

Except for the first option, which applied only to very low-levels of radioactivity, NRC Iolicits the view of appropriate State officials before approving the disposal application.

State and local action may be needed to implement controls over subseque nt land use under the options requiring such controls. _ _.

2.6. Transportation

2.6.1. PROGRAM

Route surveys and approval, for safeguards purposes, for shiptrents of strategic quantities and types of special nuclear naterial' (including irradiated reactor fuel).

PROGRAM SOURCE:

In 1976, the NRC Division of Safeguards started exanining the transportation of radioactive materials to determine the extent of involvement of various groups and agencies in the carrying out of safeguards contingency plans.

(See 10 CFR Part 73.) State ard local officials expressed a desire that route surveys be conducted by a Federal agency (such as NRC) rather than having'each licensee make his own survey. Officials indicated that they would be mere willing to share sensitive response information with Federal agents ar.d that they would prefer not to have to give the same information to a number of different agencies. Dealing with the NRC representatives would provide 6 single point of contact and would be more acceptable to the State and local officials.

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT AffALYSIS:

Information is received through a personal visit with a representative of the colice agency. About 30 minutes is required at each jurisdiction through which a route passes.

2.6.2, PROGRAM:

NRC requirement for notification to Governor or Governor's designee prior to shipment of "Large Ouantity" of radioactive waste or irradiated reactor fuel.

FROGRAM SOURCE:

Section 301(a) of Pub. L.95-295 required the NRC to pronulgate regulations providing for timely notification to the Governor of any State prior to toe transport of nuclear waste, including spent nuclear fuel, to, through, or across the boundaries of that State. A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 1980 (45 FR 81058) invitina public comment. The final rules (in 10 CFR 71.5a,71.5b,73.37(f),and73.37(g))werepublishedintheFederal Register on January 6, 1982 (47 FR 596, 600) and became effective on July 6, 1982. A listing of Governors' designees was published on June 7, 1982 (47 FR 24671), and a guidance document for use by licensees (NUREG-0923) was also published in June 1982. The list of Governors' designees is updated periodically, most recently on June 30, 1983 (48 FR 30221).

NRC FUNDING: None.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: Because no State is obligated to receive the information, there is no impact on a State other than that which the State chocses to impose upon itself.

A State that chcoses to participate in the notification program incurs an obligation to protect schedule information for spent fuel shipments while the shipments are in progress. Apart from that requirement, a State is free to use or not use the information in whatever programs or ways it wishes. State responses to this rule span the full range of possibilities.

Some l

States use the information as part of individual State-designed programs to contribute to safety, security, and ease of transport of shipments of spent fuel and "large quantity" waste. Other States use this informatien simply to keep informed. Only one State has chosen not to receive spent fuel shipment information at all.

2.7. Revisions To and New NRC Regulatory Programs

2.7.1. PROGRAM

State review for comments on proposed regulations, regulatory guides and branch technical positions.

PROGRAM SOURCE: NRC Manual Chapter 0401, " Intergovernmental Consultation" describes the system of assuring approp-iate consultation between NRC and State and local governments and their national and regional associations on NRC actions that may have a significant State or local impact.

In addition, each of the Section 274b agreements between the Conmission and the Agreement States contain an article whereby each of the parties promise their best efforts to cooperate in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs, to keep each other informed of proposed changes and to obtain comments and assistance from each other.

FUNDING: None, except that in cases where meetings are held to obtain State views on proposed NRC programs, regulations, etc. NRC may fund the travel and per diem costs of the State travelers, if any.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: When States are consulted, the significant impact for them is finding and allocating staff time to review NRC proposals consistent with other program priorities. MC 0401-032.c specifies a minimum of 45 days for comments on significant programs, plans for rulemaking or specific regulations. NRC line offices have not always planned for this and, as a result, shorter time frames for connents have been stipulated leading to (thus far, verbal) complaints to OSP.

State views have not always agreed with proposed NRC staff positions and actions. The chapter offers guidelines in cases where differences in views occur.

In those cases where the cognizant NRC office declines to accept majcr changts in proposed regulations suggested by an association of State or local governments, NRC Manual Chapter 0401 requires a written notice of this to the Director of the Office of State Programs and the promul ation of the proposed regulation may be delayed briefly 5

for further discussion and, if necessary, meetings between the interested parties.

Such action may also be applied to cases involving individual States.

In a recent case, State representatives were invited to participate in a Commission briefing to present their views.

Reporting to the Commission of actual or potential impacts of NRC proposed programs, plans for rulemaking and proposed regulations upon State and local governments is not, however, routinely performed (e.g.,

as part of the regulatory impact analysis).

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS By far the NRC program having the greatest impact upon States and localities is the need for participation by appropriate State and local agencies in emergency preparedness exercises around nuclear power reactors. There are no authori7ations for NRC funding for State and local participants. Costs are estimated to by typically about $1 million dollars per site to implement a plan meeting current emergency preparedness criteria, but can be much higher. Periodic updating costs, including r.tercises, could reach up to $100,000 to $200,000 per year.

The NRC recently approved for publication in the Federal Register a proposed rule change that will provide flexibility to the requirement for the frecuency or emergency re:ponse exercises.

The significant impacts of the NRC emergency preparedness program upon States and localities clearly demonstrate that there is a critical need to be sensitive to impacts upon State and local governments by NRC regulatory actions, especiaily when the need for their involvement is not entirely within their contre?,

i.e., is not voluntary. Examples of other NRC programs that are or will te in this category are:

4 o

Emergency planning around licensed major fuel cycle and material facilities, o

Low level waste disposal, o

Decommissioning of NRC licensed facilities, o

Transportation of radioactive materials, especially waste and spent fuel.

While it is literally true that State participation is voluntary in a number of the NRC programs identified as having an impact on the States, as a practical matter the States must be involved in order to satisfy public concerns.

RECOMMENDATION The awareness of NRC staff of the need to consider impacts of NRC programs upon State and local governments can be considerably enhanced by adding to the Regulatory Analyses in Commission Papers a section analyzing State and local government impacts. NRC staff will implement this recommendation through appropriate changes in its administrative procedures for preparing Commission Papers.

Another NRC program having a significant impact upon the States is the Agreement State program. That program was viewed as having an overall positive impact even though the NRC provides no operating funds. The opportunity for a State to establish and implement a comprehensive radiation control program over all sources of radiation (machines and materials) and to factor local conditions into regulatcry decisinns was felt to be of benefit to the public.. _ _ _.

The subject of funding various State programs may bear further examination.

NRC provides no funds to States or local agencies except for States participating in the NRC independent measurements program around NRC licensed facilities.

Even here there are indications the NRC funding level is less than desired. The NGA recommended seed noney be made available to help States cover the initial costs of becoming Agreement States and NRC staff will prepare a report for the Commission on this subject in FY 1984 Some funding is available from other Federal resources, notably from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the high and low-level waste area.

RE_ COMMENDATION E

A systematic appraisal should be made of State and local government funding needs (and, where appropriate, for Congressional authorization for NRC to provide funds) to enable adequate State and local regulatory actions related specifically to programs initiated by NRC that directly affect State and local governments. NRC staff will examine seed money for non-Agreement States and will develop criteria for considering funding if a program is proposed.

In cases where NRC staff has consulted with the States, the deadlines given to the States for comments have not always been adequate to permit the Stctes to provide the consultation in a time frame that is consistent with their own program priorities. State views have not always agreed with proposed NRC staff positions.

RECOMMENDATION Increased attention of and adherence to the guidance in NRC Manual Chapter 0401, " Intergovernmental Consultation" by NRC staff could significantly help to control some of the adverse inpacts of NRC programs upon the States and local governments. The Director of the Office of State Programs will reemphasize this requirements to NRC Office Directors.

Periodic re-examination of NRC relations with State and local governments should be an essential ingredient in NRC's intergovernmental relations program.

RECOMMENDATION Approximately every two years a re-review should be made of NRC program impacts and the staff's efforts to control those impacts. OSP will monitor the impacts of individual new programs and periodically assess whether a more comprehensive review is needed.

-!4-

4.

REFERENCES 1.

National Governors' Association Committee on Energy and Environment, "The Agreer.ent State Program:

A State Perspective,"

National Governors' Association, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C.

20001 (January, 1933). Available for purchase from the National Governces' Association, Washington, D.C.

20001.

2.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Regulation of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials," USNRC Report NUREG-0301, July, 1977. Available for purchase from the National Technical Information Service, Snringfield, Virginia, 22161.

l mo t %vei a,~..

e. r <oc.- v.=

u s suca.

iu. u, cuvv ssos

..c,o m

.s.n BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-104

~

• us c+.e s:,

s.o, %ve t a i vir te.

svanett Impa s of NRC Progran.; on State and Local Cover 1ments

' I.*. /"""" "'..

g.

ousi De mber 1983 i D.?

MEPoHT 155utO o

.V i e.vse < ss W

fM wk.H D. A. Nussb

,er and J. O. Lubenau ecember 1983 p~osic, v.s

.oa. us,1 %v..

A PE R5 0MutNG ORG.N,l.I TON %.

.NO y.44.eNG ADOME s$ Hewd /,p Codst Office of Stat Programs, State Agreements Program U.S. Nuclear Re latory Commission Washington, D.C.

0555

,, sPosso. % o.o. w.nos...so

...s 20 ss H~,,,,,

<., co.,

,,.,,n o. mo,

Office of State Progra.

Task Force Report State Agreements Program

' a " a '* w v i a w "~~~ ~~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C ission Washington, D.C.

20555 IJ 5UPPL E MENT.R y NOf f S

,4 A85TH.Cf f 24h3 swords os essi This document reports the resu : s kan NRC staff examination of the impacts of NRC regulatory programs on tate

.d local governments. Twenty NRC programs are identified. Fo -each, t' source of the program (e.g.,

statutory requirement) and t C funding ' vailability are described and the impacts upon State and ocal governm.ts are assessed. Recommenda tions for NRC monitoring and as ssing impacts

' d for enhancing NRC staff awareness of the impacts re offered.

(

N' is.. - noa os.~a oocuv. i.s.t.s, -

,.,, c i s,,,,, 0,,,

ie.v.it.atiivSl E vest u+. i vy.ssi>.c. r v%

, i st

,* %veu o P.a s uncIassi fieri Unlimi d m s,,cv.,, u.ss...c.no,

y,,, c,

uncfa*ssi fied s

UNITED STATES

~"]

2

,ou,,, ci,33.au NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POSTAtt & f(Es PA:0 C

W ASHINGTON. D.C 20555 n$IUa c m

i a..1,, 23_

O 06FICI AL BUS' NESS PE ALTY FO ' PAIV ATE USE, $300 A

o>

0-4 Co On Z

TO o

3 OO I>E en O

2 cn 120555076877 1 1 AN1CF1CG1CJ 1 H

US NRC ADM-DIV OF TIDC M

POLICY & PUB MGT BR-PDR NUREG W-501 W AS ilINGTON DC 20555 O

00>

F O

O<

m I

ZE m

2 H

Cn Dm OmE to m

I b

___