ML20137H887

Submits List of Documents to Be Released to Public Re DSI-4, Nrc'S Relationship W/Agreement State

ML20137H887
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/01/1997
From:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20137H889	List: ML20137H887 ML20137H899 ML20137H907 ML20137H912 ML20137H926 ML20137J019 ML20137J025
References
COMSECY-96-054, COMSECY-96-54, DSI-4, SECY-96-054-C, SECY-96-54-C, NUDOCS 9704030143
Download: ML20137H887 (15)

Text

. . . . . - _ . _ _ . . _

j .'

• i April 1, 1997 I

i SECY NOTE: The following documsnts are being released to the public at this time:

i

+

1. Text of DSI 4 (NRC's Relationship with Agreement States)

2. Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 19, 1997.

l

3. Views of Chairman Jackson dated February 4, 1997. ,

4. Views of Commissioner Rogers dated January 21, 1997. f i L j 5. Views of Commissioner Dicus dated January 24, 1997.

6. Views of Commissioner Diaz dated January 27, 1997.  !

i ,

7. Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated January 24, 1997.

1 John C. Hoyle

.k  ;

s Secretary of the Commission  !

i l

~

I l

i 4

9704030143 970401 PDR NRCSA I PDR 4

030050 g g III.H5Epp.llP'ilRE

Ts t3 1

? Samunary Analysis of Comments NRC"s Relationship With Agreement States 4 ..

3.2 NRC'S RELATIONSHIP WITH AGREEMENT STATES (bbl *****.

4) codsrCY-96-354 lE ss

.m 3.'

3.2.1 The Direction-Setting issue and the Options ;y q1 Q 7w

.g .

What should be NRC's strategy regarding States becoming and remaining l l-

• e l@

Agreement States?

, cn 6 Turn the Agreement States Program Over to the Environmental; $ g . ,*

Option 1:

1 Protection Agency .g s g.

=m

• s Option 2: Strongly Encourage States To Become Agreement States

• l e

Option 3: Continue the Current Agreement States Program, Including Adop" ting ****'

1

'l Current Initiatives

! Option 4: Treat Agreement States as Co-regulators Option 5: Devolve Regulation of Atomic Energy Act Section 274 Materials to the States 3.2.2 Commission's Preliminary Views The Comission preliminarily favors Option 3 (Continue the Current Agreement States Program, including Adopting Current Initiatives). At the same time, the Commission is preliminarily in favor of encouraging more States to become Agreement States. However, the Comission believes this should be accomplished primarily through intangible incentives to States as opposed to tangible incentives. While tangible incentives (i.e., funding) would be an effective mechanism for encouraging more States to become Agreement States, the Commission is concerned that the funding constraints imposed by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (0 BRA-90) would have an inequitable impact on NRC licensees in States that decide not to become Agreement States.

However, the Comission believes that the staff should explore the feasibility and desirability of providing " seed money" and/or financial grants, within the funding constraints of OBRA-90, to encourige States to apply for Agreement State status.

While the Comission has not made a final decision on this matter, a majority of the Comission is preliminarily in favor of a compromise position in which the NRC would provide training to Agreement States without charge on a " space available" basis. Funding for travel and technical assistance would be borne by the Agreement States.

The NRC particularly solicits coments on whether NRC should fund Agreement State training, travel, and technical assistance. Coments are especially sought from Agreement States, non-Agreement States, fee-paying NRC licensees, and Agreement State licensees.

3.2.3 Summary of Comments A. Significant/Important Coments Directly Affecting the Preliminary Views or the Direction-Setting Issue Page hil Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report

! WC's Relatiomhip With Agreement States Summary Analysis of Comments

[

Both written and verbal comments received at stakeholders' meetings generally l supported the Commission's selection of Option 3, Continue the Current l Agreement States Program, Including Adopting Current Initiatives, with some

! modifications. Option 3 was supported by States and State organizations

• l (Organization of Agreement States [0AS), Conference of Radiation Control l Program Directors [CRCPD), Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Florida, New Hampshire, Kansas, Mississippi, Maryland and Oregon), members of the public (Mel Silberberg &

Associates), and members of the regulated community (Wyoming Mining Association [ WHA), Kennecott Energy [KE], ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems [AB8-CE), National Mining Association [NMA), Entergy, Westinghouse and Mallinckrodt). However, several commenters (0AS, CRCPD, Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Florida, New Hampshire, Kansas, Mississippi, Maryland and Oregon), and some members of the regulated community (ABB-CE and Mallinckrodt) supported this option provided that it be modified to include continued funding of Agreement State training, travel, and technical assistance for further discussion, see 3.2.3.E below.

Many commenters (OAS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) favored continuation of the development of programs in partnership with the Commission and cited the development of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) and the " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" as successful collaborations with the NRC. A large number of commenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) also indicated that they wanted the collaboration between the NRC and Agreement States to be expanded.

Commenters from the regulated community and the public also offered comments in support of Option 3. NMA stated that it generally supports Option 3, but objects to NRC licensees funding Agreement State oversight and training. NMA believed that Option 3 strikes a balance between maintaining a coherent national program and allowing States some flexibility to " accommodate individual State preferences, State legislative direction, and local needs and conditions." ABB-CE stated that Option 3 appears to . offer a fa torable balance of cost, preservation of regulatory experience, and centralized regulatory authority. A commenter from the public (Mel Silberberg & Associates) supported Option 3 with enhanced guidance, technical assistance and IMPEP reviews of the Agreement States. WMA and KE supported this option and believed that it would allow States to become Agreement States without undue pressure and would allow States to remain non-Agreement States if they chose.

In addition, many commenters (OAS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, Washington, Louisiana, and Utah) were concerned that the preliminary views of the Commission did not include the recognition of the Agreement States as co-regulators, as addressed in Option 4. The commenters from the State organizations (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Florida and Utah) along with some commenters from the regulated community (National Energy Institute [NEI], Westinghouse, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company [SCE&G])

Mallinckrodt, and the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals

[CORAR]), and William Beaumont Hospital), provided support for Option 4 along with other options. This issue is discussed further under 3.2.3.B below.

Page 3-12 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Repon

\ _

NRC's Relationship With Agreement States S=- y Analysis of Comments Two commenters (Entergy and Westinghouse) concurred with the Commission's pr.eliminary views as presented. Entergy commented that only Option 2, Strongly Encourage States To Become Agreement States and Option 3, Continue the Current Agreement States Program, Including Adopting Current Initiatives would facilitate a consistent implementation of regulations. Westinghouse endorsed the preliminary views expressed by the Comission regarding Option 3 and endorwd the Comission's compromise position regarding free training to be provided to the Agreement States with States bearing costs of travel and technical assistance.

In both the written comments and those provided at the stakeholder meetings, concern was raised regarding the absence of any discussion of the many benefits the States provide the NRC and its licensees without reimbursement.

Several commenters (OAS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah, Louisiana, and Arizona) cited a number of examples of how the Agreement States support NRC's mission to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety: Agreement States license, or are in the process of licensing, all . low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal sites; Agreement States respond to incidents involving transportation of NRC licensed material and NRC licensed devices at facilities within their jurisdictions; States monitor the environs of nuclear power plants and other nuclear fuel facilities licensed by the NRC with only partial compensation; Agreement States providc staff to participate in the NRC Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) reviews of Agreement States and NRC Regional Offices; Agreement States develop model regulations (i.e., well-logging and industrial radiography rules); Agreement State staff participate on NRC working groups and lecture at NRC sponsored training courses; and Agreement States assist the NRC in the development of regulations and guidance documents. Several commenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massechusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) indicated that without the inclusion of the contributions of the Agreement States, DSI 4  ;

i was not properly balanced with cost versus benefit and did not present an accurate picture of the Agreement State Program. The CRCPD, 0AS, and several States (Louisiana, New Hampshire, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) commented that DSI 4 makes Agreement States appear to be dependent upon the NRC; whereas these commenters believed that the States are fully funding their programs and the Agreement State Program is one of mutual benefit to the 1 NRC and the States.

B. Comments on Other Options Many commenters (OAS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah, NEI, Westinghouse, SCE&G, Mallinckrodt, and CORAR) supported a combination of options rather than one single option. These commenters endorsed a combination of Option; 2, 3, and some aspects of 4. The commenters representing State organizations (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) supported continuation of prcgrams developed under Option 3; funding of training and technical assistance; using intangible incentives i to encourage more Agreement States; and racognition of Agreement States as l i

" partners." Mallinckrodt also commented that NRC should provide appropriate funding #or the Agreement State Program and should treat the Agreement States as co-regulators. NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G also supported a combination of Page 3-13 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaaion Report

NRC's Relatiomhip With Agreement States xmanammergp%wm

.' 1, o

the options. NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G commented that small material .

licensees (i.e., those not required to have emergency plans) should be regulated by the Agreement States. NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G also supported encouraging States to become Agreement Statas, treating Agreement States as . .

co-regulators, and assuring consistency in the standards imposed by the Agreement States. The State of Florida supported a modified Option 3 and Option 4 combination until actions could be completed for complete transfer of authority to Agreement States under Option 5.

During stakeholders' meetings and in written comments, there was strong ,

opposition to Option 1, Turn the Agreement States Program Over to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many commenters (NEI, Westinghouse, SCE&G, 0AS, CRCPD, Utah, Mallinckrodt, CORAR, ABB-CE, NMA, New Hampshire, '

South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington, Utah, and Organization Resources Counselors (ORC]) cited disadvantages to this option. The CRCPD, 0AS, and several States (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) believed that the NRC had greater .

expertise in the area of radioactive materials regulation and protection of public health and safety and felt that it would be more appropriate for. EPA to j turn over its environmental radiation regulatory program to the NRC. The NMA i was unequivocally opposed to Option 1 because it would destroy decades of l continuity in NRC/ Agreement State regulatory oversight of uranium recovery facilities and other facilities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

NMA, KE and WMA thought thet FpA does not have the. technical expertise on materials issues. ABB-CE commentea th:t to involve EPA in a new area of '

responsibility could create inefficiencies and revise regulatory precedent.

Mallinckrodt and CORAR stated that Option 1 is totally unacceptable.

In addition, some stakeholders questioned the cost-effectiveness of transferring the Agreement State Program to EPA. One commenter from the medical community (William Beaumont Hospital) stated that this option would not be cost-effective or beneficial to the current Agreement States or any licensee. The ORC commented that it would not be desirable to introduce a new agency into the process of regulating radioactive material. Many comenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) questioned why the EPA would want to accept an unfunded Federal mandate from the NRC when transferring this program from the NRC to EPA would increase costs to the Federal government and would probably not be supported by Congress.

Two commenters from Agreement States (Texas and Louisiana) commented that it would be more feasible to consider turning the Agreement State Program over to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is already responsible for i regulating some other uses of radiation (e.g., x-rays). l During the stakeholders' meetings and in written coments, thbre were diverging views on Option 2, Strongly Ercourage States To Become Agreement States. Some commenters supported it as presented; some commenters supported ,

it in concept but not as presented; and some commenters disagreed with it entirely. Two comenters (Ohio & William Beaumont Hospital) fully supported Option 2. The comenter frcm Ohio (Williams at Chicago stakeholders' meeting) commented that its licensees are paying dual fees (NRC and Ohio) for a period ,

of 3 years to provide the State with the resources to develop its Agreement State Program. The commenter further commented chat providing seed money or some type of incentive to the State would be beneficial, and the State would Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Repon Page 3-14

NRC's Relationship With Agrwnent States

. Samunary Analysis of Comments '

.. \

not have to appropriate monies or double-fee their licensees. However, another commenter from Ohio (0 wens) indicated that monetary incentives for becoming an Agreement State may be counter productive if States have inadequate programs.and only seek Agreement State status for the monetary incentive.

l Several commenters (OAS, CRCPD, Maryland, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and l i

Utah) supported Option 2 in concept but were opposed to it as presented.

These commenters supported the concept of all States becoming Agreement ]!

States, but questioned the feasibility and desirability of providing seed j money and/or financial grants to encourage States to apply for Agreement State 1 status. These comenters thought that there is no evidence that " tangible incentivee" or seed money without coni.inued support from the NRC would result  !

i in any new Agreement States. There was general agreement among these  !

comenters that funds would be better spent on training, travel, and technical assistance to existing Agreement States. One commenter (Washington) stated that funding of Agreement State training and technical assistance would be more important for assuring a consistent national program; whereas seed money l may simply prop up an initially weak program which could fail to protect the public when the seed money is no longer available. l v

One comenter (Maryland) thought that Option 2 may be going too far and that  ;

under this option, the number of Agreement States would increase, as would the demand for training, travel, and technical assistance. With limits on NRC's ,

f resources, the State believed that providing seed money and grants-to interested States might be extravagant. Moreover, because of NRC's inability {

l to support the training, travel, and technical assistance of the current 4 Agreement States Programs, the State of Maryland believed that a healthy j mixture of both Agreement and non-Agreement States would best allow the NRC to maintain a viable materials program. l In addition, one comenter (Washington) felt that Option 2 was not practical because not all States would seek to become Agreement States. Several other I commenters (OAS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah), also felt that this option was not viable because it would not receive adequate funding in light of the Federal government downsizing initiatives.

Several other commenters (NMA, WMA, and KE) also opposed Option 2. NMA questioned whether it was appropriate or wise As for athe NRCfor basis to their "strongly" opposition encourage states to become Agreement States.

to Option 2, all three commenters stated that it would be difficult for the NRC to maintain a critical mass of technical expertise to oversee a national regulatory program and that failure to maintain this expertise would be inconsistent with the goal, envisaged under the AEA, of creating a unified, centralized, national program for radioactive materials regulation. In addition, these commenters along with the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP) questioned the ability of States to develop the levels of J regulatory expertise currently found within the NRC in complex areas such as In addition, decommissioning, mill tailings management, and low-level waste.

several commenters (NEI, Westinghouse, SCE&G, ABB-CE, KE, and WMA) cited increased costs to NRC's licensees as a reason to oppose Option 2. KE and WMA were also concerned that under Option 2 some States might be driven into Agreement State status and then discover that Agreement State status was undesirable and return their programs to the NRC. ECNP comented that grants f

I Page 3-15 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaalon Report

NRC's Relationship CitMgreement Mates we should be used to bolster existing State radiation control programs, not to encourage States to become Agreement States.

l Both the written comments and those made orally at the stakeholder meetings provided various views on Option 4, Treat Agreement States as Co-regulators.

Several commenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) stated that Option 4 was the only option that recognized the experience that lies within the Agreement States. These commenters thought that the NRC should recognize this experience regardless of the option chosen for DSI 4.

Several commenters (CRCPD, OAS, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) expressed concern regarding the exclusion of training, travel, and technical support from Option 4. One comenter (Maryland) stated that this option does not need to include full cost recovery from the Agreement States. Some commenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) interpreted Option 4 as an attempt by the NRC to say that the Agreement States ccald only be recognized as "co-regulators" if they paid for this recognition. These commenters believed that this option suggests that by paying the NRC for travel, training, and technical assistance and requiring minimal support from the NRC, the Agreement States would be paying for the title of "co-regulators." 0AS, CRCPD, and several States (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) also raised the issue of seeking reimbursement for services provided to the NRC by Agreement States. The OAS, CRCPD, and several States (Louisiana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) identified a number of functions that the Agreement States perform (see 3.2.3.A above).

In addition, States and State organizations (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) commented that the term "co-regulators" in Option 4 appears inconsistent with many States' views of the present NRC/ Agreement State relationship.

These commenters believed that the Agreement States are already co-regulators because of their responsibilities for regulating the uses of radioactive material s. However, they also recognized that under the AEA, the NRC has an oversight role that is not provided to the Agreement States. These commenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) prop; sed that the NRC revise its traditional view of the NRC/ Agreement State relationship; they felt that the relationship should now be thtught of as " strategic partnering." These comenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) indicated that strategic partnering was taken directly from the last paragraph on page 13 of DSI 20, International Activities, and stated that if the NRC is willing to foster such healthy relationships overseas, it should also foster equally healthy relationships with agencies in the United States. One commenter (Ohio) felt that treating the Agreement States as co-regulators is beneficial to both the Agreement States and the NRC. The State of Utah commented that a different view of co-regulator might be that Agreement States and NRC have the same health and safety goals.

Two commenters (NMA and ABB-CE) opposed Option 4. HMA opposed Option 4 on the basis of the need for a national regulatory program. The NMA believed that a national regulatory program is necessary under the AEA, as amended, and that, Phase !! Stakeholder Interaction Repors Pege 3-16

NRC's Relationship With Agreement States

• Swnmary Analysis of Comments 4 while NRC may discontinue direct regulatory control over Agreement State licensees, Agreement States exercising their sovereign authority may do so l only within the bounds of NRC's defined national regulatory policies. Another comenter (ABB-CE) stated that Option 4 elevates the States to the status of co-regulators and that the involvement of multiple agencies having generally equal standing could complicate the regulatory process.

There were diverging views on Option 5, Devolve regulation of Atomic Energy Act Section 274 Materials to the States. Many commenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah, Maryland, New York, Flarida, and one comenter from the '

medical comunity [ William Beaumont Hospital]) commented that Option 5 should be selected as a long-term goal of the NRC. These commenter; stated that the implementation of Option 5 could be preceded by the administration of Option

2. Another comenter (New York Department of Labor (NYDOL]) stated that Agreement States currently regulate 70 percent of all AEA materials and they will soon regulate 80 percent of these materials. This commenter further stated that the NRC should reduce its program and take actions to implement Option 5, which could be preceded by Option 2. Other commenters (OAS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, Utah, and Maryland) stated that the NRC and the States through the CRCPD should begin working to implement Option 5 within the next 10 to 15 years.

On the other hand, several commenters (Washington, ABB-CE, NEI, Westinghouse, SCE&G, WMA and KE) strongly opposed Option 5 based upon the need for a consistent national regulatory program. The State of Washington stated that this option would weaken any semblance of a national program and could eventually lead to non-uniformity and pctential conflicts between the various State radiation programs. ABB-CE stated that Option 5 might result in NHA, difficulties arising from multiple, inconsistent sets of regulations.

CORAR, and Mallinckrodt commented that this option would create great inconsistencies between State regulatory programs and those inconsistencies could make it more difficult for their industry to conduct interstate commerce. The WMA and KE sthted that Option 5 would create regulatory chaos and is inconsistent with the principles of the AEA and that the lack of a nationally consistent program would mean more stringent regulation in some States than in others and might force some licensees to terminate their operations. WMA and KE commented that this approath would be inconsistent with the philosophy of the AEA, which presupposes a national regulatory program for radioactive materials. NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G also opposed Option 5. NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G commented that there needs to be one Federal agency to regulate AEA. materials and that agency should continue to be the NRC.

One commenter from the public (Thompson) felt that'the best option was omitted from the paper: taking back Agreement State Programs and giving NRC sole authority over AEA materials.

C. Comments on Importanf, Omissions A number of comments were received regarding the absence of discussions on how DSI 4 relates to other DSI's or to the development of other Commission initiatives. One commenter (NYD0L) indicated that SECY-95-154, " Report on Parts Two and Three of the National Performance Review Phase II Study Plan-NRC Functions and Efficacy Review," should have been included verbatim or Page 3-17 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report

NRC's Relationship With Agreement States muuayze ugen.s w l . .

summarized as part of the issue paper. This commenter (NYD0L) also stated ..

that a discussion of the Nat;onal Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine report on the NRC medical regulatory program was missing from the DSI 4 issue paper. The commenter further indicated that this discussion was to be .

considered as a part of the rebaselining initiative and was relevant to this DSI since this report recommended that NRC turn its regulation of the medical u;e of radbactive material over to the States. (The Committee notes that such as a aiscussion was indicated as part of DSI 7.)

State and State organizations (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, and Utah) commented that an evaluation of the health and safety impacts for each option should be included in the paper. Several commenters from the regulated community (Mallinckrodt, ABB-CE, Amersham, and CORAR) were concerned that DSI 4 failed to describe its parallel relationship with the efforts underway with regard to the implementing procedures for the " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs." Mallinckrodt and CORAR commented that a major consideration to which little attention was paid in the i

issue paper is the need for compatibility between Agreement States and the NRC '

and among the Agreement States themselves. NEI, Westinghouse, Entergy, SCE&G and ABB-CE were concerned that the paper did not discuss the potential difficulties arising from multiple, inconsistent sets of regulations as it l relates to reciprocity, interstate commerce ad affective protection of public  !

health and safety. In addition, Entergy was also concerned that the paper Jid not discus's avoidance of dual regulatory oversight, avoidance of unnecessary regulation, consistency in the implementation of regulations and public opinion of NRC.

As noted earlier in 3.2.2.A several commentus raised concerns regarding the i omission of any discussion in DSI 4 on the contributions of Agreement States to the overall national program for the regulation of AEA materials. In addition, a commenter from a non-Agreement State (New Jersey) was concerned that the DSI did not discuss the benefits of centralized training of both State and Federal government radiation control personnel.

D. Comments on Internal / External Factors Stakeholders presented various comments on the internal and external factors affecting a decision on DSI 4. One commerter (Louisiana) indicated that a decision to discontinue funding of Agreement State personnel training does not take into consideration the difficulty Agreement States have in retaining  :

qualified staff. The commenter stated that the resources of States vary and States frequently lose staff to industry, other Agreement States, or Federal agencies, which offer higher salaries and greater benefits.

Several stakeholders (OAS, CRCPD, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) commented on the statement in the issue paper that-NRC's development of regulations is a benefit to all Agreement States although it is paid solely by NRC licensees. These commenters stated that NRC will always have a need for its own rulemaking function and should fund this function. Many commenters (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) and Washington) believed that the cost for development of regulations should not be borne by NRC licensees; rather, Phase 11 Stakehc! der Intmetion Repon Page 3-18

NRC's Relationship With Agreement States

- Summary Analysis of Comments they believed tL t the NRC should seek a1 appropriation from Congress to fund this function as a part of the " national program" for the regulation of materials.

NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G commented that it is inappropriate for many reasons to fund the Agreement Stat Programs by fees imposed on NRC licensees.

NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G further comented that expansion of the Agreement States program would only exacerbate inequities inherent in such fee recovery schemes and that as new Agreement States are added, fees-for the remaining NRC licensees would increase, NEI, Westinghouse and SCE&G stated that equity can only be achieved if the Agreement States program is funded by the States or Congress.

E. Coment's on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions In its preliminary view, the Commission requested specific comments on whether NRC should fund Agreement State training, travel, and technical assistance.

Comments on this issue, in addition to those in 3.2.3.A "Significant/important coments affecting PV or DSI," are presented below.

There was general consensus in the comments made at the stakeholders' meetings and received in writing that the NRC should continue to fund Agreement State training, travel, and techical assistance; however, concerns were raised regarding the source of this funoing. Continued funding was supported in comments from members of Congress from New Mexico, the OAS, the CRCPD, several Agreement States (Louisiana, Washington, Florida, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah, and Oregon) and in coments from members of the regulated comunity (William Beaumont Hospital, Michigan State University, ABB-CE, Mallinckrodt, and NMA). However, many comenters (OAS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, NMA, and ABB-CE) believed that thas funding should not come from fees imposed on NRC licensees. The OAS, CRCPD, and several States (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, and Utah) stated that the NRC should seek appropriations from Congress for the functions involving Agreement States. NMA, NEI, Westinghouse, SCE&G and ABB-CE support changes to the OBRA that would either fund Agreement State activities from appropriatei funds or permit NRC to chatJe Agreement States for such activities. HMA further stated that reduced charges to the Agreement States could be justified on the basis of preserving a consistent national regulatory program.

In letters from four Congressmen from New Mexico (The Honorable Joe Skeen, The Honorable Steven Schiff, The Honorable Bill Richardson, and The Honorable Jeff Bingaman) concerns were raised regarding the cessation of the NRC funding of training, including travel and per diem costs. Congressman Joe Skeen stated that the Agreement States implement certain radiation control programs in lieu of the NRC and that the only support offered by the NRC has traditionally been in the form of training. Without this support, the Congressman believed that States in which all Radiation Protection Program costs are funded through the l State's General Fund would suffer a severe financial hardship. Additionally, i Congressman Skeen encouraged the Comission to reconsider the discontinuation of funding of Agreement States training and requested that the Comission consider innovative methods for continuing this valuable asset to the States in their implementation of NRC-mandated programs.

I l

Page 3-19 ;

Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report 1

1

NRC's Relatiomhip Gt?h Agreement krates Summary /27s&TfTComments .

7.a OAS, the CRCPD, and several Agreement States (Louisiana, Illinoise Texas, -

Washington, Florida, Oregon, Maryland, New Hampshire., Kansas, Ohio and Mississippi) and members of +5e regulated community (Mallinckrodt) provided comments regarding the national benefit of the NRC-sponsored training of .

Agreement State personnel. These commenters stated that continued NRC funding enhances consistency and compatibility in the regulation of Agreement materials by providing uniformity in training of Agreement State and NRC personnel. States and State organizations (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) commented that NRC-sponsored training established a national trainiy program for materials, whereby all the regulators of materials in the country received the same training and the same instruction from the same people and in the same environment. These States and State organizations believed that this continuity of training was one way of assuring + hat the same level of protection is provided across< the country for Agreement materials. One commenter (Ohio) stated that NRC-sponsored training is a critical component of a national radiation protection program and ensures that all State and Federal staff receive the same training so similar situations are treated the same way across the nation. In addition, these States and State organizations (0AS, CRCPD, Louisiana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Washington and Utah) asserted that uniformity of training or national training program ensures that Agreement State personnel adequately respond to incidents which sometimes involve NRC-regulated materials. These commenters also stated that NRC-sponsored training has the advantage of giving a single viewpoint, rather than diverging views which may come from industry-sponsored training. In addition, Louisiana commented that NRC-sponsored training would be more cost-effective in maintaining compatibility between NRC and Agreement State programs. Furthermore, Mallinckrodt stated that NRC should provide appropriate funding for the Agreement State training, travel, and technical assistance in order to assure compatibility, uniformity, and adequacy of the Agreement State programs.

In addition, the OAS, the CRCPD, and several States (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Mt.ryland, New '

Mexico, Georgia, Louisiana, Washington and Utah) believed that the lack of NRC-sponsored training could lead to problems and inconsistencies in the regulation of materials. One potential problem noted by New Mexico, Louisiana and Texas was the inability of States to retain their Agreement State status.

One commenter (Louisiana) stated that without NRC-sponsored training, Agreement States may have difficulty retaining Agreement State status because '

of a lack of adequately trained staff. Another commenter from an Agreement State (Texas) also alluded to this concern by citing NRC NUREG-1311 " Funding the NRC Training Program for States." The commenter stated that this report referred to a 1988 General Accounting Office repoii which stated that the NRC ,

training program was consistently identified as the key in enabling States to prepare for Agreements and to maintain Agreement State programs that are adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's regulatory program.

In addition, States and State organizations (0AS, CRCPD, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Maryland, j Georgia, Washington and Utah) indicated that it may be extremely difficult to adequately train staff when the Agreement States must pay both travel and Pete MO Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report l

i

ry A% sis of Comments NRC's Relationship With Agreement States S

i training costs. They also stated that some State personnel currently have difficulty getting out-of-state travel approved to attend NRC training courses  ;

and meetings.

i There were diverging views on this issue from the regulated community. Two commenters from the regulated community (William Beaumont Hospital and Michigan State University) supported continued NRC funding of training of Agreement State staff. However, one NRC licensee (ABB-CE) and one industry organization (NEI) wanted the Agreement States to be funded only for activities which benefit NRC licensees. NEI commented that Agreement State training and oversight was not an issue as long as the services rendered are being charged to the recipient of the services. NEI further commented that if i they are sending material to a LLW site and an agency has overall responsibility for surveying that site, then they should pay their fair share )

for that survey. However, NEI also stated if the training of Agreement States 1 i

is in an area where they do not use the service, such as radiographers or dentists, then they should not be charged for that service. NEI concluded by 1 stating that this approach was a simplistic view and suggested that it may be i difficult to implement. ABB-CE concurred with these views.

l 3.2.4 List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENTS I 1. September 6, 1996, State of Louisiana (William H. Spell)

2. September 12, 1996, State of Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Thomas W. Ortciger)

3. September 27, 1996, Representative Joe Skeen, U.S. House of Representatives

4. October 4, 1996, Thomas K. Thompson, U.S. NRC

5. Octo%r 9,1996, Reprc.entative Steven H. Schiff, U.S. House of Representatives

6. October 17, 1996, Senator Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senate

7. October 23, 1996, State of New York, Department of Labor (Rita Aldrich)

8. October 23, 1996, Agreement State /NRC Regulators' Meeting Summary

9. October 24, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (0AS)

(Steve C. l Collins)

10. October 24, 1996, Texas, Department of Health (Richard Ratliff) i

11. October 24, 1996, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors '

(CRCPD) (Ruth E. McBurney)

12. October 28, 1996, State of Washington, Department of Health (Terry Frazee)

Page '-21 Phme !! Stakcholder Interaction Report

NRC's Relationship With Agreement Smtes Swnmary Analysis of Comments l

1

13. October 30, 1996, Representative Bill Richardson, U.S. House of -

l Representatives

14. October 31, 1996, State of Florida, Department of Health (WilliamA. .

Passetti)

15. November 3, 1996, Marvin I. Lewis

16. November 4, 1996, State of New Hampshire (Diane E. Tefft)

17. November 6,1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Judith H.

Johnsrud)

18. November 7,1996, State of Mississippi, Department of Health (Robert W. ,

Goff)

19. November 7, 1996, OAS amended comments (Robert M. Quillin)

20. November 12, 1996, William Beaumont Hospital (Cheryl C. Schultz)

21. November 12, 1996, State of Kansas (Ronald G. Fraass)

22. November 13, 1996, State of Oregon, Office of Energy (David Stewart-Smith)

23. November 14, 1996, State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources (Ray D. Paris)  :

24. November 14, 1996, South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental ,

Control (M.K. Batavia) 1

25. November 21, 1996, State of Louisiana Department of Environmental  !

Quality (Ronald Wascom)

26. November 21, 1996, State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Thomas E. Hill)

27. November 21, 1996, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (William J.

Sinclair)

28. November 22, 1996, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Gary J.

Taylor) l

29. November 25, 1996, Westinghouse (N.J. Liparulo)

30. November 26, 1996, Kennecott Uranium Company (Oscar Paulson)

31. November 27, 1996, NEI (Thomas D. Ryan)

32. November 27, 1996, Texas Department of Health (Richard Ratliff)

33. Novemtier 27, 1996, CRCPD (William F. bornsife)

34. November 27, 1996, CORAR (Roy W. Brown)

Pege 3-22 Phase !! Stakeholder intmaion Repon

. i

• LY' j Analyris of C= -" NRC's Relationship With Agreenent States  !

- i December 2,1996, Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. (ORC) (Chris  !

35. l Roman & Frhnk White)

36. December 2, 1996, Envirocare of Utah (Charles A. Judd)

37. December 2,1996, Mel Silberberg & Associates (Mel Silberberg)

38. December 2,1996, Ohio Department of Health (Robert E. Owen) 1

39. December 2, 1996, Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) (Marion Loomis)

40. December 2,1996, State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Jill Lipoti)

41. December 2,1996, Maryland Department of the Environment (Roland G.

Fletcher)

42. December 2, 1996, Entergy (Michael J. Meisner) l

43. December 2,1996, Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. (Ashok Dhar)

44. December 2, 1996, ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (ABB-CE)

(Charles B. Brinkman) l

45. December 2, 1996, National Mining Association (NMA) (Richard L. Lawson)

46. December 2,1996, State of Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Thomas ,

l W. Ortciger)

47. December 2,1996, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Robert M. Hallisey)

48. December 3, 1996, No Name ORAL COMENTS ,

Washington, D.C. (October 24 - 25, 1996) pages 38 - 77

1. Steve C. Collins, OAS

2. Ruth McBurney, CRCPD

3. Richard A. Ratliff, OAS

4. Judith Johnsrud, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power

5. Roy Brown, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR)

6. Tony Thompson, National Mining Association (NMA) meeting

7. Rob McDougal, SAIC Colorado Springs, CO (October 31 - November 1,1996) pages 154 - 179

1. Charles Brinkman, ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (ABB-CE)

Page 3 23 Phase H Stakeholder interaction Report

NRC's Relationship With Agreement States Summary Analysis of Comments ,

l,!

?. Ashok Dhar, Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. -

3. William Sinclair, OAS , ,

4. Thomas Tipton (NEI)

{

5. Kenneth Weaver, CRCPD Chicago, IL (November 7 - 8, 1996) pages 157 - 189

1. Gordon Appel, Illinois Dept. of Nuclear Safety l

2. Steve Collins, OAS  ;

3. Mark Doruff, Amersham Corporation l

4. Kristin Erickson, Michigan State University 4

5. Ronald Fraass, Kansas Dept. of Health j

6. Cheryl Schultz, William Beaumont Hospital i

7. James Williams, Chic Frnergency Management Agency '

l i

l l

Page 3-24 Phase 11 Stakeholder interacion Repon

)