ML20155J504
| ML20155J504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/14/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Tedford C CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155J507 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810260258 | |
| Download: ML20155J504 (7) | |
Text
.
e c#
j UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
0 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20065 3
f OD-k.....,o#
October 14, 1988 CH AIRMAN Hr. Charles F. Tedford, Chairman Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
71 Fountain Place Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Dear Mr. Tedford:
Thank you for your letter of July 15, 1988.
The Commission values the contributions of the Conference of Pediatiun Control Program Directors, Inc., toward enhancing local, State, and Federal effectiveness and its views on issues of concern to the States and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The enclosure to your letter contained several thoughtful suggestions for Commission consideration.
The issues you raised are under review by the NRC staf,f or otherwise the subject of staff actions.
I have enclosed a summary of our progress in addressing these issues.
Members of the NRC staff will keep the Conference informed of significant developments.
It was a pleasure to see you and to discuss issues of
~,
interest to the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
I look forward to a continuing working relationship with the Conference.
Sincerely,
% W. M Lando W. Ze h, J7
Enclosure:
As stated i
I hIY'l i
GG10260058 881014 PDR COMMS NRt CCCRESPONDENCd.C i
1 ENCLOSURE CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS DIRECTORS, INC.
ISSUES AND NRC STATUS 1.
Training of State and Local Radiation Control Personnel.
CRCPD Recomendations:
That the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission continue, and in fact, expand their professional training programs for State and local radiation control personnel. Without this training support frem the Comission, it is unlikely that radiation control personnel will be able to obtain formal training, due to State and local budgetary constraints.
The result will be a lowering of the competency of these public health servants, and a lowering of the quality of the protection of the public from radiaticn exposure.
NRC Response: The Comission agrees that high quality training is essen-tial for an effective radiation control program. We have given strong support to such training for State and local regulatory and safet, personnel over the last several years, serving as the primary spe.sor 6
organi:er, and funder of a major trair.ing program directed towarb 4
needs of such individuals. However, during the briefing of thu Comission on NRC's State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs on February 3, 1988, the Comission indicated that increased NRC funding of training for States is not likely and that cost saving measures should include greater financial participation by the States, especially in the area of travel costs. Some cost saving measures have already been identified and inplea nted on a limited basis. One example is the identification end uso of inw-cost training facilities.
Utilization of such facilities has already enabled some expansion of the present training progra. Others which show promise include in-State training for the larger Agretment J
States and train 1ng certain individuals who will then be able to train j
others in the program as well as those in neighboring State programs.
l The NRC and States should work together to identify and aggressively pursue means of sharing the financial burden of radiation control training and to find additional ways of expanding training opportunities j
for local and State personnel. Carlton Xamerer, Director of NRC's State, Local and Indian Tribe programs. Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, will contact the Conference to devise ways to obtain the States' help in meeting this objective.
2.
Uniform Regulation of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material (NARM).
CRCPD Recomendations: That the NRC continue to pursue the option of obtaining authority for its regulation and control of NARM, and to support the efforts of the CRCPD in more clearly defining the problem and seeking other options to assure the unifonn regulation and control of NARM.
NRC Response: On May 5,1988, the Comission was briefed on the matter of Feder.1 regulation of NARM. We appreciated the Conference's partici-l pation in that briefing. As you know, the Comission decided to refer
.. ~ ~ -. -, - - -,,, - - - - - -.
g the issue to the Chairman of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology.
On September 6, 1988, we were pleased to infonn the State radiation control program directors that the Comittee on Interagency Radiation Research & Policy Ccordination has agreed to address this issue and will work closely with the Conference.
Additionally, on October 3-4, 1988, our two organizations presented a workshop on NARM regulation.
We are irpressed by the Confererice's initiatives to improve State NARM regulation for health and Safety and will support them to the exttnt our resources permit. For examplo, NRC staff participates in the Conference program for certifying NARM Licensing States. Additionally, the NRC Sealed Sources and Device Registry now accepts data on NARM sources and devices containing NARM sources.
In November, the NRC staff plans to participate in a NARM training meeting sponsored by the New England Radiation Control Conference.
3.
Uniform Certification of Industrial Radiographers throughout the United States.
CRCPD Recomendations:
That the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission support a national certification program to assure the competency of persons handling and using radioactive materials for nondestructive testing purposes, and through this support, to work with the CRCPD, the State of Texas, and the ASNT, in providing a unifonn testing and certification program.
Further, that the NRC consider amending its regulations to reouire that all industrial radiographers be certified through the established credentialing program prior to being licensed to use radioactive material.
NRC Response: The NRC staff has been working with the American Society for Non-Destructive Testing (ASNT) to. develop a proposal for a national radiographer radiation safety testing program. As this effort pro-gresses, the NRC will work with the Conference, the State of Texas, and the ASNT to provide a unifonn national program. At the appropriate time, the Commission will consider proposing for public corrnent a rule that will require all industrial radiographers to be tested in radiation safety prior to being authorized to use licensed radioactive material for industrial radiography.
4 Loss of Control for Certain Radioactive Materials under General Licenses.
CRCPD Recommendations:
That the NRC conduct a total evaluation of their General Licensing policies and procedures, with strong consideration being given to amending the NRC regulations to provide better tracking and accountability of major radioactive sources through specific licenses, rather than general licenses.
i
3 The CRCPD, through its Agreement States Comittee, will urge all Agreement States to also evaluate their General Licensing policies and procedures, for assuring better tracking and control of major sources of radioactive materials under such licenses.
NRC Response: NRC intends to conduct a complete review of its General Licensing policies and will work closely with the States in developing information and recommendations for action. NRC also plans to propose rulemaking to require improved accounting of sources distributed to general licensees. Other initiatives underway include improving com-munications between NRC and licensees, vigcrous enforcement actions in case of non-compliance, and establishment of financial assurance requirements for decomissioning and cleanup after accidents.
5.
Lack of Involvement in NRC's Decisions on Radioactive Material Licensing Procedures and Guidance.
CRCPD Recommendations: That the Comission consider adoptil a policy, and rules and regulations if necessary, which will provide a method for l
initial State input into NRC's. considerations of issues that will impact on State and local programs which license the use of radioactive materials.
One method for initial State input may be the establishment of a Radioactive Materials Advisory Consnittee, composed of members from State regulatory control agenc.ies, and others, which could provide direct input to NRC, especiall Safeguards (NMSS)y to the Office of Nue.laar Material Safety and NRC Response: Overall, NRC-State cooperation in developing radiation i
control programs has been exemplary and productive. The NRC staff currently uses a variety of ways to keep States infomed on new initiatives, including All Agreement State Letters and discussions at the i
All Agreement State and Conference annual meetings. Representatives from J
the Conference are invited to meet with the NRC Chaiman from time to time es a way for the States and NRC to keep each other infomed of their views on materials regulatory issues.
NRC is comitted to full consultation and cooperation with the S*ates in the development of i
regulatory standards and programs. The Agreement States are provided an early opportunity to review and coment on draft regulations.
In cases involving major revision of existing regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 4
)
are recent examples), we have invited the States to participate in drafting of the revisions.
NRC also appreciates tre initiatives taken by the States to develop new regulations and programs to address specific problems.
The Comission is always interested in exploring opportunities to enhance comunication at an early stage in the consideration of issues that will impact State and local programs. Therefore, we will consider the possibility of establishing a Radioactive Materials Advisory Comittee under the Federal Advisory Comittee Act to facilitate this exchange of information, i
4 6.
Staff Turnover in State and Local Radiation Control Programs.
CRCPD Recomendations: That the NRC assist the CRCPD and the States in making State and local administrative heads, legislators, and governors aware of the potential health impact with the loss of highly trained radiological health personnel.
One consistent problem in State covernment is the inequality of salaries for engineers compared to health physicists.
Health physicists work in a field which is as technical as the engineering field, yet State engineers appear to always be paid a high salary, when trais.ing and experience are comparable. We, t'nerefore, suggest that NRC, at least for Agreement States, should assist these States, in whatever mechanism is available, to obtain an equality in salaries by physicists and engineers.
NRC Response:
NRC has worked with the Conference to develop supporting infonnation to address the problem of staff turnover in the States. We will continue to do so. With respect to salaries, NRC will continue to cellect information on State salaries during our reviews of Aoreement State programs and, when appropriate, offer comments to individual States on staff turnover and contributing factors, including salaries.
7.
Financial Surety from Radioactive Material Licensees.
CRCPD Recormendations:
(1) The NRC should evaluate the need for third party liability financial responsibility for licensees, other than nuclear power and plutonium processing facilities.
If such evaluation indicates the need for financial responsibility, rulemaking should be considered for other licensees.
(2) The NRC should re-activate the proposed rulemaking relating to financial responsibility for decontaminating radioactive material licensees in the event of an accident.
NRC Response: Under subsection 170a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as aa nded, financial protection and government indemnity are mandatory for activities involving the construction and operation of production and utilization facilities, such as reactors, licensed under sections 103 and 104 of the Act. Subsection 170a. also allows NRC the discretion f o require financial protection and to extend indemnity coverage to other NRC licensed activities not involving the operation of production or utilization facilities. The 1954 legislative history of the Price-Anderson Act states that:
"It is not expected that ordinarily the Comission will use the
[ discretionary) authority three types of materials (given it with respect to these latter sections 53, 63, and 81]. However, there may be rare instances in which the licensee or facility may have larger quantities of materials or such quantities of especially dangerous or hazardous materials as to warrant the imposition of the provisions of the bill."
After the renewal of Price-Anderson in 1975, the Comission considered whether it should exercise its discretionary authority and require financial protection for materials licensees in general and specifically
5 for those persons licensed to possess or use plutonium in plutonium processing and fuel fabrication facilities. After studying the issue, the Comission decided to exercise its discretionary authority by requiring financial protection of, and extending indemnity to, certain of these plutonium licensees.
Based on subsequent work perfonned for NRC by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and an in-house staff study of this question, the staff informed the Comissien in 1980 that, in its view, no apparent need existed to extend Price-Anderson to other classes of materials ifcensees.
This conclusion was based in part on the fact that the amount of radioactive material handled by these licensees would not result in accident scenarios that could involve third party liability claims greater than the amount of nuclear liability insurance available to fuel cycle licensees.
On August 20, 1988, the President signed into law the Price-Anderson Amendment Act of 1988 P.L. 100-408 Section 19 of the Act requires the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to conduct a negotiated rulemaking to determine whether to enter into indemnity agreements with persons licensed by the Comission or by an Agreement State for the manufacture.
production, possession, or use of radioisotopes or radiopharmaceuticals for medical purposes ("radiopharmaceutical licensees").
[
With respect to the second part of your recomendation, on June 7,1985, i
NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on financial responsibility requirements applicable to NRC licensees for cleanup of accidental and unexpected releases of radioactive materials. The coment period ended on November 7, 1985. Since the end of the coment period.
NRC has completed one technical study on financial responsibility and has i
another underway.
The first study, which dealt with licensees having the l
potential to be involved in accident cleanups below $2,000,000, was r
published in March, 1987 (NUREG/CR-4825).
Following completion of the second study which deals with potential accident cleanups costing above
$2,000,000, the staff will reassess the advisability of restarting the i
rulemaking.
f 8.
NRC Participation in Nuclear Power Emergency Exercises, i
CRCPD Recomendation: That the NRC emergency response team should frequently participate in nuclear power emergency exercises, at least every other year, in concert with the off site exercise involving State l
emergency response teams.
NRC Response: Each NRC Region is required to fully participate in at i
least one emergency preparedness exercise every year. This includes deployment of a full NRC site team and realistic interaction with the j
utility and State and local organizations participating in the exercise.
In most of these exercises, the Operations Center at NRC Headquarters is fully manned (60-70 NRC staff, including the Chairman and/or senior l
managers of the NRC Executive Team that responds in an emergency).
In i
1 d
addition, most NRC regions participate in additional emergency response exercises during the year to some extent.
f l
6 These exercises alternate among the different utilities and States, so that the NRC regional site teams have the opportunity to interact with different State and utility responders.
It should also be noted that in addition to power plant exercises, NRC regions and Headquarters periodically schedule transportation, materials, and safeguards exercises.
The licensee is responsible for making protective action recomendations to offsite authorities during an event.
!*. is the role of the NRC to assure that the licensee follows their approved procedures to properly classify the event and to promptly notify the offsite agencies of any recomended protective action. Although the NRC agrees that it would be ut.eful to increase the frequency of its participation in nuclear reactor exercises, we believe that the current schedule is adequate, with respect to NRC's other responsibilities.
l However, we recognize the basic concern of the CRCPD to give the offsite authorities a better appreciation of how the NRC and tM rest of the Federal connunity will respond in an emergency. With that in mind, NRC l
is supporting an interagency effort to conduct an FRERP Workshop in the i
regions for State and local authorities, regional Federal staff, and I
utility personnel. This workshop will provide information about the l
Federal Plan and the capabilities and response mechanisms of each of the Federal responders. The final portion of the workshop will be a tabletop exercise which is designed to reinforce this infonnation. A pilot course was conducted in April, and the first regional workshop will be held in Bothel, Washington on October 24-27, 1988. Other courses will be scheduled in the next several months.
The comprehensive Federal Field Exercises that were conducted at St.
Lucie in 1984 and at Zion in 1987 are the most realistic method of l
exercising the total response to a major nuclear power plant accident.
i Although extremely valuable, these exercises are quite costly and time consuming. We plan to continue to conduct these large scale exercises periodically. We would appreciate any suggestions that the Conference L
can provide with regard to other cost-effective means of providing State authorities with a better understanding of the Federal response mechanisms and how these agencies will support the offsite authorities.
1 1
l l
l l
l
.