ML20212Q098

Recommends Commission Approve Revised NRC Policy Statement, Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs, for Publication as Final Statement of Policy

ML20212Q098
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/11/1987
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
TASK-PIA, TASK-SE SECY-87-065, SECY-87-65, NUDOCS 8704140105
Download: ML20212Q098 (35)

Text

- - - - - - - - . - -

o -

A

, s, 5 .E

\ .... / '

POLICY ISSUE (Affirmation)

March 11, 1987 SECY-87-65 FOR: The Commissioners 1

FROM: Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

REVISION TO NRC POLICY STATEMENT, " GUIDELINES FOR NRC REVIEW 0F AGREEf'E?lT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS" PURPOSE: To obtain Commission approval of ninor revisions to the NRC Policy Statement, " Guidelines for f!RC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs."

BACKGROUND & On December 4,1981 NRC published a final statenent DISCUSSION: of policy for evaluation of Agreement State radiation control prograns (46 FR 59341). On October 16, 1986 the Comission approved publication for public comment of proposed minor revisions to the policy statement (SECY-86-265). The proposed revisions were published in the Federal Register November 13,1986 with a 60 day coment period (51 FR 41172). The proposed revisions were also~

distributed to Agreement and non-Agreement States.

Six comment letters were received on the proposed .

revisions (enclosure 1, letters 1-4, 6, 7). The staff's evaluation of the coments are included in the proposed Federal Register notice (enclosure 2).

NRC staff is now requesting approval to publish the l proposed revision as a final statement of policy i

with no changes other than minor editorial corrections.

In its approval of publication for comment of the proposed minor revision, the Commission directed the staff to also seek comment on the feasibility of developing a set of objective performance indicators for the various materials licensees regulated by the

$ g J.0. Lubenau, OSP, X29887 g%/[dM[ '

Agreement States and the NRC. One comment letter was received on this alternative (enclosure 1, letter no ~5). The commentor, a nuclear utility, recommended such indicators be developed by "a measured process similar to that used to develop ...

safety goals" for nuclear plants. The staff plans to request the Agreenent States to appoint representatives to work with the staff in a joint NP.C-Agreement State effort to further explore the feasibility of applying this concept to naterials licensees.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission:

1. Approve for publication as a Final Statenent of Policy the minor revisions to the Statenent published for comment in the Federal Register on November 13, 1986 (enclosure 2).

2. Note:

a. Copies of the Federal Register notice will be provided to the Agreement States.

Copies will be sent to other interested parties upon reauest.

b. Approoriate Congressional Committees will be informed (enclosure 3),

c. A public announcement (. enclosure 4) will be issued when the policy statement is filed with the Office of the Federal Register.

d. The staff will reouest the Agreement States to work with NRC staff to further explore the feasibility of developing a set of objective performance indicators for materials licensees.

i j

s -

C0 ORDINATION: The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the Comission Paper and enclosures and concurs.

SCHEDULING: While no specific circumstances require Comission action by a particular date, it is desirable to publish this ninor revision as soon as is reasonably possible. It is expected that Comission action within three weeks and subsecuent publication in the Federal Register would permit the revision to become effective within one month of receipt by the Comission.

. T r- A )

i Vic' tor Stello, J Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Coment Letters

2. Proposed Federal Register Notice

3. Draft Congressional Letter

4. Draft Public Announcement Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Fridav, March 27, 14R7 Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, March 20, 1987, with an infor-mation copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when ccmments may be expected.

This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of March 30, 1987. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC (H Street) 1 OI i OCA  ;

OIA i OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ,

OGC (MNBB) l ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY

wm3 . g'/jd - gwp/ duds

- ;ocm nues esoz w.o s u P R

• 3 A /

S/ FA A//22 _f .

T*

USNRC WJi

-5 P2 25 i Wcshington D. C. 20555 k Dcar Mr. Secretary; 06 {. . , .j.4 'l Pleacc accept the following letter as my comments on the Proposed Pulo: Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Programs: Proposed Gennral Statement of Policy.

Tho proposed revision is lengthy and I shall only comment generally to minim 1 :e the lengtn of my comments. The fzrce and tha unfairness of the NRC's Agreement State Policy has recently a f fric t ed the State of Pennsylvania. How the NRC has infiltrated tho State of Pennsylvania , with no agreement state status, to take much of the responsibi1ity of agreement state status without the legislative budgeting and lit tle e::perienced manpcwer reads like comething out of Michiavellt.

Pecently, the outgoing Goveinor Thoinburgh signed a memo of understanding with the NRC which cllows the State of Pennsylvania to much of what an agreement state would be regulating. The Pennsylvania Legislature passed a budget without any funding for tnsse responsibilities as they were uninformed of the consec;uences or even of the e>:i s tence of the MOU. The State Cf Rennsylvania has only one nuclear engineer. Th e 1adiation capartment n# the Department of Snviionmental Resources has few people and many are pu::11c relations anc net technical pecole. If lovernor Casey does not see the dudgetary implications in a timely fas."lon and cancel this MOU, Pennsylvania taxpayers will got another unlovely surprise. The question of whether Ponnsylvania can gear up to this responsibility in a timely fashion to protect i ts ci ti:: ens ' health ar,d safety hasn't come up yet.

Policy is a moot question when unfair practices are ured to circumvent the spirit as well as the letter of the policy.

Respectfully submitted, *

[ 'f5

• Marvio I. Lewis 7301 Roocevelt B lvd . La PhilS. FA 19152 ,

(215i624 1574 Enclosure 1

_ g g.

. .aa. . m

m me,mu b_O7

. Mob j

[g5/ FA 4HZy GENERAL h ELECTRIC- , x.c t

.w NEUTRON DEVICES DEPARTMENT GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PO. BOX 2908. LARGO, FLORICA 34294-2908

)

'87 JAN 13 All :39 CFi s- l December 4, 1986

• t 00CM g, ,  ;

l l

Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION TO GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY ON EVALUATION OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS Since the last major revision of the policy statement was in 1981, considera-tion should be given to the changes in economic climate that have occurred during the past five years. The last revision was promulgated before the current [ Reagan] era of fiscal restraint in Federal and particularly State government. As a result, the growing problem of funding of State RCPs is not cdequately addressed. Although most or all State. programs may meet the minimum Category I requirements as written, underpay and understaffing are widely escognized within the Health Physics community as significant problems affect-ing all aspects of Agreement State RCPs. I have no doubt that should a study ba necessary, alt of the pertinent data needed to support this assertion are either already in the possession of the Nuclear Regulatory Coc: mission (NRC) or cre ecaily obtainable.

Aa a certified Health Physicist and as someone who cares about the protection of licensees and the public, I propose the following solution: elevate

" Personnel Program Elements" to Category I status to allow the NRC to force Agreement States to either maintain funding for a fully staffed or "NRC-cquivalent" Radiation Control Program or re turn these programs to Federal management.

Robert A. Burkhart Advanced Health Physicis t Mail Stop 040 RAB:go 1301A Enclosure 1 A PRIME CONTRACTOR FCR THE UNITED STATES CEPARTMEM Of EbEAGL_ _ .

Acuowtuesaf by end. . . Z. . . . . . . c. . -

h CC

' NORTH DAKOTA

-Nih Md k STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (8/ FO II State Capitol a.

Bismarck, North Dakota 58605 P i .,'. , '

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION December 24, 1986 ~87 JAN 13 All :39 1200 Missouri Avenue

. . . Box 5520 y[g. . Bismarck, North Dakota 58502 5520 Rules and Procedures Branch ' ' '

Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ge n tleme n:

The Radiation Control Program of the North Da ko ta St ate ' De pa rt-ment of Health has reviewed the proposed revisions to the NRC Policy Statement for Review of Agreement State Programs (51 FR 41172). Based on our review, this De par tmen t has no objections to the proposed revisions.

Sincerely, c'OPl a'%Q , .

Dana K. Mount, P. E.

Director, Division of Environmental Engineering DKM/S PC :sa j l

Enclosure 1 by M .*

l Enwronmental Environmental Henardous Weste Weter Supply &

Enforcement Engineering Menegement & Special Studlee Pollution Control 701 224 3234 701 224-2348 701 224 2366 701 224-2354 l

utnEl imHgg R0POMQ RtiLE N,'6C.kd4h h A~R? sf 9% L_97d*' '9/wa Y h%etYtl$tle FtMbeS iceOf 2 nan

%T tarbne9tf Of u/>ltb balk Badus Walker. Jr ,Ph D .M P H /dN ##fGM[ W[

Second Floor Tel: 727-6214

.T a nu a ry 13 , 1987 Ek N h

~

_i Rules and Procedures Branch  : i' Division of Rules and Records _

$ -r Of fice of Administra tion , ,

y U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission v Wa sh ing to n , DC. 20555 .. E, w

Gen tlemen :

We have reviewed the proposed revis ions to the NRC Policy Sta tement on the Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs. We feel the revisions will serve to strengthen the Agreement State Radiation Control Programs as well as reinforce the existing regulatory au thor ity of Radiation Control Prog rams .

We support the NRC 's ef forts to achieve standa rds and program proce-dures compatible nationwide with its own program. Such uniformity will help to ensure adequate protection of the public health and sa f e.ty .

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sin, ely, .

Robert M. Hallis' ye , Director Radiation Control Program.

RMB/bb Enclosure 1 Acknowledged by cad... .....,E_ I W

-['( _ ') One CommOnW9alth Edison First National Plaza. Chicago Illinois j /%)

, ( "' / Address Reply t2 Post Office Box 767 / _

\_,/ Chicago, lilinois 60690 0767

u.,r:c

'87 JAN 27 P2 :00 January 13,19hktn' p.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary /[y. 3,y / ( j '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rules and Procedures Branch t .' 37 Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Proposed Revision to General Statement of Policy for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs (51 Fed. Reg. 41172, November 13, 1986) -

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This provides comments by the Commonwealth Edison Company (" Edison") on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

("NRC" or " Commission") request for. views on establishing an objective performance indicator system for materials licensees. Edision's interest in such indicators is twofold: first, Edison's fossil stations have many sources which will become subject to regulation by Illinois once it becomes an Agreement State; and second, certain indicators for measuring licensee conformance with state regulations will be equally suitable for measuring licensee conformance with NRC regulations.

Edison is concerned that several suggested indicators appear directed at measuring licensee implementation of ALARA instead of measuring conformance with regulations.

For example, total man-rem exposure at a site does not, by itself, indicate anything about a licensee's compliance with occupational exposure requirements.

To be meaningful, the reasons for total exposure must also be considered, e.g. the extent of refueling outage work during the measurement period and the distribution of individual exposures must be factored in. This example suggests that for objective performance indicators to be meaningful, they must be related to specific aspects of regulatory compliance such as the number and extent of any occupational overexposures. Beyond that, as a general matter, performance indicators should also satisfy the criteria enumerated by the NRC staff in SECY-86-317. Finally, because objective indicators Enclosure 1 FEB 2 1987 6 kmw'ed ud ey ca rd .

........u.m

P ,

, n .

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 January 13, 1987 could significantly affect nuclear regulation, Edison believes that such indicators should be developed by ,

a measured process similar to that used to develop '

the safety goals.

Sinc ,

_t' ?-

D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing j

1 3

D

,7-.. - -

c . _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . - . , . . , _ , _ _ . . - - -. - -,

mc .,e

)

ME l N s ------ .m =

. . VM@M) juk *

,y f c

'a's STATE OF ILLINOIS '87 FEB -2 All :50 DEPART 31ENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE {, ,

. SPRINGFIELD 62704 (217) 546-8100 TERRY R. LASH January 20, 1987 Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs: Proposed General Statement of Policy; 51 Federal Register 41172 - 41180 (Nov. 13, 1986).

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) hereby submits its comments on the above-identified proposal concerning evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). IONS is the lead state agency for the regulation of radioactive materials and assuring radiation protection in Illinois.

The State of Illinois is currently in the process of entering into an agreement with the Commission. Pursuant to the agreement proposed by Governor James R. Thompson on October 3, 1986, IONS wi.ll become the state agency responsible for agreement state functions.  ;

l First, IONS believes that " Status and Compatibility of Regulations"  ;

should not be lumped into one " Category 1 Indicator." While the compatibility of regulations is, and should remain, a Category 1 Indicator, status of the regulations is more appropriately a " Category 2 Indicator." Since I administrative mechanisms which would allow protection of health and safety are available to the states while regulatory changes are pending, the lack of regulations need not directly affect public health and safety. .Rather, the

. status of regulations is an element which could lead to Category 1 problems if not adequately maintained.

Second, IONS proposes that if the NRC chooses to adopt as its policy a three year period by the end of which the regulations of the states must be compatible with those of the NRC, then the NRC staff should issue model regul'ations to the states. Model regulations are imperative if the regulations of the various states are to be similar. Under the current system, once the NRC adopts a rule which requires state action by the Agreement States to maintain compatibility, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPO) drafts a model regulation, reviews it, and Enclosure 1 O ' '

• m 3Y c*M . ...$...$.?...,.

s -

t eventually circulates this model for the states to use when promulgating their own regulations. The CRCPD process is time consuming and would not allow compliance with the proposed three-year requirement. IDNS believes, therefore, that the only way states can meet the three year requirement and have regulations which are consistent with those of other states is if the process for developing model regulations is shortened. The most direct way to shorten this process is for the NRC staff to recomend draft language.

Third, in the course of considering Illinois' application for becoming an Agreement State, the Comission has stated that it is considering "whether continued NRC regulation of the Allied Chemical Plant is necessary in the interest of the comon defense and security of the United States" (52 Fed.

Reg. 626; Jan. 7,1987). If the Commission is going to evaluate state radiation programs for something other than their adequacy to protect the public health and safety and their compatibility with NRC programs, the guidelines should be amended. Specifically, the guidelines should establish what criteria the NRC will use when determining whether a state's program is inadequate because of threats it may pose to the comon defense and security of the United States. If the proposed policy statement is to be a useful tool for states attempting to establish or maintain effective radiation control programs, it must address all the issues which the Commission considers when evaluating such programs.

Last, IDNS notes that the NRC's evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs should be realistic. It seems appropriate that state programs, in addition to being evaluated against the ambitious criteria established in the NRC guidelines, be compared to the NRC's program. It would appear possible that some state programs which the NRC could find to be inadequate under the guidelines would still be better than the NRC's programs. For example, the NRC guidelines recommend operating a program at a level of between 1 and 1.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) per one hundred licensees. But the NRC Region III licensing program, which would be transferred to IDNS upon Illinois' entering into a Section 274 Agreement with the Commission, operates with a staffing level of only 0.7 FTE. Thus, an Agreement State's radiation program which might be considered by NRC to be

" inadequate" because it fails to meet the criteria, may in fact be more likely to protect the pubite health and safety than the NRC's programs.

IDNS generally believes that the Proposed General Statement of Policy is an improvement. The benefits of issuing such a policy statement will be increased, however, if the Commission incorporates the suggestions which the Department has outlined above.  ;

Si erely, [

erry 3. Lash 1 rector TRL: bps

,%A03 O

~

neo. '

PR-M= h @ L53 (T//=A4ll?t)

\ .

MMIC 2nw STATE OF WA$HINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCAL AND HEALTH SERVICEg7 FEB -3 A10:48

~. Olyrrpra. Washmgton 98KMD)43 uff c. '

'i January 9, 1987 30cCg .

Donald A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear The purpose of this letter is to respond to the November 13,

1986 notice in the Federal Register concerning the evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs: Proposed General Statement of Policy. This letter is a followup to our July 17, 1986 comments on this same subject.

We are disappointed that in the current version of the policy statement, the

" staffing level" indicator is no longer proposed as a Category 1 issue, a condition we suggested was appropriate in July. We had also suggested, and we believe with good reason, that either separate or additional staffing guidelines should be provided for states with low-level waste disposal sites.

While there are currently only three states with disposal sites, the Low-level Waste Policy Act and its amendments could result in eight or more additional disposal sites in states where staffing guidelines from you might be very beneficial. Finally, we believe it would be to our advantage to have more clearly defined the current staffing guideline of 1.0-1.5 program staff per 100 active licensees. It is never clear what kind of staff time is included as the guide is applied. Is the time spent evaluating fees or promulgating fee regulations included? Is the time spent in the general administrative duties of a radiation control program included? The specificity would help us, and, we believe, the other Agreement States.

We identified several typographical errors in the November 13, 1986 Federal Register publication, as follows: ,

1. Page 41173, right column, two-thirds of the way down; reference made to the Office of State Programs, which has been abolished. ,

l

2. Page 41174, center column, one-fourth of the way down; administrative  ;

J and procedures have been misspelled.

3. Page 41174, right column, one-fourth of the way down; the word " identify"

~

should be inserted to make the sentence read "... revisions were made to the guideline to more clearly identify essential elements the reports should contain."

535 SS7 wsc aed by : erd. . . .Z . . . . . . . . . . . a j

w. ,

Donald A. Nussbaumer Page Two ,

. -  :~

4. Page 41174, right column, three-fourths of the way down; NRC is mis-abbreviated as NPC,

5. Page 41175, left column, half-way down; the Radiation Control Program is mis-abbreviated as PCP.

6. Page 41176, center column, in the first full paragraph; the mis-abbrevia- -

tion PCP is again used.

7. Page 41177, center column, in the paragraph under " Budget"; the following appears to be an unnecessary inclusion in the sentence: " instrumentation . <

l and other responses to incidents and other emergencies..."

8. Page 41177, right column, three-fourths of the way down; the statement reads " professional staff should not be sued..." More correctly,-

professional staff should not be "used..."

9. Page 41179, left column, half-way down; the second point under " Status of Inspection Program" should be separated into two sentences, thusly:

...to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic basis.

Information showing the number of inspections conducted...." _

10. Page 41179, left column, two-thirds of the way down; the third point under " Status of Inspection Program" should be edited to read "At least semi-annual inspection planning should be done to detennine number of inspections to be performed..."

11. Page 41179, center col e n, one-fourth of the way down; "The compliance

! supervisor....should ccaduct annual field evaluations of each inspector l to assess performance and assure application of appropiate (rather than appropriations)..."

Sinc ly, T. . Stron , Chief Office of Wadiation Protection l TRS:kf

9 t

Enclosure 2 Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs:

Final General Statement of Policy AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .

ACTION: Firial general statement of policy.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is adoptina as a general statement o# policy the recently revised " Guidelines for NRC Peview of

[

Agreement State Radiation Control Programs." This statement of policy l is being issued to inform the States and the public of the criteria and j guidelines which the Cor:nission intends to use in its periodic evaluations of Agreenent State programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald A. Nussbaumer, Office of State i Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 16, 1986 the NRC published in the Federal Register proposed minor revisions to its General Statement of Policy, " Guide for Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" (51 FR 41172). Interested persons were invited to subnit written conments on the proposed revised policy statement by January 12, 1987. Seven written comments were received. After review and evaluation of the comrents, the Commission has concluded the revisions can be published as proposed as a final general statement of policy. Minor editorial corrections have been made to the text for clarification.

Six letters offered comments on the proposed revision to the Policy Statement.

One comment letter was received from a public citizen, one from a l utility health physicist, three from Agreement State radiation control

! program directors and one from a non-Agreement State radiation control program director. A seventh comment letter, from a nuclear utility, commented on the Federal Register Notice of the Commission's interest in the feasibility of developing a set of objective performance indicators for the various materials licenses regulated by the NRC and the Agreement States. The Comission plans to further explore this possibility and will seek opportunities to do so together with the Agreement States and, when appropriate, with additional opportunity for public input.

One coment was specific to a State (Pennsv1vania) which recently entered a Memorandum of Understanding (M00) with NRC (51 FR 43487). The MOV was viewed by the commentor as circumventing this Policy Statement, ,

The referenced agreement is authorized by Section 2471 of the Atomic l

Energy Act as amended. State activities under it will not include l regulatory functions that could be conducted pursuant to a Section 274b Agreement (which this Policy Statement covers).

One comment recommended elevating staffing level to Category I and another recommended elevating all the Indicators under Personnel to Category I. Commission staff, when developing the proposed revision, solicited Agreement State and regional-staff views on moving staffing level to Category I. Supporting arguments were that staffing level deficiencies were frequently a major contributing cause of significant Category I deficiencies in State programs, e.g., lack of staff leads to inspection backlogs, and elevating the Indicator to Category I would help focus State attention on the underlying causes, e.g., inadeouate l funds for positions and low salaries. On the other hand, NRC staff routinely couple comments on staff deficiencies with connents on Category I problems, when linkage exists, in the comment letters to the

, State Health Officers. NRC staff will also comment on staffing i

deficiencies in the absence of Category I deficiencies if the staff l believes the staffing deficiencies, if uncorrected, will lead to

problems in Category I areas. Category I Indicators, as explained in the Policy Statement have a direct bearing on health and safety and Category II Indicators address essential technical and administrative support which if not maintained may lead to Category I problems. As an example of a Ca.tegory II Indicator the Policy Statement cites staffing -

level. Maintaining staffing level and other Personnel Indicators as Category II will be consistent with the Policy's intended distinctions between Categories I and II.

One cornent fron a non-Agreenent State recommended maintaining the separation of Status of Regulation and Compatibility of Regulations (as in the present Policy Statement). As explained in the November 13, 1986 FR notice confusion has arisen over the distinctions between the two indicators. The proposal to combine them received no negative corrents ,

from the 28 Agreement States. Allied with this comment, was another recommending that draft language for State regulations should be .

provided to the States to enable them to meet the guidelines for maintaining compatible regulations within 3 years of adoption by NRC.

Agreement States are routinely notified of NRC regulatory anendments that must be adopted to maintain compatibility. 'In many cases simple redrafting of the NRC requirement to meet State codification standards can be done easily by the States. When major NRC amendments are issued, such as the waste manifest rules contained in 10 CFR 20.311, NRC staff will prepare and make available to the States draft suggested State regulation language that incorporate NRC amendments. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. with NRC and other Federal Agency assistance maintains model Suggested State Regulations (SSR) through a formal adoption process. Experience has shown that when State delays in adopting amendments are encountered, they have been as much related to inadequate staff resources that are needed to prepare amendments and the complex State administrative procedures for adopting regulations as they have been to the availability of timely issued SSR's. The Conference has not always adopted revisions within 3 years of NRC amendments; however, these other NRC measures provide' adequate alternatives by which Agreement States can initiate actions to adopt conforming amendments to State regulations.

l

One comment from a non-Agrmement State suggested that the guidelines should establish criteria for determining if a State's program is inadequate because of common defense and security (CD&S) considerations.

As noted in the Federal Register notice on the proposed agreement with the State of Illinois (52 FR 2309), the Commission is considering the question of continued NRC regulation of a specific licensee in that State in the interest of the common defense and security of the United States. This CD&S issue emanates from the Commission's statutory obligations to protect the.connon defense and security in Agreenent States as set forth in Section 274m of the Act, as anended. That Section makes clear that this obligation is separate from determining that the State's program is adequate to protect the public health and safety as required by Section 274b.

One comment received from a non-Agreement State suggested that in addition to the guidelines, NRC should compare Agreement State prograns-to the Regional NRC materials programs. The implication of the connent is that the NRC regulatory program for materials should be reviewed in light of the same guidelines for the Agreement States. The Policy

• Statement has been developed specifically for the review of Agreement State programs as required by Section 247j of the Act, as amended which provides that NRC "shall periodically review such agreements and actions taken by the States under the agreenents to insure compliance with the provisions of this section." Thus, the guidelines are not totally applicable to NRC programs. However, the periodic appraisal or assessnents which NRC makes of its own materials reculatory progran utilize comparable principles to those used in evaluating Agreenent State prograns.

One comment recommended development of guidelines for staff for Agreement State programs responsible for regulation of low-level waste disposal. Guidance in assessing staff technical capability needs and overall staffing requirements for States seeking low-level waste regulatory authority is available from NRC staff under NRC's Low-level Waste Technical Assistance proaran (51 FR 3866). NRC staff plans to l prepare a supolementary Policy Statement addressing guidelines which are specific to Agreement State regulatory programs in this area.

Additional comments were received that* addressed typographical errors by i the Federal Register and offered minor editorial corrections. The latter have.been incorporated, i .

l I

l

Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs 1987 Prepared by Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Introduction Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act was enacted by the Congress in 1959 to recognize the interests of the States in atomic energy, to clarify the respective responsibilities of State and Federal Governments, and to provide a mechanism for States to enter into fornal-agreenents with the Atomic Energy Comission ( AEC), and later the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC), under which the States assume

, regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of

special nuclear materials, collectively referred to as agreement materials. The mechanism by which the NRC discontinues and the States assume regulatory authority over agreement materials is an agreement '

between the Governor of a State and the Comission. Before entering into an Agreement, the Governor is required to certify that the State has a regulatory progran that is adequate to protect- the public health and safety. In addition, the Comission must perform an independent

, evaluation and make a finding that the State's program is adequate from the health and safety standpoint and compatible with the Comission's regulatory program.

! Current Guidelines I In 1981, the Comission published a major revision of the guide for review of Agreement State programs (t;wo earlier revisions reflected primarily minor and editorial changesl. These Guidelines constitute Comission policy in the form of a document entitled " Guidelines for NRC

. Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs." This document j- provides guidance for evaluation of operating Agreement State programs based on over 20 years of combined AEC-NRC experience in administering the Agreement State program. In 1985, Comission staff initiated minor updating, clarifying and editorial changes reflecting the experience gained with the 1981 policy statement. The revised document will be used by the NRC in its continuing program of evaluating Agreement State

programs.

l The " Guidelines" contain six sections, each dealing with one of the i essential elements of a radiation control program (RCP) which are: 1 Legislation and Regulations, Organization, Management and Administration, Personnel, Licensing, and Compliance. Each section contains. (a) a sumary of the general significance of the program l elements, (b) indicators which address specific functions within the program element, each indicator, (c)(categories and d) which guidelines which denotespecific delineate the relative importance of objectives or operational goals.

i i

i i

Categories of Indicators The indicators listed in this document cover a wide range of program functions, both technical and administrative. It should be recognized that the indicators, and the guidelines under each indicator, are not of equal importance in terms of the fundamental goal of a radiation control program, i.e. protection of the public health and safety. Therefore, the indicators are categorized in terms of their importance to the fundamental goal of protecting the public health and safety. Two categories are used.

Category I - Direct Bearing on Health and Safety. Category I Indicators are:

o Legal Authority.

o Status and Compatibility of Regulations, o Quality of Emergency Planning, o Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, o Adequacy of Product Evaluations.

Status of Inspection Program.

o o Inspection Frequency.

o Inspectors' Performance and Capability, o Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents, o Enforcement Procedures.

4 These indicators address program functions which directly relate to the State's ability to protect the public health and safety. If significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical. Legislation and regulations together form the foundation for the entire prograd establishing the framework for the licensing and compliance programs.

The technical review of license applications is the initial step in the regulatory process. The evaluation of applicant qualifications, facilities, equipment, and procedures by the regulatory agency is essential to assure protection of the public from radiation hazards associated with the proposed activities. Assuring that licensees fulfill the commitments made in their applications and that they observe the requirements set forth in the regulations is the objective of the compliance program. The essential elements of an adequate compliance program are (1) the conduct of onsite inspections of 1.icensee activities, (2) the performance of these inspections by competent staff, and (3) the taking of appropriate enforcement actions. Another very important factor is the ability to plan for, respond effectively to, and investigate radiation incidents.

Category II-Essential Technical and Administrative Support. Category II i

Indicators are:

. o Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization..

o Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program, o legal Assistance.

o Technical Advisory Committees, Budget.

o

.. - -.- -. -. -. . . . . - - . _ _ .~. .__ _ _ _ -

t o Laboratory Support.

o Administrative Procedures.

2~

o fianagement.

o _0ffice Equipment and Support Services.

o Public Information.

o Oualifications of Technical Staff.

, o St0ffing level. .

o Staff Supervision.

t o Training.

o Staff Continuity, o Licensing Procedures, o Inspection Procedures.

i o Inspection Reports, o Confirmatory Measurements.

These indicators address program functions which provide essential-technical and administrative support for the primary program functions.

Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more

. of the principal program areas, i.e.' those that fall under Category I -

indicators. Category II indicators frequently can be used to identify-underlying problems that are causing, or contributing to, difficulties in Category I indicators.

4 l It is the NRC's intention to use these categories in the following i .nanner. In reporting findings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made. If no significant Category i I comments are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the NRC's program. If one or more significant Category I connents are provided, the State will be notified that the progran deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety and

that the need of improvement in particular program areas is critical..

The NRC would request an immediate response. If,.following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comments, the staff may offer findings of adequacy and compatibility as appropriate or defer such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confirmed in a subsequent review. If additional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the information through follow-up c correspondence or perform a follow-up or special, limited review. NRC staff may hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.

No significant items will be left unresolved over a prolonged period.

The Commissicn will be informed of the results of the reviews of the 4

. individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If the _ State ,orogram' does not improve or if additional significant Category I deficiencies have developed, a staff finding that the program is not adequate will be considered and the NRC may institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreement. in accordance with Section 274j of the Act.

Category II comments concern functions and activities which support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's J

4

I

. I

• l

_4_

.c ability to protect the public. The State will be asked to respond to these comments and the State's actions will be evaluated during the next 4 regular program review.

- It should'be recognized that the categorization pertains to the significance of the overall indicator and not to each of the guidelines within that indicator. For example, " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions" is a Category I indicator. The review of license applications for the purpose of evaluating the applicant's cualifications, facilities, equipment, and procedures is essential to assuring that the public health and safety is'being protected. One of the guidelines under this . indicator concerns prelicensing visits. The need for such visits depends on the nature of the' specific case and is a matter of

' judgment on the part of the licensing staff. The success of a State

progran in meeting the overall objective of the indicator does not depend on literal adherence to each recomended guideline.

The " Guidelines for NRC Reviest of Agreement State Radiation Control.

Programs" will be used by the NRC staff during its onsite reviews of Agreement State programs. Such reviews are conducted at approximately -

18 month intervals,'or less if deemed necessary. If there are no

- significant Category I comments, the staff may extend the interval between reviews to approximately 24 months.

In making a finding of adequacy, the NRC considers areas of the State program which are critical to its primary function, i.e.,

protection of the public health and safety. For example, a State that is not carrying outL its, inspection program, or fails to respond to significant radiological" incidents would not be considered to have a program adequate to protect the':public health and safety. Basic radiation protection standards, such as exposure' limits, also directly 4 affect the States' ability to protect public health and. safety. .The NRC feels that it is important to strive for'a high degree of unifornity in technical definitions and terminology, particularly as related to units of measurement and radiation dose. Maximum permissible doses and levels of radiation ~and concentrations of radioactivity in unrestricted areas-

- as specified in 10 CFR Part 20 are considered to be important enough'to 7 require State regulations to be essentially equivalent in this area in

. ,. order to protect public health and safety. Certain procedures, such as 4 , those involving the licensing of products containing radioactive material intended for interstate commerce, also-require a high" degree of uniformity. If no serious performance problems are found in an

, Agreement State program and if its standards and program procedures are compatible with the NRC program, a finding of adequacy and compati.bil'ity is made. .

N

+

Y e

3.M

~ - -

A+- , --- v - - - - , y- v a ,, _

_g .

PROGRAM ELEMENT: -LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS The effectiveness of any State radiation. control program (RCP) is dependent upon the underlying authority granted the RCP in State legislation, and implemented in the State regulations.- Regulations provide the foundation upon which licensing, inspection, and en.forcement decisions are made. Regulations also provide the standards,and rules

> within which the regulated must operate. Periodic revisions are necessary to. reflect. changing technology, improved knowledge, current recommendations by technical advisory groups, and consistency with NRC regulations. Procedures for providing input to the NRC on proposed changes to NRC regulations are necessary to assure consideration of the State's interests and requirements. .The public and, in particular, affected classes of licensees should be granted the opportunity and time to comment on rule changes.

Indicators and Guidelines Legal Authority (Category I) o Clear statutory authority should exist, designating a State ,

radiation control agency and providing for promulgation of regulations, licensing, inspection and enforcement.

o States regulating uraniun or thorium recovery and associated.

> wastes pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) must have statutes enacted to establish clear authority for the State to carry out the requirenents of UMTRCA.

Status and Compatibility of Regulations (Category I) o The State must have regulations essentially identical to 10 CFR Part 19, Part 20 (radiation ' dose standards, effluent limits, waste manifest rule and certain other parts), Part 61 (technical definitions and requirements, performance objectives, financial assurances) and those required by UMTRCA, as implemented by Part 40.

.o The State should adopt other regulations to maintain a high  !

degree of uniformity with NRC regulations. . l

l o For those regulations deemed a matter of compatibility by NRC, l State regulations should be amended as soon as practicable but no later i than 3 years.

o The RCP has established procedures for effecting appropriate amendments to State regulations in a timely manner, normally within 3 years of adoption by NRC.

o Opportunity should be provided for the public to comment on proposed regulation changes (Required by UMTRCA for uranium mill j regulation.)

1 o Pursuant'to the terms of the Agreement, opportunity should be

, provided for the NRC to comment on draft changes in State regulations.

4 q

~

-6 PROGRAM ELEMENT: ORGANIZATION The effectiveness of any State RCP may be dependent upon its location within the overall State organizational structure. The RCP should be in a position to compete effectively with other health and safety prograns for budget and staff. Program management must have access to 4 individuals or groups which establish health and safety program priorities. The RCP should be organized to achieve a high degree of efficiency in supervision, work functions, and connunications.

Indicators and Guidelines t

Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization (Category II) o The RCP should be located in a State organization parallel with ccmparable health and safety programs. The Program Director should have access to appropriate levels of State management.

o Where regulatory responsibilities are divided between State .

agencies, clear understandings should exist as to division of responsibilities and requirements for coordination.

Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program (Category II) o The RCP should be organized with the view toward achievinc an acceptable degree of staff efficiency, place appropriate erchasis on major program functions, and provide specific lines of supervision from program management for the execution of program policy.

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

Legal Assistance (Category II) o Legal staff should be assigned to assist the RCP or procedures should exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously. Legal staff should be knowledgeable regarding the RCP program, statutes, and regulations.

Technical Advisory Committees (Category II) o Technical Committees, Federal Agencies, and other resource organizations should be used to extend staff capabilities for unique or technically complex problens.

o A State Medical Advisory Committee should be used to provide broad guidance on the uses of radioactive drugs in or on humans. The

o 7-a-

Committee should represent a wide spectrum of medical disciplines. The Committee should advise the RCP on policy matters and reculations related to use of radioisotopes in or on humans.

o Procedures should be developed to avoid conflict of interest, even though Committees are advisory. This does not mean that representatives of the regulated community should not serve.on advisory committees or not be used as consultants.

PROGRAM ELEMENT: MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION State RCP management must be able to meet program goals through strong, direct leadership at all levels of supervision. Administrative procedures are necessary to assure uniform and appropriate treatment of all regulated parties. Procedures for receiving information on radiological incidents, emergency response, and providing information to the public are necessary. Procedures to provide feedback to supervision on status and activities of the RCP are necessary. Adequate facilities, equipment and support services are needed for optimum utilization of personnel resources. Laboratory support services should be administered by the RCP or be readily available through established administrative procedures.

In order to meet progran goals, a State RCP must have adeouate budgeta,ry support. The total RCP budget must provide adequate funds for salaries, travel costs associated with the compliance program, laboratory and survey instrumentation and other equipment,'and other administrative costs. The program budget must reflect annual changes in the number and complexity of applications and licenses, and the increase in costs due to normal inflation.

Indicators and Guidelines Quality of Emergency Planning (Category I) o The State RCP should have a written plan for response to such incidents as spills, overexposures, transportation accidents, fire or explosion, theft, etc.

o The Plan should define the responsibilities and actions to be taken by State agencies. The Plan should be specific as to persons responsible for initiating response actions, conducting operations and cleanup.

o Emergency communication procedures should be adequately established with appropriate local, county and State agencies. Plans i should be distributed to appropriate persons and agencies. NRC should be p'rovided the opportunity to comment on the Plan while in draft form.

o The plan should be reviewed annually by Progran staff for adequacy and to determine that content is current. Periodic drills should be perforned to test the plan.

i

Budget (Category II) o Operating funds should be sufficient to support program needs such as staff travel necessary to the conduct of an effective compliance program, including routine inspections, followup or special inspectinns, (including pre-licensing visits) and responses to incidents and other emergencies, instrumentation and other equipment to support,the RCP, administrative costs in operating the progran including rental charges, printing costs, laboratory services, computer and/or word processing support, preparation of correspondence office equipnent, hearing costs, etc. as,aporopriate, o Principal operating funds should be from sources which orovide continuity and reliability, i.e., general tax, license fees, etc.

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

Laboratory Support (Category II) o The RCP should have laboratorv support capability inhouse, or readily available through established procedures, to conduct bioassays,-

analyze environmental samples, analyze samoles collected by inspectors, etc. on a priority established by the RCP.

Administrative Procedures (Category II) i o The RCP should establish written internal policy and administrative procedures to assure that progran functions are carried l out as required and to provide a high degree of unifornity and continuity in regulatory practices. These procedures should address internal processing of license applications, inspection policies, decommissioning and license termination, fee collection, contacts with communication media, conflict of interest policies for employees, exchange-of-information and other functions required of the program.

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

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

o RCP management should periodically assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services and fundings.

o Program management should perform periodic reviews of selected license cases handled by each reviewer and document the results.

Complex licenses (major manufacturers, large scope-Type A Broad, potential for significant releases to environment) should receive second party review (supervisory, comnittee, cons'ultant). Supervisory review of inspections, reports and enforcement actions should also be i performed. l

.g.

o When regional offices or other government agencies are utilized, program maragement should conduct periodic audits of these offices.

Office Equipment and Support Services (Category II) o The RCP should have adequate secretarial and cleri, cal support.

Automatic typing 'and Automatic Data Processing and retrieval capability should be available to larger (greater than 300-400 licenses) programs.

Sinilar services should be available to regional of# ices, if utilized, o Professional staff should not be used for fee collection and other clerical duties.

Public Information (Category II) o Inspection and licensing files should be available to the public consistent with State administrative procedures. It is desirable, however, that there be provisions for protecting from public disclosure proprietary information and information of a clearly personal nature, o Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State administrative procedure laws.

PROGRAM ELEMEflT: PER50fi'iEL The RCP must be staffed with a sufficient number of trained personnel.

The evaluation of license applications and the conduct of inspections require staff with in-depth training and experience in radiation protection and related subjects. The staff must be adequate in number to assure licensing, inspection, and enforcement actions of appropriate quality to assure protection of the public health and safety. Periodic training of existing staff is necessary to maintain capabilities in a rapidly changing technological environment. Program management personnel must be qualified to exercise adequate supervision in all aspects of a State radiation control program.

Indicators and Guidelines Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category II) o Professional staff should have bachelor's degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Additional training and experience in radiation protection for senior personnel including the director of the radiation protection program should be commensurate with the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.

o Written job descriptions should be prepared so that .

professional qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.

1

6 Staffing Level (Category II) o Professional staffing level should be approximately 1-1.5 person-year per 100 licenses in effect. . RCP must not have less than two professionals available with training and experience to operate RCP in a way which provides continuous coverace and continuity, o For States regulating uranium mills and mill tailings, current indications are that 2-2.75 professional person-years' of effort, including consultants, are needed to process a new mill license (including in situ mills) or major renewal, to neet requirenents of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. This effort must include expertise'in ra 4

structuralengineering.giologicalmatters, hydrology, geology,and Staff Supervision (Category II) o Supervisory personnel should be adequate to provide cuidance and review the work of senior and junior personnel. ,

o Senior' personnel should review applications and inspect

licenses independently, monitor work of junior personne!, and participate in the establishnent of policy.

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

supervision.

Training (Category II) o Senior personnel should have attended NRC' core courses in licensing orientation, inspection procedures, medical practices and industrial radiography practices. (For mill States, mill training should also be included.)

o The RCP should have a program to utilize specific short courses and workshops to maintain approp'riate level of staff technical competence in areas of changing technology.

Staff Continuity (Category II) o Staff turnover should be minimized by conbinations of

~

i opportunities for training, promotions, and competitive salaries, i

1 Additional guidance is provided in the Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of HRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement (46 FR 7540, 36969 and 48 FR 33376).

r

=

o Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional qualifications. Salaries should be comparable to similar employment in the geographical area.

o The RCP organization structure should be such that staff turnover .

is minimized and program continuity maintained through oppor.tunities for promotion. Promotion opportunities should exist from junior level to senior level or supervisory positions. There also should be opportunitv 4

for periodic salary increases compatible with experience and responsibility.

PROGRAM ELEMENT: LICENSING It is necessary in licensing byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials that the State regulatory agency obtain information about the proposed use of nuclear materials, facilities and equipment, training and experience of personnel, and operating procedures appropriate for determining that the applicant can operate safely and in compliance with the regulations and license conditions. An acceptable licensing program includes: preparation and use of internal licensing guides and policy memoranda to assure technical quality in the licensing program (when appropriate, such as in small programs, NRC Guides may be used);

prelicensing inspection of complex facilities; and the implementation of administrative procedures to assure documentation and maintenance of adequate files and records.

Indicators and Guidelines Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Category I) o The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have been submitted to the agency, and that these elements meet current regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be used, qualifications of persons who will use material, facilities and equipment, and operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions, o Prelicensing visits should be made for complex and major licensing actions, o Licenses should be clear, complete, and accurate as to isotopes, forns, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions.  :

o The RCP should have procedures for reviewing licenses prior to renewal to assure that supporting information in the file reflects the current scope of the licensed program.

I Adequacy of Product Evaluations (Category I) o RCP evaluations of manufacturer's or distributor's data on sealed sources and devices outlined in NRC, State or appropriate ANSI Guides, should be sufficient to assure integrity and safety for users.

)

. _-. ._ _ - - - _ - J

a o The RCP should review manufacturer's information in labels and brochures relating to radiation health and safety, assay, and calibration procedures for adequacy.

o Approval documents for sealed source or device designs should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, uses, drawing identifications, and permissive or restrictive condi,tions.

Licensing Procedures (Category II) o The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice, o License applicants (including applicants for renewals) should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.

o The present compliance status of licensees should be considered in licensing actions, o Under the NRC Exchange-of-Information program, evaluation -

sheets, service licenses, and licenses authorizing distribution to general licensees should be submitted to NRC on a timely basis, o Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide unifornity in the licensing process, o Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of information and documentation of discussions and visits.

PROGRAM ELEMENT: COMPLIANCE Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to assure that ac'tivities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety practices. The frequency of inspections depends on the amount and the kind of material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. The capability of maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the compliance program is necessary. The regulatory agency must have the necessary legal authority for prompt enforcement of its regulations.

This may include, as appropriate, administrative remedies, orders requiring corrective action, suspension or revocation of licenses, the impounding of materials, and the imposing of civil or criminal penalties.

Indicators and Guidelines Status of Inspection Program (Category !)

o State RCP should maintain an inspection program adequate to l assess licensee compliance with State regulations and license l conditions.

]

l

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

o At least semiannual inspection planning for number or inspections to be performed, assignments to senior vs. junior staff, assignments to regions, identification of special needs and periodic status reports. When backlogs occur, the progran should develop and implement a plan to reduce the backlog. The plan should identify priorities for inspections and establish target dates and milestones for assessing progress.

Inspection Frequency (Category I) o The RCP should establish an inspection priority system. The specific frequency of inspections should be based upon the potential hazards of licensed operations, e.g., major processors, and industrial radiographers should be inspected approximately annually-smaller or les,s hazardous operations may be inspected less frequently. The minimum inspection frequency including for initial inspections should be no less than the NRC system.

Inspectors' Perfornance and Capability (Category I) o Inspectors should be competent to evaluate health and safety Inspectors problens and to deternine corpliance with State regulations.

must demonstrate to supervision an understanding of regulations, inspection guides, and policies prior to. independently conducting inspections, o The compliance supervisor (may be RCP manager) should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and assure application of cppropriate and consistent policies and guides.

) Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Category I) o Inquiries should be promptly made to evaluate the need for onsite investigations, o Onsite investigations should be promptly made of incidents requiring reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days. (10 CFR 20.403 types.)

o For those incidents not requiring reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days, investigations should be nade during the next scheduled inspection.

• o Onsite investigations should be promptly made of

' non-reportable incidents which may be of significant.public interest and concern, e.g., transportation accidents.

1

-._m _ _.___ m-- - _ _ - . ______.m_ _ m . - . . _ - . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ __m _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ .

o Investigations should include indepth reviews of circumstances and should be completed on a high priority basis. When appropriate, investigations should include reenactments and time-study measurements (normally within a few days). Investigation (or inspection) results should be documented and enforcement action taken when appropriate, o State licensees and the NRC should be notified of. pertinent information about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed operations (e.g., equipment failure, improper operating procedures).

o Information on incidents involving failure of equiprent should be provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic design deficiency, o The RCP should have access to medical consultants when needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries. The RCP should use other technical consultants for special problems when needed.

Enforcenent Procedures (Category I) o Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory requirements. Provisions for the levying of monetary penalties are recommended.

o Enforcement letters should be issued within 30 days followino inspections and should employ appropriate regulatory language clearly specifying all items of noncorpliance and health and safety natters identified during the inspection and referencino the appropriate regulation or license condition being violated.

o Enforcement letters should specify the time period for the licensee to respond indicating corrective actions and actions taken to prevent re-occurrence (normally 20-30 days). The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses, o Licensee responses to enforcement letters should be promptly acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved items, o Written procedures should exist for handling escalated enforcement cases of varying degrees, o Impounding of naterial should be in accordance with State administrative procedures.

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

Inspection Procedures (Category II) o Inspection guides consistent with current NRC guidance, should be used by inspectors to assure uniform and complete inspection practices and provide technical guidance in the inspection of licensed prograns. NRC Guides may be used if properly supplemented by policy  !

memoranda, agency interpretations, etc.

15-

.o o Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, following up and closing out previous violations, interviewing -

workers and observing operations, assuring exit interviews with management, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems.

o Procedures should be established for' maintaining licensees' compliance histories, o Oral briefing of supervisors or the senior inspector should be performed upon return from nonroutine inspections.

o For States with separate licensing and inspection staffs procedures should be established for feedback of information to license reviewers.

i Inspection Reports (Category II)

Findings of inspections should be documented in a report o

describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters, describing the scope of licensee's programs, and indicating the substance of discussions with licensee management and licensee's response.

o Reports should uniformly and adequately document the result of inspections including confirnatory measurements, status of previous nonccmpliance and identify areas of the licensee's program which should receive special attention at the next inspection. Reports should show the status of previous noncompliance and the results of confirmatory measurements made by the inspector.

Confirmatory Measurements (Category II) o Confirmatory measurements should be sufficient in number and type to ensure the licensee's control of materials and to validate the licensee's measurements.

s o RCP instrumention should be adequate for surveying license operations (e.g., survey meters, air samples, lab counting equipment for smears, identification of isotopes, etc).

o RCP instrumentation should include the following types: GM Survey Meter, 0-50 mr/hr; Ion Chamber Survey Meter, several r/hr; micro-R-Survey meter; Neutron Survey Meter, Fast and Thermal; Alpha Survey Meter, 0-1000,000 c/m; Air Samplers, Hi and to Volume; Lab Counters, Detect 0.001 uc/ wipe; Velometers; Snoke Tubes; Lapel Air samplers.

o Instrument calibration services or facilities should be readily available and appropriate for instrumentation used. Licensee l i equipment and facilities should not be used unless under a service contract. Exceptions for other State Agencies, e.g., a State University, may be made.

4

J

.. . 16- ,

c

! o Agency instruments used for surveys and confirmatory

measurements should be calibrated within the same time interval as j

required of the licensee being inspected.

Dated at Washington, DC this day of .

i i FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i 1

I i Samuel J. Chilk

' Secretary of the Comission I

i i.

l i

i e

I

?

l

't

?

i s

I )

e

] .

l

?

l 3

h

[ UNITED STATES ~

7\'

, e4

\')

c. p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmo rON, D. C. 20856 f

ORAFT k, se+ . . . . s/

I i

The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcennittee on Energy and the Environment Connittee en Interier and Insular Affairs

. United States House of Representatives i Washington, D.C. 20515 g

Dear Mr. Chairman:

i Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee are copies of a public i announcement and a ninor revision to 'the NRC Policy Statement, l " Guidelines for Review of Agreement State Radiation Centrol Programs" which is to be published in the Federal Reafster, i

The Policy Statement was last amended December 4, 1981. The Nuclear

- Regulatory Commission had proposed minor revisions to the Policy j Statement on November 13, 1986 to incorporate changes needed to uodate 3

the Statement, editorial and #crmat changes, and other minor changes.

After careful consideration of the public cerments that were receiued on j . the proposed changes, the Policy Statement was amended as orocosed.  ;

I j Sincerely, 1

1 i  !

I G. Wayne Kerr, Director [

] Office of State Programs i

i

Enclosures:

l 1. Public Announcement 1 2. Federal Register Notice j cc; Rep. Manuel lujan j i

Enclosure 3 l .

i e

c- IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO:

The Honorable John Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works Uhited States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 l cc: Sen. Alan Simpson 1

The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committtee on Energy and Commerce l- United States House of Representatives

! Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead l

l i

1 e

8

e l O e

Draft Public Announcement 1

NRC Final Revisicns to Policy Statement for Peviewing Agreement State Programs The Nuclear Regulatory Conmission is publishing a minor revision to its policy statement, containing guidelines for review of Agreerent State radiation control programs.

The guidelines were last revised December 4,1981. Proposed ninor revisions were published for public conment November 13, 1986. The Guidelines are used by the flRC staff when reviewing the radiation control programs of the 28 States who regulate certain byoroduct, source and special nuclear materials licensees under agreenants with NRC. NRC staff has found the guideline to be effective in helping ensure that these State radiation control programs remain adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with t!RC's progran.

The minor revisions are to update the guidelines and incorporate editorial and formatting changes and other ninor c.hanges.

The revision was published in the Federal Register on , _ _ ,

1986 at FR .

Enclosure 4

- .