ML20217C446

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Expresses Appreciation for Responding to Request for Info on Maryland Regulation Adoption & Compatibility. Concludes That Maryland,Regulations Meet Compatibility & Health & Safety Categories Established in Procedure D.7
ML20217C446
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/15/1998
From: Bangart R
NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To: Fletcher R
MARYLAND, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20217C452 List:
References
NUDOCS 9804230317
Download: ML20217C446 (4)
v • d • e


Text

. 1 ho g

uq\ UNITED STATES g j t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665 0001 l

. u . . ,o April 15, 1998 l Mr. Roland G. Fletcher, Manager l Radiological Health Program Air and Radiation Management Administration l Maryland Department of the Environment 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 l

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

Thank you for your March 16,1998 letter responding to our request for information on l Maryland's regulation adoption and compatibility status. We have reviewed the four final Maryland regulations noted in the June 5,1997 letter to Ms. Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment. The regulations 26.12.01.01 D.801, D.1210, W.305 and W.108, which became effective on November 3,1997, were reviewed by comparison to the equivalent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20,30, and 39.

As a result of our review of these final regulations, we have determined that the Maryland regulations, as adopted, meet the compatibility and health and safety categories established in OSP Internal Procedure D.7, Procedures for Reviewing State Regulations.

In your letter, you requested clarification on the document review path that should be followed in submitting Maryland regulations for review. I have enclosed a copy of All Agreement States Letter SP-97-068 dated October 2,1997 (Enclosure 1) which includes OSP Internal Procedure D.7.Section IV of OSP Internal Procedure D.7 states: " Agreement States and Non-Agreement States seeking Agreements should submit proposed and final regulations to the Deputy Director, OSP, for NRC staff review and specifically request comments." Submitting regulations directly to OSP at NRC Headquarters will expedite regulation review and minimize confusion in the future.

We have also reviewed the Maryland regulation adoption timetable, and have two comments as follows. The regulations in Maryland Supplements 3 and 4 are past due. We note that you are scheduled to adopt these regulations on April 31,1998 and May 31,1998, respectively. [

Therefore, we are unable at this time to reconsider the compatibility status of the Maryland program as stated in the June 5,1997 letter to Ms. Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment. Additionally, one regulation past due for adoption by Agreement States does not appear in your adoption .

timetable: " Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Part 20 I and 61 amendments (60 FR 15649 and 60 FR 25983). Please inform us of the status of Maryland's adoption of this regulation.

9004230317 980415 PDR STPRG ESGMD p- .-

&2 f(T j4 & lY u,. <

l

)

Roland G. Fletcher -@ 15 W l If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or Lance J.

Rakovan at (310) 415-2589.

Sincerely, 04as L & ad ichard L. angart, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As Stated I

i

Roland G. Fletcher -2 APR 151998 If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or Lance J.

Rakovan at (310) 415-2589.

Sincerely, M $

RICHARDL BANGMr 719d By Richard L. dangaH,' Director Office of State Programs l l

Enclosure:

As Stated l l

l 1

l Distribution:

DIR RF (8S-99) DCD (SP05)

SDroggitis PDR (YESj_. NO )

TO'Brien BUsilton SSalomon Maryland File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\MDREG.RES < *See Previous concurrence.

re r.c.iv. . cop , or ini. oocum.nt. inoic.t. in in. nox: c dinout attacnmenti nciosur. e . coe, ,en .it.cn,nenii.ncio.or.<rw . no copy OFFICE OSP /3l OSR)$JA OCG OSP:Q)(/7 _

NAME LJRakovan:nb f- PHLothTs\"I FXCameron RLBangart V'O DATE 04/ 7 /98 04/ 4/98 04/14/98

f j Roland G. Fletcher ,

if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please co act me or Lance J.

Rakovan at (310) 415-2589.

Sincerely,

! Richard L. Bangart Director Office of State Pr rams

Enclosure:

As Stated Distribution:

DIR RF (8S-99) DCD (SP05)

SDroggitis PDR (YES,f_ NO )

TO'Brien BUsilton SSalomon Maryland File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\MDREG.RES i l T+ receive a cop r of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C" a d attachmenVenchhe T opf with attachment / enclosure "N" a No cooy l OFFICE OSP /3l OS$ PJ1/l OCG OSP:D l l lNAME LJRakovan:nb f- PHLohh's\"/ FXCameron RLBangart EDATE 04/ 7 /98 04/Y/$8 04(vi/98 04/ /98

\ OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-14 l

t, ,

4*.

h ht0 g i UNITED STATES

  • NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I WAsHINGTo.4. D.C. seesHopi

..... October 2, 1997 ALL AGREEMENT STATES PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA TRANSMllTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP 97-068)

Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION.........

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...XX FINAL OSP INTERNAL PROCEDURES:

1 B.8 - AGREEMENT STATE i

PROJECT OFFICERS:

D.7 - PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING STATE REGULATIONS: AND  !

D.24 - ANNUAL MEETINGS WITH AGREEMENT STATES BETWEEN IMPEP REVIEWS TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION.............

l TECHNICAL INFORMATION........................

OTH ER INFORM ATION...... ............ ........... . .

Supplementary information: Enclosed for'your information and use are three final OSP internal procedures dated September 8,1997: OSP Internal Procedure B.8 Agreement State Projects Officers (B.8); OSP Internal Procedure D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations (D.7); and OSP Internal Procedure D.24 - Annual Meetings With Agreement States Between IMPEP Reviews (D.24). Your input was important for the satisfactory completion of these documents for which we thank you.

B.8 provides specific points of contact (en Agreement State Project Officer (ASPO)) within OSP that will provide back up staff support to Regional State Agreements Officers (RSAO),

if requested, and serve as an identified OSP point of contact for requests for technical or other assistance from Agreement State staff as needed. Responsibilities of the ASPO include: (1) participate in the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) reviews of assigned States if the RSAO for that State is not available: (2) together with the RSAO, who serves as the lead, conducts one-day annual management meetings between i

IMPEP reviews; (3) when requested by the RSAO or Regional management, respond to inquiries and requests from Agreement States when the RSAO and/or backup support personnel in the Regional Office are not available: (4) maintain channels of communication with the RSAO for the assigned Agreement State; (5) maintain channels of communication I j

i ENCLOSURE 1 Nh^p M

S' N * =

. o SP 97-068 -2 with assigned Agreement State on issues for which the RSAO is not responsible, '

(61 request RSAOs to apprise them of activities in an Agreement State that are of a non-routine nature; (7) serve as the OSP point of contact for requests for technical or other assistance from Agreement State staff as needed; (8) coordinate and request assistance from Regional Office and Headquarters staff, as needed, to respond to State requests, (9) for non Agreement States having an active Interest in negotiating an Agreement, has the lead responsibility for negotiation activities upon receipt of a letter of intent from the Governor; and (10) keep abreast of activities in assigned States by review of correspondence, event reports, and regulation promulgation.

D.7 provides: (1) guidance for recommended use by States on preparation and submittal of proposed and final State regulations for NRC staff review; (2) procedures to be followed by NRC staff for review of State regulations including the scope of review, staff responsibilities, timeliness, and products to be prepared and communicated to the States documenting the results of the review; and (3) guidance to NRC staff on whether differences identified in State regulations are significant.

D.24 provides that staff will conduct annual one-day meetings with each of the Agreement States during any intervening years between IMPEP reviews. These annual meetings will be initiated in FY 1998, which begins October 1,1997. The meetings will normally be led by the respective Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO), and attended by one OSP staff member and Agreement State program representative (s). Topics to be discussed at the meetings include: (1) Agreement State action on previous IMPEP review findings; (2) program strengths and weaknesses identified by the State or NRC: (3) status of recently completed program or policy changes under development including: (a) changes in program staff; (b) program reorganizations; (c) legislative changes; and (d) redistribution of responsibilities; (4) status of NRC or program changes that could impact Agreement States:

(5) any internal program audits conducted by the Agreement State: (6) status of all allegations previously referred by NRC to the Agreement State radiation control program for action, and methods used to resolve allegations that have been closed; (7) Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED) reporting; and (8) the schedule for the next IMPEP review. Information obtained during an annual meeting could alter the schedule for the next IMPEP review or lead to additional correspondence or meetings with the State.

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.

POINT OF CONTACT: Stephen N. Salomon TELEPHONE: (301)415 2368 FAX: (301) 415 3502 INTERNET: SNS@ GOV -

, r\\

0W 7( y Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

As stated

e' ,

State Agreements Program Standard Approval The attached Office of State Programs internal Procedure B.8, Revision 0, Agreement State Project Officers, is submitted for final approval. ,

l (1w Thomas J. O'Brien tW~* 54]

Date n

(k4 .s 4 *i Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director, OSP

(

Dats I

d h 't d4 /2h sM ll/ 08 h)

Richard L. Bangart, Director / OSP Dat6 b'

G \TAPROCEDEMMfV,0.TJC

OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS INTERNAL PROCEDURE DIVISION 1 Policy B.8 Agreement State Project Officers l

I. Introduction l This procedure describes the responsibilities and functions of the Agreement State l Project Officer (ASPO). I I

II. Obiectives l l

The objectives of this procedure are:

A. To provide back-up staff support to Regional State Agreements Officers (RSAO), as requested, through the formal designation of ASPOs.

B. To identify the ASPO who will be responsible for handling inquiries from specific States and Regional offices.

C. To have the ASPO be the most knowledgeable OSP staff person about assigned Agreement States.

l 111. Procedures A. Identification of Assigned ASPOs and Assigned Ste+es

1. The OSP Deputy Director shall coordinate with OOP ard Regional Office staff, as necessary, the assignment of specine State ASPOs.

Appendix A provides the current assignments.

2. OSP will provide the Agreement States a specific ASPO point of contact through periodic all Agreement State letters (each 6 months, or when an ASPO assignment changes).

1 Revision O 9/8/97

.o B. Functions and Responsibilities of the ASPO

1. Participate in the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) reviews of assigned States if the RSAO for that State is not available.
2. Together with the RSAO, who serves as the lead, conducts one-day annual management meetings between IMPEP reviews.
3. When requested by the RSAO or Regional management, the ASPO will respond to inquiries and requests from Agreement States when the RSAO and/or backup support personnel in the Regional Office are not available.
4. Maintain channels of communication with the RSAO for the assigned Agreement State.
5. Maintain channels of communication with assigned Agreement State on issues for which the RSAO is unavailable or not responsible.
6. Request RSAOs to apprise them of activities in an Agreement State that are of a non-routine nature.
7. Serve as the OSP point of contact for requests for technical or other assistance from Agreement State staff as needed.
8. Coordinate and request assistance from Regional Office and Headquarters staff, as needed, to respond to State requests.
9. For non-Agreement States having an active interest in negotiating an Agreement, has the lead responsibility for negotiation activities upon receipt of a letter of intent from the Governor.
10. Keep abreast of activities in assigned States by review of correspondence, event reports, and regulation promulgation.

Attachment:

Appendix A: ASPO Assignments Listing 2 Revision O 9/8/97

., ~,_- ___

. ~

  • l

-. i e

  • l e . .

APPENDIX A l

AGREEMENT STATE PROJECT OFFICER ASSIGNMENT LISTDiGS ANO M MATES SY BBCION I E DI IV BIANTON MA4EACHtWTTS CALIPORNIA NEW NAneSHIRE PfYS LABOR SOLLING SOWA ARKANSAS KANSAS LTTAM I.ARKINS A1AAAMA OIGAMOMA*

N CAROLINA TENNESSEE MAL' PIN ARIZONA COLDRADO NEVADA NEW MEXICO O' MEN MAINT MARYLAND NY CTTY & STATE HEALTH MYERS LOUISIANA NORTH DAKOTA ORECON TEXAS RAKOVAN KEh M Nrmaatra MISSISSIPPI 300% CAROLINA SAIAM00N PENNSYLVANIA

  • RHODE ISLAND SCHNEIDER NY STATE DEC PLOIUDA CEORCLA SOLLENBERCER ILL.INOl$ WASHINCTON OHIO *
  • NONACREEMENT STATIS HAVINC ACTD1 Offf. REST IN NEGOTIATING AGREDIENTS, e

3 Revision O 9/8/97

State Agreements Program Standard Approval l

l The attached Office of State Programs Internal Procedure D.7, Revision 3, Procedure for '

Reviewing State Regulations is submitted for final approval.

l 41 5 Steph n N. Salorson, Physicist f/b7

' ' d ate O'

)

1; we ' b m .

Paul H. Lohaus, Deputy Director, OSP ' Daie dd ~~ v ca, Ri6ha'rd L. Bangart, Director, OfP a

Clfff D' ate i v

I C W @7mEV 3SNS l

s' ' .

OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS i INTERNAL PROCEDURES  !

Post and Pre Agreement D.7 Procedure for Reviewing '

Regulations Review State Regulations

)

1. INTRODUCTION This procedure describes the objectives and process for review and comment on proposed and final State regulations.
11. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this procedure cre:

A. Provide guidance for recommended use by States on preparation and submittal of proposed and final State regulations for NRC staff review.

B. Establish the procedures to be followed by NRC staff for review of State regulations including the scope of review, staff responsibilities, timeliness, and products to be prepared and communicated to the State documenting the results of the review.

C. Provide guidance to NRC staff on whether differences identified in State '

regulations'are significant.

!ll. BACKGROUND A. Each Agreement State has the responsibility to promulgate legally binding requirements that satisfy the compatibility requirement of Section 274 of the l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. States generally fulfill that responsibility through promulgations of regulations. Because each Agreement State possesses detailed knowledge of its own regulatiom, Agreement States are best able to determine that their regulations are compatible with NRC regulations and where not compatible, for stating why they are not compatible.

B. Agreement States are requested to submit proposed amendments to their regulations, usually when they are published for public comment, for review and comment by NRC staff. Agreement States also are requested to submit final regulations for review and an NRC determination whether each regulation satisfies the compatibility and health and safety designation D.7.1 Revision 3 9/8/97

.(- .

i D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations associated with equivalent re2rAations of the Commission. This Office of State Programs (OSP) Internal Piacedure D.7, Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations, is used for review, C. In order to assure States have adequate time to promulgate compatible regulations within three years of the effective date of changes in NRC regulations, NRC staff prepares and publishes semiannually a Chronology of Amendments. Included in the chronology is identification of each regulation change, the specific sections modified or established by the regulation change, the effective date of the change, and the compatibility or health and safety designation. l IV. GUIDANCE FOR USE BY STATES A. Agreement States and Non-Agreement States seeking Agreements should submit proposed and final regulations to the Deputy Director, OSP, for NRC staff review and specifically request comments. '

B. Appendix A to this procedure provides guidance for recommended use by States on the form, content and process to be followed for preparation and submittal of proposed and final regulations to NRC staff for review.

C. The State, in its transmittal letter, is requested to identify the date comments are needed from NRC. The State is also requested to identify any significant difference between the State's regulation and the NRC equivalent regulation and the rationale for the difference.

V. QUIDANCE TO NRC STAFF A. Staff Responsibilities

1. The Director, OSP, has overall responsibility for the review and determination of the compatibility of Agreement State regulations.

The Deputy Director, OSP, has primary responsibility for coordinating the review of Agreement State regulations. The State Regulations Review Coordinator (Coordinator) is responsible for review project management and assuring overall quality control of the review process, for keeping the OSP Management Analyst informed when an Agreement State regulation is received so the status of the review can be tracked by the OSP Management Analyst through closure, for keeping the Chronology of Amendments up to-date and for preparing a " Summary Report of Regulation Compatibility" for each IMPEP team at the time of each State's IMPEP review. The Coordinator is also D 7.2 Revision 3 9/8/97

  • 1 D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations responsible for assuring consistency of reviews among reviewers and discussing potential delays or other potential problems with the Deputy Director or Director for resolution when necessary.

l l 2. The Deputy Director, OSP, is designated to receive existing l Agreement State regulations. Overall review project management responsibility is assigned to the Coordinator. Upon receipt, the Coordinator will first determine whether the Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO) can conduct the review. If not, the i

Coordinator, in consultation with the Deputy Director, OSP, will assign review responsibility to one or more OSP staff depending on the complexity of the regulation package, or evaluate use of contractor assista'nce to complete the review. Review asty,nment should be completed within three days of receipt. The Coordinator will confirm the OSP Management Analyst has received a copy of the incoming regulation review request from the State and willinform the Management Analyst of the assigned reviewer (s) and the due date requested by or negotiated with the State. The Management Analyst will enter the regulation review in the OSP Action item Tracking System and the Agreement State regulation review data base (when available).

B. Review Guidance for Proposed and Final Regulations 1

1. OSP staff is responsible for completing reviews of all non Agreement State regulations submitted by States seeking to enter an Agreement with NRC using the same guidance as for Agreement States.
2. In some cases, the reviewer may need to consult with the Office of l Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) or other NRC offices

, as necessary to support completion of the review based on issues raised during the review and their significance. If requested, NMSS  !

and OGC, or other NRC offices, review State regulations according to 1 their own internal procedures. The Deputy Director should, if '

necessary, conduct meetings with commenting offices to resolve differing views.

3. In the case where a non Agreement State has requested NRC comments on a proposed regulation that has been published by the .

l State for public review and comment, the reviewer should request  !

review of the regulation by NMSS, the Regional Office and OGC.

D.7.3 Revision 3 9/8/97

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations

4. The reviewer is responsible for preparing the comment letter back to the State and obtaining the concurrence from OGC or other NRC offices when required.
5. Public Responsiveness Requirement The assigned staff reviewer is required to notify the State by phone or E mail within two weeks of receipt of an Agreement State regulation package that it has been received and assigned for review. The notification should include whether the staff expects to be able to meet the State's requested date for comments. If not, the staff should establish a revised date that is acceptable to the State if an NRC consultant will conduct the review, the Coordinator will notify the State.
6. General Review Guidance The following references are useful in the review of Agreement State regulations.
a. NRC Regulations Title 10 Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, published by the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services, NRC, codified and reissued periodically.
b. The latest Chronology of Amendments provided to the States by All Agreement States letter.

l

c. Management Directive 5.9, Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs, and associated Handbook 5.9.

l 1

d. OSP Intemal Procedure B.7 (Revision 1): Compatibility l Categories and Health and Safety identification for NRC I Regulations and Other Program Elements; and
e. Suggested State Regulations (that have received final approval by NRC).
7. Specific Review Guidance
a. The reviewer should normally limit review to those portions of a State's regulation that are being added or amended by the State's rulemaking action. The reviewer should also limit D.7.4 Revision 3 9/8/97 h

s'

. . i 1

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations I review to those parts or sections of the regulation that are either required for compatibility or health and safety as set out in OSP internal Procedure 8.7 (i.e., Categories A, B, C or l H&S). '

l b. The reviewer should conduct a comparison of the intent of the l State's regulation with the equivalent NRC regulation to determine if the State's regulation is " essentially identical" (Category A and B) or meets the " essential objectives" (Category C and H&S) as defined in the glossary of Handbook 5.9. Differences that are identified, which either significantly change or affect the intent of the regulation, should be analyzed further and a determination made whether the regulation meets (or does not meet) the compatibility or health and safety objective of the equivalent NRC regulation.

Guidance to assist in determining when a difference is significant and should be included as a comment on the State's regulation is set out in Appendix B, Handbook 5.9, and OSP Internal Procedure B.7.
c. When the NRC staff has reviewed a previous version of the regulation, retrieve and review any comments returned to the i State on the subject regulations to examine how the State I addressed the comments. )

l

8. Contractor Assistance l l

A request for consultant or contractor assistance in review of proposed or final State regulations can only be initiated by the OSP i technical monitor, but requires the concurrence of the Director, OSP. l When using such assistance, the Coordinator should:

a. Prepare a cover letter and attach the regulations package for {

forwarding to the consultant or contractor following the {

instructions of the technical monitor, including the instruction j to follow this procedure to conduct the review. '

l

b. Evaluate the comments as the basis for development of a i comment letter to the State upon return of the consultant's or i contractor's review report.
9. Communication of the Review Results l 1

D.7.5 Revision 3 9/8/97

~~

[

v

~

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations

a. The reviewer should prepare a formal comment letter or "no comment" letter to the State documenting the results of the l review. The letter should be addressed to the State Radiation i l Control Program Director unless State staff has specified l otherwise, and should normally be prepared for signature by l

the Deputy Director, OSP. The standard format and content

! for the letter is set out in either Appendix C (for proposed

regulations) or Appendix D (for final regulations).

l l- b. Comments resulting form the review should be set out in an l enclosure to the letter and should contain, as a minimum, the following information: 1

1. Citation of the part or section of the State rer :lation ,

reviewed; I li. Citation of the equivalent NRC regulation; iii. Compatibility or H&S category assigned to that section or part of the regulation; iv. NRC approved Suggested State Regulation (SSR),if any; and

v. Description of the difference identified by the reviewer between the State and NRC regulation, significance of the difference (e.g., why it does not meet the assigned compatibility category), and description of at least one course of action the State could take to address the comment.
c. All offices participating in the review and OGC should be on concurrence. For reviews conducted by the RSAO, the concurrence of the Regional Counsel may be required following Regional practice. The concurrence of OGC is always required.

The Deputy Director, OSP, signs the comment letter prepared by the reviewer after concurrence by the Coordinator.

d. Allletters should use the Regulatory Information Distribution System (RIDS) codes SPO5-08, corresponding to NRC Regions I-IV, on the concurrence sheet.

D.7.6 Revision 3 9/8/97 j

=

. y .

D 7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations

e. After determining the compatibility of final regulations, the reviewer should provide the information to the Coordinator.

The Coordinator reviews and concurs on allletters. The reviewer should ensure that a copy of the letter is provided to the OSP Management Analyst so that the compatibility determination can be entered and to update the status or close out the action in the tracking system.

i i

1 D.7.7 Revision 3 l 9/8/97

i l

? 5' l

. j D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations APPENDICES Appendix A. Guidance for Recommended Use by Agreement States for Submitting Regulations for NRC Staff Review Appendix 8. Criteria for Comparing Regulations and Identifying Differences Appendix C. Sample Comment Letter for Proposed State Regulations Appendix D. Sample Comment Letter for Final State Regulations l

D.7.8 Revision 3 9/8/97 l

l

r

. . , ,[

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations i

Appendix A GUIDANCE FOR RECOMMENDED USE BY AGREEMENT STATES FOR SUBMITTING REGUI.ATIONS FOR NRC STAFF REVIEW l l. Introduction l This guidance to Agreement States and States seeking an Agreement pertains to the submittal of proposed and final State regulations to NRC staff for review to l confirm that they are compatible with equivalent regulations of the NRC. NRC's goal is to conduct a single review for proposed regulations and a single review for

! final promulgated regulations. Although many States base their regulations on Suggested State Regulations (SSRs), until the SSRs are updated and reviewed with regard to compatibility and approved by NRC, the State should not assume that State regulations based on SSRs are necessarily compatible. The NRC revievi  !

process compares all State regulations with the equivalent regulations of the NRC

and NRC-approved final SSR.

l l ll. State Submittal Guidance A. For proposed regulations at the draft stage or, preferably, the public comment stage, but not both, the Radiation Control Program Director, or designee (Director), in preparing and submitting proposed regulations, is requested to identify by line-in/line-out text, or similar identification, the changes to NRC's regulations that are being incorporated into the State's regulations. The Director is requested to' identify at what point in the State's ,

regulatory process NRC's review would be of most benefit to the State, i.e., '

either at the draft stage or the public comment stage, and is requested to have NRC review at that stage. For final promulgated regulation changes, the Director is requested to identify by line-in/line-out text, or similar identification, the changes made between the proposed regulation submitted above and the final regulation. The Director is requested to discuss how the State has addressed or incorporated NRC's comments on the proposed regulation. The Director is requested to submit an electronic version of the regulation, whenever possible, using a word processing software that is compatible with " Wordperfect 5.1" or higher.

B. The Director is requested to submit proposed regulations to the Deputy Director, OSP. The regulations are requested to be submitted at least sixty days before the State needs comments, or concurrently with the State publication of the proposed regulations for public comment, whichever is

( D.7.9 Revision 3 I

9/8/97 l

6* g

  • l .

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations i

earlier. Final regulations as officially adopted by the State are requested to be submitted to the Deputy Director, OSP, for review after the regulations are published. The Director is requested to identify the date by which the State needs comments from NRC in the transmittalletter.

C. With both proposed or final regulation, the Director is requested to document whether the Agreement State believes its regulation satisfies the compatibility and health and safety component criteria in Handbook 5.9 and the assigned compatibility and health and safety component designations set out in OSP Internal Procedure 8.7 (Revision 1): Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements. The staff reviews State regulations based on this guidance and the guidance set out in Appendix B to this procedure. If the regulation does 091 satisfy the compatibiQty and health and safety designation, the Director is requested to identify those sections and to describe the State's rationale for promulgating a regulation that is not compatible with NRC's regulation. The Director is requested also to describe any constraints that prevent the State from promulgating a rule that satisfies the compatibility or health and safety designation and how the constraints will be removed, if possible.

D. The State may be requested to submit some additional relevant information, as necessary, such as a copy of the State regulations package, public proceedings, advisory committee comments, and public comments that influenced the text of the final regulations.

I O.7.10 Revision 3 9/8/97

4 o*. *t -

l D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations l

l l

Appendix B l l CRITERIA FOR COMPARING REGULATIONS AND IDENTIFYING DIFFERENCES i

l

1. DIFFERENCES THAT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT I l

In most casescthe following differences between State and NRC regulations are not significant and do NOT affect compatibility or the health and safety objectives of the regulation. These differences do not need to be identified or commented on. i A. Differences that do not result in Agreement State licensees being subject to l a requirement different from the equivalent NRC requirement.

B. Differences that result from the State regulation being made applicable.to sources of radiation not covered by the Atomic Energy Act (e.g., x-rays, l naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials); I l

C. Differences between the ordering of the subdivisions of the NRC and the i State regulations; D. The substitution of terms with the same meaning (where the use of essentially identical terms is not required) according to the editorial style of the State, i.e., "shall" or "must," " rule" or " regulation," " Commission" or

" agency," " device" or " equipment:"

E. The omission of any portion of the text of an NRC regulation that provides an example, contains supplementary material, or provides a reference to another regulation for the convenience of the reader; F. The incorporation, as a requirement in the State regulation, of any portion of the text of an NRC regulation that provides an example, contains supplementary material, or provides a reference to another regulation for the convenience of the reader; G. Modifications to punctuation that do not change the meaning of the text, i.e., changing a semicolon (";") to a conjunction followed by a comma

("and,"); and H. Any difference that results from the use of SI units for record keeping and reporting.

D.7.11 Revision 3 9/8/97 l

\

,s .

l l

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations

11. OlFFERENCES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT in some cases, the difference in the wording between State and NRC regulations may significantly change or affect the intent of the regulation and may therefore l affect compatibility or the health and safety objectives of the regulation. For regulations with Category A and B compatibility designations, the differences or changes are significant if licensee actions to satisfy the NRC equivalent regulation are not the same as those actions required to satisfy the Agreement State regulation for all phases of the licensee's operations. For regulations with a Category C compatibility designation or a health and safety designation, the changes or differences in an Agreement state regulation are acceptable only if an Agreement State licensee must take the same action needed to satisfy the NRC-equivalent regulation, or must take actions in addition to those required to satisfy the NRC-equivalent regulation.

l A conclusion that the text of the State regulation leads to a different interpretation l than the text of the equivalent NRC regulation, for regulations designated Category i A or B, would result in a finding that the regulation does not meet the Category A or B designation. The reviewer should describe why the State's regulation leads to a different interpretation.

A conclusion that the regulation does not reflect either the essential objective of the NRC regulation or the State's regulation creates a conflict, duplication or a gap would result in a finding that the regulation does not meet the Category C or Health 4 and Safety designation. Please see Section Vil of Handbook 5.9 for definitions of essential objective, conflict, duplication, and gap.

D.7.12 Revision 3 9/8/97

l

. ., l. ,

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations l

l Appendix C Sample Comment Letter for Proposed State Regulations Notes: alternate text shown in tedline to be substituted as appropriate j italicized text is guidance for determining text to be entered l Name, Title Address

Dear Mr. (Ms;) Name:

i As requested, we have reviewed the proposed regulations (identify the regu/ations using ,

the same title or description given by the State), (give date of regulations or cover letter date if regulations are undated). The regulations were reviewed by comparison to the equivalent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part (sectiori~ number). ewe ~als6 discussed bui f*Vi'N3f. tM@timiMiname of, SrEIe persorr;contactea{on;.M)]

As a result of our review we have no (num6&s/' co&miwtts) comments (thatMse beeH

^ identified in the enclosure). (Please note that we have limited ourieview to regulationA required for c6mpatibility and/orihealth andlissfety.f Uhder oui cuir~ehipi~ociedure, a finding

~

that a State regulation meets the compatibility and health and safety categories of the equivalent NRC regulation may only be made based on a review of the final State regulation. However, we have determined that if your proposed regulations were adopted Gncorporatirsg'thefootnments and) without lother) significant change, they would meet the compatibility and health and safety categories established in OSP Internal Procedure B.7.

We request that when the proposed regulations are adopted and published as final regulations, a copy of the "as published" regulations be provided to us for review. As requested in our All tigreement States Letter SP-96-027, "Recuest to Hiahlicht Chanaes to Aareement Statafeaulations Submitted to NRC for Comoatibility Review" (March 1, 1996), please highlight the final changes and send one copy in a compyter readable format, if possible. ~

If you have any questions regarding the comments, the compatibility and health and safety categories, or any of the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact me or (give name of reviewer or other contact) of my staff at (301) 415-2322.

Sincerely,

, Deputy Director Office of State Programs EviciosurK As stated D 7.13 Revision 3 9/8/97

.~ .

5 -

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations l

l l

l i

)

Distribution:

DIR RF [ Task Number] DCD (SP Number)

Management Analyst (Other staff as needed) POR (YES,f)

IState) File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\RSAO/OSP Staff ID\STATELET.RSAO/OSP Staff ID T r.e . e y .< m e.eum.ni. mee.t. m in, m: c caev .cout on enm.au.neww. : - coev -m n.enm nv.ncww. = - = cooy OFFICE OSP l OSP l OSP:DD l OGC OSP:D l l .

NAME RSAO/OSP STAFF Coordinator I DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l OSF FILE CODE: SP AU-[ State) l l

1 i

l i

i 1

D.7.14 Revision 3 9/8/97

, .\

I I

(

D.7 - Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations Appendix D l l j Sample Comment Letter for Final State Regulations l Notes: alternate text shown in redline' to be substituted as appropriate italicized text is guidance for determining text to be entered 1

1 Name, Title l Address

Dear Mr. (Ms.) Name:

l l

We have reviewed the final (neme of State) regulations (identify the regulations using the l title or description given by the State), which became effective on (effective date of the 1 regulations). The regulations were reviewed by comparison to the equivalent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part ,_ leection number).SWielso Aemeam4 ourjevieMsf,ths

!egulationsLwittilname~ofStafe; person contscfed)(onJdate)j (If there are comments, use the following:))

Ala'resuW of ths NRC revieviwe h' aveidentified'inumbeFoicbm'ihinnts)^obihmentsl ins enclosed. These com'ments' must beladdresse'do 't' meet ihe compatibility]and healthjand safety categories.. established _in. OSP Intemal Procedure.B.7f (If there are no comments, use the following:)

As a result of the NRC review, we have determined that the (name of State) regulations, as adopted, meet the compatibility and health and safety categories established in OSP Internal Procedure B.7.

If you have any questions regarding the comments, the compatibility and health and safety categories, or any of the NRC regulations used in the review, please contact me or (give name of reviewer or other contact) of my staff at (301) 415 2322.

Sincerely,

, Deputy Director Office of State Programs EnclosurisY' As stated 1

i D.7.15 Revision 3 i 9/8/97 l

. [ -

3 ,

1 D.7 -Procedure for Reviewing State Regulations i

COMMENTS ON (PROPOSED or RNAL) (State name) REGULATIONS AGAINST COMPATIBILITY AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CATEGORIES State NRC NRC Approved Catanory Reaulation Reaulation SSR Uf any) Subiect and Comments B 04.1-14 20.2006 Transfer for Disposal and Manifests (excluding Appendix F) Paragraph E was omitted from Appendix G, 10 CFR 20 (60 FR 25983) Unless the I missing paragraph is adopted, the regulation would not meet the compatibility criterion of a program element with transboundary implications.

C 5.10 34.25 Leak Testing, Repair, Tagging, Opening, Modification, and Replacement of Sealed Sources RH 5.10 requires the labeling of exposure devices, while the equivalent NRC regulation in 10 CFR 34.25(e) requires the labeling of sealed sources not fastened to or contained in exposure devices. Regulatory requirements for the labeling of exposure devices are found in 10 CFR 34.20(b) and the equivalent State regulation RH 5.5.2. As a result, the State

! regulations do not meet the compatibility criteria with respect to the requirements for labeling of sealed sources not fastened to or contained in exposure devices. Consequently, RH 5.10.5 should be amended to incorporate the essential objectives of the text of 10 CFR 34.25(e). i I

I l

D.7.16 Revision 3 9/8/97 1

l

, .s .

i State Agreements Program Standard Approval The attached Office of State Programs internal Procedure D.24, Revision 0, Annual Meetings with Agreement States Between IMPEP Reviews, is submitted for finst approval.

1

, n Y YYn Lance J. Rhoverf, Health Physicist

$/97 Date

'1 ..

[ 4W \

Paul H. Lohaus, bebuty Director, OSP Date Ric to r <

Actcft /$lbffff Date hard L. Bangart, Director,gSP b'

o m.._p.ta

. . i

. l

>, *: . j OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS INTERNAL PROCEDURE DIVISION 1 Post Agreement D.24 Annual Meetings With Activities Agreement States Between IMPEP Reviews

1. Introduction This procedure describes the general objectives and procedures for an annual meeting with Agreement States, including scheduling, assigning personnel, conducting, and reporting.
11. Obiectives .

The objectives of this procedure are:

A. Establish procedures for scheduling and conducting an annual one day meeting with each Agreement State not scheduled for an Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review that fiscal year.

B. Identify the NRC staff and requested State staff who should participate in an I annual meeting, including staff responsible for leading the meeting.

C. D6 fine the scope of activities and areas that should be discussed during an annual meeting.

D. Identify methods and timing for documenting and communicating the results of the meeting to the State.

E. Specify the correct steps to take when concems sre taised during an annual meeting.

Ill. Backaround  :

I In their respective Management Review Board (MRB) meetings, Agreement States consistently commented on the need for NRC presence on a more frequent basis than once every four years. At the September 1996 Annual Agreement States Meeting, the issue of

' conducting a mid-cycle or annual meeting was discussed, in SECY 96-234, " Status Report on implementation of the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program,"

November 12,1996, it was proposed that an annual one day meeting with each of those l Agreement States not scheduled for IMPEP review in ;iset year take place in order in help all parties to remain knowledgeable of the respective programs and to conduct planraing for the next IMPEP review.

1 Revision O i

> 9/8/97 >

r

e .

s . .

IV. Procedures A. RSAO's will be responsible for scheduling meetings with each of those Agreement States in their Region not scheduled for an IMPEP review that fiscal year. The project manager in charge of IMPEP coordination willinform the RSAOs of the proposed IMPEP schedule for the year. ,

B. The RSAO for the respective Agreement State will coordinate with Regional management, Agreement State management, and the OSP Agreement State Project Officer (ASPO) to assure that a suitable date for the meeting is chosen.

C. Once a proposed meeting date has been chosen, the RSAO will send a letter to the Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director a minimum of 60 days before the meeting confirming the date for the meeting. The letter should include a draft agenda, as well as a request for additional specific meeting discussion topics. Appropriate Regional management, the Deputy Director, OSP, the ASPO, and the senior manager responsible for IMPEP coordination should be on distribution for the letter. A sample letter is attached as Appendix A.

D. In scheduling and planning for the meeting, the RSAO should assure that State attendance at the meeting willinclude at least one radiation control program representative who can speak on behalf of the Agreement State program. Preferably, the Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director will attend the meeting. Agreement State program staff attendance at the meeting will be determined by the Agreement State.

E. The RSAO will normally serve as lead for the meeting. If the RSAO cannot serve hs lead, the RSAO will reschedule the meeting, or request that the ASPO assume lead responsibility.

F. The ASPO will normally attend the meeting. An alternate OSP staff member may attend the meeting if the ASPO cannot attend.

G. The scope of discussions during the meeting should include (but is not limited to):

1. Agreement State action on previous IMPEP review findings. l
2. Strengths and/or weaknesses of the State program as identified by the State or NRC.
3. Status of recently completed State program or policy changes under development including:

2 Revision O 9/8/97

l 1

1 .

a. Changes in program staff
b. Program reorganizations
c. Legislative changes
d. Redistribution of responsibilities
e. Changes in program budget / funding. I
4. Status of NRC program changes that could impact Agreement States.
5. Any internal program audits /self assessments conducted by the Agreement S; ate Radiation Control Program.
6. Status of all allegations previously referred by NRC to the Agreement State radiation control program for action, and methods used to resolve allegations that have been closed.
7. Compatibili*v of Agreement State regulations.
8. Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) reporting
9. Schedule for the next IMPEP review.

H. The annual meeting is for discussions and information exchange only, not for a formal evaluation. The annual meeting is not intended to include reviews of licensing, inspection, incident or allegation files,

l. During the meeting, NRC representatives should request introductions to new staff or to staff that they have not met.

J. As time permits, open idea exchanges between NRC and Agreement State staff not in attendance at the meeting is encouraged.

K. The meeting lead should dispatch a summary letter of the meeting to the Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director within 30 days and provide a copy to appropriate Regional management, the Deputy Director, OSP, the ASPO, and the IMPEP coordinator. The letter should include a list of meeting attendees, a general synopsis of what was discussed during the meeting, and a detailed summary identifying any key facts or changes, both positive and negative, from the meeting which could affect the focus and timing of future IMPEP reviews, or program implementation. The State should be requested to provide comment if they believe that the letter content does not accurately reflect the meeting discussions. A sample letter is attached as Appendix B.

L. If concerns about an Agreement State program are raised during the meeting:

3 Revision O 9/8/97

i . , 1 6','.s .

l l

1. The RSAO and ASPO should immediately inform OSP management, and recommend a course of action.
2. OSP management along with the RSAO and ASPO will agree on a course of action. Possible actions include altering the schedule for the next IMPEP review of the specific State, conducting a special review of selected program areas, or setting up additional correspondence or meetings with the State.
3. Once a formal course of action has been decided, an additional letter signed by the Director, Office of State Programs should be sent to the Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director along with the meeting summary letter. The letter should include an explanation of the specific course of action decided upon by OSP management, the RSAO, and the ASPO, as well as a detailed summary of the reasons behind the decision. A sample letter is attached as Appendix C.

Attachments:

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C 4 Revision O 9/8/97

l Appendix A l

l

[ RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTOR) i l

Dear [ Director):

Since [ State)is not scheduled for an Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program  ;

(IMPEP) review for FY [ year], we request a meeting, no longer than one day, to discuss i l your Agreement State program and share programmatic information. This letter confirms

! that, after previous coordination, the meeting is scheduled for [date) and will be held in your offices. [ASPO], Office of State Programs assigned as Project Officer for [ State), will be the other NRC representative in attendance.

The topics to be discussed at the meeting willinclude:

1. Agreement State action on previous IMPEP review findings.
2. Strengths and/or weaknesses of the State program as identified by the State or NRC. i
3. Status of recently completed State program or policy changes under development including:
a. Changes in program staff l b. Program reorganizations

! c. Legislative changes

d. Redistribution of responsibilities
e. Changes in program budget / funding.
4. Status of NRC program changes that could impact Agreement States.

l l 5. Any internal program audits /self assessments conducted by the Agreement State Radiation Control Program.

6. Status of all allegations previously referred by NRC to the Agreement State radiation control program for action, and methods used to resolve allegations that have been closed.
7. Compatibility of Agreement State regulations.
8. Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) reporting.

5 Revision 0 9/8/97 1

l.

,' o5

o

\ l l

9. Schedule for the next IMPEP review.

1 if there are any additional specific topics you would like to cover, or if you would like to focus on a specific area, please let me know.

l If you have any questions, please call me at [RSAO phone number], or e-mail to [RSAO e- l mail address).

Sincerely,

[RSAO) l cc: [ SLO)

[ASPO] l l

i 6 Revision 0 9/8/97

a,**s .

Appendix B

[ RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTOR]

Dear [ Director):

This year's annual meeting with [ State) was held on [date). The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the status of [ State's] Agreement State program. The NRC was represented by [ASPO and/or other OSP staff] from the NRC's Office of State Programs,

[any additional NRC staff in attendance including Regional staff] and me. Specific topics and issues of importance discussed at the meeting included [ list a few topics discussed at the meeting that were particularly noteworthy].

I have completed and enclosed a oeneral meeting summary, including any specific actions that will be taken as a result of the meeting.

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me [RSAO phone number], or e-mail to [RSAO e-mail address) to discuss your concerns.

Sincerely,

[RSAO]

Enclosure:

As stated cc: [ SLO)

[ASPO) 7 Revision O 9/8/97

i . .

l l

> 1 I

AGREEMENT STATE ANNUAL MEETING

SUMMARY

FOR [ STATE) l DATE OF MEETING: [DATE]

l ATTENDEES: NBC STATE

[RSAO) l

[ASPO)

DISCUSSION:

[ list main discussion topics of importance individually)

CONCLUSIONS:

Conclusion #1:[ conclusion as applicable) .

Action #1:[as applicable)

Conclusion #2:[ conclusion as applicable)

Action #2: las applicable)

Conclusion #3:[ conclusion as applicable)

Action #3: las applicable]

l 8 Revision 0 i

9/8/97 r

~

3 .. * *

  • i , ,

Appendix C l

[ RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTOR) 1

Dear [ Director):

This letter is to inform you that concerns about your program have been raised due to discussions at the annual meeting with [ State] held on [date). The annual meetings were created to help all parties involved remain knowledgeable of an Agreement State's radiation control program and to conduct planning for the next IMPEP review. In the case that concerns are raised due to discussions at an annual meeting, the Office of State Programs can decide to alter the schedule for the next IMPEP review of the specific State, conduct a special review of selected program areas, or set up additional correspondence or meetings with the State.

The concerns about your programJnclude:

i

[ list in detail each individual concern about the program]

Due to these concems, the Office of State Programs has decided to [give a detailed description of what action will be taken).

We ask that you respond to this letter in writing within 30 days. If you have any questions, please contact [RSAO), RSAO of Region (region), or me.

Sincerely,

[ Director, Office of State Programs]

cc: [RSAO)

[ SLO)

[ASPO]

l l

I l

9 Revision O 9/8/97 i

i. . j 1

s . 1

, l

.'o EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

~~~~~---- ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~  ;

<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>

TASK # - 8S-99 5 i --- -- - - DATE- 04/02/98 i- --- - - ---- MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK STARTED - 04/02/98

--~~~~~~~~~~

TASK

~~~~~~--

DUE - 04/17/98 TASK COMPLETED -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

/ /

TASK DESCRIPTION - LTR. FROM R. FLETCHER TO R. BANGART RE: STATUS OF

-~~~~ ----------

j REGULATIONS FOR MARYLAND l REQUESTING

~~~~~----~~~~~~

OFF. - MD REQUESTER

~~~~~~~-~~

- FLETCHER WITS

-~~~

- 0 FYP - N )

~~-

PROG.-

~~ .

LJR PERSON -

~~~~~~

STAFF LEAD - LJR PROG. AREA'-

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

PROJECT STATUS - OSP DUE DATE: 4/17/98

~~~-

PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 1 l

i

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20217C446&oldid=3229037"