ML23151A493

PR-050 - 56FR41968 - Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities Policy Statement

ML23151A493
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/26/1991
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-050, 56FR41968
Download: ML23151A493 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067

DOCUMENT DATE: 08/26/1991

TITLE: PR-050 - 56FR41968 - COOPERATION WITH ST ATES AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND OTHER NUCLEAR PRODUCTION OR UTILIZATION FACILITIES; POLICY STATEMENT

CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-050

56FR41968

KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS

Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PR-050 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N

RULE NAME: COOPERATION WITH STATES AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND OTHER NUCLEAR PRODUCTION OR UTILIZATION FACILITIES; POLICY STATEMENT

PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 56FR41968 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 08/26/91 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 7

ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 10/25/91 EXTENSION DATE: I I

FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 57FR06463 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 02/25/92

NOTES ON SEE ALSO ORIGINAL POLICY STATEMENT PUBLISHED ON 2/22/89 AT 54FR753 TATU8 O. AMENDMEN'l' TO POLICY STATEMENT PUBLISHED 2/25/92 (57 FR 6463)

F RULE FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY

HISTORY OF THE RULE

PART AFFECTED: PR-050

RULE TITLE: COOPERATION WITH STATES AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND OTHER NUCLEAR PRODUCTION OR UTILIZATION FACILITIES; POLICY STATEMENT

-OPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 91-174 SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 08/16/91

FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 92-001 SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 03/04/92

STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE

CONTACTl: FREDERICK COMBS MAIL STOP: 3D23 PHONE: 492-0325

CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-050 (56FR41968)

In the Matter of COOPERATION WITH STATES AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND OTHER NUCLEAR PRODUCTION OR UTILIZATION FACILITIES; POLICY STATEMENT

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

~ 10/11/91 10/07/91 COMMENT OF OCRE (SUSAN L. HIATT) ( 1) 10/23/91 10/01/91 COMMENT OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (GRETA J. DICUS) ( 2)

10/24/91 10/21/91 COMMENT OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (G. J. BECK) ( 3)

10/25/91 10/23/91 COMMENT OF VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (WARREN P. MURPHY) ( 4)

10/28/91 10/25/91 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (JOE F. COLVIN) ( 5)

10/29/91 10/25/91 COMMENT OF NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT (ENGENE J. GLEASON) ( 6)

- 10/30/91 10/25/91 COMMENT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE (TED C. FEIGENBAUM) ( 7) 02/19/92 02/18/92 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE DOCKET NUMBER PR 5 0 PROPOSED RULE..;;..;;.;.___ x ") (£ t rf( 'I ir,~

L,0(, Ki.U SNRC 1 LD

'92 FEB 19 A9 :29 7590-01

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities;

- Policy Statement

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Amendment to Policy Statement.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising and amending its Policy on Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Production or Utilization Facilities (54 FR 7530; February 22, 1989). The amendment to the policy statement allows State representatives in adjacent

.States to observe NRC inspections at licensed facilities. "Adjacent States" are defined as States within the plume exposure pathway (within approximately a 10-mile radius} Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ} of a licensed facility in another State.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective upon date of publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Combs, Assistant Director for State, Local and Indian Relations, Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301} 504-2325.

2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DISCUSSION On February 22, 1989 (54 FR 7530), the Commission published the policy statement "Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities.A The policy statement was intended to provide a uniform basis for NRC/State cooperation as it relates to the regulatory oversight of.commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear production or utilization facilities. The policy statement allows State

- officials to accompany NRC on inspections and, under certain circumstances, enables States to enter into instruments of cooperation {MOUs) which would allow States to participate in NRC inspection activities.

Analysis: On August 26, 1991 {56 FR 41968), the Commission published for co1T1T1ent, a proposed amendment to the policy statement on Cooperation with States. This amendment would allow State representatives to observe NRC inspections at licensed facilities in adjacent States. "Adjacent StatesA are defined as States within the plume exposure pathway {within approximately a IO-mile radius) Emergency Planning Zone {EPZ) of a licensed facility in another State.

The Commission received seven comments on the proposed amendment; Three from utilities, one from a utility organization, two from States and one from a public citizen's group.

Corrments: One conunent was received from Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. c*ocRE*) which was generally supportive of the amendment. OCRE did suggest, however, that an adjacent State be defined as one which is within the plume exposure pathway EPZ or within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear facility located in another State. They claim this addition is necessary due to the periodic political proposals to reduce the plume exposure pathway EPZ from its current IO-mile radius to some smaller area, perhaps as small as 2-5 miles or even limited to the site boundary.

3

Response: EPZs are the designated areas for which planning is recomnended to ensure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident. NRC licensees, State and local governments and petitioners for rulemaking have often questioned the exact size and configuration of the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The Commission answered these questions in a policy statement (Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, CLI-89-12, 26 NRC 383, 384, 385) as follows:

Implicit in the concept of *adequate protective measures" is the fact that emergency planning will not eliminate, in every conceivable accident, the possibility of serious harm to the public. Emergency planning can, however, be expected to reduce any public harm in the event of a serious but highly unlikely accident. Given these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for the Commission to hold that the rule precludes adjustments on safety grounds to the size of an EPZ that is *about 10 miles in radius.H In the Co11111ission's view, the proper interpretation of the rule would call for adjustment to the exact size of the EPZ on the basts of such straightforward administrative considerations as avoiding EPZ boundaries that run through the middle of schools or hospitals, or that arbitrarily carve out small portions of governmental jurisdictions. The goal is merely planning simplicity and avoidance of ambiguity as to the location for the boundaries.

As stated in the original Federal Register notice (February 22, 1989) during the comnent period, NRC's reasoning behind limiting adjacent State observation to those States within the plume exposure pathway EPZ was twofold: First, a limit had to be set to allow Regional offices to manageably handle requests to observe inspections which might be made by host States and adjacent States.

Second, the plume exposure pathway EPZ was determined to be that area (approximately 10 miles) requiring possibly prompt action in the event of an accident to reduce risk to the public. It is unlikely that any invnediate protective actions would be required beyond the plume exposure pathway EPZ.

4

Therefore, it was felt those States with the most critical response efforts during emergency situations, and those with more innediate public health and safety risks, should be the States allowed to observe NRC inspections. These States would therefore become more familiar with plant safety issues.

Convnent: A similar co1T111ent was received from the New York State Energy Office, which requests broadening the definition of "adjacent State" to include reciprocity for facilities further than the ten-mile radius around a plant to perhaps a fifty-mile radius.

Analysis: For the reasons stated above, NRC does not believe the plume exposure pathway or the definition of adjacent State should be changed.

Furthermore, inclusion of all States which are within a fifty-mile radius of a reactor in another State would greatly increase the number of States eligible for observation of NRC inspections and also increase the administrative burden on the NRC, especially for highly-visible inspection efforts. The impact on NRC of having large numbers of requests for observations of inspections could become burdensome and negatively impact our own inspection program, and could adversely impact licensees.

Comment: The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) remains concerned if State representatives are allowed to carry out NRC inspection responsibilities. They also reiterated their previous concern with the original policy; that allowing State representatives, whether from a State in which a plant is located or an adjacent State within the plume exposure pathway, to conduct NRC inspections could result in a situation where a licensee could be subjected to dual, and perhaps conflicting, regulation by a State through this mechanism. NUMARC does believe that it is appropriate for the NRC and States to work together to coordinate the exercise of their complementary responsibilities, but feels that State representatives should not conduct NRC inspections.

\\

5

Response: The concern of NUMARC regarding State representatives conducting NRC inspections was previously submitted and addressed in the su11111ary of convnents and NRC response section of the Federal Register notice adopting the final policy statement (54 FR 7530; February 22, 1989). There has been no change proposed to that aspect of the policy. This proposed change to the policy concerns only observations of inspections by representatives of adjacent States, not participation in inspections by these representatives.

It was decided that NRC does not have enough experience with participation agreements between the NRC and host States to expand that arena to adjacent States at this time. NRC will continue to monitor closely the implementation of this policy statement to ensure that it is not misapplied and that unintended results do not occur.

Comment: The Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation co11111ented that they endorse the concept of the current policy of NRC cooperation with State governments, however they believe that the host state deserves special consideration where requests for observations are concerned. They request NRC to encourage the adjacent States to co11111unicate with host state representatives on matters pertaining to the operation of host state nuclear

- power plants.

Response: In the Federal Register notice, NRC co11111itted to limit team inspections to normally no more than one observer from each State. When there is a conflict, preference would be given to the host state for routine inspections, but the NRC Regional Administrator should make the final determination as to whether more than one State observer should be involved in the inspection. In addition, the protocol agreement in Appendix A of the Federal Regjster notice has been revised to acco11111odate a request from an adjacent State, strongly encourage co11111unication with the host State, and give preference to the host State should a conflict exist. NRC will adhere to this policy and endorse two-way co11111unication at every stage of the observation.

6

Comment: New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) transmitted several connnents. One con111ent concerned the possible misinterpretation of the roles of host States and adjacent States. NHY states that the Discussion section makes it clear that adjacent States should be limited to an observation role whereas a host State, under certain conditions, may actually participate in inspections. The Statement of Policy, however, does not explicitly state these distinctions and limits. Similarly, under Implementatjon, the first sentence of the second paragraph states that the "NRC will consider State partjcipation in inspections.*. n(emphasis added) without specifying that this refers to host States.

The second comnent stated that NHY believes that the State Protocol should be changed to reflect that where an MOU allows actual host State participation in inspections, or even observations, the protocol for publicly releasing or co11111enting on the results should be the same as for State observations.

Release of information concerning the inspection should not occur before review by the NRC and issuance of the NRC inspection report.

The third comment expressed concern over ambiguity in the language regarding

- the number of State inspectors from the host and adjacent States. The Djscyssion indicates that the number of observers should normally be limited to the number of NRC inspectors and that team inspections should normally have no more than one observer from each State. The second bullet of the State Protocol sets a norm of one observer per NRC inspection. NHY believes that this language could lead to misunderstandings and that the Statement of Policy should clearly set forth the NRC's expectations on the total number of observers from the host and adjacent State including the case where the host State is actually participating in the inspection.

The fourth comment stated that NHY believes that State observations of routine inspections by the NRC Resident Inspectors should be limited to one individual from the host State, and that if States feel additional observers are needed this should be taken up as a special case.

7

The fifth comment states that NHY believes the State Protocol should clearly state that observers must obtain approval from the licensee as well as the NRC before removing any material from the site. This could be accomplished by simply having the observer formally submit a request for documents to the licensee through the NRC.

In their final con111ent, NHY requested that Maine be removed from the table listing adjacent States since they do not fall within the stated definition of the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone.

Response: NRC agrees there may be some ambiguity regarding the roles of adjacent and host States in the policy statement. Therefore, we are amending the second paragraph under "Implementation," to read, "NRC will consider host State (emphasis added) participation in inspections and the inspection entrance and exit meetings, where the State-proposed agreement identifies the specific inspections they wish to assist NRC with and provides a program containing those elements as described in the policy statement." The modification clarifies NRC's intent to allow only host States to participate in NRC inspections.

With regard to the second comment, NRC enters into MOUs for participation where more detailed cooperation is required. In the MOUs, a provision is included for the State to abide by NRC protocol by not publicly disclosing inspection findings prior to the release of the NRC inspection report.

Regarding NHY's third co1T111ent relating to the number of State inspectors to observe an inspection, NRC believes the policy is clearly stated. Although the protocol states that normally one observer will be allowed to observe an NRC inspection, some amount of discretion is needed to allow more inspectors to attend under special circumstances. There are a sufficient number of inspections which are event-related or have attracted significant public interest, to which States may want to send more than one observer. The policy does not address the number of State inspectors allowed to participate in an 8

NRC inspection. It is expected the State will utilize only the minimum number of inspectors it needs to accomplish the best possible coverage of the inspection activity. In this regard, the MOUs under a participation arrangement affirm that the State will submit monthly inspection recommendations to the NRC Resident Inspector (or Regional Office) in sufficient time to allow NRC review before preparation of the inspection plan.

NRC will review the State's reconunendations and inform the State of any activities that appear to impose an undue burden on the licensee. The State will make adjustments to the State inspection recommendations, as necessary, to address NRC corrments.

The fourth colllllent, pertaining to the number of State observers of routine inspections by NRC, Resident Inspectors, has already been addressed. Requests for observations of routine inspections by the Resident will be treated the same as any other inspection.

NRC also agrees that the State observer should obtain licensee.Qr NRC approval before removing material from the site. We have modified the protocol to incorporate this change.

Regarding NHY's final comnent, we have deleted Haine from the table of adjacent States since it does not fall within the Seabrook Station's IO-mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. The table is reprinted below.

Convnent: Both Philadelphia Electric Company and the State of Arkansas commented that they support NRC's efforts to amend the policy.

The following list of host State~ and adjacent States (within the IO-mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone) along with these NRC-licensed facilities could be affected by the proposed policy revision:

9

£lM[ fillli BDJACENI SIAIE(Sl BEAVER VALLEY PA OH,WV CATAWBA SC NC COOPER NE HO FARLEY AL GA FT. CALHOUN NE IA GRAND GULF HS LA HOPE CREEK NJ DE MILLSTONE CT NY PEACH BOTTOM PA MD PRAIRIE ISLAND MN WI QUAD CITIES IL IA SALEM NJ DE SEABROOK NH MA TROJAN OR WA VERMONT YANKEE VT MA,NH YANKEE ROWE MA VT ZION IL WI

A total of 17 utilities and 25 States could be affected by the policy revision.

10

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT

This final policy statement amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 {44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

These requirements were,approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0163.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Infonnation and Records Management Branch {MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co111T1ission, Washington, D.C. 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, {3150-0163), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.

11

FINAL AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY STATEMENT

In Section III, Statement of Policy (54 FR 7530 at 7538, February 22, 1989),

the final sentence in the second paragraph is revised to read as follows:

Additionally, at the State's request, representatives from a State in which the NRC-licensed facility is located (the host State) and from a State within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) -

[within approximately a ten-mile radius] - of an NRC-licensed facility

• located in another State (the adjacent State) will be able to observe specific inspections and/or inspection entrance and exit meetings where State representatives are knowledgeable in radiological health and safety matters.

In Section III, Statement of Policy (54 FR 7530 at 7538, February 22, 1989),

the third sentence in the third paragraph is revised to read as follows:

State participation in NRC programs would allow qualified State representatives from States in which an NRC-licensed facility is located, either individually or as a member of a team, to conduct specific inspection activities in accordance with NRC standards, regulations, and procedures in close cooperation with the NRC.

In Section IV, Implementation {54 FR 7530 at 7538, February 22, 1989), the fifth, and final sentences in the first paragraph are revised to read as follows:

Host State or adjacent State representatives are free to attend as observers any public meeting between the NRC and its applicants and licensees.

Requests from host States and adjacent States to observe inspections and/or inspection entrance and exit meetings conducted by the NRC require the approval of the appropriate Regional Administrator.

12

Also, in Section IV, Implementation, the first sentence in the second paragraph is revised to read as follows:

NRC will consider host State participation in inspections and the inspection entrance and exit meetings, where the State-proposed agreement identifies the inspections they wish to assist NRC with and provides a program containing those elements as described in the policy statement *

• In Appendix A - Protocol Agreement for State Observation of NRC Inspections, the State Protocol Section, the eighth bullet is revised to read as follows:

• An observer will not be provided with proprietary or safeguards information. Observers will not remove any material from the site without NRC or licensee approval.

The full text of the Policy Statement with new wording is reprinted below.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of~, 1992.

r Regulatory Co11111ission, 13

Statement of Policy

It is the NRC's poli'cy to cooperate fully with State governments as they seek to respond to the expectations of their citizens that their health and safety be protected and that there be minimal impact on the environment as a result of activities licensed by the NRC. The NRC and the States have complementary responsibilities in protecting public health and safety and the environment.

'Furthermore, the NRC is conrnitted to the full and timely disclosure of matters affecting the public and to the fair and uniform handling of all agency

• interactions with the States, the public, and NRC licensees.

Accordingly, the NRC will continue to keep Governor-appointed State Liaison Officers routinely infonned on matters of interest to the States. The NRC will respond in a timely manner to a State's requests for information and* its reconvnendations concerning matters within the NRC's regulatory jurisdiction.

If requested, the NRC will routinely inform State Liaison Officers of public meetings between NRC and its licensees and applicants in order that State representatives may attend as observers. Additionally, at the State's request, representatives from a State in which the NRC-licensed facility is located (the host State) and from a State within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone [EPZ] (within approximately a IO-mile radius} of an NRC-licensed facility located in another State (the adjacent State} will be able to observe specific inspections and/or inspection entrance and exit meetings where State representatives are knowledgeable in radiological health and safety matters.

The Commission recognizes that the involvement of qualified State representatives in NRC radiological health and safety programs has the potential for providing additional safety benefit. Therefore, the NRC will consider State proposals to enter into instruments of cooperation for State participation in inspections and inspection entrance and exit meetings. State participation in NRC programs would allow qualified State representatives from States in which an NRC-licensed facility is located, either individually or as 14

a member of a team, to conduct specific inspection activities in accordance with NRC standards, regulations, and procedures in close cooperation with the NRC. State activities will normally be conducted under the oversight of an authorized NRC representative with the degree of oversight dependent upon the activity involved. In the proposal to enter into an instrument of

/

cooperation, the State must identify those activities for which cooperation with the NRC is desired. The State must propose a program that: (1) recognizes the Federal Government, primarily NRC, as having the exclusive authority and responsibility to regulate the radiological and national

• security aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities, except for certain authority over air emissions granted to States by the Clean Air Act; (2) is in accordance with Federal standards and regulations; {3) specifies minimum education, experience, training, and qualifications requirements for State representatives which are patterned after those of NRC inspectors; {4) contains provisions for the findings of State representatives to be transmitted to NRC for disposition; (5) would not impose an undue burden on the NRC and its licensees and applicants; and {6) abides by NRC protocol not to publicly disclose inspection findings prior to the release of the NRC inspection report.

Consistent with section 274c of the Act, the NRC will not consider State proposals for instruments of cooperation that do not include the elements listed above, which are designed to ensure close cooperation and consistency with the NRC inspection program. As a practical matter, the NRC is concerned that independent State inspection programs could direct an applicant's or licensee's attention to areas not consistent with NRC safety priorities, misinterpret NRC safety requirements, or give the perception of dual regulation. For purposes of this policy statement, an independent State inspection program is one in which State representatives would conduct inspections and assess NRC-regulated activities on a State's own initiative and authority without close cooperation with, and oversight by, an authorized NRC representative.

15

Instruments of cooperation between the NRC and the States, approved prior to the date*of this policy statement will continue to be honored by the NRC. The NRC strongly encourages those States holding these agreements to consider modifying them, if necessary, to bring them into conformance with the provisions of this policy statement.

Implementation As provided in the policy statement the NRC will routinely keep State Liaison Officers informed on matters of interest to the States. In general, all State requests should come from the State Liaison Officer to the appropriate NRC Regional Office. The NRC will make every effort to respond as fully as possible to all requests from States for information on matters concerning nuclear production or utilization facility safety within 30 days. The NRC

~ill work to achieve a timely response to State recommendations relating to the safe operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities. Host State or adjacent State representatives are free to attend as observers any public meeting between the NRC and its applicant and licensees. The appropriate Regional Office will routinely inform State Liaison Officers of the scheduling of public meetings upon request. Requests from host States and adjacent States to observe inspections and/or inspection entrance and exit meetings conducted by the NRC require the approval of the appropriate Regional Administrator.

NRC will consider host State participation in inspections and the inspection entrance and exit meetings, where the State-proposed agreement identifies the specific inspections they wish to assist NRC with and provides a program containing those elements as described in the policy statement. NRC may develop inspection plans along with qualified State representatives using applicable procedures in the NRC Inspection Manual. Qualified State representatives may be permitted to perform inspections in cooperation with, and on behalf of, the NRC under the oversight of an authorized NRC representative. The degree of oversight provided would depend on the activity. For instance, State representatives may be accompanied by an NRC 16

representative initially, in order to assess the State inspectors' preparedness to conduct the inspection individually. Other activities may be conducted as a team with NRC taking the lead. All enforcement action will be undertaken by the NRC.

The Conmission will decide policy matters related to agreements proposed under this policy statement. Once the Connission has decided the policy on a specific type of agreement, similar State-proposed agreements may be approved, consistent with Co111nission policy, by the Executive Director for Operations.

• A State-proposed instrument of cooperation will be documented in a formal MOU signed by NRC and the State.

Once the NRC has decided to enter into an MOU for State-involvement in NRC inspections, a formal review, not less than six months after the effective date, will be performed by the NRC to evaluate implementation of the MOU and resolve any problems identified. Final agreements will be subject to periodic reviews and may be amended or modified upon written agreement by both parties and may be terminated upon 30 days written notice by either party.

Additionally, once State involvement in NRC activities at a nuclear production or utilization facility is approved by the NRC, the State is responsible for meeting all requirements of an NRC licensee and applicant related to personal safety and unescorted access of State representatives at the site.

17

APPENDIX A Protocol Agreement for State Observation of NRC Inspections NRC Protocol:

0 The Regional State Liaison Officer {RSLO) will normally be the lead individual responsible for tracking requests for State observation, assuring consistency regarding these requests, and for advising the Regional Administrator on the disposition of these requests. The appropriate technical representative or Division Director will communicate with the State on

• specific issues concerning the inspection{s).

0 Requests for observations of Headquarters-based inspections will also be coordinated through the RSLO. Headquarters-based inspections should be referred through the RSLO to a technical representative designated by the Region.

0 NRC will process written requests to the Regional Administrator through the State Liaison Officer {SLO). Requests should identify the type of inspection activity and facility the State wishe~ to observe.

0 Limits on scope and duration of the observation period may be imposed if, in the view of the Regional Administrator, they compromise the efficiency or effectiveness of the inspection. Regions should use their discretion as to which, if any, inspections will be excluded from observations.

0 States will be informed they must not release information concerning the time and purpose of unannounced inspections.

0 The Region will make it clear to the licensee that the State views are not necessarily endorsed by NRC. The Region will also make it clear that only NRC has regulatory authority for inspection findings and enforcement actions regarding radiological health and safety.

18

State Protocol:

0 A State will make advance arrangements with the licensee for site access training and badging (subject to fitness for duty requirements), prior to the actual inspection.

0 Normally, no more than one individual will be allowed to observe an NRC inspection,

• 0 The State will be responsible for determining the technical and

• professional competence of its representatives who accompany NRC inspectors.

0 An observer's co11111unication with the licensee will be through the appropriate NRC team member, usually the senior resident inspector or the team leader.

0 When informed of an unannounced inspection, a State must not release information concerning its time and purpose.

0 An observer will remain in the company of NRC personnel throughout the course of the inspection.

0 State observation may be terminated by the NRC if the observer's conduct interferes with a fair and orderly inspection.

0 An observer will not be provided with proprietary or safeguards information. Observers will not remove any material from the site without NRC or licensee approval.

0 The State observer, in accompanying the NRC inspectors, does so at his or her own risk. NRC will not be responsible for injuries or exposures to harmful substances which may occur to the accompanying individual during the inspection and will assume no liability for any incidents associated with the accompaniment.

19

0 The State observer will be expected to adhere to the same conduct as NRG inspectors during an inspection accompaniment.

0 If the State observer notices any apparent non-conformance with safety or regulatory requirements during the inspection, he/she will make those observations promptly known to the NRG team leader or lead inspector.

Likewise, when overall conclusions or views of the State observer are substantially different from those of the NRG inspectors, the State will advise the team leader or lead inspector and forward those views, in writing, to the NRG Region. This will allow NRG to take any necessary regulatory actions.

0 Under no circumstances should State communications regarding these inspections be released to the public or the licensee before they are reviewed by the NRG and the inspection report is issued. State corrmunications may be made publicly available, similar to NRG inspection reports, after they have been transmitted to and reviewed by NRG.

Adjacent State Protocol:

0 An adjacent State is a State within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) (within approximately a 10-mile radius) of an NRG-licensed facility located in another State. A host State is a State in which an NRG licensed facility is located. An adjacent State may request permission to observe NRG inspections at an NRG-licensed facility in a host State.

0 The adjacent State SLO must corrmunicate his/her request for observation to the Regional Administrator for the region in which the facility is located.

0 The adjacent State SLO must also communicate his/her request to the host State SLO so that each State is aware of the other's intentions.

20

0 If a host State and an adjacent State request observation of the same inspection, the Regional Administrator will make the final determination on the number of State observers who may attend the inspection. If there is a need to limit the number of observers, the Regional Administrator will routinely give preference to the host State observers.

0 Adjacent State observers will abide by the same protocol in all aspects of the i~spection as host States under this agreement.

Signature of State Observer Date QOCKET NUMBER 5 PROPOSED RULE PR O O )

New Hampshire (56 FK:'{ I '!~8/

DOU) Nf,f CKETED Ted C. Feigenbaum Yankee President and Chief Executive Officer

• 91 OCT 30 AH :j1 (j)

NYN-91171

October 25, 1991

Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

References:

(a) Facility Operating License No. NPF-86, Docket No. 50-443

(b) NRC Federal Register Notice of August 26, 1991 on a Proposed Amendment to Policy Statement

Subject:

Comments on the NRC's Proposed Amendment to its Policy on Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Production or Utilization Facilities

Gentlemen :

New Hampshire Yankee welcomes the opportunity to provide its input on the proposed amendment to the NRC policy.

New Hampshire Yankee has had a longstanding arrangement with our host State for pro.-viding them with timely information on operations and access to Seabrook Station for observation of important evolutions including NRC inspections. We have also just recently sign e d a protocol agreement with Massachus e tts, our adjacent State, for access to Station act1v1t1es. The host and adjacent state have an interest in the safe and efficient operation of Seabrook Station plant and NHY believes in providing them with reasonable access within the regulatory framework in which we exist. Thus we support the intent of the policy statement and the revision that extends access rights to adjacent states. We hope that the following comments contribute to the development of a policy that clearly sets forth the rights and responsibilities of all the parties involved.

Our most pressing concern with the language of the proposed policy is that there seems to be significant opportunities in it to misinterpret, or miss entirely, the distinction between the roles of host and adjacent states. The Discussion section of the notice makes clear that adjacent states should be limited to an observation role whereas a host state, under certain conditions, may actually participate in inspections. The Statement of Policy, however, does not explicitly state these distinctions and limits. Although the third sentence of th e third paragraph ( "State participation... ") do e s speak in terms of a host State ' s "participation " in inspections, presumably as opposed to "observation", the differing potential of the roles of host and adjacent states is still ambiguous in the full context of the policy statement. Similarly, under Implementation, the first sentence of the second paragraph states that the "NRC will consider state participation m inspections... " (emphasis added) without specifying that this refers to host states. DEC 3 Acknowledged by card ---nn*wcr::n,,,,. 0 1991

New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire P.O. Box 300

• Seabrook, NH 03874

• Telephone (603) 474 -9521 U.S NU CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SERVI E SECTION OF THE COMMl..,SIO~

PostmJrk Date _ 6 / CJ I Copies Rec.e:v*.*_ I _ _ _ _ ____ _

Add'I C *cs R0..,

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 25, 1991 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Page two

In a related comment, we believe that the State Protocol should make it very clear that where a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allows actual host State participation in inspections, or even unaccompanied inspections, the protocol for publicly releasing or commenting on the results should be the same as for State observations. It should not happen before review by the NRC and issuance of the NRC inspection report.

New Hampshire Yankee is also concerned over ambiguity in the language regarding the number of state inspectors from the host and adjacent states. The Discussion indicates that the number of observers should be limited to the number of NRC inspectors and that team inspections should normally have no more than one observer from each state. The second bullet of the State Protocol sets a norm of one observer per NRC inspection. This language could lead to misunderstandings. We believe the Statement of Policy should clearly set forth the NRC's expectations on the total number of observers from the host and adjacent States including the case where the host State is actually participating in the inspection.

We believe that State observation of routine inspections by the NRC Resident Inspectors should be limited to one individual from the host state. Many states, including Seabrook Station, have an individual onsite or frequently onsite who could coordinate this activity with the Resident Inspector through existing lines of communications. For other inspections, it is appropriate to have a maximum of one observer or inspector from the host state and one observer from an adjacent state. If the states feel additional observers are needed, this should be taken up as a special case.

We believe the State Protocol should clearly state that observers must obtain approval from the licensee as well as the NRC before removing any material from the site. This could be accomplished by simply having the observer formally submit a request for documents to th e licensee through the NRC. It is particularly important to have this spelled out clearly before an MOU is in place.

As a final comment, please note that Maine is not within the Seabrook EPZ and is therefore not an adjacent state. The State of Maine, therefore, should be deleted from the table listing adjacent states.

If you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to call Mr. T. L.

Harpster at (603) 474-9521, extension 2765.

Very truly yours,

TCF :JBH/ss United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 25, 1991 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Page three

cc: Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Mr. Gordon E. Edison, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Mr. Noel Dudley NRC Senior Resident Inspector P.O. Box 1149 Seabrook, NH 03874

Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DOGKt I NUMDCn pft 5 0 PROPOSED RULE '5" I:, F,e ij I '1 I, V

NEW YORK STATE ENERGY OFFICE * "L]'.{~1 )&~~*:~ ~s~~~ER

October 25, 1991 *91 OCT 29 1-\\1 0 :09 {f)

Mr. Frederick Combs Assistant Director for State, Local and Indian Relations State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Combs:

Attached is the response of the appropriate New York State government entities to the request for public comments on the NRC proposal to revise and amend its policy on Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nucle a r Production or Utilization Facilities (54 FR 7530).

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Sincerely, C:,'.; '

{v-ff J ~ l/_a,,,:.11 -~ '--

-, )

Eugene J. Gleason Deputy Commissioner for Operations

Attachments

cc: William D. Cotter Ralph Beedle (NYPA)

Larry Czech (SEMO) Charles Donaldson (DOL)

N. G. Kaul (DEC) Karim Rimawi (DOH)

John Roberts (DPS) Penny Rubin (DPS)

Sam Tilaro (DPS) Fred Haag (DPS)

Donald DeVito (SEMO) Tony Germano (SEMO)

Jim Baranski (SEMO) John Gibb (SEMO)

Donna Ross (SEO)

Acknowledged by card--~~.c, ~,~.. ~9~:,, **

TWO ROCKEFELLER PLAZA

• ALBANY, NEW YORK 12223 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING OFFICE OF THE SECRET & SERVICE SECTION ARY

OF THE COMMISSION

Document Statistics Postmark Oat -- r u rr, fr\\*, ~ cl L 1-nc:i'-'1 Copies Receiv1. j __ \\ - ~ ----

Add'I Copies R~p,/,~. d -=-3 _ __,,___,.-

Special Dls!nbt.:!1, 1' t> ~ S C ' "'-'bS RESPONSE OF NEW YORK STATE TO THE PROPOSED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AMENDMENT TO POLICY ON COOPERATION WITH STATES AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND OTHER PRODUCTION OR UTILIZATION FACILITIES (54FR 7530)

The New York agencies have reviewed the policy and proposed changes and support them.

The concept of allowing a State representative to observe NRC inspections at licensed facilities in adjacent states is meritorious. Allowing participation by states within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) of a nuclear facility could, at a minimum, enhance emergency planning efforts.

However, we believe that more can be accomplished by broadening the scope of the change. If the definition of "adjacent state" is expanded to include reciprocity for facilities further than the ten-mile radius around a plant and extends deeper into the ingestion pathway, perhaps up to a fifty-mile radius, it would be more beneficial to the observer.

Further, by encouraging even more openness in the inspection process, the NRC could help restore public confidence in its procedures. Thus, we recommend that the NRC study the possibility of including distances greater than the ten-mile plume exposure EPZ. now proposed.

Regarding the issue of revising the number of State observers of NRC inspections, New York supports broadening this as well so as to accommodate requests from individual states.

It should be noted that the New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) does not have the resources to participate in routine inspections for the in-state plants relating to emergency planning, therefore participating in those plant inspections out of state would not be a prudent use of existing limited technical staff.

SEMO also observes that the training requirements and the need to maintain those qualifications would not be cost effective in relation to the population served, since the area impacted by the Milestone plants is relatively small compared to the in-state populations around the plants located in New York State.

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL

1776 Eye Street, NW.

• Suite 300

• Washington, DC 20006-2496 ~s r 12 :Gs

[202) 872-1280 *91 nc T L

Jo e F. Colvin LCr,L i,..,

Executive Vice President & October 25, 1991 '-*..., r Chief Operating Officer j L...,.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Proposed Amendment to Policy Statement -Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 56 Fed. Reg. 41968 - August 26, 1991 and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities; Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

comments on its proposal to amend its Policy Statement, Cooperation with In a Federal Register notice dated August 26, 1991, the NRC solicited Utilization Facilities, that had been issued on February 22, 1989. These States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or comments are submitted by Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) ' to supplement the comments NUMARC submitted on July 13, 1988, in response to the NRC's request for comments on its Policy Statement, Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities (53 Fed. Reg. 21981 - June 13, 1988).

and in the amendments dealing with adjacent states, to provide opportunities We support the NRC's initiative, both in the current Policy Statement nuclear power plants and the NRC regulatory process. There are significant for state representatives to better understand the operations of commercial benefits to be gained from such a program, although, as the NRC has recognized, that must be balanced with the burden that will result on the NRC and its licensees.

responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by 'NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

Acknowledged by canr........ DEC 3 ______ _ 0 l991 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Doc u ment Statistics

Postmark Date / 6 {"5 /'f I Copies Received _ _, -...,,..----

Add'I Copies Re prod uced --~ - ~

Special Distribution~*,1>~ :P 1> R Co vn i? s I L ~,,8~ 7 I Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 25, 1991 Page 2

agreements with duly authorized state representatives as a mechanism to ensure In our previous comments, we encouraged the NRC to enter into formal that the complementary goals of the NRC and state agencies could be carried out effectively. This same principle should apply to establishing an appropriate relationship with adjacent states, which is the substance of the current amendments to the Policy Statement.

regulator. As we expressed in our comments on the initial Policy Statement, However, with respect to nuclear safety, there can be only one we are concerned that allowing state representatives, whether from a state in which a plant is located or an adjacent state within the plume exposure pathway, to conduct NRC inspections could result in a situation where a licensee could be subjected to dual, and perhaps conflicting, regulation by a state through this mechanism. Thus, we believe that it may be appropriate for the NRC to enter into an agreement with both a host and an adjacent state to allow technically qualified representatives of that state to observe specific matters, but we remain concerned if state representatives are allowed to carry inspections, consistent with their knowledge of radiological health and safety out NRC inspection responsibilities. We do believe that it is appropriate for the NRC and states to work together to coordinate the exercise of their complementary responsibilities, but that state representatives should not conduct NRC inspections.

operation under the Atomic Energy Act cannot be delegated, and we continue to The NRC's authority over commercial nuclear power plant construction and believe that there is no authority for the NRC to allow state representatives to conduct NRC inspection activities, even if it is presumed that such activities would be conducted in accordance with NRC standards, regulations Statement, we remain concerned that the implementation of this policy may have and procedures. Thus, although we understand the NRC's basis for its Policy could potentially compromise a licensee's responsibility to the NRC under its unintended results that could impose an undue burden on NRC licensees and license. We encourage the NRC to closely monitor the implementation of this Policy Statement to ensure that it is not misapplied or that unintended results occur.

and would be pleased to discuss our comments further with appropriate NRC We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NRC's Policy Statement staff personnel.

Sincerely,

-~H~h-L_~F. Colvin JFC/RWB:bjb DOCKET NUMBER VERMONT YANKEE PROPOSED RULE PR 5 o NUCLEAR POWER CORPORA TIO~ )J-i: (5bTR. '{/'f'~

Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301-7002 *91 OCT 25 P 4- : 1 5 BVY 91-106 @

REPLY TO E NG I N EE R ING OFF ICE t f * 'L

• _ I /' : r I

~l\\jl, 1\\, !

• t, ': t *,* - i: 580 MAIN STREET

' ** i- " BOLTON, MA 01740 (508) 779-6711 October 23, 1991

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary of the Commission Washington, DC 20555

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on NRC Proposed Amendment to Policy Statement Concerning Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

comment on the subject policy statement. Vermont Yankee is the owner and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation appreciates the opportunity to operator of a nuclear power plant located in the southern part of the State of Vermont and our Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) extends into two adjacent states, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

Vermont Yankee endorses the concept of the current policy of NRG communication and cooperation with State governments on issues relating to the regulation of commercial nuclear power plants. We are, however, concerned with the direction the Commission is contemplating with the implementation of the Proposed Policy Change.

Vermont Yankee encourages the process of open communications with members of adjacent States. However, we firmly believe that the host State deserves special consideration and, for this purpose, we have established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State of Vermont for the purpose of providing a mechanism to facilitate ongoing communications of both routine as well as off-normal situations. The state of Vermont also has a formal agreement with the NRC relating to state participation in inspection activities at the Vermont Yankee plant. Consistent with the MOU, we have established a position of State Liaison Engineer within Vermont Yankee whose role is to communicate daily and to meet weekly with the State of Vermont representatives.

Extending the courtesies presently afforded to host states to additional representatives of adjacent states will certainly increase the burden on the NRC and potentially diminish the effectiveness of NRG inspections as well as place an additional burden on plant staff and facilities.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION

Document Statistics

Postmark Cdle __ ) b_,__~___., ___ _

Copies Reocived_.__ _____ _

l\\dd'I. '.. Copies Reprodu VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 23, 1991 Page 2

This proposed change will, undoubtedly increase the time and effort of NRC personnel to train and interact with State Inspectors and result in unjustified additional cost billed to licensees. In addition, it is not difficult to foresee competition developing between host and neighboring state inspectors which could degrade the relationship between one of the states and the NRC or the Utility.

In conclusion, we urge the Commission to reconsider its proposed policy change and, continue to recognize the priorities of the host state and encourage the adjacent states to communicate with host state representatives on matters pertaining to the operation of host state nuclear power plants.

Very truly yours,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation

Warren P. M rphy -Ala- ~ IV) vV\\~

Senior Vice resident, pe ations

cc: USNRC Region 1 Administrator USNRC Resident Inspector - VYNPS USNRC Project Manager - VYNPS USNRC Document Control Desk D,~ C!(ET NU MB ER PR 5 0 PHILADELPIDA ELECTRIC COMPANY --,,.PROPOSED RULE (..... 5..... {, '"'!!!!F,_.J?._ 'f,.. J f tt}

NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS, f" :_ I i ;

955-65 CHESTERBROOK BL VD. u ) l'lt~C WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 (215) 640-6000 *91 OCT 24 P2 :38

1_ f

• 1 L ~ _ t,.,.,~..

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING & SERVICES DEPARTMENT ;:,uC;-,i, ;,,

• Octobe 'r \\ 112:1*; 1991

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Comments Concerning the Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR 50 Policy Statement, "Cooperation With States at Commercial Power Plants and Other Production and Utilization Facilities (56FR41968)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is being submitted in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) request for comments regarding the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50 Policy Statement, "Cooperation With State s at Commercial Power Plants and Other Production and Utilization Facilities, published in the Federal Register (56FR41968, dated August 26, 1991).

The Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to this Policy Statement which would permit State representatives to observe NRC inspections at licensed facilities in adjacent states. PECo fully supports the NRC's efforts regarding this issue.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

G. J. Beck Manager Licensing Section

Acknowledged by card................ DEC 3 0 1991,....... _

U.S. NUCLEAH REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION

Documert Sta!:st:cs

Postmark Date 6 ~ ~

Copies Received---'l'-------

'ldd'I Copies Reproduced 3 Special Distribution Pb R-"->- :R_ :l-_ 1 __

uvvl\\t I NUMBER

~ DEPARTMENT Pffif'ti ~l!K PR ~

4815 WEST MARKHAM STREET

• LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 (_ 5 t ff'<. c./ /

TELEPW :E AC 501 661-2000

BILL CLINTON M. JOYCELYN ELDERS, M.D.

GOVERNOR DIRECTOR

• 91 OCT 23 P 3 :43

1... F' IL~.... ::t 1_,r,t !,,ri *~

i1UCKt. ! N.; *, r.;, 'v'IU October 1, 1991 H.I\\NLli

Carlton Kammerer, Director State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

RE: SP-91-118

Dear Carlton :

The referenced document does not affect Arkansas as the 10-mile radius around Arkansas

Nuclear One does not go into any other state. Therefore, we have chosen not to review or

comment on the proposed policy change.

Sincerely,

\\ \\J;-') __

1ta J. Dicus, Director 1..0 Division of Radiation Control 0 and Emergency Management n { ~_)

~

I ~ -

I.O -*er, -~

--0.-

GJD :jp 3: -.

U1 -c..

c:,

CD

+10811 U.S. ~Ju'.:LEAR RE GULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET! G & SERVICE SECTION

OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION

Dvcument Statistics Postmark Date __ _ __ _ _ _

Copies ReCE;ved_.... _ _ __ _ _ _

Add'! Cooi'3S R produced _!i__ ___ _ _ _

Speclal Distribution C., o ;; \\,.s f.DR

, s L £-n d. "' 7

'DOCKET NUMBER PR r () PROPOSED RULE. ______ :7 __

October 7, 1991 (5t Fte. L/lf,g_) CD

COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, H fC-.. \\" OCRE") Ch;**~,

ON PROPOSE D AMENDMENT TO POLICY STATEMENT' "COOPE R:A'WJ Q, WIT H l lh Ni{ 'd-

STATES AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND OTHER NUCLEAR PRODUCTION OR UTILIZATION FACILITIES," 56 FED. REG. 41968, (AUGUST 26' 1991) *91 OCT 11 A11 :00 OCT 11 A1 1 :CE

OC RE supports this amendment to the policy sta ':t!fc*;:-~, ~ rit.*.. *Th ~ 's "~.;(*J~*'./-',t - *,~,,

proposed amendment would permit adjacent states as s01 "* ' 11, : < r r* y v1\\'- l t W-e ~ l 1:* as ost f*1.;Nt,1, 1 states to observe NRC inspections of nuclear power plants. An adjacent state is defined as a state within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of a nuclear facility located in another state.

OCRE agrees with the NRC that adjacent states should have the opportunity to observe NRC inspections. Since adjacent states a r e a s su b ject to t he ris ks pose d by the n uclear facility as the host states, they should have the same opportunities as the host states to participate in NRC regulatory activities for the purpose of minimizing such risks or becoming better prepared to mitigate the effects of accidents.

OCRE would propose this additional clarification to the definition of adjacent state: that an adjacent state is one which is within the plume exposure pathway EPZ or within a 10 mile radius of a nuclear facility located in another state.

This addition is necessary due to the periodic proposals to reduce the plume exposure pathway EPZ from its current 10 mile radius to some smaller area, perhaps as small as 2-5 miles or even limited to the site boundary. Shrinking the plume EPZ has been proposed by the vendors of advanced nuclear power plants, and has sometimes been suggested for operating plants, on the alleged technical basis of supposed reductions in the accident source term, although such suggestions are probably more motivated by political considerations (e.g., the Seabrook proposal to reduce the plume EPZ to 2 miles during the operating license proceeding, to avoid the obstacle presented by the refusal of Massachusetts to participate in the plans, and the general adverse public relations effects of highly visible emergency planning measures around nuc le ar f a c ili t i es).

Participation of adjacent states in NRC programs could provide an additional political motivation to the industry for shrinking the EPZ. While OCRE believes that there is no technical basis at this time for reducing the plume EPZ, and there probably never will be, due to the potential for deliberate defeat of plant accident mitigation systems through sabotage or terrorist attack, it is prudent to remove the potential political motivation throu g h the revised definition proposed herein. Regardless of what the industry or NRC may claim to be the appropriate plume EPZ size in the future, any state within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant has a undenia b le

1 Acknowledged by card...°~~ _3 O, 1~1....

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY & SERVICE SECTION

OF THE COMMISSION

Document Statistics

Postmark Date - ~b'-f-""'-+~----

Copies Rece ived._ / _ ____, __ ___ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced __ _ __ _

Special Distribution_,___ D_ f?~ -~T-~_ s L,t> hi.bl La: nJ e..,

interest in participating in NRC activities regarding that plant. The policy statement should clearly establish this fact.

OCRE is pleased that the NRC's experiences to date with stat e observations have been positive and successful. Licensees have likewise not been burdened. The protocol agreement should minimize any burden on either the NRC or the licensees.

Consequently, there should be no reasonable objections from any party to this proposed policy statement amendment.

In conclusion, this excellent proposal can only work to the benefit of all concerned parties. It should be adopted without delay. The NRC's policy statement on cooperation with states is a very positive response to the legitimate concerns of states regarding the hazards of nuclear facilities. The NRC is to be c o mm end e d for its co o p erative ap p roach in this matte r.

• Respectfully submitted,

Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158

2 DOCKET NUMBER PR ro PROPOSED RULE~_..;.. :;) __

(5~,;,e '{ff(,,cf_,) [7590-01]

uL r.L; Li: USNi C

• 91 n uG 21 P 2 :o 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities; Policy Statement

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Amendment to Policy Statement.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seeks public comment on its proposal to revise and amend its Policy on Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Production or Utilization Facilities (54 FR 7530; February 22, 1989). The policy statement would

- allow State representatives to observe NRC inspections at licensed facilities in adjacent States. "Adjacent States 11 are defined as States within the plume explosure pathway (within approximately a 10-mile radius) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of a licensed facility in another State.

DATES: The comment period expires ( 60 days from date of notice).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration is given only for comments filed on or before that date.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Combs, Assistant Director for

- State, Local and Indian Relations, State Programs, Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 492-0325.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DISCUSSION

On February 22, 1989 (54 FR 7530), the Comm1ss1on published the policy statement "Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities." The policy statement was intended to provide a uniform basis for NRC/State cooperation as it relates to the regulatDry oversight of corrnnercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear production or utilization facilities. The policy statement allows State officials to accompany NRC on inspections and, under certain circumstances, enables States to enter into instruments of cooperation which would allow States to participate in NRC inspection activities.

NRC has received a request from the Corrunonwealth of Massachusetts for a copy of NRC's inspection plans for the Seabrook and Vermont Yankee plants, which would enable Massachusetts to observe NRC inspections of licensees in the adjacent States of Vermont and New Hampshire.

The inspection plan request has prompted this proposed revision in NRC's policy. In the "Summary of Comments and NRC Response" section of the published policy, NRC indicated "... After the Commission has gained some practical experience in implementing the present policy which is limited to cooperation between NRC and 'host' States, i.e., States in which an

NRC licensed facility is located, the Conunission may reconsider the question of whether and to what extent the policy statement should be broadened to encompass cooperative arrangements between NRC and 'adjacent' States 11 (54 FR 7530; February 22, 1989). NRC believes it is now

appropriate to broaden the policy to permit a representative from an

11 adjacent 11 State, (i.e., a State within the plume exposure pathway

emergency planning zone [within approximately a 10-mile radius] of an

- tlRC-licensed facility located in another State) as well as a representative from a "host" State, to observe NRC inspections.

Most of the inspection observation activities to date have taken place in the Northeastern States. Observations, or accompaniments, take place after the NRC and the State sign a protocol agreement (Appendix A) which establish certain commitments on the part of the NRC and the State to be met during the course of the inspection activity. States that have protocol agreements in place for observation activities at nuclear power plants within their borders are: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Illinois and Ohio. Other States not only observed, but participated to some degree, in NRC inspections before the policy statement was established. These States - Illinois, Oregon, Washington and Pennsylvania - have Memoranda of Understanding with NRC for participation in NRC inspections. This revision does not affect those States with current participation agreements with NRC, nor would it affect those States who desire to enter into these agreements in the future. This

revision addresses only the issue of adjacent States seeking to observe NRC inspections at a licensed facility in another State. The Commission does not feel it has enough experience with participation agreements in host States to expand this arena to adjacent States.

The State observations arranged to date have been successful. States have broadened their knowledge of power plant operations and NRC inspection functions and activities. Verbal feedback from the States involved in these inspections has been positive. Generally, these inspections have not been disruptive or inefficient and no licensee has reported being overburdened with the added presence of the State representative.

State observations of NRC inspections over the past few years may have assisted State officials in gaining confidence that their concerns regarding plant activities were being addressed. Further, State involvement in observation of inspections in Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New York and Colorado seemed to allow the State to gain a better understanding of the NRC process and of how the issues raised by the States were being evaluated by NRC.

The only experience gained in adjacent State interactions involved Pennsylvania and Maryland officials during the Peach Bottom restart from March of 1987 until the end of the Philadelphia Electric Company's (PEC0 1 s) power ascension program in 1989. Officials from both States obtained access to the Peach Bottom site through arrangements with PECO.

Both States signed agreements with the NRC to be involved in NRC actions associated with restart; State officials observed NRC inspections, attended meetings of the restart panel and were routinely briefed by the NRC staff. Both then commented on the PECO Commitment to Excellence program. These cooperative efforts were considered successful by all parties involved.

The following list of host States and adjacent States (within the plume exposure emergency planning zone) along with these NRC-licensed facilities could be affected by the proposed policy revision:

PLANT STATE ADJACENT STATE(S)

BEAVER VALLEY PA OH,WV CATAWBA SC NC COOPER NE MO FARLEY AL GA FT. CALHOUN NE IA GRAtm GULF MS LA HOPE CREEK NJ DE MILLSTONE CT NY PEACH BOTTOM PA MD P RA IRE ISLAND MN WI QUAD CITIES IL IA

PLANT STATE ADJACENT STATE(S)

SALEM NJ DE SEABROOK NH MA,ME TROJAN OR WA VERMONT YANKEE VT MA,NH YANKEE ROWE MA VT ZION IL WI

A total of 17 utilities and 26 States could be affected by the proposed policy revision.

NRC proposes limiting adjacent States' observation to those States within the plume exposure pathway EPZ because: (1) a limit had to be set to allow NRC Regional Offices to manageably handle requests to observe which might be made by host States and adjacent States; (2) the plume exposure pathway EPZ was determined to be that area requiring possible immediate action in the event of an accident in order to reduce risk to the public.

It is unlikely that any immediate protective actions would be required beyond the plume exposure pathway EPZ. Therefore, States with the most critical response efforts during emergency situations, and those with more immediate public health and safety risks, should be allowed to observe NRC inspections. These States could therefore become more familiar with plant safety issues.

Another issue associated with the proposed revision to the policy is limiting the number of State observers of NRC inspections and meetings.

Although the present 11 Protocol Agreement for State Observations of NRC Inspections, 11 Appendix A, allows for only one observer under normal conditions, arrangements could be made for two observers (one from each State) to attend an tlRC inspection. NRC has already had experiences with more than one State observer on special team inspections and no problems have been identified.

For example, during the Peach Bottom Integrated Assessment Team Inspection (IATI) to assess restart readiness (November 1988), both Maryland and Pennsylvania sent an observer to the inspections. Additionally, members of the Pennsylvania Governor's Internal Review Group for Peach Bottom provided input into the development of the IATI plan.

As usual, requests from States to observe an NRC inspection should originate from the Governor-appointed State Liaison Officer (SLO) to the appropriate NRC Regional office. When an adjacent State requests to be permitted to observe an inspection, the adjacent State SLO should also inform the host State SLO of the request so that both States are aware of the other's activities. This provision is set forth in the enclosed version of the protocol agreement, Appendix A. Should the adjacent State not be able to attend the observation, arrangements may be made by the

Region and the host State for information related to the inspection to be passed on to the adjacent State. The release of such information would be controlled by the protocol agreement.

Every effort would be made by NRC to minimize the effect on NRC or licensee resources. There is also a possibility that States would coordinate observations and share information in an effort to conserve State resources. The number of observers should be limited to the number of NRC inspectors. Team inspections should normally have no more than one observer from each State. When there is a conflict, preference would be given to the host State for routine inspections, but the NRC Regional Administrator should make the final determination as to whether more than one State observer should be involved in the inspection.

Under this proposal, the protocol agreement in Appendix A would be

- revised to accommodate a request from an adjacent State, strongly encourage communication with the host State, and give preference to the host State should a conflict exist. An adjacent State would be subject to the same protocol for technical competence, behavior, access, information withholding, etc., as a host State.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following

amenarr.ents to the final policy statement on 11 Cooperation With States at Connnercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities 11 (54 FR 7530 February 22, 1989).

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT

• This ~olicy statement amends information collection requirements that

are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.:. This policy statement has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated

- to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the aata needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of infor~ation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connnission, Washington, D.C. 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOE-3019, (3150- ), Office of f1anagement and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY STATEMENT

In Section III, Statement of Policy (54 FR 7530 at 7538, February 22, 1989), the final sentence in the second paragraph is revised to read as follows:

Additionally, at the State 1 s request, representatives from a State in which the NRC-licensed facility is located (the host State) and from a State within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) - [within approximately a ten-mile radius] - of an will be able to observe specific inspections and/or inspection NRC-licensed facility located in another State (the adjacent State) entrance and exit meetings where State representatives are knowledgeable in radiological health and safety matters.

In Section III, Statement of Policy (54 FR 7530 at 7538, February 22, 1989), the third sentence in the third paragraph is revised to read as follows:

State participation in NRC programs would allow qualified State representatives from States in which an NRC-licensed facility is specific inspection activities in accordance with NRC standards, located, either individually or as a member of a team, to conduct regulations, and procedures in close cooperation with the NRC.

In Section IV, Implementation (54 FR 7530 at 7538, February 22, 1989),

the fifth and final sentences in the first paragraph are revised to read as follows:

observers any public meeting between the NRC and its applicants and Host State or adjacent State representatives are free to attend as licensees.

Requests from host States and adjacent States to observe inspections and/or inspection entrance and exit meetings conducted by the NRC require the approval of the appropriate Regional Administrator.

The full text of the Policy Statement with proposed new wording is reprinted below.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this L.,,\\ "1 day of O\\°{u*~, 1991.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

k ~

the Commission

APPENDIX A

Protocol Agreement for State Observation of NRC Inspections

NRC Protocol:

0 The Regional State Liaison Officer (RSLO) will normally be the lead individual responsible for tracking requests for State observation, assuring consistency regarding these requests, and for advising the Regional Administrator on the disposition of these requests. The appropriate technical representative or Division Director will corrnnunicate.,.,ith the State on specific issues concerning the inspection(s).

0 Requests for observations of Headquarters-based inspections will also be coordinated through the RSLO. Headquarters-based inspections should be referred through the RSLO to a technical representative designated by the Region.

0 NRC will process written requests to the Regional Administrator

through the State Liaison Officer (SLO). Requests should identify the type of inspection activity and facility the State \\*1ishes to observe.

0 Limits on scope and duration of the observation period may be imposed if, in the view of the Regional Administrator, they compromise the efficiency or effectiveness of the inspection.

Regions should use their discretion as to which, if any, inspections will be excluded from observations.

0 States will be informed they must not release information concerning the time and purpose of unannounced inspections.

0 The Region will make it clear to the licensee that the State views are not necessarily endorsed by NRC. The Region will also make it clear that only NRC has regulatory authority for inspection findings and enforcement actions regarding radiological health and safety.

State Protocol:

0 A State ~ill make advance arrangements with the licensee for site access training and badging (subject to fitness for duty requirements), prior to the actual inspection.

0 Normally, no more than one individual will be allowed to observe an

NRC inspection.

C The State will be responsible for determining the technical and

professional competence of its representatives who accompany NRC inspectors.

0 An observer's communication with the licensee will be through the appropriate NRC team member, usually the senior resident inspector or the team leader.

0 When informed of an unannounced inspection, a State must not release information concerning its time and purpose.

0 An cbserver will remain in the company of NRC personnel throughout the course of the inspection.

0 State observation may be terminated by the NRC if the observer's conduct interferes with a fair and orderly inspection.

0 An observer will not be provided with proprietary or safeguards information. Observers will not remove any material from the site without t:RC approval.

C The State observer, in accompanying the NRC inspectors, does so at his or her own risk. NRC will not be responsible for injuries or exposures to harmful substances which may occur to the accompanying individual during the inspection and will assume no liability for any incidents associated with the accompaniment.

0 The State observer will be expected to adhere to the same conduct as

NRC insoectors during an inspection accompaniment.

C, If the State observer notices any apparent non-conformance with safety or regulatory requirements during the inspection, he/she will make those observations promptly known to the NRC team leader or lead inspector. Likewise, when overall conclusions or views of the State observer are substantially different from those of the NRC inspectors, the State will advise the team leader or lead inspector and forward those views, in writing, to the NRC Region. This will

allow NRC to take any necessar~' regulatory actions.

0 Under no circumstances should State communications regarding these inspections be released to the public or the licensee before they are reviewed by the NRC and the inspection report is issued. State corrnnunications may be made publicly available, similar to NRC inspection reports, after they have been trans~itted to and reviewed by NRC.

Adjacent State Protocol:

0 An adjacent State is a State within the plume exposure pathway

emergency planning zone (EPZ) (within approximately a 10 mile radius) of an NRC-licensed facility located in another State. A host State is a State is which an NRC-licensed facility is located.

An adjacent State may request permission tc observe NRC inspections at an NRC-licensed facility in a host State.

0 The adjacent State SLO must communicate his/her request for observation to the Regional Administrator for the region in which the facility is located.

0 The adjacent State SLO must also corranunicate his/her request to the host State SLO so that each State is aware of the other 1 s intentions.

0 If a host State and an adjacent State request observation of the same inspection, the Regional Administrator will make the final determination on the number of State observers who may attend the inspection. If there is a need to limit the number of observers, the Regional Administrator will routinely give preference to the host State observers.

0 Adjacent State inspectors will abide by the same protocol in all aspects of the inspection as host States under this agreement.

Signature of State Observer Date Statement of Policy

It is the NRC's policy to cooperate fully v1ith State governments as they seek to respond to the expectati0ns of their citizens that their health and safety be protected and that there be minimal impact on the environment as a result of activities licensed by the NRC. The NRC and the States have complementary responsibilities in protecting public health and safety and the environment. Furthermore, the NRC is committed to the full and timely disclosure of matters affecting the public and to the fair and uniform handling of all agency interactions with the States, the public, and NRC licensees.

Accordingly, the NRC will continue to keep Governor-appointed State Liaison Officers routinely informed on matters of interest to the States.

The tlRC will respond in a timely manner to a State's requests for

- information and its recommendations concerning matters within the NRC's regulatory jurisdiction. If requested, the NRC will routinely inform State Liaison Officers of public meetings between NRC and its licensees and applicants in order that State representatives may attend as observers. Additionally, at the State's request, representatives from a State in which the NRC-licensed facility is located (the host State) and from a State within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone

[EPZJ (within approximately a 10-mile radius) of an NRC-licensed r,

-c.-

facility located in another State (the adjacent State) will be able to observe specific inspections and/or inspection entrance and exit meetings where State representatives are knowledgeable in radiological health and safety matters.

The Commission recognizes that the involvement of qualified State representatives in NRC radiological health and safety programs has the

• potential for providing additional safety benefit. Therefore, the NRC will consider State proposals to enter into instruments of cooperation for State participation in inspections and inspection entrance and exit meetings. State participation in NRC programs would allow qualified State representatives from States in which an NRC-licensed facility is located, either individually or as a member of a team, to conduct specific inspection activities in accordance with NRC standards, regulations. and procedures in close cooperation with the NRC. State

- activities will normally be conducted under the oversight of an authorized NRC representative with the degree of oversight dependent upon the activity involved. In the proposal to enter into an instrument of cooperation, the State must identify those activities for which cooperation with the NRC is desired. The State must propose a program that: (1) recognizes the Federal Government, primarily NRC, as having the exclusive authority and responsibility to regulate the radiological and national security aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities, except for certain authority over air emissions granted to States by the Clean Air Act; (2) is in accordance with Federal standards and regulations; (3) specifies

minimum education, experience, training, and qualifications requirements for State representatives which are patterned after those of NRC inspectors; (4) contains provisions for the findings of State representatives to be transmitted to NRC for disposition; (5) would not impose an undue burden on the NRC and its licensees and applicants; and (6) abides by NRC protocol not to publicly disclose inspection findings prior to the release of the NRC inspection report.

• Consistent with secticn 274c of the Act, the NRC will not consider State

proposals for instruments of cooperation that*do not include the elements listed above, which are designed to ensure close cooperation and consistency with the NRC inspection program. As a practical matter, the NRC is concerned that independent State inspection programs could direct an applicant's or licensee's attention to areas not consistent with NRC safety priorities, misinterpret NRC safety requirements, or give the

- perception of dual regulation. For purposes of this policy statement, an independent State inspection program is one in which State representatives would conduct inspections and assess NRC-regulated activities on a State's own initiative and authority without close cooperation with, and oversight by, an authorized NRC representative.

Instruments of cooperation between the MRC and the States, approved prior to the date of this policy statement will continue to be honored by the NRC. The NRC strongly encourages those States holding these agreements to consider modifying them, if necessary, to bring them into conformance vdth the provisicns of this policy statement.

Implementation

As provided in the policy statement the NRC will routinely keep State Liaison Officers informed on matters of interest to the States. In general, all State requests should come from the State Liaison Officer to the appropriate NRC Regional Office. The NRC will make every effort to respond as fully as possible to all requests from States for information

• on matters concerning nuclear production or utilization fccility sa-fety within 30 days. The NRC will work to achieve a timely response to State recommendations relating to the safe operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities. Host State or adjacent State representatives are free to attend as observers any public meeting between the NRC and its applicant~ and licensees. The appropriate Regional Office will routinely inform State Liaison Officers of the scheduling of public meetings upon request. Requests from host States and adjacent States to observe inspections and/or inspection entrance and exit meetings conducted by the NRC require the approval of the appropriate Regional Administrator.

NRC will consider State participation in inspections and the inspection entrance and exit meetings, where the State-proposed agreement identifies the specific inspections they wish to assist MRC with and provides a program containing those elements as described in the policy statement.

NRC may develop inspection plans along with qualified State representatives using applicable procedures in the NRC Inspection Manual.

Qualified State representatives may be permitted to perform inspections in cooperation with, and on behalf of, the NRC under the oversight of an

-authorized NRC representative. The degree of oversight provided would depend on the activity. For instance, State representatives may be accompanied by an NRC representative initially, in order to assess the State inspectors' preparedness to conduct the inspection individually.

Other activities may be conducted as a team with NRC taking the lead.

All enforcement action will be undertaken by the NRC.

The Commission will deciae policy matters related to agreements proposed under this policy statement. Once the Commission has decided the policy on a specific type of agreement, similar State-proposed agreements may be approved, consistent with Commission policy, by the Executive Director for Operations in coordination with the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs. A State-proposed instrument of cooperation will be documented in a formal MOU signed by NRC and the State.

Once the NRC has decided to enter into an MOU for State involvement in NRC inspections, a formal review, not less than six months after the effective date, will be perfor~ed by the NRC to evaluate implementation of the MOU and resolve any problems identified. Final agreements will be subject to periodic reviews ard may be amended or modified upon written agreement by both parties and may be terminated upon 30 days written notice by either party.

Additionally, once State involvement in NRC activities at a nuclear production or utilization facility is approved by the NRC, the State is responsible for meeting all requirements of an NRC licensee and applicant related to personal safety and unescorted access of State representatives at the site.