ML23156A144

PR-MISC Notice - 51FR41172 - Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs: Proposed General Statement of Policy

ML23156A144
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/13/1986
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-MISC. NOTICE, 51 FR41172
Download: ML23156A144 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 11/13/1986 PR-MISC. NOTICE-51FR41172 - EVALUATION OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS:

PROPOSED GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY PR-MISC. NOTICE 51 FR41172 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEAL TH SERVICE§? FEB -3 A10 :48 Donald A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director Office of State Programs Olympia, Washin,?ton 98504-0095 January 9, 1987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dear

• The purpose of this *1etter is to respond to the November 13, 1986 notice in the Federal Register concerning the evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs:

Proposed General Statement of Policy.

This letter is a followup to our July 17, 1986 comments on this same subject.

We are disappointed that in the current version of the policy statement, the "staffing level" indicator is no longer proposed as a Category 1 issue, a condition we suggested was appropriate in July.

We had also suggested, and we believe with good reason, that either separate or additional staffing guidelines should be provided for states with low-level waste disposal sites.

While there are currently only three states with disposal sites, the Low-Level Waste Policy Act and its amendments could result in eight or more additional disposal sites in states where staffing guidelines from you might be very beneficial.

Finally, we believe it would be to our advantage to have more clearly defined the current staffing guideline of 1.0-1.5 program staff per 100 active licensees.

It is never clear what kind of staff time is included 6'i tiie gut~ 1!! applied.

Is the time spent evaluating fees or promulgating fee regulations included?

Is the time spent in the general administrative duties of a radiation control program included?

The specificity would help us, and, we believe, the other Agreement States.

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

1.

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

2.

Page 41174, center column, one-fourth of the way down; administrative and procedures have been misspelled.

3.

Page 41174, right column, one-fourth of the way down; the word 11 identify 11 should be inserted to make the sentence read "... revisions were made to the guideline to more clearly identify essential elements the reports should contain."

FEB 5 1987 cknowtedged by card ***,:;:;;,,,, *,, * *,'iiil

Donald A. Nussbaumer Page Two

4.

Page

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

5.

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

6.

Page 41176, center column, in the first full paragraph; the mis-abbrevia-tion PCP is again used.

7.

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

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

8.

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

More correctly, professional staff should not be "used... "

9.

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

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

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

10.

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

11.

Page 41179, center column, one-fourth of the way down; "The compliance supervisor.... should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and assure application of appropiate (rather than appropriations)...

11 TRS:kf S~ly, V- ;'~Chief Offf~:s~;otdi~tion Protection

TERRY R. LASH DIRECTOR STATE OF ILLIN0IS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE SPRINGFIELD 62704 (217) 546-8100 January 20, 1987 Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 "87 FEB - 2 A11 :50 OFF!

OC !-<

Re:

Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs:

Proposed General Statement of Policy; 51 Federal Register 41172 - 41180 (Nov. 13, 1986).

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IONS) hereby submits its comments on the above-identified proposal concerning evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

IONS is the lead state agency for the regulation of radioactive materials and assuring radiation protection in Illinois.

The State of Illinois is currently in the process of entering into an agreement with the Commission.

Pursuant to the agreement proposed by Governor James R. Thompson on October 3, 1986, IONS will become the state agency responsible for agreement state functions.

First, IONS believes that "Status and Compatibility of Regulations" should not be lumped into one "Category 1 Indicator." While the compatibility of regulations is, and should remain, a Category 1 Indicator, status of the regulations is more appropriately a "Category 2 Indicator." Since administrative mechanisms which would allow protection of health and safety are available to the states while regulatory changes are pending, the lack of regulations need not directly affect public health and safety. Rather, the status of regulations is an element which could lead to Category 1 problems if not adequately maintained.

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

~,SS7fl

~

71/

I LJ/1-z/1

• _,,. +/-'3)1)00 NOISSl~vttUJ Aau-.1. -v 1110:J~ oV3'1:5hN *s "fl NOi~ Iv,,.J

~ c.,, 1~11N *s*n eventually circulates this model for the states to use when promulgating their own regulations.

The CRCPO process is time consuming and would not allow compliance with the proposed three-year requirement.

IONS believes, therefore, that the only way states can meet the three year requirement and have regulations which are consistent with those of other states is if the process for developing model regulations is shortened.

The most direct way to shorten this process is for the NRC staff to recommend draft language.

Third, in the course of considering Illinois' application for becoming an Agreement State, the Commission has stated that it is considering 11whether continued NRC regulation of the Allied Chemical Plant is necessary in the interest of the common defense and security of the United States" (52 Fed.

Reg. 626; Jan. 7, 1987).

If the Commission is going to evaluate state-racfiation programs for something other than their adequacy to protect the public health and safety and their compatibility with NRC programs, the guidelines should be amended.

Specifically, the guidelines should establish what criteria the NRC will use when determining whether a state's program is inadequate because of threats it may pose to the common defense and security of the United States.

If the proposed policy statement is to be a useful tool for states attempting to establish or maintain effective radiation control programs, it must address all the issues which the Commission considers when evaluating such programs.

Last, IONS notes that the NRC's evaluation of Agreement State radiation control programs should be realistic. It seems appropriate that state programs, in addition to being evaluated against the ambitious criteria established in the NRC guidelines, be compared to the NRC's program.

It would appear possible that some state programs which the NRC could find to be inadequate under the guidelines would still be better than the NRC's programs.

For example, the NRC guidelines recommend operating a program at a level of between 1 and 1.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) per one hundred licensees. But the NRC Region III licensing program, which would be transferred to IONS upon Illinois' entering into a Section 274 Agreement with the Commission, operates with a staffing level of only 0.7 FTE.

Thus, an Agreement State's radiation program which might be considered by NRC to be "inadequate" because it fails to meet the criteria, may in fact be more likely to protect the public health and safety than the NRC's programs.

IONS generally believes that the Proposed General Statement of Policy is an improvement.

The benefits of issuing such a policy statement will be increased, however, if the Commission incorporates the suggestions which the Department has outlined above.

t Lash TRL:bps

Commonwealth Edison uOCl(lT iULi PR-M,'5e,, J/4/ict_,, ~

One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois

/ I::'/ r:=11 41 /" IJ )

~

Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 L d ' 11'-..

I,<,,/

Chicago, Illinois 60690 - 0767

) '

'87 JAN 27 P 2 :QQ Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rules and Procedures Branch Washington, D.C.

20555 January 13, 19

Subject:

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

Dear Mr. Chilk:

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

("NRC" or "Commission") request for views on establishing an objective performance indicator system for materials licensees.

Edision's interest in such indicators is twofold:

first, Edison's fossil stations have many sources which will become subject to regulation by Illinois once it becomes an Agreement State; and second, certain indicators for measuring licensee conformance with state regulations will be equally suitable for measuring licensee conformance with NRC regulations.

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

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

To be meaningful, the reasons for total exposure must also be considered, e.g. the extent of refueling outage work during the measurement period and the distribution of individual exposures must be factored in.

This example suggests that for objective performance indicators to be meaningful, they must be related to specific aspects of regulatory compliance such as the number and extent of any occupational overexposures.

Beyond that, as a general matter, performance indicators should also satisfy the criteria enumerated by the NRC staff in SECY-86-317.

Finally, because objective indicators FEB 2 1981 cknowied ed by caret.......... *~-........

I U S-N,C,l.

l tON 0 0, 1

u I

Po

(.,()

I A

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 January 13, 1987 could significantly affect nuclear regulation, Edison believes that such indicators should be developed by a measured process similar to that used to develop the safety goals.

s1d~~-

D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing

u

-M;sc. Alo-l:c,e_;(&

9k &~nt,

( ::i I

/ 7z)~~fA~ll),

g~ 01/lce o/ ~

._/~

~~

o/q/)<<Mc ~

Bailus Walker, Jr., Ph.D.,M.P.H.

COMMISSIONER Second Floor Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration 1soqj"~J~

f?l3o&hn 02111 Tel:

J a nu a ry 1 3, 19 8 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC.

20555 Gentlemen:

727-6214

-"Tl g::,

~

C-

i::o (lit

z

z

°'

--0 w

~

VI

\:.*

-: ' ~*-

We have reviewed the proposed revisions to the NRC Policy statement on the Evaluation of Agreement state Radiation Control Programs.

We feel the revisions will serve to strengthen the Agreement State Radiation Control Programs as well as reinforce the existing regulatory authority of Radiation Control Programs.

We support the NRC's efforts to achieve standards and program proce-dures compatible nationwide with its own program.

such uniformity will help to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safe_ty.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

RMH/bb

~-------- ---*--- * -

~ely, Y::::~t1/2 /,k,£1/2 Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program.

Ac rt

,~

t' NOiD :, J)I a:i J

'd S FJOISSIWWO) A '01, Hl:)_~

J

ilOClil ****pR-M1'3C.-. A1df;ce_

NORTH DAKOTA lllfH'PMD 9ll'L

--:;, ')

(!)

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH(5/ Frl, 4 //'7~/

State Capitol Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 December 24, 1986

• a7 JAN 13 A11 :39 OFF;.

ooc~: 11,*.

1 v,,

Rules and Procedures Branch

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

20555 Gentlemen:

ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH SECTION 1200 Missouri Avenue Box 5520 Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-5520 The Radiation Control Program of the North Dakota State Depart-ment of Health has reviewed the proposed revisions to the NRC Policy Statement for Review of Agreement State Programs {51 FR 41172).

Based on our review, this Department has no objections to the proposed revisions.

~:~_ely, C:::/ /./)/ J J_

<-t7 /V?A.;'t{__ __ /-. - 7 / ~

Dana K. Mount, P.E.

Director, Division of Environmental Engineering DKM/S PC: saj Environmental Enforcement 701-224-3234 Environmental Engineering 701-224-2348 Hazardous Waste Management & Special Studies 701-224-2366 Water Supply &

Pollution Control 701-224-2354

U.S. NUCLEA P

Post Cop Ad ' 1

$ cial CK!= ' 1C 0

C MMISSIO~

'CTION.

,Y

~

tl08D

'W)PQMQ

- f

.{. i 3C.

{51 :c~ 4117-2 GENERAL. ELECTRIC NEUTRON DEVICES DEPARTMENT GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY* P.O. BOX 2908

• LARGO FLORIDA 34294-2908

'87 JAN 13 A11 :39 December 4, 1986 Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION TO GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY ON EVALUATION OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAMS Since the last major revision of the policy statement was in 1981, considera-tion should be given to the changes in economic climate that have occurred during the past five years.

The last revision was promulgated before the current [Reagan] era of fiscal restraint in Federal and particularly State government.

As a result, the growing problem of funding of State RCPs is not adequately addressed.

Although most or all State programs may meet the minimum Category I requirements as written, underpay and understaffing are widely recognized within the Health Physics community as significant problems affect-ing all aspects of Agreement State RCPs.

I have no doubt that should a study be necessary, all of the pertinent data needed to support this assertion are either already in the possession of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or are easily obtainable.

As a certified Health Physicist and as someone who cares about the protection of licensees and the public, I

propose the following solution:

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

Robert A. Burkhart Advanced Health Physicist Mail Stop 040 RAB:go 1301A A PRIME CONTRACTOR FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Ei:,lERGY JAN 15 1987 ACIUIOfrlacllad by card ***,,, ;;,,, ** """,.W

bso';

IJSNRC JOC<<ET Nlll.l8£1

? /;3 -

eso.eos.EP RUI.E PR-H;~e /JtJ1i~{[)

{SIP/!, 4/I~

/0, l/,1 d ~L-Jl.. s

(~ */

Washington D. C. 20555 Dear Mr. Secretary; Please accept the following letter as my comments on the Proposed Rule: Evaluation of Agreement State Radiation Programs: Proposed General Statement of Policy.

The proposed revision is lengthy and I shall only comment generally to minimize the length of my comments.

The farce and the unfairness of the NRC~s Agreement State Policy has recently affected the State of Pennsylvania. How the NRC has infiltrated the State of Pennsylvania, with no agreement state status, to take much of the responsibility of agreement state status without a

he legislative budgeting and little e:-:perienced manpc,wer reads W ike something out of Michiavelli.

Recently, the outgoing Governor Thornburgh signed a memo of understanding with the NRC which allows the State of Pennsylvania to much of what an agreement state would be regulating.

The Pennsylvania Legislature passed a budget without any funding for these responsibilities as they were uninformed of the consequences or even of the existence of the MOU.

The State Of Pennsylvania has only one nuclear engineer. The radiation department of the Department of Environmental Resources has few people and many are public relations and not technical people. If Governor Casey does not see the budgetary implications in a timely fashion and cancel this MOU, Pennsylvania taxpayers will get another unlovely surprise. The question of whether Pennsylvania can gear up to this responsibility in a timely fashion to protect its citizens' health and safety hasn,t come up e t-Policy is a moot question when unfair practices are used to circumvent the spirit as well as the letter of the policy.

R~~ul;,~:t:tiY,' ~~

M/4i n I. Lewis

/U' 7801 Roosevelt Blvd.# 2 Phila. PA 19152 (215)624 1574

• Wd.. ~~.l1.!!R

• J 5 NU$'.'.l DOCK OF D

I I 1J; ~6.r'4.u,,,,~

oaD' ***pR *k/1,,.. -

• I I.

I.ROP.QKD 81111

...:,.,.,~

f\J(Jtl~

(?1 Fl, 4l17i.)

Evaluation of Agreement State Radi ation Proposed General Statement of Policy AGENCY:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission.

ACTION:

Proposed revision to general statenent of policy.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to revise its general stater.ient of policy, 11Guirlelines for NRC Relfiew of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs, 11 December 4, 1981.

The proposed revision to the Guidelines which was prepared by the NRC staff incorporate minor changes to the introduction, the indicators and the guidelines for acceptable practice by Agreement States.

The statP.ment of policy informs the public of the indicators anrl guirlelines which the ConT.1ission uses in reviewing Agreenent State radiation control program~.

The Corrrnission believes that the revisions are needed anrl is requesting comments on them.

The Commission is also requesting cornrnent on the feasibility of developing a set of objective performance indicators for various materials licensees.

DATES:

Conments are due on or before January

~, 1987.

ADDRESSES:

~Jri tten corir.ents ma_v be subni tted to the Rules anc!

Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Ad111inistration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Cements may also be delivered to Room 4000, Maryland National Bank Building, Bethesde., Maryl;rnd from 8:15 c1.r1. to 5:00 p.m. Monday 5 I l-/.:.,

1- // 7,;;_,,

~

~

~

~

~

C through Friday.

Copies of comment$ received may be exi'!nined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald A. Nussbaumer, Office of Sta~e Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corm,ission, \*1ashington, D.C.

20555, Telephone: 301-492-7767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 274 of the AtoMic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (Act) was enacted in 1959 to provide a statutory Means by which the NRC (then the AEC) could transfer to the States part of its regulatory authority.

The mechanisn for the transfer of the Commission's regulatory authority is by an agreement between the Governor of a State and the CoTl111ission.

Thus far, 28 States have entered into such agreements.-

Before enterin9 into an agreement, the MPC is required to rnake a finding that the State's radiation control progran is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's program.

Section 274j(l) of the Act requires the NRC to periodically review such agreements and actions taken by the St~tes under the agreements to insure compliance with the provisions of Secti0n 274 of the Act.

The purpose of the policy statement is to establish the methods and guidelines the Coll1111ission will use in conducting the periodic reviews.

Section 274j(l) of the Act also provides that the NRC nay terminate an aqreernent with a State if the Commission finds that such termination is necessar.v to protect the publir. health and safety or 1Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Jdaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

-~-

the State has not complied with one or more o~ the requirenents of Section 274.

Under Section 274j(2) the Commission has the authority to temporarily suspend an agreement under emergency conditions.

Findings of adequacy and compatibility are rurrently made by the NRC staff following reviews of individual Agreement State programs in accordance with the December 4, 1981 policy statement.

Such reviews are conducted on a frequency of 12 to 18 months.

The results of each review are discussed with a senior management official, such as the State Health Officer (or designee), and con-~imed by letter. Copies of these letters are placed in the NRC Publ~c Document Room.

The Cornriission is also informed of the results of individual Agreement State reviews.

The NRC staff conment letters r.ontain as an enclosure a i_umary of the policy statement ~tith emphasis on how comments concerning Cate9ory I and Category II2 indicators affect staff findings of adequacy and compatibility. Staff findings of adeauacy and compatibility ore offered 2category I Indicators are those that directly af+ect public health and safety (e.g., quality of licensing). Categorv II indicators are those program elements that can lead to Category I problems if not maintained (e.g., staffing level, laboratory support).

The distinction between significant and minor Category I problems provides the staff sor,e flexibility when evaluating overall performance within an Indicator program a*r'ea.

For example, "Status of Inspection Proqrarn" is a Category I Indicator and contains a guideline for addressing inspection backlogs when they occur.

If there is a backlog in high priority inspections and the State has not developed a plan to reduce and monitor the backlog, then the backlog is considP.red to be a significant problem.

If the State has a plan in place to reduce the backlo~ (with suitable goals and bench~arks) whose proqress program management is monitoring, the problem can be characterized as minor.

If, in a subsequent review, there was lack of satisfactory progress in reducing the backlog, this would cause the staff to conclude the problem is significant.

only when there are no significant problems in Category I Indicators.

If there are ninor Category I Indicator comments or Category II Indicator comments, the State is requesterl to respond to our coments in these areas.

When one or more significant problems in Category I Indicators are found, the State, in addition to being asked to respond to any comments, is also infomed that no findings of adequacy and compatibility will be considered until a response to the corrrnents has been received from the State and evaluated.

Since the December 4, 1981 policy statement was issued this method of implementation has been successful in helping Agreement States maintain their prograns in an adequate and compatible manner.

From 1981 through 1985, 108 routine reviews of State prcgrans were performed.

Full findings of adequacy and compatibility were offered by the staff in 63 cases (58%).

In 15 other cases, findings of arlequacy were 07fered by the staff but not a finding of compatibility (because of out-dated regulations) (14%).

Withholding of both findings occurred in 30 cases (28%).

In most of these 30 cases, State responses to sigr.ificant Category I comments were found by NRC staff to satisfactorily address NRC concerns and NRC staff findings of adequacy and compatibility were subsequently offered.

Follow-up reviews were perforrnerl on 5 occasions.

In two instances, State actions to address significant Cate9ory I coments were undertaken but sub~equent NRC reviews rlisclosed additional steps were still needed to fully resolve Cate~ory I problens.

In these cases, the States provided additional responses that t!PC staff found to be satisfactory.

In no case did any Agreement State's program performance cause ~1RC staff to recomnend to the Commission that it institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of an Agreement.

tlRC staff meet semi-annually with representatives of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to review the status of the Agreement State program.

This is done because the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 does not apply when Federal agencies and State agencies acting under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational radiological safety or health.

While overall implementation of the December 4, ~~81 policy ~tatement has been satisfactory in assuring adequ~te and compatible AgreeMent State programs, the experience to date has identified sornP. facets of the policy statement that could benefit froM updating, clarifying or other minor modifications.

The guideline document contains six najor sections, each of which deals with a separate program element.

These sections are: Legislation and Regulations, Organization, ~anagement and Administration, Personnel, Licensing, and Compliance.

Each program eler,ent contains 11 In<iicators 11 which address specific functions within the proqraM element.

One or more recorn111ended 11Guidelines 11 are listed under each "Indicator."

The proposed policy statement revision spells out in so111ewhat greater detail NRC staff practices in handling fincings of reviews, including specifying when staff offerings of adequacy and conpatibility May be Made, and options available to the States and to the MRC staff when review results preclude such offerings.

The policy state~ent revision incorporates staff practices of informing the Comission of the results of reviews of individual Agreement State programs an~ cf placing copies of NRC review letters to the States into the NRC Public Docu~ent Room.

Consolidated annual reports of all Agreenent State review findings in one document are no longer prepared, he.ving been discontinued in 1982.

The policy statement r.o longer notes Commission interest in establishing a more quantitative basis for measuring the quality and consistency of NRC reviews.

No public comments were received on this issue following issuance of the 1981 Policy StateMent.

In 1983, the National Governors' Association report on the Agreement State program found that "the present NRC guidelines for evaluating Agreement State programs are considered adequate and offer the proper degree of flexibility in reviewing State programs for adequacy and compatibility."

~RC staff of the Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office of Inspection and Enforcenent and the Office of State Programs exchange considerable information on their respective activities. They have met to discuss the subject of objective measures of perfonnance.

The staff has concluded that the indicators and associated review gui~elines used in reviewing Agreement State programs are sufficiently objective and are consistent with the objectives the NRC staff uses in appraising its regional material licensing and compliance functions.

As an alternative to establishing objective performance indicators to assess the Agreement State regulatory prograns, the Cornnission has directed the staff, in conjunction with the Agreement States to exanir.e the feasibility of an objective performance indicator system for the various categories of materials licensees regulated by the Agreenent States and the NRC.

The Comission believes such a c;vstem would provide a national data base on overexposures, nedical nisadministration etc.

and would be an indicator of how well the various Agreement States and the NRC are doirq their jobs.

The Agree~ent States and the public ~re invited to express their views on the feasibility of rlevelopirg a set of objective perform~nce indicators for naterials licensees and to provide suggestions of what would constitute suitable indicators.

The proposed policy statenent revision permits NRC staff tc extend the interval between reviews to approximately 24 months in cases when no significant Category I findings are identified. Since the issuance of the 1981 policy statement, the NRC AgreeMent State progran ~as been decentralized. State AgreeMent Representatives are present in NRC Regions I, II, IV and V where 27 of the 28 Agreenent States are locate~.

These persons not only ccnduct the periodic reviews but are in frequent contact with the States in these regions and thus can closely Monitor events affecting the Agreement prograM in the States. The selective extension of review intervals will permit more effective utilization of NRC resources for Agreement State program activities.

The format of the Indicators and Guidelines has been revised to Make it easier to print.

Under the Element, Legislation and Regulations, for the Indicator, "Legal Authority," the guideline addressing cases when regulatory authorities are divided between State agencies has been moved to Organization Elenent under the Indicator, "Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization," which is more appropriate.

The Category II Indicator, "Updating of Regulations" has been deletec1 and the guidelines under it moved to a renamed Category I Indicator, "Status and Compatibility of P-egulations, 11 Lack of findings cf compatibility have al~ost always been caused by out-of-date State regulations. llpdatir:g of regulations has become a chronic problen for Agreement States, because State resources needer. to draft revisions were not always available, because State adoption procedures for regulations have become increasingly conplex, and because the Model Suggeste~ State Regulations prepared by the Conference of Radiation Control Progran Directors, Inc. have not been updated in a timely fashion to reflect

I revisions to NRC regulations.

Confusion has also arisen over the distinctions between the two Indicators and the differences in their categories. The revision combines the two into a single Category I indicator, thus emphasizing the importance of keeping the regulations up to date. A minor change to the reference to 10 CFR Part 20 was made to include the waste Manifest rule (10 CFR 20.311) as a compatibility item.

A reference to 10 CFR Part 61 has been added to the guideline which highlights specific Parts of NRC regulations to which State reaulations should be essentially identical.

Under Management and AdMinistration, for the !ndicator, "Administrative Procedures," the guideline has been Modified and expanded to make clearer what is being sought with respect to these kinds of procedures.

Confusion has arisen between administrative" procedures and procedures called for in the guidelines in the technical areas of licensing, inspection and enforcement.

Under "Management," a new guideline has been added that recommends periodic audits of State regional offices or other State agency offices when these are used in an Agreement State program.

A nuMber of Agreenent State programs use regional offices or use other State or local aovernment staffs (usually for inspection).

Under "Public Information, 11 the guideline on availability of files to the public has been modified to also note the need +or provisions to protect proprietary or clearly personal inforriation fror, public disclosure.

Previously the guidelines only called for handling such information in accordance with State adMinistrative procedures.

Some recently enacted State 11open records" legislation have in sorie instances, caused changes to State administrative procedures that weaken or prevent protection of such information froM public disclosure.

As a result, State radiation control programs may have difficulty in withholding individual personnel radiation exposure records or proprietary information relating to radiation safety when necessary to carry out their statutory responsibilities.

Under the Indicator, "Qualifications of Technical Sta+-f, 11 the guideline has been modified to make clear that it is desirable that the directors of radiation protection programs possess appropriate technical qualifications.

Under the Indicator, "Staffing Level,

11 the guideline containing the value 1.0 to 1.5 person-year per hundred licenses has been modified to Make clear that this staff-level guideline excludes professional effort expended for uranium mill, ~ill tailings and radioactive waste disposal regulation.

Under the Indicator, "Status of Inspection Prograr,,

11 the inspection planning guideline has been modified to also address inspection backlogs.

Inspection backlogs constitute the Most prevalert probler, in Agreement State prograMs.

NRC staff experience has been that wher States are asked to develop plans specifically for addressing backlogs, including setting of priorities and benchr,arks, progress in controlling this problem is achieved.

Under the Indicator, "Inspection Frequency," modifications have been nede to the guideline to ~ake clear that the NRC in~pection priority system for materials is the minimum that is acceptable.

Under the Indicator, 11 lrspec:tfon Reports," revisions were Made to the guideline to more clearly identify essential elements the rercrts should contain.

The Indicator, "Independent Measurements 11 has been retitled "Confirmatory Measurements."

Minor revisions have been made to the guidelines, including addition of 11Micro-R-meter 11 to thP. 1ist of desirable instrumentation.

Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs 1986.

Prepared by Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ~!ashington, D.C. 20555.

Introduction Section 274 of the AtoMic Energy Act was enacted by the Congress in 1959 to recognize the interests of the States in atomic energy, to clarify the respective responsibilities of State and Federal Goverr.nents, and to provide a mechanisn for States to enter into forMal agreements with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the tluclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), unrler which the States assume regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear materials, collectively referred to as agreement naterials.

The nechanism by which the NPC discontinu~s and the States assume regulatory authority over agreement naterials is an agreenent between the Governor of a State and the Commission.

Before entering 1nto an Agreement, the Governor is required to certify that the State has a regulatory program that is arlequate tn protect the public her11th and safety.

In addition, the Commission must perform nn independent evaluation ar.d make a finding that the State's progran is adeourte from the health and safety standpoint and compatible with the Commission's regulatory program.

-] 2-Current Guidelines In 1981, the Commission published a major revision of the guide Tor review of Agreement State programs (two earlier revisions reflected primarily minor and editorial changes).

These Guidelines constitute Comnission policy in the form of a document entitlP.d "Guideline~ TOr NRC Review of Agreement State Radiatior. Control Prograns." This docunent provides guidance for evaluation of operoting Agreement State prograns based on over 20 years of combined AEC-NRC exnerience in administering the Agreement State program.

In 1985, Commission stoff initiated ninor updating, clarifying and ectitoral changes reTlecting the experience gained with the 1981 policy statement.

The revised document will be used by the NRC in its continuing program of evaluating Agreement State programs.

The "Guidelines" contain six sectfons, each dealing with one of the essential elements of a radiation control pro9ram (PCP) which are:

Legislation and Regulations, Organization, Managenent and Administration, Personnel, Licensing, and Compliance.

Each section contains (a) a suTT111ary of the general significance of the program elements, (b) indicators which address specific functions within the program element, (c) categories which denote the relative importance of each indicator, and (d) guidelines which delineate specific objectives or operational goals.

Categories of Indicators The indicators listed in this documP.nt cover a wide range of program functions, both technical and administrative.

It should be recognized that the indicators, and the guidelines under each indicator, are not of equal inportance in terms of the fundamental goal of a radiation control program, i.e. protection of the public health and safety. Therefore, the indicators are categorized in terms of their importance to the fundanental 9oal of protectin9 the public health and safety.

Two categories are used.

Category I - Direct Bearirg on Health and Safet~,. Category I Indicators are:

o Legal Authority.

o Status and Compatibility of Regulations.

0 0

()

Quality of Emergency Plannin9.

Technical Duality of Licensing Actions.

Adequacy of Product Evaluations.

o Status of Inspection Prcqram.

o Inspection Frequency.

o Inspectors' Performance and Capability.

o Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents.

o Enforcenent Procedures.

These indicators arrress program functions ~hich directly relate to the State's abilit~, to protect the public health and safety.

1f significant problems exist in one or more Category I indicator areas, then the need for improvements may be critical. LP.gislation and regulations together fonn the foundation for the entire program establishing the framework for the licersing and compliance programs.

The technical review of license applications is the initial step in the regulatory process.

The evaluation of applicant qualifications, facilities, equipment, and procedures by the re~mlatory agency is essential to assure protection of the public from radiation hazards associated with the proposed activities. ~ssuring that licensees fulfill the commitments nacie in their applications and that they observe the requirements set forth in the regulations is the objective of the conpliance program.

The essential elements of an ar.equate compliance program are (1) the conduct of onsite inspections of licensee activities, (2) the perfonnance of these inspections by competent staff, and (3) the taking of approprinte enforcement actions.

Another very important factor is the ability to plan for, respond effectivelv to, and investigate radiation incidents.

Category II-Essential Technical and Administrative Support.

CatF~gory II Indicators are:

o Location of Radiation Control Program ~lithin State Organization.

o Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program.

o Legal Assistance.

o Technical Advisory Cornnittees.

o Budget.

o Laboratory Support.

o Administrative Procedures.

o Management.

o Office Equipment and Support Services.

o Public InforMation.

o Qualifications of Technical Staff.

o Staffing Level.

o Staff Supervision.

n Training.

0 Staff Continuity.

o Licensing Procedures.

o Inspection ProcP.durP.s.

o Inspection Reports.

o Confimatory Measurements.

These indicators address prograM functions which provide essential technical and a~ministrative support for the primary program functions.

Good performance in meeting the guidelines for these indicators is essential in order to avoid the development of problems in one or more of the principal program areas, i.e. those that fall under Category I indicators.

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

It is the NRC 1s intention to use these r.ategories in the following manner.

In reportinq finrlings to State management, the NRC will indicate the category of each comment made.

If no significant Category I co11111ents are provided, this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety and is compatible with the MRC 1s program.

If one or nore significant Category I comments are provided, the State will be notified that the program deficiencies may seriously affect the State's ability to protect the public health and safety ard that the need of improvernent in particular program areas is critical.

The NRC would request an immediate response.

If, following receipt and evaluation, the State's response appears satisfactory in addressing the significant Category I comrnents, the staff rnay offer findings of adequacy and cornpatibility as appropriate or ne~er such offering until the State's actions are examined and their effectiveness confinned in a subsequent review.

If adrlitional information is needed to evaluate the State's actions, the staff may request the infornation through follrw-up correspondence or perfom a follow-up or special, linited review.

NRC staff nay hold a special meeting with appropriate State representatives.

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

The Commission will be informed of the results of the reviews of the individual Agreement State programs and copies of the review correspondence to the States will be placed in the NRC Public nncument Roorn.

If the State program does not improve or if ar0itional significant Category I deficiencies have develore~, a staff findino that the program is not adequate will be considered ~nrl the NRC nay institute proceedings to suspend or revoke all or part of the Agreenent in accordance with Section 274j of the Act.

I. Category II comments concern functions and activities whir.h support the State program and therefore would not be critical to the State's ability to protect the public.

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

It should be recognized that the categorization pertains to the significance of the overall indicator and not to each of the guidelines within that indicator.

For example, "Technir:al Qu(llity of Licensing Actions" is a Category I irdicator.

The revi~w of license applications for the purpose of evaluating the applicant's qualifications, facilities, equipMent, and procedures is essential to assuring that the public health and safety is being protected.

One of the guidelines under this indicator concerns prelicensing visits. The need for such visits depends on the nature of the specific case and is a matter of judgment on the part of the licensing staff. The success of a State program in meeting the overall objective of the indicator does not depend on literal adherence to each recomended guideline.

The "Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreerient State Radiatfon Control Programs" will be used by the NPC staff during its onsite reviews of Agreement State prograris.

Such reviews are conducted at approximately 18 month intervals, or 1 ess if deemed necessar~'.

If there are no significant Category I ro~~ents, the staff may extend the interval between reviews to approximately 24 rionths.

In making a finding of adequacy, the NRC considers area5 of the State program which are critical to its primary function, i.e.,

protection of the public health and safety.

For example, a State that is not carrying out its inspection program, or fails to respond to significant radiological incidents would not be considered to h2ve a program adequate to protect the public health and safety. Basic radiation protection standards, such as exposure limits, also directly affect the States' ability to protect public health and safety. The MRC feels that it is important to strive for a high degree of uniformity in technical rlefinitions and terminology, narticularly as related to units of measurement and radiation dose.

Maximum pennissible noses and levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactivity in unrestricted areas as specified in 10 CFR Part 20 are consirlered to be important enough to require States to be essentially equivalent in this nrea in order to protect public health and safety. Certain procedures, such as those involving the licensing of product~ containing radioactive material intended for interstate comnerce, also require a high degree of unifomity.

If no serious perfonnance problems are found in an Agreement State program and if its standards anrl program procerlure~ are compatible with the NRC program, a finding of adequacy and conpatibility is made.

I. PROGRAM ELEMENT:

LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS The effectiveness of any State radiation control program (RCP) is dependent upon the underlying authority granted the PCP in State legislation, and implemented in the State regulations. Regulations provide the foundation upon which licensing, inspection, and enforcement decisions are made.

Regulations also provide the standards and rules within which the regulated must operate.

Periodic revisions are necessary to reflect changing technology, improved knowledge, current recommendations by technical advisory groups, and consistency with NRC regulations.

Procedures for providing input to the NRC on proposed changes to flRC regulations are necessary to assure consideration of the State's interests and requirements.

The public and, in particular, affected classes of licensees should be granted the opportunity and time to coment on rule changes.

Indicators and Guidelines Legal Authority (Category I) o Clear statutory authority should exist, designating a State radiation control agency and providing for promulgation of regu1ations, licensing, inspection and enforcement.

o States regulating uranium or thorium recovery and associated wastes pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of

--- -- ------------------------- 1978 (UMTRCA) must have statutes enacted tr establish clear authnrity for the State to carry out the requirements of t1~TRCA.

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

o The State should adopt other regulations to maintain a high degree of unifonni ty with NRC regulations.

o For those regulations deemed a ~atter of conp~tibility by NRC, State regulations should be anenrled as s0on as practicable but no later than 3 )'ears.

0 The RCP has established procedures for effecting appropriate amendments to State regulations in a timely ~anner, nonnally within 3 years of adoption by NRC.

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

o Pursuant to the terms of the AgrP.ernent, opportunity should be provided for the NRC to coment on draft changes in State regulations.

PROGRAM ELEMENT:

ORGANIZATION The effectiveness of any State RCP may be dependent upon its location within the overall State organizational structure.

The RCP should be in a position to compete effectively with other health and safety programs for budget and staff. Program managP.ment must have access to individuals or groups which establis~ health and safety program priorities. The RCP should be organized to achiPve a high degree of efficiency in supervision, work functions, and cornmunir.ations.

Indicators and Guidelines Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization (Category II) o The RCP should be located in a State organization parallel with comparable health and safety programs.

The Program Director should

.have access to appropriate levels of State mannge~ent.

o Where regulatory responsibilities are ciivirled between State agencies, clear understandings should exist a~ to division of responsibilities anrl requirements +or coordination.

Internal Organization of Radiation Control Program (Category II) o The RCP should be organized with the view toward achieving an acceptable degree of staff efficiency, place appropriate eMphasis on major program functions, and provide specific lines of supervision fro~

progran nanagement for the execution of program policy.

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

Legal Assistance (Category TJ) o Legal staff should be assigned to assist the RCP or procedures shoulc exist to obtain legal assis~ance expeditious1y.

Legal ~taff should be knowledgeable regarrling the RCP program, statutes, and regulations.

Technical Advisory Committees (Category I!)

o Technical Co~nittees, Federal Agencies, and other resource organizations should be used to extend staff capabilities for unique or technically conplex problems.

o A State Medical Advisory Col'1fl'littee should be used to provide broad guidance on the uses of radioactive drugs in or on huMans.

The Corrmittee should represent a wide spectruM of medical disciplines.

The Corrmittee should advise the PCP on policy matters and regulations related to use of radioisotopes in or on humans.

o Procedures should be developed to avoid c0nflir.t of interest, even though Corrmittees are advisory. This does not mean that representatives of the regulated community shoulc not serve on advisory comnittees or not be used as consultants.

PROGRAM ELEMENT:

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRAT!ON State RCP Management must be able to Meet program goals through ~trong, direct leadership at all levels of supervision. A~ministrative procedures are necessary to assure uniform and appropriate treatment of all regulated parties. Procedures for receiving information on radiological incidents, emergency response, and providing inforMation to the public are necessary.

Procedures to provide feedback to supervision on status and activities of the RCP are necessary.

Adequate facilities, equipment and support services are needed for optimuM utilization of personnel resources.

Laboratory surport services should be adMinistered by the RCP or be readily available through established administrative procedures.

In order to meet program goals, a State RCP ~ust have a~equate budgeta~,

support.

The total RCP budget Must provide adeauate funds for salaries, travel costs associated with the coMpliance program, laboratory and survey instrumentation and other equipment, and other administrative costs. The program budget must reflect annual charges in the number and complexity of applications and licenses, and the increase in costs due to nonnal inflation.

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

o The Plan should define the responsibilities and actions to be taken by State agencies.

The Plan should be specific as to persons responsible for initiating response actions, conducting operations and cleanup.

o Emergency comnunication procedures should be adequately established with appropriate local, county and State agencies.

Plans should be distributed to appropriate persons and agencies.

NRC should be provided the opportunity to comment on the Plan while in draft fonn.

o The plan should be reviewed annually by Progran staTf for adequacy and to deternine that content is current.

Periodic drills should be perfomed to test the plan.

Budget (Category II) o Operating funds should be sufficient to support progran needs such as staff travel necessary to the conduct of an effective coMpliance program, including routine inspections, followup or special inspections, (including pre-licensing visits) and responses to incidents and other emergencies, instruMentation and other equipment to support the RCP, administrative costs in operating the program including rental charges, printing costs, laboratory services, coMputer and/or word processing support, preparation of correspondence office equipment, hearing costs, etc. as appropriate.

o Principal operating funds should be from sources which provide continuity and reliability, i.e., general tax, license fees, etc.

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

Laboratory Support (Category II) o The RCP should have laboratory support capability inhouse, or readily available through established procedures, to conduct bioassays, analyze environmental samples, analyze saMples collected by inspectors, etc. on a priority established by the RCP.

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

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

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

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

o Program management should perfor~ periodic reviews of selected

-license cases handled by each reviewer and document the results.

Complex licenses (major nanufacturers, large scope-Type A Broad, potential for significart releases to environment) should receive second party review (supervisory, comittee, consultant).

Supervisory rcvi ew of inspections, reports and enforcement actions should also be performed.

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

Office EquipMent and Support Services (Category II) o The RCP should have adequate secretarial and clerical support.

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

Similar services should be av~ilahle to regional offices, if utilized.

o Professional staff should not be used for fee coll~ction and other clerical duties.

Public Infomation (Category IT) o Inspection and licensing files should be available to the public consistent with State administrative procedures.

It is desirable, however, that there be provisions for protecting from public disclosure proprietary information and infornation of a clearly personal nature.

o Opportunity for public hearings should be provided in accordance with UMTRCA and applicable State a~ninistrative procedure laws.

PROGRAM ELEMENT:

PERSONNEL The RCP must be staffed with a sufficient number of trained personnel.

The evaluation of license applications and the conduct of inspections require staff with in-depth training and experience in radiation protection and related subjects. The staff must be adequate in nunber to assure licensing, inspection, and enforcement actions of appropriate quality to assure protection of the public health and safety. Periodic training of existing staff is necessary t.o maintain capabilities in a rapidly changing technological environment.

Program management personnel nust be qualified to exercise adequate supervision in all aspects of a State radiation control program.

!ndicators and Guidelines Qualifications of Technical Staff (Category II) o Professional staff should have bachelor's degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences.

Additional training and experience in radiation protection for senior personnel including the director of the radiation protection program should be commensurate with the type of licenses issued and inspected by the State.

o Written job descriptions should be prepared so that professional qualifications needed to fill vacancies can be readily identified.

Staffing Level (Category II) o Professional staffing level should he approximately 1-1.5 person-year per 100 licenses in effect.

RCP must not have less than two professionals available with training and experience to operate P.CP in a way which provides continuous coverage and continuity.

o For States regulating uranium mills and mill tailings, current indications are that 2-2.75 professional person-yP.ars' of effort, including consultants, are needed to process a new mill license (including in situ nil ls) or major renewal, to meet requirements of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.

This ef~ort must include expertise in radiological natters, hydrology, geology, and structural engineering. 1 Staff Supervision (Category II) 0 Supervisory personnel should be adequate to provide guidance and review the work of senior and junior personnel.

o Senior personnel should review applicatiors anrl inspect licenses independently, ~onitor work of junior perscnnel, and participate in the establishment of policy.

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

o Junior personnel should be initially liMited to reviewing license applications and inspecting small programs under close supervision.

Training (Category II) o Senior personnel should have attended NRC core courses in licensing orientation, inspection procedures, medical practices and industrial radiography practices.

(For mill States, mill training should also be included.)

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

Staff Continuity (Category II) o Staff turnover should be minimized by combinations of opportunities for training, promotions, and competitive salaries.

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

o The RCP organization structure should be such that staff turnover is minimized and program continuity maintained through opportunities for promotion.

Promotion opportunities should exist from junior level to senior level or supervisory positions. There also should be opportunity for periodic salary increases compatible with experience and responsibility.

PROGRAM ELEMENT:

LICENSING It is necessary in licensing byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials that the State regulatory agency obtain information about the proposed use of nuclear Materials, facilities and equipment, training and experience of personnel, and operating procedures appropriate for determining that the applicant can operate safely and in compliance with the regulations ar.d license conditions.

An acceptable licensing program includes: preparation and use of internal licensing guides and policy memoranda to assure technical quality in the licensing program (when appropriate, such as in small programs, NRC Guides may be userl);

prelicensing inspection of complex facilities; and the iMplementation of administrative procedures to assure docunentation ard maintenance of adequate files and records.

Indicators and Guidelines Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (Categ0ry I) o The RCP should assure that essential elements of applications have heen submitted to the agency, and that these elements ~eet current regulatory guidance for describing the isotopes and quantities to be

I

• used, qualifications of persons who will use material, facilities and equipment, and operating and energenr.y procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions.

o Prelicensing visits should be made for complex and Major licensing actions.

o Licenses should be clear, complete, and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions.

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

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

o The RCP shoulr. review manufacturer's information in labels and brochures relating to radiation health and safety, assay, and calibratiQn procedures for adequccy.

I. 0 Approval documents for sealed source or device designs should be clear, complete and accurate as to isotopes, forms, quantities, uses, drawing identifications, and pennissive or restrictive conditions.

licensing Procedures (Category II) o The RCP should have internal licensing guides, checklists, and policy memoranda consistent with current NRC practice.

o License applicants (including applicants for renewals) should be furnished copies of applicable guides and regulatory positions.

o The present compliancP status of licensees should be considered in licensing actions.

o Under the NRC Exchange-of-Infomation progran, evaluation sheets, service licenses, and licenses authorizing distribution to general licensees should be submitted to NRC on a timely basis.

o Standard license conditions comparable with current NRC standard license conditions should be used to expeditP. and provide unifonnity in the licensing process.

o Files should be maint?.ined in an orderly fashion to allow fast, accurate retrieval of infornation and documentation of discussions and visits.

PROGRAM ELEMENT:

COMPLIANCE Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to assure that activities are being conducted in compliance with re~ulatory requirements and consistent with good safety practices.

The frequency of inspections depends on the aMount and the kind of Material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections.

The capability of maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the compliance program is necessary.

The regulatory agency must have the necessary legal authority for prompt enforcement of its regulations.

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

Indicators and Guidelines Status of Inspection PrograM (Category I) o State RCP should maintain an inspection program adequate to assess licensee compliance with State regulations and license conditions.

o The RCP should naintain statistics which are adequate to permit Program ManageMent to assess the status of the inspection proarari on a periodic basis infor~ation showing the number of inspections conducted, the number overdue, the 1ength of time overdue and the priority categories should be readily available.

o At least semiannual inspection planning for number of inspections to be performed, assignments to senior vs. junior staff, assignments to regions, identification of special needs and periodic status reports.

When backlogs occur, the program should develop and implement a plan to reduce the backlog.

The plan should identify priorities for inspections and establish target dates and milestones for assessing progress.

Inspection Frequency ( Category I) o The RCP should establish an inspection priority system.

The specific frequency of inspections should be based upon the potential hazards of licensed operations, e.g., major processors, and industrial radiographers should be inspected approximately annually-smaller or less hazardous operations may be inspected less frequently.

The minimum inspection frequency including for initial inspections should be no less than the NRC system.

Inspectors' Perfonnance and Capability (Category I) o Inspectors should be competent to evalu~te health and safety problems and to determine co~pliance with State regulations.

Inspectors must demonstrate to supervision er. understanding of regulations, inspection guides, and policies prior to indepP.n~ently conducting inspections.

o The compliance supervisor (may be RCP manager' should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to assess performance and assure application of appropriate and consistent policies and guides.

Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents (Category I) o Inquiries should be promptly made to evaluate the neP.d for onsite investigations.

o Onsite investigations should be promptly made of inr.idents requiring reporting to the Agency in less than 30 days. (10 CFR 20.403 types.)

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

o Onsite investigations should be promptly nade of non-reportable incidents which may be of significant public interest and concern, e.g., transportation accidents.

o Investigations should include indepth reviews of circumstances and should be completP.d on a high priority basis.

When appropriate, investigatjons should include reenactnents ard tine-study ~easurements (normally within a few days).

Investigation (or inspection) results should be docunented and P.nforcement action taken when appropriate.

o State licensees and the NRC should be notifie~ of pertinent information about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed operations (e.g., equipment failure, improper opera+.ing procedures).

o Information on incidents involving failure of equipment should be provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assess~ent of possible generic design deficiency.

o The RCP should have acces~ to rnedir.al consultants when needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries.

ThP. RCP should use other technical consultants for special problems when needed.

Enforcement Procedures (Category I) o Enforcement Procedures should be sufficient to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee ncncompliance with regulatory requirements.

Provisions for the levying of monetary penalties are recor:miended.

o Enforcement letters should be issued within 30 days following inspections and should employ appropriatP. regulatory language clearly specifying all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters identified during the inspection and referencing the appropriate regulatiorLOr license condition being violated.

o Enforcement letters should specify the ti~e period for the license to respond indicating corrective actions and actions taken to prevent re-occurrence (normally 20-30 days). The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses.

o Licensee responses to enforceMent letters should be promptly acknowledged as to adequacy and resolution of previously unresolved iteMS.

o Written procedures should exist ~or handling escalated enforcement cases of varying degrees.

o Impounding of material should be in accordance with StatP administrative procedures.

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

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

NRC Guides May be used if properly supplemented by policy memoranda, agency interpretations, etc.

o Written inspection policies should be issued to establish a policy for conducting unannounced inspections, obtaining corrective action, f~lowing up and closing out previous violations, interviewing workers and observing operations, assuring exit interviews with management, and issuing appropriate notification of violations of health and safety problems.

o Procedures should be established for naintaining licensees' compliance histories.

o Oral briefing of supervisors or the senior inspector should be perfonned upon return from nonroutine inspections.

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

Inspection Reports (Category II) o Findings of inspections should he documented in a report describing the scope of inspections, substantiating all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters, describing the scope of licenses' programs, and indicating the substance OT discussions with licensee management and licensee's response.

o Reports should unifomly and adequately rlocument the result of inspections including confinnatory measurements, s~atus of previous noncompliance and identiTy areas of the licensee's program which should receive special attention at the next inspection.

Reports should show the status of previous noncompliance and the results of confirnatory rneasuremwts made by the inspector.

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

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

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

o Instrument calibration services or facilities should be readily available and appropriate for instrumentation used.

Licensee equipment and facilities should not be used unless under a service contract. Exceptions for other State Agencies, e.g., a State University, may be made.

.. o Agency instrunents used for surveys anrl confirmatory measurements should be calibrated within the same time interval as required of the licensee being inspected.

Dated at Washington, DC this 6 !,

day of f{oJe~ \C\.(b FOP THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION