[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17728]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 21, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 

Adequacy and Compatibility for NRC and Agreement State Radiation 
Control Programs Necessary to Protect Public Health and Safety; Draft 
Statement of Policy

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Draft statement of policy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is revising its general 
statement of policy regarding the review of Agreement State radiation 
control programs. This action is necessary to clarify the meaning and 
use of the terms ``adequate'' and ``compatible'' as applied to an 
Agreement State radiation control program. This draft policy statement 
would not be intended to have the force and effect of law or binding 
effect; it is intended as guidance to the Agreement States, NRC staff, 
and the public to make clear how the Commission intends to evaluate the 
adequacy and compatibility of NRC and Agreement State programs. 
Comments are solicited on the draft policy statement and specific 
questions contained in this notice.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 19, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch. Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cardelia Maupin, State Agreements 
Program, Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-2312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    Results of Discussions with Various Groups
    A. States
    B. Regulated Community
    C. Environmental Group
II. Discussion
    A. Adequate
    B. Compatibility
    C. Compatibility and Adequacy Determination of Agreement States
    D. Termination of Agreements
    E. Specific Questions for Public Comment
III. Policy Statement
    A. Definitions
    B. Elements of an Adequate Program
    C. Elements of a Compatible Program
    D. Compatibility Criteria
    E. Implementation
    F. Examples for the Compatibility Criteria
    G. Examples of More Stringent Requirements
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

I. Background

    The terms ``compatible'' and ``adequate'' constitute core concepts 
in the Commission's Agreement State program under Section 274 of the 
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, in 1959. Subsection 274d. 
states that the Commission shall enter into an Agreement under 
subsection b., discontinuing NRC's regulatory authority over certain 
materials in a State, if the State's program is both adequate to 
protect public health and safety and compatible with the Commission's 
regulatory program. Subsection 274g. authorizes and directs the 
Commission to cooperate with the States in the formulation of standards 
to assure that State and Commission standards will be coordinated and 
``compatible.'' Subsection 274(j)(1) requires the Commission to 
periodically review the Agreements and actions taken by the States 
under the Agreements to ensure compliance with the provisions of 
section 274. Although the terms ``compatible'' and ``adequate'' are 
fundamental requirements in the Agreement State program under Section 
274 of the AEA, these terms are not defined in the Act. Neither has the 
Commission provided a formal definition or formal comprehensive 
guidance on how the terms should be interpreted in implementing Section 
274. The guiding concept over the years since the beginning of the 
Agreement State program in the area of compatibility has been to 
encourage uniformity to the maximum extent practicable while allowing 
flexibility, where possible, to accommodate local regulatory concerns. 
This concept has been implemented in case-by-case decisions by the 
Commission and in internal procedures developed by the staff to assign 
designations of degrees of ``compatibility'' (i.e. uniformity), from 
``essentially verbatim'' to ``no degree of uniformity required,'' to 
sections of the Commission's regulations. More recently, the Commission 
has attempted to involve the States earlier in the process of 
developing new regulations and determining what level of 
``compatibility'' (i.e. uniformity) will be required of the Agreement 
States.
    The Commission's approach to making compatibility determinations 
has evolved slowly over the life of the Agreement State program. At the 
same time, since 1962, the Agreement State program has expanded and 
developed significantly both in the number of Agreement States, as well 
as depth of experience and expertise of State regulators. To clarify 
the matter of compatibility, the Commission has directed the staff to 
develop a comprehensive interpretation and application of 
compatibility.
    On April 2, 1993, the Commission directed the staff to develop a 
compatibility policy for all program areas other than low level 
radioactive waste. While developing the policy, the staff participated 
in discussions with the Agreement States, the non-Agreement States, the 
regulated community, and the general public. A working group was formed 
and a draft issues paper was developed. The draft issues paper was 
discussed with the Agreement States in a public meeting in May 1993 and 
draft options, SECY-93-290, were discussed in October 1993 at the All 
Agreement States Meeting. The Agreement and non-Agreement States, the 
regulated community and the general public participated in a public 
workshop on the final issues paper in July 1993.

Results of Discussions With Various Groups

A. States

    The States would like to see a minimum number of requirements for 
compatibility determinations. From the comments at the July 1993 public 
workshop and during the October 1993 All Agreement States Meeting in 
Tempe, Arizona, the following positions, though not a formal consensus, 
emerged:
    The States are in favor of:
1. uniformity of requirements that are necessary to assure interstate 
commerce, i.e., labels, signs and symbols.
2. uniformity of radiation standards necessary to protect public health 
and safety. However, States want the flexibility to set stricter dose 
limits when local conditions warrant them.
3. early and substantive involvement in the deliberations on the 
development of regulations.

B. Regulated Community

    The regulated community desires strict adherence to uniform 
national radiation standards so that licensees meet the same standards 
in all States and will not be subject to different regulations in 
different States.

C. Environmental Group

    An environmental advocacy group indicated that Federal and State 
regulations should be the minimum requirements with the proviso that 
communities may have the flexibility to go beyond those regulations.
    In the formulation of this draft policy statement, the staff has 
carefully considered the views of the Agreement States, the regulated 
community, the environmental group and other members of the public.

II. Discussion

    The question posed by the current task to develop a compatibility 
policy centers on making a determination of what components or elements 
of a State radiation control program are needed beyond those which 
establish and maintain an adequate radiation control program. 
Presently, adequacy of Agreement State programs is only applied to 
program elements in terms of their direct or indirect bearing on public 
health and safety and compatibility is only applied to the degree of 
conformity between State regulations and NRC's regulations. However, 
staff believes that some regulations should be a matter of adequacy to 
protect public health and safety and some program elements should be a 
matter of compatibility. In order to fully understand this concept, the 
relationship between adequacy and compatibility must be examined.
    Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act requires that Agreement State 
programs be both ``adequate to protect the public health and safety'' 
and ``compatible with the Commission's program.'' Thus, under the 
proposed compatibility policy, these separate findings must be based on 
consideration of two different objectives; first, providing for an 
acceptable level of protection for public health and safety in an 
Agreement State (the ``adequacy'' component), and second, providing for 
the overall national interest in radiation protection, (the 
``compatibility'' component). An ``adequate'' program, including 
regulations or other legally binding measures (e.g., license 
conditions) and program elements (e.g., organization and resources) 
should consist of those attributes considered necessary by the 
Commission to maintain an acceptable level of protection of the public 
health and safety within the Agreement State. A ``compatible'' program, 
including radiation protection standards and other program elements, 
should consist of those attributes considered necessary by the 
Commission to meet a larger national interest in radiation protection. 
The requirements for adequacy would focus on the protection of public 
health and safety within a particular State, whereas the requirements 
for compatibility would focus on the extraterritorial effect of State 
action or inaction either on other States or on the national program 
for radiation protection. As a basis for determining what ultimately 
will be required for compatibility, the Commission must first identify 
what is necessary for a State program to be ``adequate.''

A. Adequate

    Under the draft policy, ``adequate'' would focus on those elements 
of a State program that are necessary to provide a level of protection 
of the public health and safety within the State that is equivalent to, 
or greater than, that provided by the NRC regulatory program for its 
licensees. The requirements for ``adequate'' would not require that NRC 
regulations or other program elements be incorporated in an essentially 
identical manner. Under the adequate provision, States would also be 
allowed to establish requirements through measures other than 
regulations, such as license conditions.

B. Compatibility

    The ``compatibility'' requirement would focus on those elements of 
a State program which would be required to be essentially identical 
with the NRC regulatory framework in order to achieve a larger national 
interest beyond that required for adequate protection of the public 
health and safety within the State. The draft policy establishes four 
criteria1 that the NRC would use to determine which elements of 
the NRC regulatory program, including specific NRC regulations, that 
the State would be required to incorporate in an essentially identical 
manner into its regulatory program. The dose limits and radiation-
protection related release limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 61 
applicable to all licensees, or any subsequent amendments thereto, or 
other NRC regulations which are required to be essentially identical 
for compatibility purposes will automatically be required to be 
identical.2 States will not have the flexibility to deviate from 
the program elements that the Commission requires for compatibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The compatibility criteria are specified in Section III.D, 
below.
    \2\In issuing this Draft Policy Statement for comment, the 
Commission is revisiting its earlier decision to review 
compatibility of Agreement State programs in the low level 
radioactive waste area on a case-by-case basis. The Commission based 
its earlier decision on a belief that such case-by-case 
consideration could best address the special circumstances that 
confront Agreement States in that area. Using the case-by-case 
approach, the Commission has determined that the low level 
radioactive waste regulations of Pennsylvania and Illinois are 
compatible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Compatibility and Adequacy Determination of Agreement States

    The staff has developed a management directive for the use of 
common performance indicators in review of the Agreement States and 
regional materials program. The development of the common performance 
indicators for the evaluation of Agreement States and the NRC regional 
offices will be directly related to adequacy requirements for Agreement 
State programs, and consequently, will need to be closely coordinated 
with the staff efforts to define the elements of an adequate State 
program. In January 1994, the staff provided to the Commission a paper 
further describing the use of common performance indicators in NRC 
region and Agreement State reviews. The staff is currently implementing 
a pilot program on the common performance indicators program. The 
current proposed common performance indicators program contemplates 
using a Management Review Board (MRB) to make the decision on the 
adequacy of existing Agreement State programs. The initial adequacy 
determination of a proposed new Agreement State program will be made by 
the Office of State Programs, rather than the MRB, because the adequacy 
of a proposed new program is not dependent on effectiveness of actual 
program implementation. The staff plans to follow this same split of 
responsibilities for the compatibility determination of an Agreement 
State program, with the MRB making the compatibility determinations for 
existing Agreement State programs, and the Office of State Programs 
making the initial compatibility determinations for proposed new 
programs. The initial adequacy and compatibility determinations for 
proposed new Agreement State programs are reviewed and approved by the 
Commission. Indicators of compatibility will also be developed by the 
staff.

D. Termination of Agreements

    Termination of an Agreement can occur when an Agreement State 
program is either inadequate or incompatible. The proposed MRB, 
reviewing discrete common performance indicators, would judge the 
overall adequacy of an Agreement State program. Similarly, the MRB 
would review discrete ``compatibility indicators'' and determine the 
overall compatibility of an Agreement State program. For either of the 
adequacy or compatibility determination, failure to satisfy an 
individual indicator may not necessarily result in an overall finding 
of inadequacy or incompatibility. In some situations, individual 
indicator weakness(es) could result in a ``marginal'' finding by the 
MRB calling for Agreement State improvements and the State program may 
be placed on probation. In extreme cases, indicator(s) failure could 
lead to inadequate or incompatible findings resulting in the initiation 
of program suspension or termination. In terms of the compatibility 
evaluation, the significance of performance indicator 
``incompatibility'' in an individual State will be judged on the basis 
of the impact on the national program.

E. Specific Questions for Public Comment

    In responding to this notice, the following questions should be 
specifically addressed along with any additional comments.
    1. Under what circumstances should Agreement States be permitted to 
establish more stringent requirements, for their licensees, than those 
established by the Commission? Should this also include the ability to 
establish stricter dose limits for particular classes of licensees?
    2. Are the four criteria in the proposed policy statement for 
determining whether a Commission regulation or other program element 
should be adopted in a manner essentially identical by the Agreement 
States sufficient to ensure protection of the national interest in 
radiation protection? What examples could be used to illustrate how 
each criterion would be applied?
    3. What are some examples of State action to establish stricter 
requirements than those established by the Commission, or establish 
requirements where the NRC has not?
    4. What limits, if any, should be placed on the power of a State to 
preclude or, by exceptionally stringent regulations, effectively 
preclude a particular practice?
    5. Are there any other dose or radiation-protection related release 
limits in the Commission's regulations which should be included under 
the criterion number 3 of the compatibility criteria? Should the dose 
limits contained in 10 CFR Part 61 be included under this criterion?
    6. Should the draft adequacy and compatibility policy statement be 
applicable to the regulation of low-level waste disposal instead of 
continuing to consider questions of compatibility in this area on a 
case-by-case basis?
    7. Are there currently areas or situations in Agreement State 
regulations or other Agreement State requirements that would not meet 
the proposed policy statement?
    8. Should States be permitted to establish more stringent standards 
for radiation-protection related release limits?

III. Policy Statement

    The purpose of this Policy Statement is to provide a comprehensive 
interpretation and application of the terms ``adequate'' and 
``compatible'' as they apply to the NRC Agreement State regulatory 
programs.
    The terms ``compatible'' and ``adequate'' constitute core concepts 
in the Commission's Agreement State program under Section 274 of the 
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, in 1959. Subsection 274d. 
states that the Commission shall enter into an Agreement under 
subsection b., discontinuing NRC's regulatory authority over certain 
materials in a State, if the State's program is both adequate to 
protect public health and safety and compatible with the Commission's 
regulatory program. Subsection 274g. authorizes and directs the 
Commission to cooperate with the States in the formulation of standards 
to assure that State and Commission standards will be coordinated and 
``compatible.'' Subsection 274j(1) requires the Commission to 
periodically review the Agreements and actions taken by the States 
under the Agreements to insure compliance with the provisions of 
section 274.

A. Definitions

    For the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of Agreement State 
regulatory programs to protect public health and safety, the following 
terms are defined:
1. Adequate
    The acceptable level of protection for the public health and safety 
from the radiation hazards associated with the use of byproduct, 
source, and special nuclear materials.
2. An Adequate Agreement State Program
    An effectively implemented regulatory program containing elements 
considered necessary by the Commission to provide an acceptable level 
of protection for the public health and safety from the radiation 
hazards associated with the use of byproduct, source, and special 
nuclear materials.
3. Compatible
    The consistency between NRC and Agreement State regulatory programs 
which is needed for the regulation of byproduct, source and special 
nuclear material which assures an orderly and effective regulatory 
pattern in the administration of the national radiation protection 
program. Compatibility shall be aimed at ensuring that interstate 
commerce is not impeded, that effective communication in the radiation 
protection field is maintained, that dose limits and radiation-
protection related release limits applicable to all licensees are 
maintained, and that information needed for the study of trends in 
radiation protection and other national program needs is obtained.
4. A Compatible Agreement State Program
    A regulatory program containing elements considered necessary by 
the Commission to effectively implement the term ``compatible'' as 
defined above.
5. Element
    ``Element'' or ``program element'' is used to describe any of the 
essential components and functions of a radiation protection regulatory 
program. The term includes any aspect of a radiation protection 
regulatory program that is necessary to implement a program that is 
adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with the 
NRC regulatory program. The term ``element'' may include organizational 
structure, staffing level, inspection frequency, regulations, policies 
and procedures or any other component or function that the Commission 
considers necessary.
6. Practice
    The term ``practice'' describes a use, procedure or activity 
associated with the application, possession, storage or disposal of 
byproduct, source and special nuclear materials. The term ``practice'' 
is very broad and encompassing in nature. For example, the term 
``practice,'' as applied in the policy statement, not only applies to 
very general activities involving radioactive materials such as 
industrial radiography, low-level waste disposal, nuclear medicine 
procedures, and well logging, but also includes specific activities 
conducted within these very broad activities, such as shallow land 
burial, sanitary sewerage disposal, and incineration of materials.
7. Radiation Protection Standards
    As used in this Policy Statement, the term ``radiation protection 
standards'' means dose limits and radiation-protection related release 
limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 61 applicable to all 
licensees, or any subsequent amendments thereto.

B. Elements of an Adequate Program

1. Protection
    The Agreement State program shall be designed and administered to 
protect the public health and safety of its citizens against radiation 
hazards.
2. Regulations
    Except for dose limits and radiation-protection related release 
limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 61 applicable to all 
licensees, or any subsequent amendments thereto, or other regulations 
which are required to be essentially identical for compatibility 
purposes, an Agreement State program shall adopt regulations or other 
legally binding measures, equivalent to, or more stringent than, those 
designated by the NRC.
3. Inspection
    The State regulatory program shall provide for the inspection of 
the possession and use of radioactive materials by the regulatory 
authority. The State inspection of licensee facilities, equipment, 
procedures and use of materials shall provide reasonable assurance that 
the public health and safety is being protected. Inspection and testing 
shall be conducted to assist in determining compliance with regulatory 
requirements. Frequency of inspection shall be related directly to the 
hazards associated with amount and kind of material and type of 
operation licensed. The minimum inspection frequency, including initial 
inspections, shall be no less than the NRC inspection frequency. An 
adequate inspection program includes: preparation and use of procedures 
and policy memoranda to assure technical quality in the inspection 
program and review of inspection actions by senior staff or 
supervisors. The inspection staff technical expertise should be similar 
to NRC staff qualifications.
4. Enforcement Program
    Licensee noncompliance with requirements necessary for the safe 
possession and use of radioactive materials shall be subject to 
enforcement through legal sanctions, and the regulatory authority shall 
be authorized by law with the necessary powers for prompt enforcement.
5. Staffing and Personnel Qualifications
    The regulatory agency shall be sufficiently staffed with an 
adequate number of qualified personnel to implement the radiation 
control program effectively. Agreement State staff shall be qualified 
using criteria no less stringent than criteria used for NRC staff.
6. Administrative Procedures
    State practices for assuring the effective administration of the 
radiation control program, including provisions for public 
participation where appropriate, shall be incorporated in procedures 
for:
    (a) Formulation of rules of general applicability;
    (b) Approving or denying applications for licenses authorizing the 
possession and use of radioactive materials; and
    (c) Taking enforcement actions.
7. Statutes
    State statutes and/or duly promulgated regulations shall be 
established to authorize the State to carry out the requirements under 
Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended and any other 
statutes as appropriate, such as Public Law 95-604, Uranium Mill 
Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA).
8. Laboratory Support
    The State shall have available calibrated field and laboratory 
instrumentation sufficient to independently determine the licensee's 
control of materials, to validate the licensee's measurements, and to 
respond to events involving radioactive material.
9. Licensing
    The State regulatory program review of license applications for the 
purpose of evaluating the applicant's qualifications, facilities, 
equipment, procedures and use of materials shall provide reasonable 
assurance that the public health and safety are being protected. An 
adequate licensing program includes: preparation and use of licensing 
guides and policy memoranda to assure technical quality in the 
licensing program and review of licensing actions by senior staff or 
supervisors. In addition, procedures involving the licensing of 
products containing radioactive material intended for interstate 
commerce should require a high degree of uniformity with those of the 
NRC. The review staff technical expertise should be similar to NRC 
staff qualifications.
10. Investigation (Response to Events)
    The State regulatory program shall provide for timely and effective 
investigation of incidents, reportable events, allegations and any 
potential wrongdoing.
11. Budget
    The State radiation control program (RCP) shall have adequate 
budgetary support to implement an effective program. The total RCP 
budget must provide adequate funds for salaries, training, travel costs 
associated with the compliance program, laboratory and survey 
instrumentation and other equipment, contract services, and other 
administrative costs.

C. Elements of a Compatible Program

1. Radiation Labels, Signs, and Symbols
    States must have radiation labels, signs and symbols identical to 
that of the national standard.
2. Uniform Manifest
    State regulatory programs shall establish a manifest system in 
accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.
3. Transportation Regulations
    State regulations regarding transportation of radioactive materials 
must be identical or essentially verbatim with those in 10 CFR Part 71.
4. Event Reporting
    The State regulatory program shall require licensee reporting in a 
manner so that information on identical type events is consistent with 
the reporting established by the NRC. This information shall be 
provided to the NRC.
5. Reciprocity
    The State regulatory program shall have reciprocal recognition of 
out-of-State licensees and Federal licensees through a process which 
authorizes the safe conduct of similar operations within the Agreement 
State.
6. Records and Reports
    The State regulatory program shall require that holders and users 
of radioactive materials (a) maintain records covering personnel 
radiation exposures, radiation surveys and disposal of materials, (b) 
keep records of the receipt and transfer of the material, (c) maintain 
reports of significant incidents involving radioactive materials.
7. Radiation Protection Terminology
    The State regulatory program shall adopt fundamental radiation 
protection terminology in a manner essentially identical to NRC 
definition of these terms to ensure clear communication about radiation 
protection. Some examples of these terms are ``byproduct material;'' 
``total effective dose equivalent;'' ``sievert;'' ``gray;'' and 
``becquerel.''
8. Radiation Protection Standards
    The State regulatory program shall adopt dose limits and radiation-
protection related release limits in 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 61 
applicable to all licensees, or any subsequent amendments thereto.

D. Compatibility Criteria

    The following criteria shall be applied to program elements and 
regulations to determine whether they must be adopted by Agreement 
States in a manner essentially identical to that of the NRC for the 
purposes of compatibility:
    1. avoids a significant burden on interstate commerce;
    2. ensures clear communication on fundamental radiation protection 
terminology;
    3. ensures the establishment of the dose limits and radiation-
protection related release limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 61 
applicable to all licensees, or any subsequent amendments thereto;
    4. assists the Commission in evaluating the effectiveness of the 
overall national program for radiation protection.
    If none of the above criteria is met, the State would have the 
flexibility to design its own program including incorporating more 
stringent3 requirements provided that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Local governmental entities are not usually authorized by the 
NRC under Section 274 to regulate radiological safety. Thus, with 
limited exception, the authority to set more stringent requirements 
would not extend to localities unless approved by the Commission 
through a Section 274 Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. the requirements for adequacy are still met; and
    b. the more stringent requirements do not preclude or effectively 
preclude a practice within the national interest without an adequate 
public health and safety or environmental basis.

E. Implementation

    Notwithstanding the provisions above, the Agreement States shall 
exercise their regulatory authority in a responsible manner and shall 
not adopt more stringent regulations or requirements as a means to bar 
or preclude a practice without an adequate safety or environmental 
basis, or bar a practice needed in the national interest. In order to 
permit the NRC to provide early coordination and oversight of any 
proposed more stringent regulations or requirements, NRC will request 
Agreement States to identify any such regulations or requirements and 
provide opportunity for NRC review before publication as a draft rule 
for comment or before the institution of the requirement as a legally 
binding measure.

F. Examples4 for the Compatibility Criteria
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\The examples are not part of the Policy Statement and are 
neither exhaustive nor controlling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Avoids a Significant Burden on Interstate Commerce
--The adoption of transportation requirements for all Agreement States 
should be essentially identical to assure that the flow of radioactive 
materials in or through another jurisdiction is not impeded. For 
example, if States were allowed to change 10 CFR 71.47, ``External 
Radiation Standards for all Packages'' then it would be very difficult 
to transport radioactive material packages.
2. Ensures Clear Communication on Fundamental Radiation Protection 
Terminology
--The definition of the terms ``sievert'' and ``gray'' (or ``rem,'' 
``rad'') would need to be adopted essentially identically by all 
Agreement States.
3. Ensures the Establishment of Dose Limits and Radiation-Protection 
Related Release Limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 61 Applicable 
to all Licensees, or Any Subsequent Amendments Thereto
--The basic dose limits and radiation-protection related release limits 
for all classes of licensees set forth in Subpart C, ``Occupational 
Dose Limits,'' and Subpart D, ``Radiation Dose Limits for Individual 
Members of the Public,'' of 10 CFR Part 20 would need to be adopted 
essentially identical by all Agreement States along with any other 
subsequent amendments to 10 CFR Part 20 that may set forth dose limits. 
10 CFR Part 61.41, ``Protection of general population from releases of 
radioactivity'' and 10 CFR Part 61.43, ``Protection of individuals 
during operations'' would also need to be adopted essentially 
identically by all Agreement States.
4. Assists the Commission in Evaluating the Effectiveness of the 
Overall National Program for Radiation Protection
--The adoption of 10 CFR 35.33, ``Notifications, reports, and records 
of misadministrations'' would be adopted by the Agreement States in a 
manner essentially identical to that of the NRC.

G. Examples5 of More Stringent Requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\The examples are not part of the Policy Statement and are 
neither exhaustive nor controlling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, if the State program is equivalent to, or more 
stringent than, NRC's program to assure the protection of the public 
health and safety, and it incorporates all the elements of the NRC 
program identified by the Commission as necessary to achieve the 
national interest in radiation protection, including the requirement to 
establish regulations which are uniform with the dose limits and 
radiation-protection related release limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 
CFR Part 61 applicable to all licensees, or any subsequent amendments 
thereto, then a State should generally have the flexibility to tailor 
its program. More stringent requirements, other than the above 
mentioned dose limits and radiation-protection release limits could be 
applicable to all classes of licensees in a State. For example, an 
Agreement State's recordkeeping provisions for all licenses could be 
more stringent than NRC's. Other examples of State actions which impose 
stricter requirements than NRC regulations, and which would be 
``adequate'' under the draft policy statement, are--
1. State of Florida--20.304
    Between 1957 and 1981, several State representatives expressed 
concern to the Commission over the risk from burials of radioactive 
waste allowed by 10 CFR 20.304, that was in effect at that time. This 
regulation, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Burial of 
Small Quantities of Radionuclides'' provided that licensees could bury 
small quantities of radionuclides without prior NRC approval. The State 
of Florida submitted a request to the NRC to be more stringent by 
precluding this practice within the State because of its high ground 
water level. The State's exemption request was reviewed and approved by 
the NRC.
2. Shallow Land Burial
    Several States prohibit the practice of shallow land burial of low-
level waste. These more stringent regulations would be allowed under 
the draft policy statement even though a practice is prohibited. There 
is no overriding national interest in allowing shallow land burial of 
low-level waste. A different result would likely be obtained if 
disposal of low-level waste altogether was prohibited, unless the State 
was able to convince NRC of special public health and safety or 
environmental basis for this action.
3. Texas Industrial Radiography Certification
    Texas has established a program for the certification of industrial 
radiography that is more rigorous than Commission requirements. This 
program requires persons to perform 200 hours of on-the-job training, 
complete 40 hours of classroom instruction and successfully complete an 
examination before receiving authorization to conduct radiographic 
services with radioactive materials. (This example is based on the 
assumption that the training requirements in 10 CFR 34 do not meet any 
of the four compatible criteria.)

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This draft statement of policy does not contain a new or amended 
information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980 (434 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-
0029.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July, 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-17728 Filed 7-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P