[7590-01-P] 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[NRC-2015-xxxx] 

Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed policy statement; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has revised and consolidated 

two policy statements on NRC’s Agreement State Programs. The “Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and the “Statement of Principles 

and Policy for the Agreement State Program” have been consolidated in a single policy 

statement. The resulting proposed policy statement has been revised to add that public health 

and safety includes physical protection of agreement material.1

 

DATES: Submit comments by [INSERT DATE 75 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments received after this date will be 

considered if it practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for 

comments received on or before this date. 

 

1

 The term ‘agreement material’ means the materials listed in Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, over which the States may receive regulatory authority. 
2 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this 

document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket ID <INSERT: NRC-20YY-XXXX>. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: (301) 415-3463; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 

section of this document. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

OWFN 12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

 For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see 

“Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Dimmick, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 

telephone: (301) 415-0694, e-mail: Lisa.Dimmick@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments. 

II. Background. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Changes. 

IV. Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program.
3 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments. 

A. Obtaining Information. 

Please refer to Docket ID <INSERT: NRC-20YY-XXXX> when contacting the NRC 

about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information 

related to this action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket ID <INSERT: NRC-20YY-XXXX>. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): 

You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection 

at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select 

“ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems 

with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 

accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the 

first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the 

NRC’s PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 
4 

B. Submitting Comments. 

 Please include Docket ID <INSERT: NRC-20YY-XXXX> in the subject line of your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not 

want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or 

contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the 

NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 

state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into 

ADAMS. 

II. Background. 

The “Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” (62 FR 46517) 

presents the NRC’s policy for determining the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State 

programs. The “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program” 

(62 FR 46517) describes the respective roles and responsibilities of the NRC and the States in 

the administration of programs carried out under the 274b. State Agreement.2 The application of 

 

2

 Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (Act), as amended, provides a statutory basis under which the NRC 

relinquishes to the States portions of its regulatory authority to license and regulate byproduct materials; source 

materials; and quantities of special nuclear materials under critical mass. The mechanism for the transfer of NRC's 

authority to a State is an agreement signed by the Governor of the State and the Chairman of the Commission, in 

accordance with section 274b. of the Act. 
5 

these two policy statements has significant influence on the safety and security of agreement 

materials and on regulation of the more than 22,000 Agreement State and NRC materials 

licensees. 

In the 1990s, the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs” and the “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program” were 

developed by working groups consisting of Agreement States representatives and the NRC staff. 

A number of workshops and meetings were also held to gather stakeholder input. The 

Commission approved both policy statements in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to 

SECY-95-112, “Final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs,” and SECY-95-115, “Final Statement of Principles and Policy for Agreement State 

Program,” and “Procedures for Suspension and Termination of an Agreement State Program,” 

dated June 29, 1995 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003759325), but deferred implementation until 

all implementing procedures were completed and approved by the Commission. In the June 30, 

1997, the SRM to SECY-97-054, “Final Recommendations on Policy Statement and 

implementing Procedures For: ‘Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State 

Program’ and ‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,’” 

the Commission approved the accompanying implementing procedures for the policy 

statements (ADAMS Accession No. ML051610710). The policy statements became effective on 

September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517). 

The NRC staff’s efforts to update the Agreement State policy statements began with the 

Commission’s direction on December 2, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103360262). The 

Commission directed the NRC staff to update the Commission’s “Policy Statement on Adequacy 

and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and associated guidance documents to 

include both safety and source security considerations in the determination process. Because 

Agreement State adequacy and compatibility are key components of the Integrated Materials 
6 

Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),3

 the Commission’s policy statement on the 

“Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program” was revised concurrently. 

The NRC staff’s revisions to the policy statements added that public health and safety includes 

physical protection of agreement material. 

The Commission approved publication of the proposed updates to the two policy 

statements in the SRM to SECY-12-0112, “Policy Statements on Agreement State Programs,” 

dated May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13148A352). The NRC staff published the two 

proposed policy statements on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33122), for a 75-day comment period. 

After receiving requests from the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and the State of 

Florida to extend the public comment period, the NRC extended the comment period to 

September 16, 2013 (78 FR 50118). The NRC held two public meetings (July 18 and 

August 6, 2013), and a topical session during the OAS annual meeting in Reno, Nevada on 

August 28, 2013. The NRC staff specifically solicited comment on Compatibility Category B, 

and whether or not the policy statements should maintain the 1997 language in the policy 

statement describing the adoption and number of compatible regulations from the “Policy 

Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs.” 

The NRC staff received 51 comments on the policy statements, in general, and 45 

comments on Compatibility Category B from 13 commenters, including Agreement States, 

industry organizations, and individuals. Consistency and flexibility were underlying themes 

expressed in the comments. The need for consistent application of the NRC’s policies and 

flexible implementation of these policies were mentioned in written comments, and were also 

expressed orally during the public meetings and OAS topical session. The NRC changed the 

policy statements as a result of the written comments and input from attendees to the two public 

meetings and the OAS topical session. 

 

3 The NRC developed the IMPEP to evaluate the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State programs and the 

adequacy of the NRC’s nuclear materials program activities. 
7 

In COMSECY-14-0028, “Agreement State Program Policy Statements: Update on 

Recent Activities and Recommendations for Path Forward,” dated July 14, 2014 (ADAMS 

Accession No.ML14156A277), the NRC staff proposed a plan to provide a consolidated policy 

statement. The Commission approved this plan in the SRM to COMSECY-14-0028, dated 

August 12, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Number ML14224A618). Accordingly, the NRC staff 

developed a single consolidated proposed policy statement for comment. In finalizing the policy 

statement, NRC staff identified and eliminated redundant language between the two policy 

statements, and removed detailed information on IMPEP and the Principles of Good Regulation 

(ADAMS Accession Number ML15083026), as this material is not typically included in a 

high-level policy statement. The proposed single policy statement is included in its entirety in 

Section IV, “Policy Statement on Agreement State Programs,” of this document. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Changes. 

The NRC’s proposed consolidated policy statement addresses the Commission direction 

in the SRM to SECY-10-0105 and reflects written public comments and input received from 

public meetings and the OAS topical session. The NRC staff’s disposition of comments is 

presented in a comment resolution table (ADAMS Accession No. ML14073A549). 

The Commission’s proposed consolidated policy removes details on IMPEP and the 

“Principles of Good Regulation” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15083A026). The NRC added 

context and makes the proposed policy statement clearer and more consistent with other recent 

NRC policy statements. Lastly, the Commission added a description of the National Materials 

Program (NMP) that defines the mission and roles and responsibilities of the NMP. 

In response to the Federal Register notice (FRN) on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33122), 45 

comments were received on the description of Compatibility Category B in the proposed policy 
8 

statement. In the FRN, the NRC specifically solicited comment on the following topics 

concerning Compatibility Category B: 

1. To clarify the meaning of a “significant transboundary implication,”4

 the NRC is proposing 

to define a significant transboundary implication as “one which crosses regulatory 

jurisdictions, has a particular impact on public health and safety, and needs to be 

addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis.” However, the NRC 

recognizes that the use of the word “particular” can be vague and cause confusion. The 

NRC is requesting specific comments on the proposed draft definition of “significant 

transboundary implication” and whether the word “particular” should be replaced with the 

phrase “significant and direct.” 

Based on comments received, the NRC staff noted that there is a wide variation on the 

interpretation of the description of Compatibility Category B and of the definition of 

significant transboundary implication. In light of this, the Commission is proposing a new 

description of Compatibility Category B to eliminate the phrase “significant 

transboundary implication.” The new language, e.g., “cross jurisdictional boundaries,” 

embodies the original description of Compatibility Category B and eliminates the 

confusion surrounding the language incorporated into the 1997 version of the policy 

statement. 

2. Program elements with significant transboundary implications are illustrated by 

examples in the 1997 version of the Policy Statement. The NRC staff concluded the 

examples listed are not all-inclusive and could lead to misinterpretation by stakeholders, 

Agreement States, and the NRC staff. The NRC staff is seeking additional comment on 

whether or not the examples should be retained in this section of the policy statement. 

 

4

 The NRC staff solicited public comment on the phrase “significant transoburnsay implication” in the 

Federal Register on June 3, 2013 (78FR 33122) 
9 

The majority of commenters requested that examples of program elements considered 

Compatibility Category B continue to be included in the description. No changes were 

made to the policy statement. The Commission retained examples in Section E.2.ii. 

3. The NRC is requesting comments on the description of Compatibility Category B as 

written in Section IV. of this notice and whether or not the movement of goods and 

services, which historically has been a main factor in determining whether an issue has 

transboundary implications, should be considered in the definition of significant 

transboundary implication. 

Specific comments were received regarding the consideration of the movement of goods 

and services. The majority of the commenters felt that it was not necessary to include 

the consideration of the movement of goods and services in the description of 

Compatibility Category B. The Commission determined that this position was supported 

in the “Final Rule: Limiting the Quantity of Byproduct Material in a Generally Licensed 

Device.” In this rule, the Commission concluded that Agreement States should be 

allowed the flexibility to further enhance accountability programs, ultimately resulting in a 

change in compatibility for the rule from Compatibility Category B to Compatibility 

Category C. The Commisssion also concluded that “Reciprocity (i.e., reciprocal 

recognition of a radioactive materials license issued by another regulatory jurisdiction) 

has worked well for decades and has allowed the transfer, distribution, and servicing of 

radioactive material devices with no significant transboundary issues.” The Commission 

concluded that the movement of goods and services should not be considered in 

assessing compatibility and made no change to the proposed policy statement. 

4. The NRC is requesting comments on whether or not economic factors should be a 

consideration when making a Compatibility Category B determination. The NRC
10 

believes that health and safety should be the primary consideration in making a 

Compatibility B determination and that economic factors should not be a consideration. 

The comments included two comments from industry representatives that differed on 

whether or not economic factors should be considered. In reviewing the comments 

received and in reviewing previous rationale on this topic as discussed in SECY-95-112 

“Final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,” 

the Commission determined that economic factors (i.e., those costs incurred by the 

regulated community to comply with regulatory requirement(s)) should not be considered. 

No change to the proposed policy statement has been made. 

 The NRC also solicited specific comment on the use of alternative wording regarding the 

expectation on the number of regulatory requirements that Agreement States will be requested 

to adopt in an identical manner to maintain compatibility. The 1997 version of the policy 

statement had specific text in three places regarding the expectation for adopting requirements 

in an identical manner to maintain compatibility. Six commenters supported returning the 

wording back to the text that was originally published in 1997. Based on comments received, 

the Commission retained the original language from the 1997 version in the proposed policy 

statement. 

 Two commenters questioned the description of Compatibility Category D and indicated 

the description in the policy statement as published in Federal Register on June 3, 2013 

(78 FR 33122) appears to discuss compatibility in general and does not describe Category D as 

it is defined in Management Directive 5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs” (See http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0417/ML041770094.pdf). The Commission 

agreed and moved the language listed under Compatibility Category D, in the proposed policy 

statement, to the introductory paragraph of Section E.2., “Compatibility,” and revised the 

description of Compatibility Category D in Section E.2.iv. 
11 

 The criteria for adequacy and compatibility as proposed in this policy statement will 

provide Agreement States with flexibility in the administration of their individual programs. 

Recognizing that Agreement States have responsibilities for radiation sources other than 

agreement materials, this proposed policy statement would allow Agreement States to fashion 

their programs so as to reflect specific State needs and preferences while accomplishing a 

compatible national program consistent with Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended. 

 The requirements in compatibility categories A, B, and C will allow the NRC to ensure 

that an orderly pattern for the regulation of agreement materials exists nationwide. The NRC 

believes that this approach achieves a proper balance between the Agreement States’ need for 

flexibility and the need for coherent and compatible regulation of agreement material across the 

country. 

IV. Proposed Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program. 

A. PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this policy statement for the Agreement State Program is to describe the 

respective roles and responsibilities of the NRC and Agreement States in the administration of 

programs carried out under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).5

 

Section 274 provides broad authority for the NRC to establish a unique Federal and State 

relationship in the administration of regulatory programs for the protection of public health and 

safety in the industrial, medical, commercial, and research uses of byproduct, source, and 

quantities of special nuclear material insufficient to form a critical mass. This policy statement 

 

5

 Section 274b. of the AEA authorizes the NRC to enter into an agreement by which the NRC relinquishes 

and the State assumes regulatory authority over some or all of these materials. The material over which 

the State receives regulatory authority under such agreement is termed “agreement material.” 
12 

supersedes the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” 

and the “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program.” 

This policy statement addresses the Federal-State interaction under the AEA to 

(1) establish and maintain agreements with States under Section 274b. that provide for 

discontinuance by the NRC, and the assumption by the State, of responsibility for administration 

of a regulatory program for the safe and secure use of byproduct, source, and quantities of 

special nuclear material insufficient to form a critical mass; (2) ensure that post-agreement 

interactions between the NRC and Agreement State radiation control programs are coordinated; 

and (3) ensure Agreement States provide adequate protection of public health and safety and 

are compatible with the National Materials Program (NMP). 

Although not defined in the AEA, the NMP is a term to describe the broad collective 

effort within which both NRC and the Agreement States function in carrying out their respective 

regulatory programs for agreement materials. The mission of the NMP is to provide a coherent 

national system for the regulation of agreement materials with the goal of protecting public 

health and safety through compatible regulatory programs. Under the NMP, the NRC and 

Agreement States function as regulatory partners. The roles and responsibilities of the NRC 

and the Agreement States are based on their legislative authority, program needs and expertise 

as they carry out their respective programs. The NMP also serves as a mechanism for 

participation and involvement by two national organizations which are composed of State 

radiation protection programs: the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and Conference of 

Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). 

B. BACKGROUND. 

This policy statement is intended solely as guidance for the NRC and the Agreement 

States in the implementation of the NMP. The policy statement does not itself impose legally 
13 

binding requirements on the Agreement States. In addition, nothing in this policy statement 

expands the legal authority of Agreement States beyond that already granted to them by 

Section 274 of the AEA and other relevant legal authority, nor does this policy statement 

diminish or constrain the NRC’s authority under the AEA. Implementation procedures adopted 

pursuant to this policy statement shall be consistent with the legal authorities of the NRC and 

the Agreement States. 

This policy statement presents the NRC’s policy for determining the adequacy and 

compatibility of Agreement State programs as part of the NMP. This policy statement clarifies 

the meaning and use of the terms “adequate to protect public health and safety” and 

“compatible with the NRC's regulatory program” as applied to Agreement State programs. The 

terms “adequate” and “compatible” represent fundamental concepts in the Agreement State 

programs authorized in 1959 by Section 274. Subsection 274d. states that the NRC shall enter 

into an Agreement under Subsection 274b., which discontinues the NRC's regulatory authority 

over specified AEA radioactive materials and activities within a State, provided that the State's 

program is adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with the 

Commission's regulatory program. Subsection 274g. authorizes and directs the NRC to 

cooperate with States in the formulation of standards to assure that State and NRC programs 

for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible. Subsection 

274j.(1) requires the NRC to periodically review the Agreements and actions taken by States 

under the Agreements to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 274. 

The NRC and Agreement State radiation control programs maintain regulatory authority 

for the safe and secure handling, use, and storage of agreement material. These programs 

have always included the security of agreement materials as an integral part of their health and 

safety mission as it relates to controlling and minimizing the risk of exposure to workers and the 

public. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the NRC’s regulatory oversight has 
14 

included developing and implementing enhanced security measures. For the purposes of this 

policy statement, public health and safety includes physical protection of agreement material. 

C. STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT. 

In 1954, the AEA did not initially specify a role for the States in regulating the use of 

nuclear materials. Many States were concerned as to what their responsibilities in this area 

might be and expressed interest in clearly defining the boundaries of Federal and State. This 

need for clarification was particularly important in view of the fact that although the Federal 

Government retained sole responsibility for protecting public health and safety from the radiation 

hazards of AEA radioactive materials, defined as byproduct, source, and special nuclear 

material, the States maintained the responsibility for protecting the public from the radiation 

hazards of other sources such as x-ray machines and naturally occurring radioactive material. 

Consequently, in 1959, Congress enacted Section 274 of the AEA to establish a 

statutory framework under which States could assume and the NRC could relinquish regulatory 

authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear material insufficient to 

form a critical mass. The NRC continued to retain regulatory authority over the licensing of 

certain facilities and activities including, nuclear reactors, quantities of special nuclear material 

sufficient to form a critical mass, the export and import of nuclear materials, and matters related 

to common defense and security. 

In considering the legislation, Congress recognized that the Federal Government would 

need to assist the States to ensure that they developed the capability to exercise their 

regulatory authority in a competent and effective manner. Accordingly, the legislation 

authorized the NRC to provide training and other services to State officials and employees. 

However, in rendering this assistance, Congress did not intend that the NRC would provide any 

grants to a State for the administration of a State regulatory program. This was fully consistent 
15 

with the objectives of Section 274 to qualify States to assume independent regulatory authority 

over certain defined areas under their Agreement and to permit the NRC to discontinue its 

regulatory responsibilities in those areas. 

In order to relinquish its authority to a particular State, the NRC must find that the 

program is compatible with the NRC program for the regulation of agreement materials and that 

the State program is adequate to protect public health and safety. In addition, the NRC has an 

obligation, pursuant to Section 274j. of the AEA, to periodically review existing Agreement State 

programs to ensure continued adequacy and compatibility. Section 274j. of the AEA provides 

that the NRC may terminate or suspend all or part of its agreement with a State if the NRC finds 

that such termination is necessary to protect public health and safety or that the State has not 

complied with the provisions of Section 274j. In these cases, the NRC must offer the State 

reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing. In cases where the State has requested 

termination of the agreement, notice and opportunity for a hearing are not necessary. In 

addition, the NRC may temporarily suspend all or part of an agreement in the case of an 

emergency situation. 

D. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION. 

1. Implementation of the NMP is described below and includes (a) Principles of 

Good Regulation; (b) performance assessment on a consistent and systematic basis; (c) the 

responsibility to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, including physical 

protection of agreement materials; (d) compatibility in areas of national interest; and (e) 

sufficient flexibility in program implementation and administration to accommodate individual 

State preferences. 
16 

i. Principles of Good Regulation. 

In 1991, the Commission adopted the “Principles of Good Regulation” to serve as a 

guide to both agency decision making and to individual behavior of NRC employees. There are 

five Principles of Good Regulation: independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. 

Adherence to these principles has helped to ensure that the NRC’s regulatory activities have 

been of the highest quality, and are appropriate and consistent. The “Principles of Good 

Regulation” recognize that strong, vigilant management and a desire to improve performance 

are prerequisites for success, for both regulators and the regulated industry. The NRC’s 

implementation of these principles has served the public, the Agreement States, and the 

regulated community well. Such principles may be useful as a part of a common culture of the 

NMP that the NRC and the Agreement States share as co-regulators. Accordingly, the NRC 

encourages each Agreement State to adopt a similar set of principles for use in its own 

regulatory program. These principles should be incorporated into the day-to-day operational 

fabric of the NMP and individual NRC and Agreement State materials programs. 

ii. Performance Assessment. 

To ensure that programs under the NMP continue to provide adequate protection of 

public health and safety and are compatible with the NRC’s regulatory program, periodic 

program assessment is needed to ensure that programs under the NMP continue to be 

adequate and compatible. The NRC, in cooperation with the Agreement States, established 

and implemented the IMPEP. The IMPEP is a performance evaluation process that provides 

the NRC and Agreement State management with systematic, integrated, and reliable 

evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective radiation control programs and 

identification of areas needing improvement. 
17 

iii. Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety. 

The NRC and the Agreement States have the responsibility to ensure adequate 

protection of public health and safety in the administration of their respective regulatory 

programs, including physical protection of agreement materials. Accordingly, the NRC and 

Agreement State programs shall possess the requisite supporting legislative authority, 

implementing organization structure and procedures, and financial and human resources to 

effectively administer a radiation control program that ensures adequate protection of public 

health and safety. 

iv. Compatible in Areas of National Interest. 

The NRC and the Agreement States have the responsibility to ensure that the radiation 

control programs are compatible. Such radiation control programs should be based on a 

common regulatory philosophy including the common use of definitions and standards. They 

should be effective and cooperatively implemented by the NRC and the Agreement States and 

also should provide uniformity and achieve common strategic outcomes in program areas 

having national significance. 

Such areas of national significance include aspects of licensing, inspection and 

enforcement, response to incidents and allegations, security of aggregated radioactive material 

listed in Appendix A of part 37 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and 

safety reviews for the manufacture and distribution of sealed sources and devices. Furthermore, 

communication using a nationally accepted set of terms with common understanding, ensuring 

an adequate level of protection of public health and safety that is consistent and stable across 

the nation, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the NRC and Agreement State programs for 

the regulation of agreement material with respect to protection of public health and safety are 

essential.
18 

v. Flexibility. 

With the exception of those compatibility areas where programs should be essentially 

identical, Agreement State radiation control programs have flexibility in program implementation 

and administration to accommodate individual State preferences, State legislative direction, and 

local needs and conditions. A State has the flexibility to design its own program, including 

incorporating more stringent, or similar, requirements provided that the requirements for 

adequate protection of public health and safety are met and compatibility is maintained. 

However, the exercise of such flexibility should not effectively preclude a practice authorized by 

the AEA, and in the national interest without an adequate public health and safety or 

environmental basis related to radiation protection. 

2. New Agreements. 

Section 274 of the AEA requires that once a decision to request Agreement State status 

is made by the State, the Governor of that State must certify to the NRC that the State desires 

to assume regulatory responsibility and has a program for the control of radiation hazards 

adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials within the State 

covered by the proposed agreement. This certification will be provided in a letter to the NRC 

that includes a number of documents in support of the certification. These documents include 

the State’s enabling legislation, the radiation control regulations, staffing plan, a narrative 

description of the State program’s policies, practices, and procedures, and a proposed 

agreement. 

The NRC’s policy statement, “Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in 

Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through 

Agreement” (46 FR 7540, January 23, 1981; as amended by policy statements published at 

46 FR 36969, July 16, 1981; and 48 FR 33376, July 21, 1983), describes the content these 

documents are required to cover. The NRC reviews the request and publishes notice of the 
19 

proposed agreement in the Federal Register to provide an opportunity for public comment. 

After consideration of public comments, if the NRC determines that the proposed State program 

is adequate for protection of public health and safety and compatible with the NRC’s regulatory 

program, the Governor and Chairman of the NRC sign a formal document memorializing the 

agreement. 

3. Program Assistance. 

The NRC will offer training and other assistance to States, such as assistance in 

developing regulations and program descriptions to help individual States prepare their request 

for entering into an Agreement and to help them prior to the assumption of regulatory authority. 

Following approval of the agreement and assumption of regulatory authority by a new 

Agreement State, to the extent permitted by resources, the NRC may provide training 

opportunities and other assistance such as review of proposed regulatory changes to help 

Agreement States administer their regulatory responsibilities. However, it is the responsibility of 

the Agreement State to ensure that they have a sufficient number of qualified staff to implement 

their program. If the NRC is unable to provide the training, the Agreement State will need to do 

so. 

The NRC may also use its best efforts to provide specialized technical assistance to 

Agreement States to address unique or complex licensing, inspection, incident response, and 

limited enforcement issues. In areas where Agreement States have particular expertise or are 

in the best position to provide immediate assistance to the NRC or other Agreement States, 

they are encouraged to do so. In addition, the NRC and Agreement States will keep each other 

informed about relevant aspects of their programs. 

If an Agreement State experiences difficulty in implementing its program, the NRC will, 

to the extent possible, assist the State in maintaining the effectiveness of its radiation control 

program. Under certain conditions, an Agreement State can also voluntarily return all or part of 
20 

its Agreement State program (e.g., Sealed Source and Device or Section 11e.2 of the AEA 

byproduct authority relating to regulatory authority uranium milling activities in an Agreement 

State (SRM-SECY-95-0136)). 

4. Performance Evaluation. 

Under Section 274 of the AEA, the NRC retains oversight authority for ensuring that 

Agreement State programs provide adequate protection of public health and safety and are 

compatible with the NRC’s regulatory program. In fulfilling this statutory responsibility, the NRC 

will determine whether the Agreement State programs are adequate and compatible prior to 

entrance into a Section 274b. agreement and will periodically review the program to ensure they 

continue to be adequate and compatible after an agreement becomes effective. 

The NRC, in cooperation with the Agreement States, established and implemented the 

IMPEP. As described in Management Directive 5.6 “Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program (IMPEP),” IMPEP is a performance evaluation process that provides the 

NRC and Agreement State management with systematic, integrated, and reliable evaluations of 

the strengths and weaknesses of their respective radiation control programs and identification of 

areas needing improvement. The same criteria are used to evaluate and ensure that regulatory 

programs are adequate to protect public health and safety and that Agreement State programs 

are compatible with the NRC’s program. The IMPEP process employs a Management Review 

Board (MRB), composed of senior NRC managers and an Agreement State liaison provided by 

the OAS to make a determination of program adequacy and compatibility. 

As a part of the performance evaluation process, the NRC will take necessary actions to 

help ensure that Agreement State radiation control programs remain adequate and compatible. 

These actions may include more frequent IMPEP reviews of Agreement State programs and 

providing assistance to help address weaknesses or areas needing improvement within an 

Agreement State program. Monitoring, heightened oversight, probation, suspension, or 
21 

termination of an agreement may be applied for certain program deficiencies or emergencies 

(e.g. loss of funding, natural or man-made events, pandemic). The NRC’s actions in addressing 

program deficiencies or emergencies will be a well-defined predictable process that is 

consistently and fairly applied. 

5. Program Funding. 

Section 274 of the AEA permits the NRC to offer training and other assistance to a State 

in anticipation of entering into an Agreement with the NRC. Section 274 of the AEA does not 

allow Federal funding for the administration of Agreement State radiation control programs. 

Given the importance in terms of public health and safety of having well trained radiation control 

program personnel, the NRC may offer certain relevant training courses and notify Agreement 

State personnel of their availability. These training programs also have the effect of ensuring 

compatible approaches to licensing and inspection for the NMP. 

6. Regulatory Development. 

The NRC and Agreement States will cooperate in the development of both new and 

revised regulations and policies. Agreement States will have early and substantive involvement 

in the development of regulations affecting protection of public health and safety and of policies 

and guidance documents affecting administration of the Agreement State program. The NRC 

and Agreement States will keep each other informed about their individual regulatory 

requirements (e.g., regulations, orders, or license conditions) and the effectiveness of those 

regulatory requirements so that each has the opportunity to make use of proven regulatory 

approaches to further the effective and efficient use of resources. In order to avoid conflicts, 

duplications, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation 

of agreement material on a nationwide basis, Agreement States should provide a similar 

opportunity to the NRC to make it aware of, and to provide the opportunity to review and 
22 

comment on, proposed changes in regulations and significant changes to Agreement State 

programs, policies, and regulatory guidance. 

Two national organizations composed of State radiation protection programs facilitate 

participation and involvement with the development of regulations, guidance, and policy. The 

OAS provides a mechanism for Agreement States to work with each other and with the NRC on 

regulatory issues. The OAS provides a forum for centralized communication on radiation 

protection matters between the Agreement States and the NRC. The CRCPD assists its 

members in their efforts to protect the public, radiation workers, and patients from unnecessary 

radiation exposure. One product of the CRCPD is the Suggested State Regulations for use by 

its members. The NRC reviews Suggested State Regulations for compatibility. 

E. ADEQUACY AND COMPATIBILTY. 

In accordance with Section 274 of the AEA, an Agreement State program must provide 

for an acceptable level of protection of public health and safety in an Agreement State. This is 

the “adequacy” component. The Agreement State must also ensure that its program serves an 

overall nationwide interest in radiation protection. This is the “compatibility” component. 

By adopting the criteria for adequacy and compatibility as discussed in this Policy 

Statement, the NRC provides Agreement States a broad range of flexibility in the administration 

of their individual programs. Recognizing the fact that Agreement States have responsibilities 

for radiation sources other than agreement material, the NRC allows Agreement States to 

fashion their programs to reflect specific State needs and preferences. 

The NRC will minimize the number of NRC regulatory requirements that the Agreement 

States will be requested to adopt in an identical manner to maintain compatibility. At the same 

time, requirements in these compatibility categories allow the NRC to ensure that an orderly 

pattern for the regulation of agreement material exists nationwide. The NRC believes that this 
23 

approach achieves a proper balance between the need for Agreement State flexibility and the 

need for an NMP that is coherent and compatible in the regulation of agreement material 

across the country. 

Program elements6

 for adequacy focus on the protection of public health and safety 

within a particular Agreement State while program elements for compatibility focus on the 

impacts of an Agreement State’s regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis or its 

potential effects on other jurisdictions. Some program elements for compatibility also impact 

public health and safety; therefore, they may also be considered program elements for 

adequacy. 

In identifying those program elements for adequate and compatible programs, or any 

changes thereto, the NRC staff will seek the advice of the Agreement States. The Commission 

will consider such advice in its final decision. 

1. Adequacy. 

An “adequate” program should include those program elements of a radiation control 

regulatory program necessary to maintain an acceptable level of protection of public health and 

safety within an Agreement State. An Agreement State's radiation control program is adequate 

to protect public health and safety if administration of the program provides reasonable 

assurance of protection of public health and safety in regulating the use of agreement material. 

The level of protection afforded by the program elements of the NRC's materials regulatory 

program is presumed to be adequate to provide a reasonable assurance of protection of public 

health and safety. Therefore, the overall level of protection of public health and safety provided 

by a State program should be equivalent to, or greater than, the level provided by the NRC 

 

6

 For the purposes of this Policy Statement, “program element” means any component or function of a 

radiation control regulatory program, including regulations and other legally binding requirements 

imposed on regulated persons, which contributes to implementation of that program. 
24 

program. To provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health and safety, an 

Agreement State program should contain the five essential program elements, identified in 

items i. through v. of this section, that the NRC and Agreement States will use to define the 

scope of the review of the program. The NRC and Agreement States will also consider, when 

appropriate, other program elements of an Agreement State that appear to affect the program's 

ability to provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety protection. 

i. Legislation and Legal Authority: 

State statutes shall: (a) authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of 

agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under 

an Agreement with the NRC; (b) authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements 

necessary to provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health and safety; 

(c) authorize the State to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as 

regulations and licenses; and (d) be otherwise consistent with applicable Federal statutes. 

In addition, the State should have existing legally enforceable measures such as generally 

applicable rules, orders, license provisions, or other appropriate measures, necessary to allow 

the State to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety in the regulation of 

agreement material in the State. Specifically, Agreement States should adopt legally binding 

requirements based on those identified by the NRC because of their particular health and safety 

significance. In adopting such requirements, Agreement States shall implement the essential 

objectives articulated in the NRC requirements. 

ii. Licensing. 

The State shall conduct appropriate evaluations of proposed uses of agreement material, 

before issuing a license to authorize such use, to ensure that the proposed licensee's 

operations can be conducted safely and securely. Licenses shall provide for reasonable 

assurance of public health and safety protection in relation to the licensed activities. 
25 

iii. Inspection and Enforcement. 

The State shall periodically conduct inspections of licensed activities involving 

agreement material to provide reasonable assurance of safe licensee operations and to 

determine compliance with its regulatory requirements. When determined to be necessary by 

the State, the State should take timely enforcement action against licensees through legal 

sanctions authorized by State statutes and regulations. 

iv. Personnel. 

The State shall be staffed with a sufficient number of qualified personnel to implement its 

regulatory program for the control of agreement material. 

v. Incidents and Allegations. 

The State shall respond to and conduct timely inspections or investigations of incidents, 

reported events, and allegations involving agreement material within the State's jurisdiction to 

provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health and safety. 

2. Compatibility. 

A “compatible” program should consist of those program elements necessary to support 

the NMP’s goal to promote an orderly pattern of regulation of radiation protection. An 

Agreement State has the flexibility to adopt and implement program elements within the State’s 

jurisdiction that are not addressed by the NRC, or program elements not required for 

compatibility (i.e., those NRC program elements not assigned a Compatibility A, B, or C). 

However, such program elements of an Agreement State relating to agreement material shall 

(1) be compatible with those of the NRC (i.e., should not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or 

other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material 

on a nationwide basis); (2) not effectively preclude, a practice in the national interest without an 

adequate public health and safety or environmental basis related to radiation protection; and 
26 

(3) not effectively preclude, the ability of the Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

NRC and Agreement State programs for agreement material with respect to protection of public 

health and safety. For purposes of compatibility, the State shall adopt program elements 

assigned Categories A, B, and C. 

i. Category A - Basic Radiation Protection Standards. 

This category includes basic radiation protection standards that encompass dose limits, 

concentration and release limits related to radiation protection in 10 CFR Part 20, that are 

generally applicable, and the dose limits for land disposal of radioactive waste in 10 CFR 

61.41.7

 Also included in this category are a limited number of definitions, signs, labels, and 

scientific terms that are necessary for a common understanding of radiation protection principles 

among licensees, regulatory agencies, and members of the public. Such State standards 

should be essentially identical to those of the NRC, unless Federal statutes provide the State 

authority to adopt different standards. Basic radiation protection standards do not include 

constraints or other limits below the level associated with “adequate protection” that take into 

account permissible balancing considerations such as economic cost and other factors. 

ii. Category B – Cross Jurisdictional Program Elements. 

This category pertains to program elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries. This 

category will be limited to a small number of program elements that have an impact on public 

health and safety and should be addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide 

basis. Examples include, but are not limited to, sealed source and device registration 

certificates, transportation regulations, and radiography certification. Agreement State program 

elements shall be essentially identical to those of the NRC. Because program elements used in 

 

7

 The NRC will implement this category consistent with its earlier decision in the low-level waste area to 

allow Agreement States flexibility to establish pre-closure operational release limit objectives, as low as is 

reasonably achievable goals or design objectives at such levels as the State may deem necessary or 

appropriate, as long as the level of protection of public health and safety is essentially identical to that 

afforded by NRC requirements.
27 

the NMP are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of protection of public health and safety, 

economic factors8

 should not be considered. 

iii. Category C - Other NRC Program Elements. 

These are other NRC program elements that are important for an Agreement State to 

avoid conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in 

the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis. Such Agreement State program 

elements should embody the essential objective of the corresponding NRC program elements. 

Agreement State program elements may be more restrictive than NRC program elements; 

however, they should not be so restrictive as to prohibit a practice in the national interest without 

an adequate public health and safety or environmental basis related to radiation protection. 

iv. Category D - Program Elements not Required for Compatibility. 

These are program elements that do not meet any of the criteria listed in Category A, B, 

or C above and are not required to be adopted for purposes of compatibility. 

v. Category NRC - Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory Authority. 

These are program elements over which the NRC cannot discontinue its regulatory 

authority to Agreement States pursuant to the AEA or provisions of 10 CFR. However, an 

Agreement State may inform its licensees of these NRC requirements through a mechanism 

that is appropriate under the State's administrative procedure laws as long as the State adopts 

these provisions solely for the purposes of notification, and does not exercise any regulatory 

authority as a result. 

F. CONCLUSION. 

The NMP is dynamic and the NRC and Agreement States will continue to jointly assess 

the NRC and Agreement State programs for the regulation of agreement materials to identify 

 

8

 For the purposes of this policy statement, economic factors are those costs incurred by the regulated 

community to comply with regulations that impact more than one regulatory jurisdiction in the NMP. 
28 

specific changes that should be considered based on experience or to further improve overall 

safety, performance, compatibility, and effectiveness. 

The NRC encourages Agreement States to adopt and implement program elements that 

are patterned after those adopted and implemented by the NRC to foster and enhance an NMP 

that establishes a coherent and compatible nationwide program for the regulation of agreement 

material. 

 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ______ day of ............ 2015. 

 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

 Secretary for the Commission.