Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices 46517

sample will be drawn from

organizations filing a 990 tax return. An

initial sample of roughly, 4,460

potential NPO R&D performers will be

selected and sent a short screening

questionnaire to establish eligibility for

the main study. NPOs in this initial

sample will be drawn from four strata:

1. NPOs which received Federal

Funds for Science and Engineering

(S&E) R&D between 1974 and 1994

based on NSF’s Federal Support to

Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit

Institutions (FS) survey and which were

found in the 990 database.

2. NPOs in the 990 database which

have National Taxonomy of Exempt

Entities (NTEE) codes with a high

likelihood of containing S&E R&D

performers.

3. NPOs in the 990 database which are

not in the FS or in the high likelihood

NTEE codes.

4. NPOs in NSF’s 1973 survey, all

nonprofit-administered Federally

Funded Research and Development

Centers, and others to be included with

certainty.

Depending on stratum, unweighted

response rates of 80 to 90 percent are

anticipated. Also depending on stratum,

from 60 to 90 percent of the

participating organizations are expected

to be eligible. These approximately

2,360 organizations will be sent a main

questionnaire that is expected to yield a

final working sample size of about

2,100.

The R&D funders sample will be

drawn from both 990PF tax returns for

private foundations and 990 returns for

public charities. As with the performers,

a sample of potential NPO R&D funders

will be selected to receive a short

screening questionnaire to establish

eligibility (N=700). Of these, 90 percent

are expected to participate and 90

percent of these are expected to be

eligible to participate. The roughly 560

eligible organizations will be sent a

main questionnaire that is expected to

yield a total working sample of 500.

To minimize burden on small entities

and to make sure that a high proportion

of the nonprofit sector’s R&D funding

and performance is captured, the

sample will be designed with

probabilities proportional to size. Thus,

a large NPO has a higher probability of

being selected than a small NPO has.

This method is justified because large

NPOs are more likely to perform R&D

than small NPOs are. Size will be

determined by budgets, assets, or

awards.

The main questionnaires will be

distributed in hardcopy and via the

World Wide Web. To minimize burden,

the world Wide Web questionnaires will

be computer-assisted to ease user input,

provide automatic totals of numerical

information and aid users in error

correction. Security procedures will

minimize the risk of unwanted

disclosure over the Internet. Definitions

of key survey terms have been made

consistent with OMB Circulars A–122

and A–133 to minimize potential

confusion and unnecessary effort by

survey respondents.

Information being collected is not

considered to be sensitive. In general,

assurances of data confidentiality will

not be provided to respondents to the

NSF Survey of Research and

Development Funding and Performance

by Nonprofit Organizations. The utility

of the data will be increased by allowing

access to collected data. Results of

pretesting and discussions with possible

respondents have suggested this

approach for handling confidentiality.

Use of the Information. The purpose

of this study is to collect data about R&D

funding and performance by nonprofit

organizations. The NSF will publish a

separate report of the findings and also

include them in other NSF compilations

such as National Patterns of R&D

Resources and Science and Engineering

Indicators. A public release file of

collected data will be made available to

researchers on the World Wide Web.

The results of the survey will help

policy makers in decisions on R&D

funding, regulations, and reporting

guidelines.

Burden on the Public. The Foundation

estimates that a total annual reporting

and recordkeeping burden of 27,056

hours will result from the collection of

information. The calculation is:

Hours

4,460 performers × 1 screening

questionnaire × 12.5 minutes = ...... 930

2,360 performers × 1 survey questionnaire × 10.5 hours = .................. 24,780

700 funders × 1 screening questionnaire × 12.5 minutes = .................... 146

560 funders × 1 shorter questionnaire × 2 hours = ............................. 1,120

Total .............................................. 27,056

Dated: August 27, 1997.

Gail A. McHenry,

Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–23365 Filed 8–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Statement of Principles and Policy for

the Agreement State Program; Policy

Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final policy statements.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is publishing two

final policy statements: the ‘‘Statement

of Principles and Policy for the

Agreement State Program,’’ and ‘‘Policy

Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Documents referenced in

this notice are available for inspection

in the Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington,

DC, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Cardelia Maupin, Sr. Project Manager,

Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–2312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Statement of Principles and Policy

for the Agreement State Program

On August 25, 1993, the Commission

requested the NRC staff to recommend

improvements to the NRC’s Agreement

State Program to assure adequate

protection of public health and safety.

The draft Policy Statement was

published in the Federal Register on

August 5, 1994 (59 FR 40058). At the

Commission’s request, the public

comment period scheduled to end on

October 4, 1994, was extended to

December 19, 1994 (59 FR 52316).

A final Policy Statement was prepared

based on the public comments, other

activities and issues before the

Commission, e.g., the ‘‘Policy Statement

on Adequacy and Compatibility of

Agreement State Programs,’’ issues

discussed at public briefings of the

Commission by the Organization of

Agreement States (OAS), and the

Commission’s deliberations on the

Integrated Materials Performance

Evaluation Program. On May 5, 1995,

the NRC staff submitted to the

Commission the ‘‘Final Statement of

Principles and Policy for the Agreement

State Program’’ and ‘‘Procedures for

Suspension and Termination of an

Agreement State Program’’ (SECY 95–

115) that contained the full analysis of
46518 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices

comments. By Staff Requirements

Memorandum dated June 29, 1995, the

Commission provided comments on the

Statement of Principles and Policy for

the Agreement State Program and

directed staff to develop procedures for

placing an Agreement State in

probationary status and for

implementing the phase-in of a new

Agreement State program.

On October 3, 1996, the NRC staff

submitted to the Commission the

Statement of Principles and Policy for

the Agreement State Program that had

been modified as directed by the

Commission (SECY 96–213). Further

revisions were made to ensure

consistency with the revised Policy

Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs. The procedures for

suspension, emergency suspension and

termination of agreements were

finalized on April 25, 1996, and the

procedure for placing an Agreement

State in probationary status was

finalized on July 3, 1996.

B. Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs.

On July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37269), the

Commission published in the Federal

Register, for public comment, a draft

Policy Statement regarding the

adequacy of Agreement State programs

to protect public health and safety and

compatibility with NRC regulatory

programs. The comment period for the

draft Policy Statement was scheduled to

expire on October 19, 1994, but was

extended to December 19, 1994 (59 FR

52317). In addition, a public workshop

was held on November 15, 1994 (59 FR

52321) to provide an opportunity for

Agreement States and interested

members of the public to provide

comments on the draft Policy Statement.

A final ‘‘Policy Statement on

Adequacy and Compatibility of

Agreement State Program’’ was prepared

based on the public comments and other

activities and issues before the

Commission. On May 3, 1995, the NRC

staff submitted to the Commission the

‘‘Final Policy Statement on Adequacy

and Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs’’ (SECY 95–112) that

contained the full analysis of comments.

C. Status of the Policy Statements

The Commission approved both

policy statements in principle with a

Staff Requirements Memorandum dated

June 29, 1995, but deferred their

implementation until all implementing

procedures were completed and

approved by the Commission. On

August 2, 1995 (60 FR 39463), the

Commission published in the Federal

Register the status of these two policy

statements and a notice of their

availability.

NRC staff also prepared draft

implementing procedures for phased

implementation of a new Agreement

State program that contained language

for a standard agreement (Management

Directive 5.8 and its associated

handbook). Comments on the draft

implementing procedures for phased

implementation of new agreements and

the standard agreement were requested

from the Agreement States on November

15, 1996. The complete analysis of these

comments is included in ‘‘Final

Recommendations on Policy Statements

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’’ (SECY 97–054, dated March

3, 1997) that is available for inspection

at the NRC Public Document Room. A

summary of the comments appears with

the text of the final policy statement in

this notice.

In October 1995, a Working Group

consisting of representatives of

Agreement States and the NRC was

formed to develop implementing

procedures for the ‘‘Policy Statement on

Adequacy and Compatibility of

Agreement State Programs.’’ The

formation of this Working Group was

announced in the Federal Register on

December 1, 1995 (60 FR 61716). A

notice announcing availability of the

initial Working Group report (August

21, 1996) and implementing procedures

was published in the Federal Register

on September 19, 1996 (61 FR 49357).

Comments also were requested

specifically from Agreement States and

panelists who participated in the

November 15, 1994, public workshop.

The analysis of State and public

comments is part of the supplemental

report of the Working Group dated

January 27, 1997, that is available for

inspection at the NRC Public Document

Room. A summary of the comments

appears with the text of the final policy

statement in this notice.

II. Statement of Principles and Policy

for the Agreement State Program

A. Comment Summary

Comment letters were received from

twelve Agreement States on the

implementing procedures for phased

agreements (Management Directive 5.8).

There was strong opposition from the

Agreement States on the inclusion of

mandatory phased agreements for states

seeking Agreement State status. Staff

analyzed the comments and agreed with

the concerns associated with the use of

phased agreements. Changes were made

to the Policy Statement to remove the

phased agreement concept and to

include revisions offered by the

Agreement States, as appropriate. The

Policy Statement was also edited to

conform it to the position that

Agreement States have flexibility to

impose legally binding requirements on

its licensees through mechanisms other

than rules.

The text of the final policy statement

follows.

B. The Commission Policy

Statement of Principles and Policy for

the Agreement State Program

1. Purpose: The purpose of this

Statement of Principles and Policy for

the Agreement State Program is to

clearly describe the respective roles and

responsibilities of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and

States in the administration of programs

carried out under Section 274 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Section 274 provides broad authority for

the NRC to establish Federal and State

cooperation in the administration of

regulatory programs for the protection of

public health and safety in the

industrial, medical, and research uses of

nuclear materials.

This Policy Statement addresses the

Federal-State interaction under the

Atomic Energy Act to: (1) Establish and

maintain agreements with States under

Section 274(b) that provide for

discontinuance by the NRC, and the

assumption by the State, of

responsibility for administration of a

regulatory program for the use of

byproduct, source, and small quantities

of special nuclear material; and (2)

ensure that post-agreement interactions

among the NRC and Agreement State

radiation control programs are

coordinated and compatible and that

Agreement State programs continue to

provide adequate protection of public

health and safety.

This Policy Statement establishes

principles, objectives, and goals that the

Commission expects will be reflected in

the implementing guidance and

programs of the NRC and Agreement

States to meet their respective program

responsibilities and that should be

achieved in the administration of these

programs.

This Policy Statement is intended

solely as guidance for the Commission

and the Agreement States in the

implementation of the Agreement State

program. This Policy Statement does not

itself impose legally binding
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices 46519

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.

Implementation procedures adopted

pursuant to this Policy Statement shall

be consistent with the legal authorities

of the Commission and the Agreement

States.

2. Statement of Legislative Intent: The

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 did not

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 seeing that the

boundaries of Federal and State

authority were clearly defined. 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 byproduct,

source, and special nuclear material, the

responsibility for protecting the public

from the radiation hazards of other

sources such as x-ray machines and

radium had been borne for many years

by the States.

Consequently, in 1959 Congress

enacted Section 274 of the Atomic

Energy Act to establish a statutory

framework under which States could

assume certain regulatory jurisdiction

over byproduct, source, and special

nuclear material in quantities less than

a critical mass. The primary purpose of

the legislation was to authorize the

Commission to discontinue its

regulatory authority over the use of

these materials and for assumption of

this authority by the States. The

Commission retained regulatory

authority over the licensing of certain

facilities and activities such as nuclear

reactors, larger quantities of special

nuclear material, and the export and

import of nuclear materials.

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 Commission to provide

training and other services to State

officials and employees. However, in

rendering this assistance, Congress did

not intend that the Commission would

provide any grants to a State for the

administration of a State regulatory

program. This was fully consistent with

the objectives of Section 274 to qualify

States to assume independent regulatory

authority over certain defined areas of

regulatory jurisdiction and to permit the

Commission to discontinue its

regulatory responsibilities in those

areas.

In order to relinquish its authority to

a particular State, the Commission must

find that the program is compatible with

the Commission’s program for the

regulation of radioactive materials and

that the State program is adequate to

protect public health and safety. In

addition, the Commission has an

obligation, pursuant to Section 274(j) of

the Act, to review existing Agreement

State programs to ensure continued

adequacy and compatibility. Section

274(j) of the Act provides that the NRC

may terminate or suspend all or part of

its agreement with a State if the

Commission finds that such termination

is necessary to protect public health and

safety or that the State has not complied

with the provisions of Section 274(j). In

these cases, the Commission must offer

the State reasonable notice and

opportunity for a hearing. In addition,

the Commission may temporarily

suspend all or part of an agreement in

the case of an emergency situation.

C. Principles of Program

Implementation

1. Good Regulation Principles

In 1991, the Commission adopted

‘‘Principles of Good Regulation’’ to

serve as a guide to both agency decision

making and to individual behavior as

NRC employees. Adherence to these

principles has helped to ensure that

NRC’s regulatory activities have been of

the highest quality, 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 Commission

believes that NRC’s implementation of

these principles has served the public,

the Agreement States, and the regulated

community well. The Commission

further believes that such principles

may be useful as a part of a common

culture that NRC and the Agreement

States share as co-regulators.

Accordingly, the Commission

encourages each Agreement State to

adopt a similar set of principles for use

in its own regulatory program.

Regulatory decisions and actions

should be developed and implemented

in an open and publicly credible

manner and should be able to withstand

scrutiny. Such scrutiny should be

welcomed by the regulator. The

regulator should be independent and

impartial in its actions, and this should

be clearly evident. Regulations and

regulatory decisions should be based on

assessments of the best available

information from affected and interested

individuals and organizations, as well

as on the best available knowledge from

research and operational experience.

Significant decisions, for example, a

change in enforcement policy, should be

documented explaining the rationale for

such decisions. The public should have

an opportunity for early involvement in

significant regulatory program

decisions. Where several effective

alternatives are available, the alternative

that best assures safety while

considering differing views should be

adopted, considering the resources

needed to implement that alternative.

Regulations should be necessary, and

appropriate, to assure safety, and should

be clear, coherent, logical, and practical.

Regulatory actions should be fully

consistent with regulations or other

legally binding requirements and good

public policy and should lead to

stability and predictability in the

planning and implementation of

radiation control programs.

Failure to adhere to these principles

of good regulation in the conduct of

operations should be a sufficient reason

for a regulatory program to self-initiate

program changes that will result in

needed improvements. All involved

should welcome expressions of concern

that indicate a program may not be

operating in accordance with these

principles and revise their program to

more completely reflect these

principles.

It is not intended that these principles

of good regulation be established as

formal criteria against which NRC and

Agreement State programs would be

assessed. Rather, the expectation is that

these principles will be incorporated

into the day-to-day operational fabric of

NRC and Agreement State materials

programs. These principles should be

used in the formulation of policies and

programs, implementation of those

policies and programs, and assessments

of program effectiveness. Application of

these principles will ensure that

complacency will be minimized, that

adequate levels of protection of public

health and safety are being provided,

and that government employees tasked

with the responsibility for these Federal

and State regulatory programs serve the

public in an effective, efficient, and

responsive manner. These principles are

primarily for the use of NRC and

Agreement State materials program

managers and staff in the self

assessment of their respective programs

and to use in the establishment of goals

and objectives for the continual

improvement of their respective
46520 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices

programs. Deficiencies identified during

the conduct of NRC Region and

Agreement State formal program

performance reviews may indicate that

the program is not adhering to these

principles of good regulation. The

organization being assessed should

factor the need for these principles into

its actions to address identified

deficiencies.

2. Coherent Nationwide Effort

The mission of the NRC is to assure

that civilian use of nuclear materials in

the United States is carried out with

adequate protection of public health and

safety. NRC acknowledges its

responsibility, shared with the

Agreement States, to ensure that the

regulatory programs of the NRC and the

Agreement States collectively establish

a coherent nationwide effort for the

control of AEA materials. The basic

elements of such regulatory programs

include ability to ensure adequate

protection of public health and safety,

compatibility in areas of national

interest, sufficient flexibility to

accommodate local needs and

conditions, ability to assess program

performance on a consistent and

systematic basis, and principles of good

regulation in program administration.

Each of these elements is reflected

and addressed in specific sections of

this Policy Statement.

3. Adequate to Protect Public Health

and Safety

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 controlling the uses

of AEA materials. Accordingly, 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.

4. Compatible in Areas of National

Interest

NRC and the Agreement States have

the responsibility to ensure that

consistent and compatible radiation

control programs are administered.

Such radiation control programs should

be based on a common regulatory

philosophy including the common use

of definitions and standards. They

should be not only effective and

cooperatively implemented by NRC and

the Agreement States, but also should

provide uniformity and consistency in

program areas having national

significance.

Such areas include those affecting

interstate commerce, movement of

goods and provision of services, and

safety reviews for sealed source devices

sold nationwide. Also necessary is the

ability to communicate using a

nationally accepted set of terms with

common understanding, the ability to

ensure an adequate level of protection of

public health and safety that is

consistent and stable across the nation,

and the ability of NRC and each

Agreement State to evaluate the

effectiveness of the NRC and Agreement

State programs for the regulation of

agreement material with respect to

protection of public health and safety.

5. Flexibility

With the exception of those

compatibility areas where all programs

should be essentially identical, to the

extent possible, Agreement State

radiation control programs for AEA

materials should be provided with

flexibility in program implementation to

accommodate individual State

preferences, State legislative direction,

and local needs and conditions.

However, the exercise of such flexibility

should not preclude, or effectively

preclude, a practice authorized by the

Atomic Energy Act, and in the national

interest. That is, a State would have the

flexibility to design its own program,

including incorporating more stringent,

or similar, requirements provided that

the requirements for adequacy are still

met and compatibility is maintained,

and the more stringent requirements do

not preclude or effectively preclude a

practice in the national interest without

an adequate public health and safety or

environmental basis related to radiation

protection.

D. New Agreements

Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act

requires that once a decision to seek

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, a narrative

description of the State program’s

policies, practices and procedures, and

a proposed agreement.

The NRC has published criteria

describing the necessary content these

documents are required to cover. The

NRC reviews the request and publishes

notice of the proposed agreement in the

Federal Register to provide an

opportunity for public comment. After

consideration of public comments, if the

Commission determines that the State

program is adequate and compatible,

and approves the agreement, a formal

agreement document is signed by the

Governor and the Chairman of the NRC.

E. Program Assistance

NRC will offer training and other

assistance to States, such as assistance

in developing regulations and program

descriptions to help individual States

prepare for entrance into agreements

and to help them prior to the

assumption of regulatory authority.

Following assumption of regulatory

authority by a new Agreement State, to

the extent permitted by resources, NRC

can provide training and other

assistance such as review of proposed

regulatory changes to help States

administer their regulatory

responsibilities. NRC would also use its

best efforts to provide specialized

technical assistance to Agreement States

to address unique or complex licensing,

inspection, and enforcement issues. In

areas where Agreement States have

particular expertise or are in the best

position to provide immediate

assistance to the NRC, the Agreement

States are encouraged to do so. In

addition, NRC and Agreement States

will keep each other informed about

relevant aspects of their programs. NRC

will provide an opportunity for

Agreement States to have early and

substantive involvement in rulemaking,

policy, and guidance development

activities. Agreement States should

provide a similar opportunity to the

NRC to make it aware of, and to provide

the opportunity to review and comment

on, proposed changes in regulations and

significant changes to Agreement State

programs, policies, and regulatory

guidance.

If an Agreement State experiences

difficulty in program administration, the

Commission would use its best efforts to

assist the State in maintaining the

effectiveness of its radiation control

program. Such assistance could address

an immediate difficulty or a chronic

difficulty affecting the State’s ability to

discharge its responsibility to continue

to ensure adequate protection of public

health and safety.

F. Performance Evaluation

Under Section 274 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices 46521

Commission retains authority for

ensuring that Agreement State programs

continue to provide adequate protection

of public health and safety. In fulfilling

this statutory responsibility, NRC will

provide oversight of Agreement State

radiation control programs to ensure

that they are adequate and compatible

prior to entrance into a Section 274(b)

agreement and that they continue to be

adequate and compatible after an

agreement is effective. The Commission,

in cooperation with the Agreement

States, will establish and implement a

performance evaluation program to

provide 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.

As a part of this performance

evaluation process, the Commission will

take any necessary actions to help

ensure that Agreement State radiation

control programs remain adequate and

compatible. These actions include: (1)

Periodic assessments of Agreement State

radiation control programs against

established review criteria; (2) provision

of assistance to help address weaknesses

or areas within an Agreement State

radiation control program requiring

improvement, to the extent permitted by

NRC resources; (3) placing a State on a

probationary status for serious program

deficiencies that require heightened

oversight; (4) temporary suspension of

an agreement and reassertion of NRC

regulatory authority in an emergency if

an Agreement State program

experiences any immediate program

difficulties preventing the State from

continuing to ensure adequate

protection of public health and safety;

and (5) suspension or termination of an

agreement and reassertion of NRC

regulatory authority if the Agreement

State program experiences difficulties

that jeopardize the State’s ability to

continue to ensure adequate protection

of public health and safety or to

continue to maintain a compatible

program. The basis for NRC’s actions

will be based on a well defined and

predictable process and a performance

evaluation program that will be

consistently and fairly applied.

G. Levels of Agreement State Program

Review Findings

The following discussion outlines the

nature of NRC findings regarding the

NRC’s Agreement State review process.

Finding 1—Adequate To Protect Public

Health and Safety and (or not)

Compatible

If the NRC finds that a State program

has met all of the Agreement State

program review criteria or that only

minor deficiencies exist, the

Commission would find that the State’s

program is adequate to protect public

health and safety. If the NRC determines

that a State program contains all

required NRC program elements for

compatibility, or only minor

discrepancies exist, the program would

be found compatible. If the NRC

determines that a State has a program

that disrupts the orderly pattern of

regulation among the collective

regulatory efforts of the NRC and other

Agreement States, i.e., creates conflicts,

gaps, or duplication in regulation, the

program would be found not

compatible.

Finding 2—Adequate, but Needs

Improvement and (or not) Compatible

If the NRC finds that a State program

protects public health and safety, but is

deficient in meeting some of the review

criteria, the NRC may find that the

State’s program is adequate, but needs

improvement. The NRC would consider

in its determination plans that the State

has to address any of the deficiencies

noted during the review. In cases where

less significant Agreement State

deficiencies previously identified have

been uncorrected for a significant period

of time, NRC may also find that the

program is adequate but in need of

improvement. If the NRC determines

that a State program contains all

required NRC program elements for

compatibility, or only minor

discrepancies exist, the program would

be found compatible. If the NRC

determines that a State has a program

that disrupts the orderly pattern of

regulation among the collective

regulatory efforts of the NRC and other

Agreement States, i.e., creates conflicts,

gaps, or duplication in regulation, the

program would be found not

compatible.

Finding 3—Inadequate to Protect Public

Health and Safety and (or not)

Compatible

If the NRC finds that a State program

is significantly deficient in some or all

of the review criteria, the NRC would

find that the State’s program is not

adequate to protect public health and

safety. If the NRC determines that a

State program contains all required NRC

program elements for compatibility, or

only minor discrepancies exist, the

program would be found compatible. If

the NRC determines that a State has a

program that disrupts the orderly

pattern of regulation among the

collective regulatory efforts of the NRC

and other Agreement States, i.e., creates

conflicts, gaps, or duplication in

regulation, the program would be found

not compatible.

H. NRC Actions as a Result of These

Findings

The following discussion outlines the

options available to the NRC as a result

of making any of the above findings.

The appropriate action will be

determined on a case-by-case basis by

NRC management.

Letters

In all cases, subsequent to an

Agreement State program review, the

findings would be recounted in a letter

to senior level State management. In the

event that the NRC finds that a State

program is adequate and compatible, no

further action would be required, except

a response by the State to any

suggestions or recommendations. In the

case where minor deficiencies are noted

or areas for improvement are identified,

the State would be requested to describe

their proposed corrective action. If the

corrective action appears appropriate,

no further NRC action is required. If

additional clarification of the corrective

actions is needed, additional

correspondence may be necessary.

Follow-up Reviews

In the event that deficiencies are

noted during the program review, NRC

may increase the frequency of contacts

with the State to keep abreast of

developments and conduct onsite

follow-up reviews to assure that

progress is being made on correcting

program deficiencies. If, during followup reviews, it is shown that the State

has taken corrective actions, a letter

finding the State adequate and

compatible would be provided.

Probationary Status

There are three circumstances that

can lead to an adequate but needs

improvement or incompatible State

program being placed in a probationary

status: (1) There are cases in which

program deficiencies may be serious

enough to require immediate heightened

oversight; (2) in other cases, Agreement

State program deficiencies previously

identified may have been uncorrected

for a significant period of time; and (3)

if the NRC determines that a State

program has been late in adopting

required compatibility program

elements and significant disruption in

the collective nationwide efforts to
46522 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices

regulate AEA materials has occurred. If

the NRC was not confident that the State

would address the program deficiencies

in an expeditious and effective manner,

the Commission would place the State

program on probation.

As a result of placing a State program

on probation, the NRC would

communicate its findings to a higher

level of State management. Notice of

such probationary status would

normally be addressed to the Governor

of the State. Notice would also be

published in the Federal Register. A

copy of the letter to the Governor would

be placed in the Public Document Room

and a press release would be issued.

Once a State program is placed on

probation, the NRC would heighten its

oversight of the program. This would

include obtaining commitments from

the State in the form of a management

plan to describe actions to be taken by

the State to address the program

deficiencies, including specific goals

and milestones. The NRC would

increase observation of State program

activities under the agreement to assure

adequate protection of public health and

safety. If requested and in accordance

with terms agreed to by the parties, the

NRC would consider providing

technical support for the maintenance of

the regulatory program. The

probationary period would last for a

specified period of time. This period

would not normally be more than one

year, but could be extended based on

extenuating circumstances. At the end

of that time, if the State has not

addressed the deficiencies, the NRC

would institute suspension or

termination proceedings.

Suspension

Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act

gives the Commission authority to

suspend all or part of its agreement with

a State if the suspension is required to

protect public health and safety, or if

the State has not complied with one or

more of the requirements of Section 274

of the Act. In cases where the

Commission finds that program

deficiencies related to either adequacy

or compatibility are such that the

Commission must take action to protect

public health and safety, or if the

program has not complied with one or

more of the requirements of Section 274

of the Act, the Commission would

suspend all or part of its agreement with

the State. In cases where a State has

failed to respond in an acceptable

manner during the probationary period,

suspension would be considered. If the

situation is not resolved, termination

will be considered.

Before reaching a final decision on

suspension, the Commission will notify

the State and provide the State an

opportunity for a hearing on the

proposed suspension. Notice of the

proposed suspension will also be

published in the Federal Register.

Suspension, rather than termination,

would be the preferred option in those

cases where the State provides evidence

that the program deficiencies are

temporary and that the State is

committed to correcting the deficiencies

that led to the suspension.

In addition to the normal suspension

authority, Section 274j(2) of the Act also

addresses emergency situations and

gives the Commission authority to

temporarily suspend all or part of its

agreement with a State without notice or

hearing if an emergency situation exists

requiring immediate action to protect

public health and safety, and the State

has failed to take necessary action

within a reasonable time.

Termination

Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act

gives the Commission authority to

terminate its agreement with a State if

such termination is required to protect

public health and safety, or if the State

program has not complied with one or

more of the requirements of Section 274

of the Act (e.g., is found to be not

compatible with the Commission’s

program). When the Commission finds

such significant program deficiencies,

the Commission would institute

proceedings to terminate its agreement

with the State.

In cases where a State has failed to

respond in an acceptable manner during

the probationary period and there is no

prospect for improvement, termination

will be considered. Before reaching a

final decision on termination, the

Commission will notify the State and

provide the State an opportunity for a

hearing on the proposed termination.

Also, notice of the proposed

termination will be published in the

Federal Register. There may be cases

where termination will be considered

even though the State program has not

been placed on probation.

I. Program Funding

Currently, Section 274 does not allow

federal funding for the administration of

Agreement State radiation control

programs. Section 274 permits the NRC

to offer training and other assistance to

a State in anticipation of entering into

an Agreement with NRC, however, it is

NRC policy not to fund the

establishment of new Agreement State

programs. Regarding training, given the

importance in terms of public health

and safety of having well trained

radiation control program personnel, the

NRC offers certain relevant training

courses and notifies Agreement State

personnel of their availability.

J. Regulatory Development

NRC and Agreement States will

cooperate in the development of new

regulations and policy. Agreement

States will have early and substantive

involvement in the development of new

regulations affecting protection of

public health and safety and of new

policy affecting administration of the

Agreement State program. Likewise, the

NRC expects to have the States provide

it with early and substantive

involvement in the development of new

Suggested State Regulations. NRC and

Agreement States will keep each other

informed about their individual

regulatory requirements (e.g.,

regulations 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.

K. Program Evolution

The NRC-Agreement State program is

dynamic and the NRC and Agreement

States will continue to jointly assess the

NRC and Agreement State programs for

the regulation of AEA materials to

identify specific changes that should be

considered based on experience or to

further improve overall performance

and effectiveness. The changes

considered may include possible

legislative changes. The program should

also include the formal sharing of

information and views such as briefings

of the Commission by the Agreement

States.

III. Policy Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs

A. Comment Summary

Ten comment letters were received,

one from the Organization of Agreement

States, six Agreement State program

directors, two industry organizations

and one environmental group. The Joint

NRC-Agreement State Working Group

for Development of Implementing

Procedures for the Final Policy

Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs analyzed the comments and

changes were made to the Policy

Statement (1) to add additional

clarifying language for the terms

‘‘adequacy’’ and ‘‘compatibility’’ and

the cooperative nature of the NRC—

Agreement State relationship; (2) to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices 46523

1For the purposes of this Policy Statement,

‘‘program element’’ means any component or

function of a radiation control regulatory program,

including regulations and/or other legally binding

requirements imposed on regulated persons, that

contributes to implementation of that program.

conform it to the position that

Agreement States have flexibility with

respect to the legally binding

mechanism by which regulatory

requirements needed for adequacy or

compatibility are adopted; and (3) to

simplify the language describing

compatibility categories. Changes also

were made in response to the June 30,

1997 Staff Requirements Memorandum.

These changes (1) reflect that program

elements for compatibility also impact

public health and safety and may also

be considered program elements for

adequacy; (2) clarify the definition of

basic radiation protection standard; and

(3) clarify that States may not adopt

program elements reserved exclusively

to NRC. The implementing procedures

were changed to reflect the final Policy

Statement.

One Agreement State specifically

commented that it did not believe that

Section 274 of the AEA required

compatibility of programs or program

elements after an agreement is effective

except for requirements pertaining to

the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act in section 274(o). This

position also was reflected in the

recommended changes to the Policy

Statement submitted by the

Organization of Agreement States.

The Commission does not agree with

this interpretation of the AEA. Both

Sections 274d.(2) and 274g. indicate

that the Commission must find a State

program to be compatible with that of

NRC in order to enter into a Section

274b. agreement with the State. It is the

Commission’s view that, pursuant to

Section 274, an Agreement State’s

program should be compatible with

NRC’s program for the duration of the

Agreement for the following reasons:

Subsection 274g. authorizes and directs the

Commission to cooperate with the States in

the formulation of radiation protection

standards ‘‘to assure that the State and

Commission programs for the protection

against hazards of radiation will be

coordinated and compatible.’’ This provision

demonstrates Congress’ intention that the

compatibility between the NRC and

Agreement State programs should be

maintained on a continuing basis.

Section 274j.(1) calls on the Commission to

suspend or terminate an Agreement State’s

program if ‘‘the State has not complied with

one or more of the requirements’’ of the

Section 274. The Commission believes that

this phrase ‘‘one or more of the

requirements,’’ encompasses all requirements

of Section 274, including the requirement for

compatibility.

Under subsection 274d.(2), the

Commission is authorized to enter into an

agreement with a State if the Commission

makes both requisite findings that the State

program is compatible with the NRC’s

program and adequate to protect public

health and safety. Absent a continuing

compatibility requirement, an Agreement

State could divert from having a compatible

program the day after any agreement is

signed with NRC. This would render the

Commission’s initial compatibility finding

required by Section 274d.(2) meaningless.

Therefore, the Commission does not

believe that Congress intended such

meaning for the compatibility

requirement and no changes were made

to the Policy Statement in response to

this comment.

The text of the final policy statement

follows.

B. The Commission Policy

Policy Statement on Adequacy and

Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs

Purpose: Section 274 of the Atomic

Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended,

provides for a special Federal-State

regulatory framework for the control of

radioactive materials under which the

NRC, by agreement with a State,

relinquishes its authority in certain

areas to the State government as long as

the State program is adequate to protect

public health and safety and compatible

with the Commission’s program. Section

274 further directs the Commission to

periodically review State programs to

ensure compliance with provisions of

Section 274. This Policy Statement

presents the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s policy for determining

the adequacy and compatibility of

Agreement State programs established

pursuant to Section 274. This Policy

Statement clarifies the meaning and use

of the terms ‘‘adequate to protect public

health and safety’’ and ‘‘compatible

with the Commission’s regulatory

program’’ as applied to the Agreement

State program. The Policy Statement

also describes the general framework

that will be used to identify those

program elements 1 that Agreement

State programs should implement to be

adequate to protect public health and

safety and to be compatible with the

Commission’s regulatory program.

Finally, the Policy Statement reflects

principles discussed in the

Commission’s Statement of Principles

and Policy for the Agreement State

Program which should be considered in

conjunction with this Policy Statement.

This Policy Statement is solely

guidance for the Commission and the

Agreement States in the implementation

of the Agreement State program. This

Policy Statement does not itself impose

legally 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 Atomic Energy Act

and other relevant legal authority.

Implementation procedures adopted

pursuant to this Policy Statement shall

be consistent with the legal authorities

of the Commission and the Agreement

States.

Background: The terms ‘‘adequate’’

and ‘‘compatible’’ represent

fundamental concepts in the Agreement

State program authorized in 1959 by

Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended (AEA). 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, provided that the

State’s program is adequate to protect

public health and safety and

compatible, in all other respects, with

the Commission’s regulatory program.

Subsection 274g. authorizes and directs

the Commission to cooperate with

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 review periodically

the Agreements and actions taken by

States under the Agreements to ensure

compliance with provisions of Section

274. In other words, the Commission

must review the actions taken by States

under the Agreements to ensure that the

programs continue to be adequate to

protect public health and safety and

compatible with the Commission’s

program.

Section 274 of the AEA requires that

Agreement State programs be both

‘‘adequate to protect the public health

and safety’’ and ‘‘compatible with the

Commission’s program.’’ These separate

findings are based on consideration of

two different objectives. First, an

Agreement State program should

provide for an acceptable level of

protection of public health and safety in

an Agreement State (the ‘‘adequacy’’

component). Second, the Agreement

State should ensure that its program

serves an overall nationwide interest in

radiation protection (the

‘‘compatibility’’ component). As

discussed in more detail below, an

‘‘adequate’’ program should consist of

those program elements necessary to

maintain an acceptable level of

protection of public health and safety

within an Agreement State. A

‘‘compatible’’ program should consist of

those program elements necessary to
46524 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices

2The Commission will implement this category

consistent with its earlier decision in the LLW area

to allow Agreement States flexibility to establish

pre-closure operational release limit objectives,

ALARA 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 at least equivalent to that afforded by

Commission requirements.

meet a larger nationwide interest in

radiation protection generally limited to

areas of regulation involving radiation

protection standards and activities with

significant transboundary implications.

Program elements for adequacy focus on

the protection of public health and

safety within a particular State, whereas

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. Many

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 Commission

will seek the advice of the Agreement

States and will consider such advice in

its final decision.

Adequacy: 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 source, byproduct, and small

quantities of special nuclear material

(hereinafter termed ‘‘agreement

material’’) as identified by Section 274b.

of the AEA. The level of protection

afforded by the program elements of

NRC’s materials regulatory program is

presumed to be that which is adequate

to provide a reasonable assurance of

protection of public health and safety.

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 program. To provide reasonable

assurance of protection of public health

and safety, an Agreement State program

should contain five essential program

elements, identified below, that the

Commission will use to define the scope

of its review of the program. The

Commission also will consider, when

appropriate, other program elements of

an Agreement State which appear to

affect the program’s ability to provide

reasonable assurance of public health

and safety protection. Such

consideration will occur only if

concerns arise.

A. Legislation and Legal Authority

State statutes should:

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 Commission;

Authorize the State to promulgate

regulatory requirements necessary to provide

reasonable assurance of protection of public

health and safety;

Authorize the State to license, inspect, and

enforce legally binding requirements such as

regulations and licenses; and

Be otherwise consistent with Federal

statutes, as appropriate, such as Pub. L. 95–

604, The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act (UMTRCA).

In addition, the State should have

existing legally enforceable measures

such as generally applicable rules,

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 a limited number of legally

binding requirements based on those of

NRC because of their particular health

and safety significance. In adopting

such requirements, Agreement States

should adopt the essential objectives of

those of the Commission.

B. Licensing

The State should conduct appropriate

evaluations of proposed uses of

agreement material, before issuing a

license, to assure that the proposed

licensee’s operations can be conducted

safely. Licenses should provide for

reasonable assurance of public health

and safety protection in relation to the

licensed activities.

C. Inspection and Enforcement

The State should 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.

D. Personnel

The State should be staffed with a

sufficient number of qualified personnel

to implement its regulatory program for

the control of agreement material.

E. Response to Events and Allegations

The State should 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.

Compatibility

An Agreement State radiation control

program is compatible with the

Commission’s regulatory program when

its program does not create conflicts,

duplications, gaps, or other conditions

that would jeopardize an orderly pattern

in the regulation of agreement material

on a nationwide basis. For purposes of

compatibility, the State should address

categories A, B, and C identified below:

A. Basic Radiation Protection Standards

For purposes of this Policy Statement,

this category includes ‘‘basic radiation

protection standards’’ meaning dose

limits, concentration and release limits

related to radiation protection in 10 CFR

part 20 that are generally applicable,

and the dose limits in 10 CFR 61.41.2

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 Commission,

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.

B. Program Elements with Significant

Transboundary Implications

The Commission will limit this

category to a small number of program

elements (e.g., transportation

regulations and sealed source and

device registration certificates) that have

significant transboundary implications.

Agreement State program elements

should be essentially identical to those

of the Commission.

C. Other Commission Program Elements

These are other Commission program

elements (e.g., reciprocity procedures)

that are important for an Agreement

State to have 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. Such Agreement

State program elements should embody

the essential objective of the

corresponding Commission program

elements.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 1997 / Notices 46525

3 ‘‘Practice’’ means a use, procedure, or activity

associated with the application, possession, use,

storage, or disposal of agreement material. The term

‘‘practice’’ is used in a broad and encompassing

manner in this Policy Statement. The term

encompasses both general activities involving use

of radioactive materials such as industrial and

medical uses and specific activities within a

practice such as industrial radiography and

brachytherapy.

D. Program Elements not Required for

Compatibility

An Agreement State has the flexibility

to adopt and implement program

elements based on those of the

Commission (other than those identified

in A, B, and C above) or other program

elements within the State’s jurisdiction

that are not addressed by NRC.

All program elements of an

Agreement State relating to agreement

material should:

Be compatible with those of the

Commission (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);

Not preclude, or effectively preclude, a

practice 3 in the national interest without an

adequate public health and safety or

environmental basis related to radiation

protection; or

Not preclude, or 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.

E. Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory

Authority

These are program elements that

address areas of regulation that cannot

be relinquished to Agreement States

pursuant to the AEA or provisions of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. However, an Agreement

State may inform its licensees of certain

of these NRC provisions 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 pursuant to them.

Summary and Conclusions

To foster and enhance a coherent and

consistent nationwide program for the

regulation of agreement material, the

Commission encourages Agreement

States to adopt and implement program

elements that are patterned after those

adopted and implemented by the

Commission. However, the fact that an

Agreement State’s program is

compatible with that of the Commission

does not affect that State’s obligation to

maintain an adequate program as

described in this Policy Statement.

By adopting the criteria for adequacy

and compatibility as discussed in this

Policy Statement the Commission will

provide Agreement States a broad range

of flexibility in the administration of

individual programs. In doing so, the

Commission allows Agreement States to

fashion their programs so as to reflect

specific State needs and preferences,

recognizing the fact that Agreement

States have responsibilities for radiation

sources in addition to agreement

material.

The Commission 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 will allow the

Commission to ensure that an orderly

pattern for the regulation of agreement

material exists nationwide. The

Commission believes that this approach

achieves a proper balance between the

need for Agreement State flexibility and

the need for coordinated and compatible

regulation of agreement material across

the country.

* * * * *

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

These final policy statements do not

contain new or amended information

collection requirements subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval number 3150–0183.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has

determined that this action is not a

major rule and has verified this

determination with the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of

OMB.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 27th day of

August, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–23330 Filed 9–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Chemical Process Safety at Fuel Cycle

Facilities; Availability of NUREG

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is announcing the

completion and availability of NUREG–

1601, ‘‘Chemical Process Safety at Fuel

Cycle Facilities,’’ dated July 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG–1601

may be obtained by writing to the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

37082, Washington, DC 20402–9328.

Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,

Virginia 22161. A copy of the document

is also available for inspection and/or

copying, for a fee, in the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Lidia Roche ́, Division of Fuel Cycle

Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Telephone: 301–415–7830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC is

announcing the availability of NUREG–

1601, ‘‘Chemical Process Safety at Fuel

Cycle Facilities.’’ NUREG–1601 is the

first report to address chemical safety

issues affecting fuel cycle facilities as

they relate to the performance of an

integrated safety analysis (Integrated

Safety Analysis Guidance Document

(Draft NUREG–1513)). NUREG–1601

was developed in conformance with the

Memorandum of Understanding,

between NRC and the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration,

which gives NRC regulatory authority

over chemicals hazards that may impact

NRC-licensed nuclear material,

including: (a) Chemical risks posed by

radioactive materials; (b) interactions of

chemicals with NRC-licensed nuclear

material; and (c) plant conditions that

may directly or indirectly affect the

licensed nuclear material in an adverse

manner.

NUREG–1601 provides broad

guidance on chemical safety issues

relevant to fuel cycle facilities. It

addresses chemical safety issues,

relevant to fuel cycle facilities, as they

pertain to the performance of an

integrated safety analysis. It explains to

license holders and applicants a general