ML19326D813
| ML19326D813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8007030347 | |
| Download: ML19326D813 (40) | |
Text
9 I
THIS D~n~JMENT CO
~
v
POOR QUAUTY PAgg i
i DISCI.LT.
This is an unofficial ::a= script of a =ased g of da Uni:ad Stacas Nuclear Regulatory Cc-dssion held on June 2 6, 1980 in da Cem=1ssicu's officas ac 1717 E Sernac, N. W., Washing:cu, D. C.
na = mating aas opac to public at:anda=ca and observation.
This ::anscript has not baan raviewed, cc::ac:sd, or edi:ad, and ic =ay conta1=,i=accuracias.
Tha ::anscripe is i=:andad solely for gana:al d #c:=a:io-4 purposes.
As providad by 10 C72 9.103, 1: is nec par: of de fo: mal, or i=for=al record of decision of the =a::ars discussed.
Exp sssions of opd d on 1= +ds ::anscripe de not cacassar_17 d
rallace fi=al datar. d=ations or beliafs.
No pleadd g or other paper =ay be filad si h de Cc =ission in a=y procandi=g as da resul: of or addressed to a=7 s a:a=ene or argn=a=: contai=ad harsis, except as da-Cos=rission ay authori:a.
1 1
e 8007080dk7 j
~ ff Pcg2a'l thru 38 pa' l It_ d p l
~
'~3~
/
Ir\\
~
.e u
_D 1
UNITED STATES OF ALERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC bEETING 3
5 WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CO:iFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL 6
PROGRAM DIRECTORS REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT STATES PROGRAM i
j 7
8 a*
9<
Nuclear Regulatory Comission d
Room 1130 4
10 '
Washington, D. C.
1717 H Street, N.W.
ig 11 Thursday, June 26, 1980 E.12 S
The Comission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m.
13
'5 i BEFORE:
E l 14 5 ' 15 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Comission
=
IL RICHARD T. IGNNEDY, Comis sioner g
16 2
VICTOR GILINSKY, Comissioner M
17 JOSEPH HENDRIE, Comissioner
~., 18 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
b. 19 3
LEONARD BICKWIT
=
20 i:
BILL REAMER 21 3
".g 23
- /
24 25 AL:;gRscN AE. SORT *No COMPANY. INC.
2 1
P R 0 C_ E_ E D_ I_11 Q S_
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
The next meeting --
3 Mr. Parrott?
We meet this morning in response, basically, to f
4 a letter received on May 22 from Dr. Parrott in his role as 3
5 Chairman of the Conference of Radiation Control Program 6' Directors.
He provided at that time a resolution of the 3
7 Conference and said that he and some members >of the executive 8< board would like to meet with the Commission at the earliest 3
9 possible moment.
a 4
10 '
We replied to Dr. Parrott that we would be pleased ag 11 I to meet with him and that is what brings us here this morn-j.12 l ing.
Dr. Parrott.,
s
~
13 DR. PARROTT:
Thank you very much, Chairman Ahearne.
5 l 14 It is a real privilege to be able to be here on behalf of the I
r' 3
15 Conference whom I represent at this point in time.
And E
E 16 Commissioner Kennedy, it's nice to see you again.
2-W 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is always nice to see you hi 18 gentlemen.
19 DR. PARROTT:
And' Commissioner Gilinsky and counsel.
{
20 ! You don't mind if you make me nervous.
You have two attorneys i:;
21 ! you get three opinions.
t"
- 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY
At least.
23 '
MR. BICKWIT:
They're very sympathetic.
Cg N 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's on one day.
25 DR. PARROTT:
I'm aware of that.
On my immediate I
/.I OE.74CN ?.E?cfC*NC 00MPANY. INC.
j
3 I right is'Mr. John Stanton, who is chairman-elect of the Confer-2 ence and will be Chairman next year.
To my far left, Mr.
3 David Laker, who is the past Chairman and of the Conference 7
4 of Radiation Control Program Directors, and both on the board 2
5 -- the executive board.
And to my inmediate left is Mr.
~f6 Charles Tedford, who is the program director for the State of 3
7, Arizona.
8, yr. Tedford wears three hats, as a matter of fact, 3
9: which is one of the reasons we have invited him.
Mr. Tedford a
a d
10 has been named by his Governor as liaison to the Nuclear ig 11 l Regulatory Commission and he also is the Chairman of the W
[=
12 l Agreement States Programs that we represent, al,so, curiously 5
~
13. enough. There are cuenty-six agreement states now, as you I J 5 l 14 know -- New Hampshire, Oregon, Arizona and Texas are among
)
r' 3
15 those twenty-six agreement states.
So we do have, if you 16.please, ar axe to grind in a sense.
But most of all I would i
9 5
17. 111de to say the Conference of Radiation Program Directors
., 18. represents all fifty states, the territories, and major cities N
. and major counties that have :adiation control programs.
19
?
20 Now it is imperative that you understand that those a
E 21 :are the people who agreed to this petition.
They do represent t
l 22 state radiation controls.
Period.
Egggg; 23 As you are aware, the Conference, as members of the E# ' 24 Conference at the request qf the Congress have testified on C
25 numerous occasions and have most recently been named in a bill t
t.CERicN 8T?cMi NG COMP ANY. lNc.
4 I
called the Glenn bill that requires that the Conference be 2
consulted in the event that the Radiation Policy Council, 3
which will be established under that bill, goes _ato effect.
4 And that any changes that occurred the consultation of the j
5 states will be sought.
6 Our concern today has to do with the fact that the 7, twenty-six agreement states control more than 12,000 of the j
[
8 20,000 licensees La the United States.
Over the-last seven 9: years, the NRC has not substantially increased the number of a
I d
10 l They have roughly 8,000 and that has stayed licensees it has.
d 4g 11 steady for the last seven years.
All the major increases in 3
g.12 i licensees have been absorbed by the agreement states.
E 13 Mr. Tedford, from Arizona, as a representative of 5 l 14 the agreement states and at the request of the agreement E
15 states has written a letter requesting the affirmation of the
.=
g 16 agreement -tates program.
I believe you all have a copy of 9
i ' 17 that.
Is that correct?
18 MR. TEDEORD:
Yes, I believe they do.
This also d.19 was forwarded to several other committees as well -- to 1
{
20 ' Senator Hart 's committee, the Udall committee and two other
_H 21 congressional committees in addition.
And subsequent to that t"
- 22 time, Commissioner Kennedy did come out to Arizona and met 23 with Governor Babbitt on other business and he and I did n
24 enjoy a conversation to elaborate some of the points that were 25 put forth in this paper.
In case you do not have a copy of it l
/.t.seJscN Mr.f-oR"*MG COMPANY. INC-
)
5 4
1 I have some extra ones burned and you might want to refresh 2
your memories on some points.
I will take the opportunity to 3
al'so place this on the table at the back of the room at the 4
termination of the meeting.
2 5
DR. PARROTT:
Just as a matter of trivia I realized 7
j 6
last night that the four of us represent 101 years in the 3
7 radiation field, so we are familiar with the area.
I believe g
that the resolution that was passed regarding the fact that 8
9' the states regulate better than ninety percent of all of the a
4 10 ' sources of ionizing radiation in the United States and the ig 11 state radiation programs combine certain functions of the Wj.12 NRC and that state radiation programs must interact with the s
13 federal government.
There are approximately nineteen such 22 5 l 14 agencies in the federal government that have radiation r'
y 15 regulations.
We have a problem with the concepts of compati-g 16 bility and equivalency.
E-M 17 We're particularly concerned about that area because f,18 the states have chosen on many occasions to regulate in such h
19 a way that the NRC does not regulate.
C
[
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you go back over that 5;
21 ninety percent?
e
" l 22 DR. PARROTT:
Yes.
The states effectively regulate qgg2g 23 ' over ninety percer.t of the sources of ionizing radiation in
$#C( 24 the United States.
There are over 400,000 registered x-ray 25 machines, for example.
Then there is naturally occurring i
1 umsen =cen :sc c.wsy. :sc.
6 I
radioactive material and non-agr,eement radioactive material, 2
including cyclotron-produced isotopes, which virtually all go 3
unregulated by the federal agancy.
4 There are certain regulations that are imposed, of 5
course, on x-ray machines that have to do with the manufacture j
5, 6
but not the use.
And, of course, we all know that the 3
7 inspection of any radiation source beats the idea of a piece i
0 8
of paper.
9 I think the face that we have learned initially a
4 10 '.Ocut this by rumor the fact that there is a reorganization 11 has been suggested.
E E. 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me note to you, Marshall,
- s 13 that that is true of some of the Commissioners as well.
We
~
W, 3 l 14 appreciated your letting us know about it because staff r'
a 15 didn't seem to wish to bring us into their full confidence on i
y 15 the matter.
And so we are appreciative of your calling it to 9
3 17 our attention so we may address the question now.
- f.,18 DR. PARROTT:
Maybe we're all in the same boat.
d 19 C0121ISSIONER KEMIEDY:
Right. You have said it.
t U
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I guess I should at least g
[
21 answer that a little bit.
Any organization -- maj or organi-
' 22 lzation -- has a fairly continuous review of its functions.
23 Clearly, as a result of the Three Mile Island accident, there
[
E't' 24 has been a major review of the way the NRC functions across 25 the board and I guess I don't find it upsetting that in the m
/,,gg. icN m.E.scR-*NG COMP ANY. INC.
7 1
process of that raview each of the functional organizations 2
of the agency is being looked at to find out how can it best 3
fulfill the mission it is set up to fulfill.
4 The Commissioners have not addressed a reorganiza-2 5
tion of the way we deal with states.
All of the words that I 9
j 6
have even seen and the actions I've seen coming out of the 3
7i Commission are to reaffirm the necessity of strong inter-0 8
action with the states.
9<
DR. PARROTT:
This is what we sought.
a 4
10 '
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If indeed that is the way it ig 11 ' turns, I certainly endorse that.
il 3, 12 DR. PARRC"I:
I am particularly sympathetic with it 2
13 also, of course.
The thing is, in that document following 3,
5 l 14 the Three Mile Island, one of the things that I recalled was 3
15 the fact that the Office of State Programs was recomnended to E
g 16 be strengthened and from the rumors that we've heard and the 9
E ' 17 trade papers that we get
[., 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In fact, I would suggest that that 19. may be a very poor source of information.
20 DR. PARROTT; Well, you know.
5
~
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is something that we need
~
', 22 i to take account of, because when I read that I tried to
.{ 23 : ascertain just what ene source was.
So I finally was able to PT 24 obtain a copy of the staff document to which it refers, and 25 it's a fairly accurate representation of what the staff docu-
/. g34cN sE.ScM"*NG COMPANY. NC.
c
8 I
ment says.
2 C01@iISSIn".R GILINSKY:
What are we talking about?
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That confirms my earlier 4
s t a*.ement, I think.
3 5
MR. TEDFORD:
It is a document that just recently j
6' some of us in the states received.
It's entitled "Inside j
7 NRC" and the gist of the document is that the state agreement 8
program is to be regionalized.
The central office is to be 9
abolished and the functions are to be transferred to NMSS.
~
U 10 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is the proposal that's ci i
si 11, laid out in the staff document to which that refers.
9.
j. 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, ue certainly have i
13. talked about regionalization.
,e
(
5 l 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's right. -
'5 ' 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The strongest partisan of
=
,.E g
16 that is Kennedy,
?
17 m
CC?+1ISSIONER KENNEDY:
Right here. Thae is correct.
18 MR. LAKER:
If I might interject, I don't think we h
- 19 as state people have any problem with the regionalization f.
3 20 concept.
There are a couple of things, I think, that deserve 21 some comment on the regionalization concept, one of which is
', 22 that some of us in the states do have cur programs regional-23 ized from the compliance standpoint.
We have not, in Texas,
>% 24 regionalized our licensing and review functions.
We keep 25 those.:entral for consistency, so that all licensees get the
/.:,,,::E34cN RI?ofC*NC COMP ANY. 'NC-
9 I
s ame treatment, effectively, in compliance and in their 2
licensing actions.
3 Wa feel that if you regionalize without strong 4
centralized control of the region you lose uniformity of y
5 interpretation and activity and this is a concern.
We don't 7
g 6
have a real problem with the regionalization concept, if it 3
7' is appropriately done.
I guess this is really all we 're 8
saying with respect to che regionalization is that we believe E
9 that the Commission, if they do adopt this approach, maintain d
4 10 la good central headquarters control of those activities, so 11 ' that those of us in the various regions of the country who E
j. 12 < deal with the various regional offices have a consistent s
~
13 source of information.
1,
(
5 l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would have to comment. I think r'
3 15 what we 're talking about.
I am very interested in discussing h
16 the concept you have about how we appropriately are to measure 9
i 17 the states.
But as far as a draft staff paper that, as' f ar as
, 18 I know, Commissioner Kennedy is the only Commissioner who has 19 seen that paper --
U 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I know because I read the 5;
21 "Inside the NRC" and wondered what it was like.
E
- 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE
But because it's a paper being qf fgg 23 - worked on in the staff.
We as a Comnission gave direction to 1'C 24 our staff -- to the Executive Director -- to propose increased s
25 regionalization a,ctivities.
And so far we have not yet seen l
f.L::g34cn ag.=cM-*NG C::,MPANY. INC.
10 I
the staff's proposal.
2 MR. TEDFORD:
Well, this is probably a very oppor-3 tune time, then, for us to talk to you about, so I will concur 4
with what Mr. Laker says.
That, number one, the strong sense 3
5 of coordination is a very vital element and ingredient to the 7
j 6
program.
And we feel quite strongly that the Office of State 3
7 Programs should coordinate that area for the states.
We are 0
8, of the opinion --
9<
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you said of that area--
a i
d 10 '
MR. TEDFORD:
The agreement states should be coordin
- =ji 11 ' ated by the agreement states and we feel further that it M
g.12 should be done at the highest level within the Nuclear s
~
13 Regulatory Commission that is possible.
We would not like to W.
I 5 l 14 see it split off and placed in a more confined area of
-i a
15 responsibility.
That is the general consensus of all of the h
16 agreement states, without question.
9 5
17 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Do you have much interaction with, f,18 the Environmental Protection Administration?
p$
19 MR. TEDFORD: Yes, sir, we do.
{
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could you comment a little bit i::;
21 about the relative role there that you see from the regional t"
- 22 director of EPA versus the Washington central office of EPA.
23 MR. TEDFORD:
Well, I think really what you will lrN 24 come down to in the final analysis is the policy is set 25 from the central EPA offices in Washington, as it should be.
AL::E33CN ?.E.*CK"*NG COMPANY. INC.
11 1
And that individual services, and inspections, and technical 2
expertise are provided by the regional offices.
When the 3
state programs, and if they're placed in the regional areas, 4
I would hope that that strong central direction would contin-y5 ue to be provided by the state agreement program in Washington h6 And I think it is particularly interesting to note that there 7
are peop1'e who are interested in abolishing, obliterating, 8
i; doing away with areas of NRC and we are here supporting an 3
9; area for you and telling you we need it, that we have enjoyed
~
,u 4
10 ' a good rapport with them. They've been highly instrumental 2
y 11 in aiding us and we hope you would give that consideration g. 12 ' to the program.
2 13 DR. PARROTT:
I think that in addition to that, if
'i,
l l 14 I may, gentlemen, 'I gather from the f act that there has been a
15 tremendous response from the liaison officers and governors Ot; 16 of various states.
I have in front of no --
p.
i ' 17 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Yes, substantial.
i 18 '
di DR. PARROTT:
a pile of letters, one of which came
$'19 from Governor Dixie Lee Ray, a former Chairman of the it 20 l
Commission.
And I mean this would certainly bring your 21, attention to the f act that something is going on that may be
'. 22 ' amiss within the states.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, there may be some K' 24 misconceptions about what is happe.ning to --
25 DR. PARROTT:
The states sincerely hope so.
We are
/.*dgRicN ME? CRY'NG COMPANY. INC.
12 I
really very disturbed about it, especially some of the comment s 2
that you've made and made by Chairman Ahearne in H.R. 6390.
3 we.are worried about an area regarding compatability and 4
equivalency, you know, that is more comfortably -- if I may j
5 use the expression -- felt by the states when these things 6
are gone through by the Office of State Programs, because we f
7' feel that that office has very effective -- given us what 8
we have to have to do our job right.
And it is imperative 9
that we do our j ob right.
u 4
10 MR. TEDFORD:
And it's been a areath of fresh air i
y 11 ' in comparison to what was contrasted previously.
3 12 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Uell, let me say something 2
13 on the other side.
On the one hand, there's an office
[ I'14 deals with states, so you say well let's put all the state
-3 15 things together.
The other hand deals with health and g"
16 safety matters.
There's an argument for putting
'l the v.
i 17 health and safety matters togethar.
You can do it one way 18 di or you can do it the other way.
19 I think there are arguments on this thing for doing 20 it both ways. And if you strengthen certain kinds of ties 91 g
you weaken others.
This is a standard problem tinen you re-22 organize or organize anything.
You organize it along 23 reactors, or you organize it according to functions, or how-ever.
25 But you are dealing with health and safety functions A*ceJgcN :tg.scR-*NG COMPANY. lNC.
13 I
here.
And I, for one, think that there are strong arguments 2
for putting comparable health and safety activities together 3
in one place.
For one thing, it means that these activities 4
get handled more or less comparably across the board through-3 5
out the country.
6 For others it means that if people run into a pro-3 7I blem they're closer to technical help with that problem and 8, also is that it -- you can use the word confine -- but I 9: think that one of the major line offices -- technical offices a
10 l -- is more likely to get good technical supervision in that d
i E
11 area for more senior -- you talk about being as high in the 3
j. 12 ' organization as possible.
I think there's something to be s
~
13 said for having as high as possible technical supervision i
j 14 within the agency.
]
15 LR.-TEDFORD:
Could I speak to that point?
.=
j 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
- Sure, p
5 17 MR. TEDFORD:
Why is technical supervision the f,18 strict parameter of one office within the NRC if the states f.19 need this help or assistance?
In other words, why can't the
=
{
20 Office of State Programs call upon this technical assistance.
p 21 It's very interesting in the State of Arizona, the technical
" ' 22 assistance that we really r:q"ested in the case of American 23 Atomics came principally from DOE -- Department of Energy --
24 in a tridium situation, principally.
We did receive some 25 very good help from URC, but the principal technical assistance Ai OE.94CN f.E. CRI"NG COMPANY. INC-
14 I
came from DOE in that particular area.
So the question is 2
why does it have to be in a particular office to provide that 3
technical assistarce when we need it?
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it doesn't have to be.
2 5
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It doesn' t need to be.
7 6
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There are :various ways of 3
7 doing things.
As I said, there are arguments for dealing 8; with these things. in both ways.
I think, to be frank with S
A 9
you, if I had to chv. se I would find the argument for having a
4 10 ' the comparable technical activities in health and safety i
E 11 ; together a more compelling one and feel that a state programs Wj.12 office could -- One would of course keep the agreements E
13 activity distinct, but within such an office, and the doesn't E,
5 l 14 affect the fundamental liaison functions of state programs.
15 I see this as another kind of activity.
It's really a health E
g 16 and safety activity.
9 3
17 DR. PARROTT:
Regarding health and safety, that is f,18 our business and you realize the maj ority of us are really in f.19 the health department.
And I think that in making your point C
20, is the fact that we have responsibilities in all the areas c;
21 that you are describing, and certainly emergency response is e"
- 22 ; one that we get involved La and have for a considerable per-
.{ 23 ' iod of time before NRC had begun its push, so to speak, to
&*C 24 have that done in state programs.
W'e already had a function-s 25 ing unit.
A'CERSCN RE?cR-*NG COMPANY. INC.
15 1
Ue have been particularly helped by the Office of 2
State Programs in all areas -- and I mean in all areas.
3 MR. STANTON:
In addition to health and safety --
4 DR. PARROTT:
In addition to health and safety, but 5
related to health and safety specifically.
They have the j
6 workshops in siting of nuclear power plants.
They have work-3 7
shops in uranivn mills, in uranium mines, calling in all the 8
states now, which is one of the reasons for this letter from a
9 Dixie Lee Ray, dated May 21, 1980, and several other of the u
4 10 states, certainly in the west.
And the three of us represent i
11 '
that area.
Simply because those are where most of the uranium Ej.12 i mills are.
And they called together the group and we had a E
13 number of workshops in the area and this was the result of a
}5l14 small group of about eleven people that they have in the i
I 15 Office.
=
E 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY; Well, I don' t see why these p
i 17 sorts of functions would be affected by the change that we're f,18 talking about, you know, if it were to take place.
I don't
(
19 see that that, you know, the ability to continue these kinds 20 of activities --
p 21,
MR. TEDFORD:
Mr. Laker might speak a little bit to 22 i that area.
MR. LAKER:
Commissioner Gilinsky, having been 24 involved with the agreement states program since 1963 and 25 having seen the Commissioners' programs to through several NJERscN ME.FCr"NG COMPANY. INC.
16 I
reorganizations, when the original agre2ments states program 2
was set up it was set up administratively within AEC at that 3
time, with one administrative position between the director 4
of that division and the Commission itself.
Reorganization 3
5 placed it under the equivalent of the NMSS group that you 6
have now under your present organization, which reduced the 3
7 agreement states activity in the Commission to a program 8
status with a chief of that program during that period.
There 9
were multiple layers of administrative authority between the
~
a 4
10 ' agreement states program and the Commission, ig 11 i During that period the agreement states objected 8
j.12 and some of the Executive Board of the Conference of Radiation E
13 Control Programs met with some of the Commissioners at that E.
i 5 l 14 time expressing our concerns about the administrative location r'
5 15 of the agreement states program in the Commission.
Subsequent h
16 reorganization, I guess in '76, placed the Office of State 9
i ' 17 Programs in its current position.
We feel that we have a
., 18 better voice in all areas of Commission activities through f.19 this mechanism.
And we feel that we are getting esponsive
=
{
20 information, the information we need, crosses many areas of n - 21 Commission staff areas of function.
The agreement states or
~
- 22 Office of States Programs has the capability to cross all of 23 the state lines and obtain the information we need.
And so n
24 we feel that it is helpful to us as states to have it put to 25 you.as Commissioners and to have the program that deals with f.,ggascN 2E.*CMO:C COMP ANY. INC.
17 I
this at a level in the organization :n svhich it has ready 2
access to the Commission, without having to go through layers 3
and layers of management to get there.
4 C0!MISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I don't think we 're 2
5 ralking about -- First of all, wc're talking about a proposal d
6 that may be in a paper we have not seen.
j 7
MR. LAKER:
Well, I understand.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But at any rate I have certainly expressed my views on this subject 1.nd suggested 9
a d
10 ' certain changes.
Lat they don't involve moving the Office of f
11 i State Programs.
We 're talking about a subunit of the Office W
j.12 of State Programs.
In other words, I think that liaison 13 function is terribly important.
I agree with you.
I think 2 l 14 it caght to be permanently located.
There's no question about 3
(,
r*
a 15 that.
But there is the question in my mind of where the y
16 activity dealing specifically with the agreement states' 9-i 17 regulatory programs ought to be lodged.
In my view, it f,18 ought to be next to the comparable activities -- regulatory b. 19 activities -- administered by the NRC.
M U
20 '
In my view, that is the organization that is going
_n; 21 to end up protecting the public best.
=
'22 MR. LAKER: Well, I understa;.d your position, Commissioner Gilinsky.
23 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But I do want to make clear 25 there's a difference between talking about the Office of l
i i
/.CE.9dcN REpcM-'NG COMPANY. INC.
T
18 1
State Programs and that particular sub-unit that 2
MR. LAKER:
I understand.
We are aware that this 3
is an internal paper that we are dealing with in terms of.
4 this situation.
That is the reason that we are here.
5 ColGIISSIONER GILINSKY:
And I don't even know j
6 whether that's in the paper.
But it's certainly something 7
that I had talked about.
8, MR. LAKER:
We get implications of these things.
C 9< We also have read the-Udall bill, which will change our a
4 10 ' agreements, if you will, to an equivalency rather than ag 11 compatability.
Ej.12 ColeIISSICNER GILINSKY: Does that trouble you?
s 13 MR. LAKER:
It troubles me a great deal because I
~
E I 14 think the equivalency rule -- or law -- as expressed in other I
15 areas such as the OSHA bill.
The traditional interpretation 2
16 of that is identicality and I think we saw a lot of states 2
M 17 get into the OSHA program early.
And a lot of statas got out j,18 shortly thereafter simply because they found that the state wa!s
@ ' 19 contributing a great deal of money to run' a federal program.
C g
20 Our state legislatures -- and I get this from a lot i:;
21 of other states, not just mine -- are very reluctant to have e"
22 their state employees being an arm of the federal agency with
.g 23 ' total dictatorial, if you will, -- I don't mean that -- but EN 24 saying this is the way you will do things or else.
I think -
25 COIGII3SIONER GILINSKY:
Does the idea of mimin"ts
/.LOERdCN RE?CR~'NG COMPANY. INC.
19 I
federal standards disturb you as expressed in the Mill 2
Tailings Act?
3 MR. LAKER:
No, I don't think we have a great deal 4
of problem with minimum federal standards.
As long as we
{
5 have the flexibility to use a little bit of our own ingenuity j
6 and capability and the ability to innovate, if you will, in 3
7 our regulatory program,which the states have done evar the 8
g years quite successfully.
3 9
In a number of states there has been, or was in the
~
a 4
10 AEC and then NRC regulations -- this' is just an example -- a i
E 11 i permissive provision for any licensee of very small quantities Wj.12 i of radioactive material on his property, under certain E
13 specified regulatory conditions.
A number of the states
=,
5 l 14 removed that because they found people were not following the 5 ' 15 written word.
They were just burying what they wanted to
=
.=
g 16 without any way of locating that material and we were turning E
W 17 these things up in our states in bad situations,
- f.,18 The agreement states as a group approached the --
y 19 at our annual meeting with the Commission staff -- approached a
{
20 this problem and suggested that that portion be removed.
c 21 Subsequently a number of the states -- Texas being one of them l 22
-- removed it and now it's been removsd -- that permissive qq 23 ' regulation's been removed from the NRC regulations.
We think 7'% 24 ples apply.
The ionizing radiation is har nful.
And it's 25 our job to protect the public health and safety.
/.I,.OERicM sE?CR**NG cO.*@ANY. INC.
21 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is the concern about the ( cmpa-2 tability language sort of uniformly shared?
3 DR. PARROTT:
It certainly is, yes, sir.
4 MR. TEDFORD:
I'd like to add a thought, if I might, 3
5 to Mr. Laker's concepts.
I think really what we're saying is
'?
j 6
we would like. to continue to enjoy this mechanism where the 3
7; 12,000 licensees that are represented out in the field -- a O
g 8; majority of the licensees -- can speak in an open forum to the 9' agreement states mechanism.
And I might add that that a
4 10 mechanism is a free-wheeling, swinging mechanism and that I i
jE 11 will be involved next year and the points are brought up.and sa l.12 i I'd like to reiterate that the dual licensing regulation was s
13. brought forth by those twenty-six agreement states and very 5 l 14 shortly thereaf ter the dual-licensing mechanism was removed.
E ' 15 But I'm certain that the Office of State Programs
=
a g
16 can cite to you the areas of concern that we have in working 9
9 17 back and forth with the NRC in an open arrangement and each j,18 of these questions are answered and they are coordinated and f.19 we feel that they've been basically responsive.
We don't
=
{
20 feel the program's perfect, obviously, from reading that 21, paper.
There are some improvements that could come about in e" ; 22 ' it.
But 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which program are you talk-
~
24 ing about?
This one?
25 MR. TEDFORD:
The one in front of you, sir.
The l
i J.;,,0sacN RUCM-"NC COMPANY. INC.
22 0
1 improvements are mentioned there that we would like to see.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This onet 3
MR. TEDFORD:
Yes, sir.
But the bottom line is 4
that this is a mechanism whereby the states and the NRC do 5
interrelate and, if you will, if NRC is ever audited by any-6 body this is probably a mechanism of accomplishing this.
And j
7, one of the points I didn't put in this paper which the states
[
8 came through loud and' clear on is who audits the NRC programs 1 C
A 3
And I would suggest that GAO audit is not an audit by peer a
4 10 review or by people who are technically qualified and perhaps i
g 11 l some thought should be --
!!j.12 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I hope that the record is clear s
]f l 14 13, that when the charge is made that GAO is not technically qualified that it wa:: a speaker on that side who said that.
r' 3
15 I'm not about to take exception.
g 16 MR. TEDFORD:
I would like to clar'.ly that.
That 2:
W 17 is the opinion of the people witnin the agreement program
, 18 states who spoke in writing to this particular concept.
f 19 DR. PARROTT:
This was tr
'greement states -- not
=
}
20 the agreement states programs.
3:[
21 MR. TEDFORD: That 's right.
The agreement states.
- 22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE
Mr. Stanton?
7 23 DR. PARROTT:
These people are peers and what we're k 24 trying to say is that the people who review us are peers.
25 They are qualified and any criticism that we get is cons tru:.-
/.I.OE.hiCN ME.*CR"*NG COMPANY. INC.
23 I
tive criticism.
There's no reason to destroy the program.
2 We look forward to a review.
Because when you are up to here 3
in alligatora you want to make sure that you get the swamp 4
drained-So, you know, it's an important feature.
j 5
MR. TEDFORD:
And we have not enjoyed that openness j
6 with other sectors of NRC and that's one reason we're coming 3
7, from where we are.
8, DR. PARROTT:
One example recently is the one that 9< -- on therapy was that NMSS that sent that out?
Yeah, I got a
d 10 ' a call from a newpaper telling me what's this about you're
.l 11 going to install certain monitoring devices in teletherapy.
Hj.12 i And I said, what?
And he says I've got a news release from s
~
13 < NRC.
I didn't even have a news release.
I didn't know I was W.
E i 14 going to do that.
And this circumvents -- this idea --
r*
3 15 because we are in the front lines.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But on that that was a rule that s
16 a
3 17 had been put out for proposal that had over year ago.
And j,18 it had been in the Federal Register and I assumed that the 19
-- I mean, I would have assumed, I guess -- maybe I'm mis-E 20 taken -- that either through the Federal Register or perhaps El 21 the States Programs office -- but that wasn't a sudden thing.
- 22 MR. LAKER
The reaction I got -- and this occurred 4
3 while I was in Kentucky at the annual meeting of the Conference hD 24 of Radiation Control Program Directors -- I talked to my 25 office and one of the hospitals in my state had gotten a letter
/.Lll:E.94CM RE. CR-NG COMPANY. !NO.
24 I
I directly from NMSS saying you will do these things.
And 2
wanted to know if they were nov regulating that hospital --
3 they being the NRC.
4 I personally, and no one on my staff, was aware 5
that this letter was going.
In the past, when the NRC wanted j
6 to send out information like this when changes were made, j
7 they wrote to the state programs and said okay, this is the 8
program we've instituted.
Would you inform all your licensees 9
and even have sent sample letters for us to use.
This is a
d 10 ' done by the Office of State Programs and it works very ig 11 ' smoothly. And we have cooperated in this way.
I guess one of 9
j.12i che problems with this particular incident was it came directly 2
13 from NRC to state licensees.
'i 5 l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oh, really?
That I didn ' t know.
E'
=
15 MR. LAKER:
Yes, sir.
=
g 16 MR. TEDFORD:
And also the reasons in my case were E.
g 17 justified after the order was issued.
, 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me make sure I understand.
h 19 I knew that we had put out the order because we did the rule.
=
{
20 And I also knew that we were sending it to our licensees.
c; 21 But you're saying we also sent letters to the state licensees,
' 22 ;
MR. TEDFORD:
It was immediately implemented for 23 all state licensee programs.
Period. On an immediate basis.
>N 24 DR. PARROTT:
Incidentally, we don't necessarily 25 object to the idea.
A*.OERSCN ME.*CfC*NG COMPANY. INC.
25 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now I recognize that.
2 DR. PARROTT:
It was just how it was done.
3 CHAIPyJ.N AHEARNE:
I understand.
4 MR. LAKER:
I think really what we're saying --
{
5 all of these things have occurred and I realize you started 6
out saying, you know, these are things that are in staff j
7, level and the Commission hasn't really looked at them, but 8
all of the events that have been occurring in recent months 9; have disturbed us to the point that we feel something is
,u 4
10 ' going on and we felt that. we needed to talk to you people be-ig 11 i fore it got to the point we couldn' t talk to you.
Sij.12 MR. TEDFORD:
And,we would like for you to take this s
13 is in a constructive vein. as I conveyed to Commissioner
's i
} I 14 Kennedy.
But we are high1y concerned.
3 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Mr. Stanton, you have been trying h
16 v
'd 17 MR. STANTON:
I just had two items.
In your I
18 i
testimony before Congressman Udall's bill back in March.
One f
- 19 of them a point that reaffirms what Dave Laker said about C
20
- removal of flexibility and another one is a question.
3::;
21, Specifically, your words were equivalency as used in the bill e
22 ' apparently would require each principal component of the
.@ 23 state program to be equivalent to the corresponding component ir$ 24 of the Commission's program.
25 That 's the question.
I'm not too sure exactly what f.I.,ll:E.7sCN RE.ScR~*NG COMP ANY. INC.
26 I
you meant by the components of the state programs versus the 2
components in the Commission's program.
And then the second 3
portion of your statement was that would remove some of the 4
flexibility which is implicit in the present compatability 3
5 requirement.
And I agree with Mr. Laker that it would 6
probably remove most of the flexibility.
3 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How do you feel about 8
minimum federal standards?
9 MR. STANTON:
I have no quarrel with minimum
~
a 4
10 federal standards at all, ig 11 i MR. TEDFORD:
We have no quarrel with those at all.
Wj.12 In fact, we feel a certain central guidance and direction s
13 is necessary.
And this does come out of the Office of State
,*l14 5
Programs.
r*
l 15 DR. ?ARROTT:
I think we have had minimum federal 7
g 16 standards for a long time.
If you look at part 20 and in 9
i ' 17 many cases we like to go below that simply because we recognize 18 the burden of radioactivity in a large number of f acilities.
i I
f.19 C0tBIISSIONER GILINSKY:.But for example, suppose
=
{
20 ' there are federal standards on waste disposal sites.
These p
21 would be developed for all facilities and therefore it would 22, get developed presumably in NMSS rather than the Office of qqg2g; 23 ' State Programs, even if the present arrangement continues.
k'% 24 the communication mechanisms and how this transfer of things 25 would occur.
All the appropriate state agency members of
/.*cg.98cM.=E.scM-*NC COMP ANY. INC.
29 I
the task force and all of the other federal agency FDA members 2
of the task force were~quickly on board.
I was not able to 3
get an AEC representative to participate with that task force, 4
which left a creaendous gap in the information chain that j
5 we were trying to establish.
This just an example of -- to 6
my knowledge that sort of thing hasn't occurred since the 3
7 Office of State Programs has been established.
And these are 8; the kinds of things that concern us -- the states --
and 9' we like the way it is operating and has operated since '76.
a d
10 ' We think it's been beneficial to both state agencies and to f
11 l the Commission.
M j
12 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Mr. Stanton, let me get back to s
~
13, the question you asked.
I can't really immediately recall all E.
(
5 l 14 of hhe specifics from tha* testimony several months ago.
But
-=
15 I believe the point that the Commission was trying to make --
=
5 16 I speak in that testimony on behalf of the Commission -- that's Ey 17 not personal testimony, daat 's Commission testimony.
We were f ; 18 trying to make is that it appeared to us that the language-f.19 of the bill was fairly broad and would require a comparison, E
[
20 not across the whole program, but getting down to sub-sets of c;
21 individual programs.
That was the point I was trying to make.
e I
- 22 When you say what does component mean, we didn' t gg } 23 ' write the bill, so we're not sure how far it would go, but it 95 % 24 was trying to raise the point that it could not just look 25 across-the-board.
The program, it would appear to us, would l
i \\
i i
/.*JGscN 9.s.2CM-*NG OO.*A PANY. lNC.
30 0
I require going into much greater detail on the comparison.
2 MR. STANTON:
My concern with it was the fact that 3
several state -- the several scate programs vary considerably 4
in size, and what may very well be a component in one state j
5 could be the entire show in another state.
And I hesitate to 7
g 6
put any blessing on something that might tend to gobble up 3
7' another state's program.
O g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I think -- let me see if I 8
9 have correctly some of the -- I could say the overall points a
~
4 10 ' you ' re making.
i E
11 i First you believe it is essential to maintain a H
j. 12 < link with an office at a high level in the Commission in order s'.
13 to have a mechanism to get your information in directly at an W l 14 f
3 upper level in the managedent system.
ri a
15 DR. PARROTI:
And, we think, receive informaeion 2
g 16 also.
The reverse is also true, both in putting up -- we 9
i 17 would like an open, swinging door, so to speak.
.f,18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, but I'm trying to draw a f
19 distinction though because material going out -- for example,
=
{
20 the issue raised that you started out with.
If you were to 21 utilize information out from -- at least from the Commission a"
- 22 level.
That paper hasn't arrived here yet so it would be
.$ 23 ' impossible for it to go out, so I'm trying to draw a distinc-K 24 tion that -- to make sure I understand the point you're making 25 So I think the point was that you want to have access AI ::ERdCN ?.E.sc:r;"NC OO.'.tPANY. NC.
31 1
for input at a senior level.
You want to ensure that you get 2
information out.
That that's --
3 The second point would be that you dor't have a 4
fundamental objection to some regionalization, but you would 3
5 not want that to be associated with the regionalization of 7
6 policy formation.
3 7'
DR. PARROTT:
That is correct.
0 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You believe that it would be
=*
9 correct to have a regionalization if that meant a greater a
4 10 ' link with people out in the field, closer to the states, but E
11 the policy should be set from a central.
Is that also G_
j. 12 ' accurate?
s
~
13 DR. PARROTT:
That is also accurate.
E E i 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARtE:
Vic?
5' 3
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
I have a question on 2
y 16 your paper.
On consideration 3,the adequacy of the criteria, E.
17 you say, and the consensus of the agreement states is that j,18 the present criteria are adequate.
Now we committed outselves
(,19 to upgrad t g these criteria and we sort of seem to be in the
=
U 20 ' middle of doing that.
Are you referring to the old criteria E[
21 or to the new criteria?
4 22 l MR. TEDFORD:
We would accept either one of them.
gg {}{ 23 I think the new criteria have upgraded it, and Commissioner, E*DI24 if you would read in consideration 2, I think there are also 25 some areas we addressed that need to be corrected as well.
/.;.OE.94CN RE?CM*"NG COMP ANY. INC-
32 9
1 For example, there are no soil level contamination 2
levels and this became particularly apparent in the American 3
Atomics case in Tucson.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which point is that?
3 5
MR. TEDFORD:
Under consideration number 1, point 7
3 6
4, page 2.
And that is the last item, that the NRC should 3
7 provide additional benchmarks and guides which provide O
8 regulatory program consistency.
For example, except for g
9<
soil contamination levels.
Also, I'd like to point out the
- J 10 l point above that is agreements the program can offer --
4 f
11 '
Lnproved protection for the public's health and safety as Wj.12 i a focal point to cope with radiation incidents and accidents s
~
13 and emergencies.
And that the staff and equipment are
.E.
E l 14 Lamediately available to respond to the particular instances r'
3 15 and also put forth a more frequent inspection program.
h 16 Mr. Parrott, are you -- could I give my -- high-9 i
17 lights and summarize remarks then at this point, or would
$i 18 you rather --
f.19 DR. PARROTT:
Please do.
20 MR. TEDFORD:
The highlight point in this whole G
21 paper --and I want to reiterate that this is 26 agreement
", 22 states speaking, of which nineteen provided remarks in writing; qg }
23 ' and it is a consensus that has been put forth also, I believe,
&*C[ 24 from the non-agreement state viewpoint and was endorsed in 25 the executive connittee...
Am I correct on that?
M. LMicN miscRhNG COMP ANY. INC.
33 b
1 MR. LAKER:
Yes.
2 MR. TEDFORD:
The crucial point is in consideration 3
5, and that is the level and organizational location of the 4
NRC administration of the agreement states program.
Item 1, j
5 the Office of State Programs should remain. an NRC operational j
6' unit, since it has been performing efficiently in this posi-7l tion.
The Office effectively coordinates the programs of the 8
i NRC regulatory inspection and 1.icensing activitiec with the 9
~
agreement states.
It is contraindicated that the Office of
,u 4
10 ' State Programs should be moved to another organizational unit i
11 j
of NRC which has more narrowly defined functions and respon-3. 12 sibilitie s.
s
~
13 The second item is listed there as well.
In ar W
5 l 14 agreement state the administrative location of the program 3-15 should be structured so that it can have direct input to 2
g,16 the Governor and Legislature on the technical aspects of i ' 17 radiation protection.
18 vi i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can you make an estimate of how 19 many agreement states currently meet number two?
20 '
MR. TEDFORD:
That is a very good question.
I can 21 speak for Arizona.
It's certainly occurs in Arizona.
I can 22 ' also indicate to you, Comissioner Ahearne, that several g 23
' people have contacted me individually in rather major states
- r$ 24 and are also interested in the lineology that we enjoy in the 25 State of Arizona.
And I believe -- I'm rather new to the 4:.=g. wen as.=ca-se c:spany. :sc.
34 1
program, but I believe that the state program directors have j
2 spoken to this point in the past.
Have they not, Mr. Laker?
3 MR. LAKER:
Yes, I believe that's right.
I could 4
not give you a number of the states that enjoy that, but 2
5 there are a number of the agreement states who do have 'ade-5 6
quate -- at least in the state's view -- input.
3 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What this asks is for it to be 8,
structured so that it can have direct input to the Governor.
g 9'
Is that the case in Texas?
4 10 '
MR. LAKER:
No, it is not.
f 11 i CHAIRMAN AHEAPITE:
Mr. Parrott?
E j. 12 <
DR. PARROTT:
No, it is not.
s
~.
13 MR. STANTON:
Yes, it is.
Through our Radiat.;n W.
j l 14 Advisory Committee.
E ' 15 CHAIR'#.AN AHEAPlIE:
Well, two for two.
=
E g
16 MR. TEDFORD:
Of course, these are recommendations.
E M
17 CHAIIDIAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I understand.
f,18 MR. TEDFORD:
The summarize point, again, is it's d.19 that the program -- the Office of State Program -- is not 2
}
20 perfect.
With sadness, I'm sure the state programs are not 21 perfect.
There are a number of improvements we can enj oy
- 22 'l.and we're trying to come up with, but that the state agreement
23 program has proved to be a highly valued resource to the N 24 states' radiation health and safety program.
25 DR. PARROTI:
I can add in there my comment that s
- .cgqSCN 2.g.2CM-*NG COMPANY. ;Nc.
35 I
no I don't have direct input to the Governor, but I can get 2
to the Governor if it's necessary, very quickly.
My former 3
administrator is the Governor's right arm.
And he asked me 4
to call him any time I had a problem that needed immediate 3
5 attention by the Governor.
I do this in all instances.
7 g
6 For that matter, the liaison officer that was 3
7 appointed by the Governor has direct access.
Now I have 0
8: direct access to him.
Interestingly enough, as a result of E
9 the location of the Office of State Programs a model was a
d 10 ' developed under -- well, under Shelly Schwartz, as a matter ig 11 of fact, with your agreements program, that allowed Oregon Hj.12 i to have an on-site inspector.
s
~.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I'm familiar with that.
W.
5 l 14 DR. PARROTT:
And Oregon is particularly pleased 5 ' 15 wich that.
Oregon is an environmentally-oriented state.
=
M j
16 We have also had an NIPA there.
And this is another agency 9
3 17 that we overlap -- or actually we do a lot of work for them 18 in a sense.
We do all the environmental monitoring and we'll f
19 do the licensing of the uranium mill that is coming on-line
=
y 20 where they do the siting of the b ill.
So it's one of those 21 situations that we can get along very comfortably in our e" ; 22, state, if we don't get too riled.
fg 23 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic, do you have a point or a fk 24 question?
25 ComiISSIONER GILINSKY:
No.
/.LOGdcN assen-Nc c MPANY, ;NC.
36 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Dave, do you have a point or a 2
question?
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No.
I appreciate the candor 4
with which you put forward your views.
[-
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No, I would only remark 3
7l that I'm sorry I was unable to get here for the full discus-8, s ion.
But I understand the points you were making and have 3
9 sympathy with them.
a a
4 10 DR. PARROTT: Well, we certainly appreciate the ig 11 ' opportunity.
Did you have any more points?
!!j.12 i MR. LAKER:
No, I have no more points.
I just want 5
13 - to say what you just said.
We do appreciate your hearing us 5 l 14 and our concerns.
They are real concerns and I think the r*
~
15 resolution passed by the conference which was forwarded to
=
4 y
16-you is indicative of the importance states place on these o
i ' 17 matters.
f,18 DR. PARROTT:
And certainly right across all of
[,19 the states, whether they be agreement states or non-agreement C
[
20, states, because nuclear power impacts all the states, or 21 certainly will at one time or another.
e~
22 MR. 72DFORD:
I would like to add that Commissioner 23 'Ahearne did respond to the correspondence.
He indicated that M 24 he had an open mind and that we would be contacted at the 25 appropriate time.
And he 's kept his word.
In addition to that i
l l
l l
l A:.:g.uen az.=ca-"NG COMP ANY. NC.
l
37 a
1 Commissioner Kennedy did come out and listen very carefully 2
to the points and assured me at the end of the conversation 3
he would come back and. convey these thoughts to the rest of 4
the Comissioners.
You have met this point and we appreciate
. 2 5
the time that you have given to us.
7 6
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well I certainly appreciate 3
7 the opportunity to talk these things over with you.
And I O
8 share Commissioner Kennedy's view that I appreciate your 9'
coming and -sharing with us.
a 4
10 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: And I can say for myself that ig 11 i when an organization proposal does come to the Comission that ;
E g.12 I will look at it ca'refully in light of your comments and E
13 perhaps it might be appropriate to then ask you to think of
'i,
5 i 14 it at that time.
r' a
15 DR. PARROTT:
Well, I think this entire situation
_-4 y
16 in a sense, if you back way off and look at it, is really 9
i 17 quite humorous, because normally any federal agency decides 18 to change something everybody says wonderful.
And here's
@[.19 one that's hiding way back in the corner somewhere that may '
C 20 be at some time proposed and all of the states come charging a
i:
21, in and say wait a minute, you did something right, leave it a"
22 ' alone.
23 MR. TEDFORD:
So we want to change, but we want to i
24 make it better.
25 COIMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think we all agree with l
~
/.i ::E.ucM =E. CR""No COMPANY. INC.
38 0
I that.
f.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thank you very much.
3 (Thereupon, at 10:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.)
4 7
5 9
6 3
7 0
8 9
a 4
10 '
l 11
~
W E. 12 l
2
~.
13,
W.
E l 14 1
=,
E 15 2
y 16 i
17 18 a l b. 19 a
20
=*
1 21 2
. 22 EN 24 25 ressen avowsc c:wANY. :NC-
=.
.o e
w
.
NUCLEAR RIC-ULA'"ORY COM'4ISSION
. u...s,
.3
. o - a..n. a. ~.,. u. a-.. u.,. :
.,c..u.s u
. - - - a, s. _.. 3 g u.,..,.-,
- u.,.
t w.
+
in che mat er ef: Public Meeting with Representatives of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Regarding the Assessment States Program Date cf ?rcceeding:
June 26, 1980 Docket !!w::b er :
Place of.:receeding:
Washington, D.
C.
- . ~. = ' ' = - - ".. *. " =. *. *. a ~. = a'.".c.,. =. ~..
~.*...=.~w~.*.'c
'c ~.*.*"""s~'.~.='
~ ~..=.. ~ ~. ~. ~
~~
^
~ ~
- d e " *.
- u. o - o. r.e e,-
. u. s.
.c 4 5 c
- u..
-. 4., s - -..
a Alfred H. Ward O r r 1.
.t c.T
.=. a. n. c..a..n ( ~.1,s =,. ^ \\
,., Q..
- J,l
- 9 e
- ,1 ( /
?..-
/ ' '
?.~.s
. o W O.c4 4
.1
- s.,-,...=.-
& -=%=a
\\
- g....
-,44 4
,ee!
a..
o
,.l CONFERENCE'OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS, IN t
State Health Division, P.O. Box 231, Portland, Oregon 9720
. =
?.:. -
May 22, 1980 a.
The Honorable John F. Ahearne Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Chairman Ahearne:
On Wednesday, May 21, the entire membership of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors pa.ssed an unanimous Resolution. imploring the Commission to proceed with grea.t caution in its deliberatica and actions as it considers the reorganization of the NRC.
Until 1976, the Commission, for all practical purposer, was. unresponsive and incapable of providing any assis-tance to the Agreement States or any other state.
The' NRC reorganization in 1976 formed the Office of State Programs which provided the Agreement States with access-to information absolutely vital to their programs and initiated a period of marked improvement in NRC and E.,,.
state' relations.
.=
. This timely, accurate, and highly beneficial information has done much to improve the ability of the Radiation Control Programs in the Agreement States to cope with'the rapidly expanding usage of radioactive material.
I and some of the members of the' Executive Board would like to meet with you and the other members of the Commission at the earliest possible moment.
The
~
purpose of this meeting is to express our deep concern over the possibility of severe curtailment of and direct access to highly valuable technical information and staff to deal with the problems that we encounter on a daily basis.
Your early reply would be most appreciated.
Si/cerely, I
i
\\-).
Mars all W. Parrott, Sc.D.
Chairman, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
'#.5 ~
Enclosure l
I
^
TMs'- y
~
RESOLUIION Ifith regard to the organization of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
b(NRC) and its Office of State Programs, the following resolution was passed y the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., at its annual meeting in louisville, Kentucky,'on May 21, 1980.
1*EREAS:
The St;ates effectively regulate better than 90% of all of the sources of ionising radiation in the nation, including NRC agreement materials, naturally occurring and artificially produced radioac-tive materials, and machine produced radiation; MEREAS:
State radiation programs combine certain functions of the NRC~
offices of the Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (htSS),
Inspection and Enforcenent. (ISE), Standards Development; (SD), etc.;
MEREAS:
State radiation programs must interact with other' Federal and State agencies in areas of mutual interest and responsibility in emergency response, transportation, disposal, remedial programs, e*c. ;
' The concept of compatibility and equivalency ap
. MEREAS:
pear to the Con-ference to frequently be a one-way street from the Federal to the State and we believe the concept should be one ef partnership serving our mutual interest; h*rERF.AS:
'It is our understanding the h*RC plans to reorganize the Office of
- EE State Programs, the liaison group betwocn the States and the NRC, e,
either into another form, or pisco it under the jurisdiction of another office; hMEREAS:
Recent testimony by members of the Comission and the h>ES staff before Congressional comittees indicate an intention of the NRC to impose its will on the States at its discretion; MEREAS:
' he intent of Congress, as stipulated in Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is to encourage State regulaary programs in this area; NEREAS:
The Office of State Programs since 1976 has provided a viable focal point for multi-NRC program concerns; N0!f'TidEREFORE BE IT RE501,VED:
That the Conferen e of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
expresses.its concern' for the NRC anticipated reorganization of the Office of State Programs and that further we voice support for the continued operation and status of the Office of State Programs as the focal point for the Comission's principal State relations function in a coordinating role to the betterment of bo-1 NRC's and the States' programs and mutual interest; and
.-e
~
that further, a copy of this resolution be directed to John F.
~
Aheame, Chairman o# the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and to
-le four Co=issioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
f F. -[
.J.
UNITED
- STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-l
(&
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 c
,7
~
SI?
June 19, 1980.
CHAIRMAN s
("..
1 Marshall W.
Parrott, Sc.D.
Chairman, Conference of Radiation Control Program' Directors, Inc..
~-
State Health Division P.O. Box 231 Portland, Oregon,97207
Dear Dr. Parrott:
I appreciate your concern about the future role of the -
Office of State Programs expressed in your letter of May 22,-
1980.-
Tne Commission would be pleased to meet with you as soon as a mutually agreeable time can ~be chosen.
I have asked Mr.
Ryan to call you and make the necessary arrangements.
I want to assure y'6u that your views will be considered'in
' W,'
anp reorganization vinich may affect the Office of State
~
Programs.
'The Nuclear Regulatory ' Commission remains committed to the idea of preserving close working relations with the States and the Conference.
din erely, Jh earne Chairman r
I I
- E?i:,
5T= '
N A NEED TO REAFFIRM THE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM i
In 1959, the Atomic Energy Act was amended by adding Section 274, entitled
" Cooperation with the States". This change was made by Congress to allow states to regulate users of radionuclides within their borders under an Agreement with the U. S. Atomic Energy. Commission (AEC).
Persons in many states using radium, accelerator-produced radionuclides and reactor-produced radionuclides were subject to regulation by both the state and the AEC.
A primary purpose of Section 274 was to prevent dual regulation with its resultant conflicts and confusion to the user by inspection from two agencies.
Since Section 274 wa's passed, there have been many instances where dual regulation has occurred or has been attempted and resolved by negotiation. The first challenge occurred in 1964 when the Department of Labor (DOL) sponsored a bill that passed Congress and provided DOL with the authority to regulate the occupational exposure to radiation of persons engaged in industry. The Agree-ment States lead by the Attorney General of the state of Texas, as a result of formal hearings, negotiated with DOL and AEC until DOL agreed to accept AEC's regulation of its licensees and AEC's periodic certification of the Agreement State programs as adequate in meeting D0L regulatory requirements.
Since 1964, there have been many new federal agencies formed and many have developed regulations concerned with radiation. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency all have regulations concerned with radiation control or standards.
Dual regulation has been particularly prevalent concerning uranium mills.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 was interpreted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to mean that NRC would have to license tailings in Agreement States even though the state also licensed the tailings.
This act was later amended by Congress, and the principal authors stated that dual regulation was not their intention. The Federal fline Safety and Health Act of 1977 states that uranium mills are subject to regulation by the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
NRC is seeking to mitigate that situation by developing a memorandum of understanding to perform joint inspections. The future role of the Agreement States in this program is not clear.
During the last twenty years, the Agreement States have increased in number until there are now 26. They regulate about 11,800 radioactive material licenses, while NRC regulates about 8,000 licenses. The Agreement States have done a good job in radiation control as e/idenced by annual determinations of program adequacy by NRC on-site inspections.
It is time to broadcast the lessons learned from the Agreement State program:
1.
State programs can competently administer regulatory authority transferred to them from the Federal Government.
j 2.
Dual regulation of radiation can be resolved-when the Congress and federal agencies are aware of the presence of existing radiation control programs ~in the states.
3.
Special attention by NRC to the Agreement State program by q
establishment of the Office of State Programs in 1976 has
{
been instrumental in the success of the program.
4.
The principles of the Agreement State program should be applied to other federal authority which can be transferred to a state both in radiation control and in other areas.
There is a need to reaffirm the states belief in the Agreement State program and to make Congress, Governors and citizens aware of its values.
At the URC Agreement States meeting in Washington, D.C. on October 3-5, 1979, there were lengthy discussions held relative to the future of the NRC/
State Agreements program.
An Ad Hoc Comittee was a Mr. John Vaden (Nevada), Mr. Aubrey Godwin (Alabama)ppointed consisting of
, Mr. Charles Hardin (Kentucky), and Mr. Charles Tedford (Arizona) to develop an affirmative posi-tion paper on this subject. Mr. Charles Hardin, the intitial Chairman of the Committee, resigned from the State Agreement program and the Chairmanship was delegated to Mr. Charles Tedfo'rd.
Based on the aforementioned Ad Hoc Committee's evaluation of the Agreement State program directors submissions by the majority (18) of the 26 Agreement States, the following comments, concepts and recommendations are forwarded as germane considerations:
Consideration I - The advantaces of an Agreement State administering a radia-tion health and safety program rather than the NRC:
(1) An Agreement State program provides readily accessible response and answers to the licensees and the public for a broad spectrum of matters relating to the protection of the health and safety from ionizing radi-ation.
(2) The Agreement State program is considered more cost effective when com-pared to similar services offered and provided by the Federal Govern-ment.
(3) An Agreement State program can offer improved protection to the public's health and safety by serving as a focal point to cope with radiation incidents, accidents and emergencies. The staff and equipment are imediately available to respond to the state licensee's requirements.
In addition, the state personnel are familiar with the specific sites due to a more frequent inspection program.
(4)
Finally, an Agreement State program possesses the capability to express an independent opinion regarding radiation control issues, e.g., waste disposal.
It also allows for adjusting procedures and policies to more closely fit the local need. The NRC should provide additional bench-marks and guides which provide regulatory program consistency, e.g.,
acceptable soil contamination levels.
_Consid:ratien-II - The Agreement State procram areas requiring improvement:
(1) -The Agreement States indicate funding as a vital area of need. Licensing and inspection fees should be considered as a viable alternative and implemented in all Agreement States as the initial method of improving program funding.
In special cases where an Agreement State licensee i
provides unique regional and national services and the licensing and i
inspection costs for such a license ? are unusual, the NRC should provide special funding. Additional funding beyond the license fee should be con-sidered by NRC when their fee schedula is not keeping up with inflation.
Each Agreement State should annually review its fee schedule to consider inflation.
(2) Relative salary scales for the highly technical staff of the state radia-tion control programs is felt by many program directors to have a signi-ficant effect on the ability of the state to conduct an effective radia-tion control program. The field of health physics is very competitive ar.d those state administrative organizations responsible for approving salary levels should be made aware of this problem.
Salary levels which are not competitive with other employment alternatives, both government and nongovernment, may result in excessive turnover of staff with the resultant loss of trained staff, increased training costs (for both the state and the NRC), and a general reduction in efficiency and effective-ness. The NRC should determine and report the salary structures of Agree-ment States and compare the findings with similar NRC,. industrial and national laboratory positions.
(3) Through the further issuance of inspection memoranda, guides, continuing training in inspection, licensing, health physics and special subjects, the NRC and Agreement States should achieve uniformity of regulatory programs.
It should be noted that NRC training programs are singularly outstanding in the federal arena.
(4) The NRC Agreement State program should provide clear procedures for
-obtaining specialized technical assistance and equipment in a prompt manner.
Further, when the NRC proposes to an Agreement State that unusual actions be taken, such proposals should indicate the specific health and safety considerations involved.
(5)
In reviewing an Agreement State program, more emphasis should be placed on accompaniment of field inspectors addressing the protection of the public health and safety, without undue emphasis on the adequacy of the paperwork.
(6) When significant problems are apparent in an Agreement State, the NRC should not hesitate to bring this to the attention of top state officials and strongly support adequate corrective measures.
Consideration III - The adequacy o_f_ the criteria used by the NRC,to evaluate the Agreement State program.
(1) The consensus of the Agreement States is that the present criteria are adequate. We would suggest as in the improvement considerations above, the Governor be advised of significant findings which place the state program in jeopardy.
i Consideration IV - The manner and frecuency of the NRC review of the Agreement
~ State program:
(1) The Agreement States believe that an annual review is adequate. We al' recognize and accept that if an Agreement State is experiencing signifi-cant problems', the NRC should not wait a year to assure corrections.
j Most Agreement States find the present review process helpful and improves their program.
Consideration V - The level and organizational location of the NRC administra-tion of the Agreement States program:
(1) The Office of State Programs should remain an NRC operational unit since it has been performing efficiently in this position. The office effec-tively coordinates the programs of the NRC regulatory, inspection and licensing activities with the Agreement States.
It is contraindicated that the Office of State Programs should be moved to another organiza-tional unit of HRC which has more narrowly defined functions and respon-s. Nilities.
(2)
In an Agreement State the administrative location of the program should be structured so that it can have direct input to the Governor ano Legislature on the technical aspects of radiation protection.
The aforementioned comments indicate that snecific areas exist where improvements could be made in the State Agreement. program. However, to quote.
one state radiation program director, "The NRC's manner in conducting periodic reviews of state programs has from our point of view been both professional and constructive.
It might be argued that a specific point or detail may have been overemphasized or underemphasized by an individual NRC staff member, but the overall conduct of the review has been balanced and correct."
In closing, the NRC's State Agreement program has proven to be a highly valued resource to the states' radiation health and safety program.
January 10, 1980 v..