ML20054M626
| ML20054M626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-47FR19152, RULE-PR-34 NUDOCS 8207140067 | |
| Download: ML20054M626 (79) | |
Text
-
~D () 0 f
m.
y, nut *" M REGU J-TORY COM! CSS!CN p^w, i, fg D
em 9 3 6
_ _~
1, a
,(n a.-2
~~0ns!a
//,_
}.
,3 5 In *: e. Mats! Cf:
REGION I PUBLIC fiEETING ON CERTIFICATION OF RADIOGRAPHERS DAg.
June 23, 1982 PAGIS.
1 - 78 Washington,'D. C.
g.:
s REPORT 1.T(i m a q,3 r. y 400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Wasnin F.=
, D. C. 20024 h
Talachc=a: (202) 554-2245 x. : n, ~
PI?H 10CFi pro P Cr*
i
1
()
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C) 4 REGION I PUBLIC MEETING 5
ON CERTIFICATION OF RADIOGRAPHERS 6
7 General Services Administration 8
Auditorium 9
18th and F Streets, N.W.
10 Washington, D.C.
20405 11 12 Wednesday, June 23, 1982
(:)
14 The meeting was convened, pursuant to notice, 15 a t 9:00 a.m.
16 PRESENT:
17 BERNARD SINGER, NRC 18 JAMES JONES, NRC 19 NATHAN BASSIN, NRC 20 ALSO PRESENT:
21 WILLIAM AITMAN 22 VERN BALLENGER 23 BRUCE KOVACS O
24 J. E. MAYS 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l
.2 O
i sourrars 2
PRESENTATION OF
- E12I, 3
Bernard Singer, NRC, Panel Chairman 3
4 James Jones, NRC 7
5 Nathan Bassin, NRC 17 6
William Axtman, Executive Director, 7
American Boiler Manufacturers Association, 8
on behalf of American Boiler Manufacturers 9
Associhtion 22 10 Vern Ballenger, Director of Engineering, 11 Air Transport Association, on behalf of 12 Air Transport Association 37 13 Bruce Kovacs, Senior Radiographer, Foster O
14 Wheeler Energy Corporation, on behalf of 15 Foster Wheeler Energy Corpora tion 55 16 J.E. Mays, Combustion Engineering 71 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
40C ' RGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
)
3 1
E E G C. E E _D,1 1 E E 2
PRESENTATION OF BERNARD SINGER, NRC, PANEL CHAIRMAN
(])
3 MR. SINGER:
Good morning to all of you.
I 4
would like to start the meeting now.
I am Bernard 5
Singer, chief of the Certification and Procedures Branch 6
in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeg ua rd s 7
of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
8 I will be chairman for this meeting.
On the 9
behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I welcome 10 you to this public meeting on third-party certification 11 of industrial radiographers as an alteranative to the 12 present system of permitting radiography licensees to 13 train and designate individuals as radiogra phers.
14 A proposed notice of advnced rulemaking was 15 publiushed in the Federal Register on May 4,
1982, and 16 this public meeting was announced in the Federal 17 Register on May 11, 1982.
Copies of both these 18 anncuncements are available at the table ner the door in 19 the back of the room.
20 This meeting is open to the public.
If you 21 have not already registered at the door, I would 22 appreciate it if you would do so with our receptionist 23 there.
O 24 As indicatad in the notice, this meeting will 25 be conducted informally.
A tenta tive agenda is
(~\\
U ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
f4 1
available from our receptionist.
As chairman, I will 2
try to permit those who requested time to provide
(}
3 statements, the opportunity to do so in the order 4
received.
Following these presentations, I will 5
recognize members of the audience who wish to go on 6
record.
7 A transcript of the meeting is being made.
8 Therefore, it will be necessary that anyone who wishes 9
to make a statenant or participate in the discussion be 10 recognized.
Each speaker should identify himself or 11 herself along with their affiliation or organization 12 before presenting views.
13 This is the fifth of five public meetings to 14 be held on radiographer certification.
A transcript of 15 each mee ting will be placed in the public document room 16 at 1717 H Street in Washington, D.C.
17
'At this time, I woudl like to introduce the 18 members of the panel who are here to participate and 19 resolve questions pertaining to this meeting.
At my 20 right is Mr. James Jones, representing the Research 21 Office of NRC and who will have the primary 22 respansibility for answering questions pertaining to 23 rulemaking.
Seated to my left is Mr. Nathan Bassin of O
24 the Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Office of 25 NRC, who will have the primary responsibility for O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
5 O
1 responding to questions pertaining to the licensing of 2
radiocraphy programs.
Also for the record, John
(])
3 Kinneman of our Region 1.
4 I would like to say a few words about the 5
purpose of public meetings.
Whenever NRC proposes to l
e change its regulations we usually, according to our 7
practices, publish what we intend to do in the Federal 8
Register and seek knowledgeable comment from the public 9
or the industry prior to taking our action.
10 From time to time we deal with a subject that 11 is complex technically, has potential socicaccnomic 12 impact, and has been a source of concern which has not 13 been resolved in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
14 Radiographer over-exposures is such a subject.
This 15 concern has been amplified by the findings of inspectors 16 from both NRC and the agreement states that there are 17 many individuals designated as radiographers who do not 18 appear to have the understanding and knowledge of 19 radiation safety which such personnel should have in 20 order to perform radiography in a safe manner.
21 To deal with this matter, we have done a 22 number of things including a major revision of Part 34 23 of Title 10 of the Code of Fede ral Regulations.
We have O
24 established a task force consisting of seven 25 directorates within NRC, and have five representatives O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6 O
1 selected by the Council of Directors of the agreement 2
states participating in this effort.
We have
(}
3 established an incident reporting system which flags 4
potential problems associated with radiograpay equipment 5
and permits us to issue bulletins which define such 6
problems to licensees and equipment manufacturers.
7 We are in the process of publishing a training 8
manual to assist those wishing to use it.
We have 9
established performance criteria for radiography 10 equipment and are in the process of grinding those 11 criteria through the bureaucratic papermill as a prelude 12 to rulemaking.
We are studying several means of making l
13 our inspections more frequent and more meaningful.
Many l
14 of our involvements are rediscoveries of past attempts 15 to resolve the problems associated with the radiography 16 industry.
One of the things we have not done is to 17 establish the mandatory certification of radiographers 18 by an independent agency.
This action would include the 19 establishment of a standard for testing and the l
20 maintenance of a national registry of certified 21 radiographers.
22 Through public meetings, we expect to obtain 23 sufficient information which will effectuate a decision
, ()
24 to either establish a requirement for certification or c
25 to maintain current licensing practices and policies.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7 O
1 For that purpose, we published the advanced 2
notice of proposed rulemaking which posed 13 questions.
()
3 Your
.wponses to these questions will serve in a large 4
part us the basis for our reaching a decision on this 5
ma tte r.
6 I will now ask Mr. Jones to discuss the ANPR 7
and the questions in the ANPR in more detail.
Mr. Jones.
8 PRESENTATION OF JAMES JONES, NRC 9
MR. JONESs Thanks, Bernie.
10 In my comments, I will briefly cover some of 11 the background and thinking that led to the publication 12 of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking and also to 13 this public meeting.
14 First, I think I should say a few words about 15 the distinction between an advance notice of proposed 16 rulemaking and a notice of proposed rulemaking.
A 17 notice of proposed rulemaking is published when the 18 Commission proposes to adopt, amend, or repeal a 19 regulation.
Prior to publishing a proposed rule, the 20 Commission must obtain complete information concerning 21 the impact of the rule and the most effective means of 22 implementing the rule.
The information obtained is used 23 to prepare value impact statements and Regulatory O
24 Flexibility Act analysis, which are documents required 25 in support of proposed rules.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
8 1
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking is a 2
mechanism whereby a regulatory agency can inform the
(])
3 public at a very early stage in the rulemaking process 4
that a particular rule is being contemplated and obtain 5
public reaction and infornation concerning the value and 6
the most effective means of imp]ementing the rule.
In 7
general, advance notices are only published concerning 8
major poliry issues.
The issue of radiogra pher 9
certifictaion was determined to be a major policy l
10 question by the NRC and in order to obtain broad public 11 input and information at an early stage, a decision was 12 made to prepare an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 13 and conduct a series of public meetings on. the issue.
14 The NRC staff has internally considered the 15 issue of licensure or certification of radiographers 16 since the 1960's.
NRC's interest in a radiographer 17 licensing program is due to the health risks associated 18 with occupational exposure and to the high rate of j
l 19 occurrence of overexposure incidents by radiography 20 licensees when compared to other NRC material licenses.
l 21 Although they constitute only 3 percent of the NRC l
l 22 material licensees, radiography licensees were involved 1
l 23 in over 60 percent of the reported overexposures to the
)
24 whole body greater than 5 rems during the year,s of 1970 25 to 1980.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
A C E C -- _ T. W 2 W N rs'Ba.2 9
O 1
Although the NRC had discussed the pros and 2
cons of a radiographer licensing program for several Q
3 years, a consensus was never reached and nothing was 4
done until 1978, when a petition vs received from the 5
Nondestructive Testing Management Association, NDTMA, 6
requesting that the NRC amend its regulations to provide 7
for registration, licensing, and control of 8
r adioc ra ph e rs.
9 The NDTMA indicated in its petition that a 10 program for licensing would accomplish the following 11 objectives.
They felt it would, one, provide the 12 radiographer with a sense of pride in his knowledge that 13 he has been registered by a government body; two, an 14 awareness that he is directly responsible for his safety 15 performance; three, that he is accountable for his 16 conduct to the extent his registration could be limited, 17 suspended, or revoked and future employment in the 18 industry affected; four, it would provide continuity of 19 safety training and testing in an industry where 20 employment is very mobile.
21 The NRC published th e petition for comment in 22 the Federal Register on August 4,
1978.
Only eleven 23 comments were received concerning the petition.
Two O
24 comments f avored the petition and nine comments opposed 25 the petition.'
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
10 0
1 The Nondestructive Test and Management 2
Administration subsequently withdrew the petition by a
()
3 letter dated May 10, 1982, without comment.
4 In March, 1980, the NRC staff, due to the 5
recurring problem of radiocraphy overexposures initiated 6
a new program to improve radiation safety in the 7
industrial radiography industry.
As part of the 8
program, a steering committee consistino of senior NRC 9
staf f personnel was formed to coordinate manpower, to funding, scheduling, and priorities.
Representatives 11 from agreement states and no-agreement states were later 12 added in order that a uniform national program for 13 radiation safety could be developed.
The steering 14 committee established considera tion of a na tional 15 program for licensing or certification of radiographers 16 as a priority item.
17 For clarification purposes, certification is 18 considered a process by which a non governmental agency 19 or association grants recognition to an individual who 20 has met certain predetermined qualifications.
- Whereas, 21 licensing is a process whereby a governmental agency or 22 an agency of the government grants the recognition.
23 After careful evaluation of the guidance O
24 provided by the Commission to the NRC staff in the 25 Commission's policy, planning, and program guidance, the ALDEASON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
11 1
staff determined that due to budgetary constraints an 2
NRC controlled licensin g program was not feasible.
As a
()
3 result, tb> NRC staff recommended to the Commission that l
4 a regulatory program that incorporates a third-party 5
certification program as an alternative to the present 6
system be considered.
The purpose of the advance notice 7
and also this public meeting ijs to obtain broad public 8
input to enable the NRC staff to make a determination as 9
to whether to recommend to the Commission that a 10 proposed rule be published to establish a radiographer 11 certification program.
The advance notice of proposed l
12 rulemaking, which you have a copy of, outlines issues
(
13 that we are especially interested in receiving input i
14 about.
At this time I will briefly discuss those issues.
15 An issue raised at other meetings that is not 16 included in our list of issues is the responsibility of 17 the third-party certifier.
Some commenters have been of 18 the opinion that the third-party certifiers will 19 giurantee the safe performance of a certified 20 radiographer and as such will be responsible for the 21 f ailure of any radiographer to follow established 22 procedures.
This is not the case, tae licensee will 23 continue to be responsible for the safe performance of 24 their radiographers.
The thir-party certifier will only 25 be responsible for assuring that the radiog rapher l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
12
()
I possess the minimum knowledge and training to operate 2
equipment safely and to follow established procedures.
3 The first issue I would like to discuss, and 4
we want to hear comments on these issues, is, is the 5
training provided to radiographers under the present 6
system adequate?
Of course, the objective of the l
l 7
present system and any new system like the third-party 8
certification system is to provide NRC the greatest 9
assurance possible that individuals who perform as 10 radiographers are trained properly to operate the 11 equipment safely and follow established procedures.
The 12 present system has been in effect for a lonc time, and 13 ve are interested in comments as to whether you believe O
14 it is adequate or whether third-party certification 15 would provide greater assurance of minimum competence.
16 The second iten we are interested in is, would 17 a third-party certification program reduce the number of 18 overexposures in the radiography industry?
We have had 19 a lot of comments on this.
The majority seem not to 20 think th a t i t will.
It is difficult to say, but we are 21 interested in hearing cceaents which can help us make 22 our decision.
23 The third item we would like to discuss is, 24 would a third-party certification program motivate 25 radiographers to work more safely?
The NDT indicated in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGIN lA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
13
()
1 its position that it thought a licensing and 2
certification program would do this.
The NRC had a
(])
3 study performed by contractors which came up with the 4
conclusion that a certification or a licensing program 5
would not motiva te radiographers to work more rafely.
6 Of course, this is not the NBC's position, and we would 7
like to hear more comments.
It is clearly a debatable 8
issue as to whether certification would motivate 9
radiographers to work more safely, so any comments on 10 that would be helpful.
11 Number Four, what elements in the present 12 system or in the suggested alternative are particularly 13 desirable or undesirable?
And why?
Here, we are 14 interested in substantive comments.
We don't really 15 vant comments that say, this system is better than the 16 other.
We want to know why.
We want specific reasons.
17 Number Five, if a third-party certification 18 program is adopted, what items should be included in the 19 standard for determining the competence of individuals 20 to act as radiographers?
The centerpiece of any 21 certification pro 7 ram would, of course, be a standard 22 which would indicate exactly wha t elements a 23 radiographer would have to meet in order to qualify as a 24 radiographer.
We are very interested in hearing 25 comments on wha t the public thinks should be in this O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) bJ4 2345
n 10
()
1 standard.
2 Number Six, if a third-party certification 3
program is adopted, should it apply to individuals 4
presently working as radiographers or only to new 5
radiographers?
Of course, we are interested in hearing 6
comments on thi s, wh e th e r we should grandfather the ones 7
presently working, or whether we should test all 8
radiographers, the old plus the new.
9 Number Seven, if a third-party certification 10 program is adopted, should certificates be issued to 11 individuals for life or should there be periodic renewal 12 of the certification?
I think that speaks for itself.
13 Number Eight, would a third-party O
14 certification program affect the ability of a licensee 15 to respond to variable manpower needs?
He realire many 16 of the radiography firms are primarily operating on 17 contracts, and of course when contracts come up there 18 could be a need to increase the work force, so we are 19 interested in whether a third party certification 20 program, if adopted, would affect the ability to respond 21 to a change in the work force requirements.
22 Number Nine, since a third-party certification 23 program would likely be based on cost recovery by a fee
(
24 system, would the cost to the licensees of such a 25 program be warranted?
Of course, if we decide to go to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
15
(
1 the proposed rule stage, we will have to do a value 2
impact analysis, and of course this particular issue was 3
added because we would like to get information from the
(])
4 public to help us prepare a value impact analysis.
5 Number Ten, which alternatives of the two 6
discussed, present system and third-party certification, l
i 7
is preferable?
And why?
Are there other, better 8
alte rna tives ?
If so, please explain.
This question is 9
similar to some of the others we have raised but we want l
l 10 specific information concerning what you like about the l
11 present system, what you don't like, what you would like 12 about a third party certification system, and 13 specifically what you would dislike about that
()
i 14 particular system.
15 Number Eleven, with respect to the two 16 alt erna tive s, what kind of enforcement action could and 17 should be taken against radiographers who do not operate 18 equipment safely or follow established procedures?
What 19 rights should radiographers have with respect to such 1
20 enforcement actions?
A third-party certification system l
21 would certainly increase the responsibility of the 22 individual radiographers to comply with established 23 procedures, and we would need to develop some kind of l f)/
24 fair and impartial enforcement action that should be ss 25 taken in case the radiographer consistently violates l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
16
()
1 established procedures.
We don't have a system set up 2
for that, so we need additional information concerning 3
wha t would be a proper enforcement procedure to set up 4
to enforce the certification program against individual 5
radiogaphers.
6 Number Twelve, would a small licensee, because 7
of its size, bear a disproportionate adverse economic 8
impact under a third-party system?
Again, we add this 9
particular issue because in any proposed rule you have to to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis.
The 11 purpose is to detarmine whether the rule you are 12 proposing has an adverse impace on small entities, and 13 this particular question will, of course, help in O
14 preparing that particular document.
15 For those organizations that are interested in 16 participating in a third-party certification program,
17 what would be the estimated post of implementing such a 18 program?
This particular question has two reasons.
19 First, in any third-party certification program, we 20 would need some firms to act as third-party certifiers, 21 so we a re interested in hea ring from firms who are 22 interested in acting as third-party certifiers.
We are 23 interested in knowing more about the costs.
If the firm 24 is interested, we would like for them to develop a 25 program and tell us how much they think it would cost to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
17
)
1 implemen t such a program.
So this has a two-fold 2
purpose of soliciting firms interested in participating
[]}
in such a program and also to receive additional cost 3
4 information.
5 These are the basic issues we would like 6
discussed.
However, we are also interested in hearing 7
comments on other aspects of the problem that we may 8
have overlooked.
At this time, I will turn the meeting 9
back over to the Chairman.
10 MR. SINGER:
Thank you.
Thank you, Jimmy.
11 I will now ask Mr. Bassin to discuss the 12 current licensing requirements and policy for 13 radiography training.
O 14 PRESENTATION OF NATHAN BASSIN, NRC 15 MR. BASSINr Thank you, Bernie.
16 Section 34.11 (b) of 10 CFR Part 34 sttes that 17 an application for a specific license will be approved 18 if the applicant has an adequate program for training 19 the radiographers and radiographers' assistants and 20 submits a schedule or description of such program which 21 specifies one, initial training; two, periodic trainings 22 three, on-the-job training; four, means to be used by i
i 23 the licensee to determine the radiographer's knowledge
(
24 and understanding of and ability to comply with 25 Commission regulations and licensing requirements, and
()
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18
()
1 the operating an emergency procedures of the applicant; 2
and five, means to be used by the licensee to determine 3
the radiographer's assistant's knowledge and 4
understanding of and ability to comply with the 5
operating and emergency procedures of the applicant.
6 Hore specifically, Section 34.31 of 10 CFR l
7 Part 34 deals with the training requirements for 8
radiographers and radiographers' assistants.
For an 9
individual to be designated as a radiocapher he must:
10 one, be instructed in the subjects outlined in Appendix 11 A of 10 CFR Part 34; two, received copies of and 12 instructions in NRC regulations, the NRC license under 13 which the radiographer will perf orm, and the licensee's-O 14 operating and emergency procedures; three, demonstrate 15 competence to use radiographic exposure devices, sealed 16 sources, related handling tools, and survey instruments; 17 four, demonstrate un'derstanding of the topics in 18 Appendix A by successful completion of a written test 19 and a field examination.
20 For an individual to be designated as a 21 radiographer's assistant, he musts one, receive copies 22 of and instruction in the licensee's operating and 23 emergency procedures; two, demonstrato competence to
(
24 use, under the personal supervision of a radiographer, 25 radiographic exposure devices, sealed sources, related O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
19
(
1 handling tools, and radiation survey instruments; and 2
three, demonstrate understanding of the matters 3
specified in one and two by successfully completing a
{}
4 written or oral test and a field examination.
I 5
For purposes of clarification, the term
(
6
" personal supervision of a radiographer" as defined in 7
Part 34 means that the radiographer must be physically l
8 present and watching the radiographer's assistant 9
whenever he is performing any radiographic operations 10 other than the tumination of the perimeter of the 11 restricted area.
The agreement states, have 12 requirements similar to or compatible with the 13 requirements in NRC regulations.
O 14 In Regulatory Guide 10.6, " Guide for the 15 Preparation of Applications for Use of Sealed Sources 18 and Devices, for Performing Industrial Radiography,"
17 training programs are discussed in greater detail and 18 guidance is provided as to the kinds of information 19 which should be included in a training prog ra r 20 description.
The following are th e major points 21 discussed.
For radiographers:
22 One, a narrative description of the training 23 program should be provided.
Two, a detailed outline of 24 the matters covered including topics in Appendix A and 25 the approximate time to be spent on each major area of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
20
()
1 instruction.
Approximately 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> should be spent in 2
the formal training portion of the program.
3 Three, if an outside service organization 4
provides training the names of the organiza tions should 5
be specified.
However, since outside organizations 6
cannot provide instruction in operating and emergency 7
procedures, equipment, and facilities, these matters 8
muset be specifically provided for by the applicant and 9
the instruction which will be given in these areas 10 described in the training program description.
11 Four, a description of on-the-job training 12 should be provided.
As a minimum, three months' 13 full-time equivalent should be spent in on-the-job 14 training.
15 Five, a copy of the comprehensive examination l
i 16 of approximately 50 questions or more covering all items 17 in Appendix A should be submitted together with the 18 examination answers, passing grade, and a discussion of 19 the additional instruction which will be given in those 20 areas where the examination indicates weakness.
21 For radiographers ' assistants, the information 22 which should be provided in the training program 23 includes, one, the instruction which will be given in
()
24 the applicant's operating and emergency procedures; and 25 two, a copy of the examination of approximately 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
21
(
1 questions which will test understanding of the operation 2
and emergency procedures and equipment together with the
()
3 examination answers, the passing grade, and discussion 4
of the additional instruction which will be given in 5
those areas where the examination indicates weakness.
6 For persons with previous training and 7
experience, it is the applicant's responsibility to make 8
his own determination of competency of each individual.
9 Information should be provided concerning instruction 10 which will be given in the applicant's operating and 11 emergency procedures and equipment and the examination 12 or means which will be used to determine competency of 13 eaLn individual.
14 Periodic training should be conducted at least 15 annually and should include a description of the course 16 content for the purpose of ensring that the knowledge 17 and proficiency of radiography personnel in regulations, 18 procedures, policy, and equipment is current and 19 up-to-date.
20 Instructors in training programs should be 21 specified by Pame and a description of their 1
(
22 qualifications in radiation and radiation saf ety and in l
23 use of sealed source and devices for radiography should 24 be specified.
An instructor should have qualifications
,25 at least equivalent to those of a radiographer and have
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 vtRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
22
()
1 expelence in radiation and radiation safety beyond the 2
minimum required for a ra d iogra phe r.
3 In the event a radiographer certification 4
program is adopted, it would no longer be necessary to 5
provide information in the detail I have described.
The 6
information needed concerning training would be limited 7
to those matters, e.g.
instruction in opera ting and 8
' emergency procedures, for which a third party could not 9
provide testing.
10 This describes briefly current training 11 requirements, and I will turn you back to Mr. Singer.
l l
12 MR. SINGER:
Thank you, Nate.
13 Our first commenter will be Mr. William
()
14 Axtman, representing the American Boiler Manufacturers 15 Association.
He is the Executive Director of the 16 American Boiler Manuf acturers Association.
17 Mr. Axtman.
18 PRESENTATION OF WILLIAM AXTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 19 AMERICAN BOILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 20 MR. AXTMAN Thank you.
Good morning.
I am 21 William Axtman, the Executive Director of the American l
22 Poiler Manuf acturers Association, and I am here today l
23 rep reser ' '.no tha t association.
Our comments will relate I ()
24 to the information presen ted in the May 4th, 1982, 25 Federal Re;ister, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 CFR l
t ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
23
(
1 Certification of Industrial Fadiographers.
2 First, let me explain the interests of the 3
(}
American Boiler Manufacturers Association.
The members 4
of ABMA manuf acture all of the fossil fuel fired utility 5
steam generating equipment, and almost all of the 6
industrial and commercial steam and hot water generating 7
equipment used in the United Sta tes.
8 Industrial radiography techniques are used in 9
nondestructive testing of components of boilers to i
to assure compliance with American Society of Mechanical 11 Engineers, ASME, Boiler and Pressure Code and for other 12 nondestructive testing purposes in order to assure 13 production of products that can generate steam with a O
14 high degree of safety.
15 Steam, for electric power, for plant heat, for 16 industrial processing, and for industrial motive power 17 is vital to American industry.
In 1981, industrial 18 customers purchased more than 310 units of steam 19 generating equipment totalling some 29 million pounds of 20 steam per hour capacity.
In addition, over 6,700 21 commercial steam and hot water units were ordered with a 22 total hourly capacity of just over 610 million BTU per 23 hour2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br />.
Thus, the ABMA members have a direct and O
24 immedia te in terest in regulations affecting the purchase 25 and use of steam generating equipment.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
24 I
l (])
1 Let me commence with a statement of the 2
problem.
The supplementary information contained in the 3
May 4,
1982, notice states that 60 percent of the
(
4 industrial radiographers reported overexposed received 5
whole body exposures of greater than five rems and 80 6
percent were greater than 25 rems.
We believe this is 7
an overstatement of the problem.
8 NRC statistics contained in the Annual 9
Occupational Radiation Exposure Report of Certain NRC 10 Licensees for the years 1974, 1975, and 1976, the only 11 years for which we are able to obtain reports, show the 12 following exposures.
13 In 1974, there was a total of 8,792 0
14 radiogaphers monitored, and.34 percent had exposures of 15 greater than five rem, and zero percent has exposures of 16 greater than 12 rem.
In 1975, 10,000 radig ra phers were l
17 monitored, and.39 percent had exposures greater than 18 five rem, and.010 percent had exposures greater than 12 19 rem.
In 1976, of 11,245 radiographers monitored,.31 20 percent had exposures greater than five rem, and.027 21 percent had exposures greater than 12 rem.
22 Since preparing this, our experience indicates 23 those exposu re rates have gone down significantly.
)
24 Experience within our industry supports this 25 conclusion that a small number of radiographers, less
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25
()
1 than three out of about 10,000, are involved in whole 2
body exposures greater thsn 12 rems.
3 Let me iterate the ABMA position.
Our own 4
experience and that cited in the NRC statistics 5
discloses that only a very few individuals are involved 6
in an issue that is primarily a motivational one.
ABMA l
7 is therefore opposed to any change in the procedures 8
currently in effect for training and designation of 9
individuals as qualified to act as radiographers.
10 NRC is currently monitoring records of 11 training programs conducted by NRC radiography 12 licensees.
We suggest that a better solution to the 13 limited NRC manpower would be to monitor or spot check 14 actual training classes rather than records.
15 Other actions that NRC could take to improve l
16 the current program could includes spot checking of 17 radiographers in the field.
If the individual expected 18 NRC inspectors to check him on occasion, it would 19 probably improve his motivation.
Discussions with our 20 member companies indicate little or nothing is done in 21 this regard at the p re sen t time, and it might be a 22 better use of NRC manpower.
23 Second, NBC should establish minimum 24 educational levels, that is, a high school diploma or 25 its equivalent for entrance into radiographer training.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
26
()
1 This would be expected to improve the assimilation of 2
the prescribed training by an individual.
3 We feel the requirement for third-party 4
certification of industrial radiographers would, in 5
fact, dilute the current trai31ng programs rather than 6
train individuals to properly and safely use th e 7
radiographic equipment.
The training programs might 8
degenerate into programs preparing prospective 9
radiographers to pass the third party examination.
10 As an aside, it is noted that each company 11 uses dif ferent types of equipment, and the current 12 training programs prepare the people to use the specific 13 equipment the industry is using.
As brought out in the O
14 preamble this morning, the safety of the site is a 15 problem for the individual company, and could not be 16 handled by third-party certification in any event.
17 We believe personnel selection for such 18 programs is important.
Therefore, minimum educational 19 level requirements promulgated by NRC would, we believe, 20 improve personnel selection.
21 We believe the solution to this whole problem 22 is more effective management controls not outside 23 certification by a third party.
Improved motivation of
()
24 the radiocraphers to follow the technique in which they 25 were trained is the most effective solution.
This, of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
27
()
1 course, is a manpower problem, but more effectively a 2
management program to improve motivation.
3 Licensing schemes are usually instituted to 4
protect the public who is not involved here.
Exposures 5
are of the radiographors themselves in almost all cases, 6
not the general public.
7 I would like to answer the specific questions 8
proposed in the May 4th, 1982, Federal Register.
9 As to the first question, which relates to the 10 adequacy of the current training program, the current 11 training programs are submitted to and approved by NRC.
12 An advantage of the current system is, it can be 13 tailored to the needs and equipment of the licensee.
O V
14 The NRC had requirements for these programs.
- Periodic, 15 annual at a minimum, retraining is required.
There are -
16 training raquirements for radiographers and assistant 17 radiographers in the current system.
18 The second question, would third-party 19 certification reduce exposures.
We believe third-party 20 certification would not motivate radiographers.
21 Motivation is affected by proper supervision and factors 22 other than training in most cases.
Other issues that 23 arise include, if third-party certification is
)
24 instituted, how would decertification be enforced?
This 25 a real issue which has not been discussed.
And O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
28
()
1 secondly, how will records of certificates awards be 2
kept?
As to the third question, would third-party 3
certification motiva te radiogra phers, we think the 4
answer to this is now.
We feel that third-party 5
certification would have the opposite effect, and would 6
create a sense of complacency among certificate 7
holders.
The attitude might well be, I have my 8
certificate, I don' t have to do any more about it.
9 Experience with other personal licenses, such to as plumbers, electricians, oil burner technicians, and 11' so forth, does not support the conclusion that 12 third-party certification would improve motivation.
I 13 can speak from personal experience.
I hold an oil 14 burner certificate of competency from the Commonwealth 15 of Massachusetts.
I took my exam 30 years ago, and I 16 don't think it has motivated me very much.
17 Fourth, what elements of the present system 18 are desirable?
We recommend retaining the present 19 system while addressing specific needs discussed earlier 20 in our statement, such as improved supervision, improved 21 field inspection, and requirements for minimum 22 educational levels.
23 Questions five through nine relate to the
()
24 situa tion of third-party certifications adopted, and 25 because we recommend that third party certification not ALDERSON REPO9 TING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
29
(
1 be adopted, we feel tha t answers to those questions are 2
inappropriate.
(])
Question 10, which alternatives are 3
4 desirable?
We think the present system is preferable 5
for the reasons we have previously stated.
We recommend 6
enforcement procedures be strengthened, and a system of 7
checks on radiographer supervision be established.
8 Question 11, what enf orcement action should be 9
taken?
We recommend enforcement of the current to regulations'in accordance with the NRC guidelines 11 already publised.
NRC enforcement personnel need to be 12 trained in the requirements of NRC's own regulations in 13 order to provide proper interpretation and enforcement, O
14 and also to guide people in the field.
Industrial 13 radiographers need to be made responsible for their own 16 actions, and subject to government penalty within a 17 system that provides for hearings and appeals to protect 18 the individual radiographer.
19 This completes our statement.
We would be 20 pleased to answer questions and to cooperate with NRC in 21 any actions to improve radiographic safety.
22 MR. SINGERS Thank you, Mr. Axtman.
23 Mr. Jones?
24 MR. JONES:
Have you had the opportunity to 25 observe radiographers in the field, or different firms?
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
30
()
1 MR. AXTM AN :
Not personally, but I have a 2
Quality Assurance Committee and members of that 3
committee have had a chance to observe these, and I 4
report their observations.
Personally, no.
5 MR. JONES:
Do you have any feel from the 6
group that actually observed them that there is any 7
difference in the level of performance of radiographers 8
from different firms, or do you find it fairly 9
con siste nt?
10 MR. AXTMAN:
The committee reports they find 11 it fairly consistent in most cases, with inconsistencies 12 in performance of individuals within a specific firm.
13 In other words, the level seems to be fairly standard O
14 for the industry, but some individuals -- well, shall we 15 say, are not as well motiva ted as others.
16 MR. JONES:
The reason I a sk that question, 17 the advance notice, I think, tends to overstate the 18 overexposure issue.
We are also interested in having a 19 certain standard to provide a minimum level of 20 competence.
That is why I an interested in knowing if 21 you observed any real difference.
22 MR. AXTMAN:
We had quite a lengthy meeting of 23 our Quality Assurance Committee to examine the problem.
24 As a matter of f act, it was on an agenda before the 25 announcement came out in the Federal Register, and it O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
31
()
I was the feeling of the committee the training was 2
relatively uniform within the industry, given the fact 3
}
that some companies use different training equipment 4
than others, and therefore a portion of the training was 5
specific to the equipment.
That can even happen within 6
a company where they change equipment and retraining 7
would then have to be provided.
In exchanging 8
personnel, particularly in the field of construction, 9
where many of the people come from a union hiring hall 10 rather than direct employees.
The experience seems to 11 be the background training was relatively uniform, 12 probably as much uniformity as exists among several 13 third party certifiers.
O 14 NR. BASSIN4 Mr. Axtman, I have a question.
15 You indicate or suggest that industrial radiographers 16 need to be made responsible for their own actions and 17 subject to government penalty within a system that I
18 provides for hearings and appeals.
Do you have any 19 suggestions how this could be accomplished in a time in l
20 which we are looking for less government involvement?
21 You suggest a scheme where there would be more 22 novernment involvement over people whom we would not 23 personally in some manner " approve," and I put " approve" 24 in quotes.
25 I appreciate your comments.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 32
()
l 1
MR. AXTMAN4 Yes, I think wh a t we are looking 2
at, so much of the government action, not only within 3
this area but within the OSHA area, seems to be directed 4
at the employer, with little direction at the 5
individual, that if there can be some scheme without l
l 6
increasing the involvement of government very much, that i
7 would make the individual responsible for his actions.
8 I think it would be a step in the right direction.
9 Sometimes employers today are affected by a 10 situation where he says, hey, if this guy didn' t perform 11 right, it is your fault, Mr. Employer, and you cannot do j
12 very much about the employee.. Now, certainly, we are 13 not suggesting a lot of government involvement, and O
14 certainly there must be a series of checks and balances 15 so th at the individual is protected, but perhaps in some 16 way some compromise between the present system of citing 17 the employer and increasing the responsibility of the 18 employee would be useful.
19 MR. SINGER:
Mr. Axtman, I think it is 20 essential that I larif y some of the reasons we are 21 here, and talk to some of the things you have mentioned.
22 MR. AXTMAN:
Sure.
23 MR. SINGER:
The industry is comprised for a
()
24 greater part in terms of percentages, perhaps, 80 25 percent of wha t has been termed som and pop outfits.
We O
l t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
33
()
1 find that the large organizations, people who employ 40 2
or more radiographers, and have several offices, have a
()
3 greater continuity in terms of the work force.
They 4
have good training programs, good management in the 5
field, both in temporary job sites and permanent job 6
sites.
7 Part of our problem is, we have a total of 30 8
inspectors representing the 24 non-agreemen t states, and 9
these people can't do the various things they have to 10 do.
They have some 8,000 plus licensees to cover, of 11 which a small fraction of those are radiographers.
Wha t 12 ve did find is, when there has been a concentration of 13 inspections, there was' a particular number of things O
14 brought to our notice that weren't what we wanted to 15 have, but we all know are taking place.
We sat in on 40 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> of lectures.
People were giving eight hours of 17 lecture for five straight days to an audience that had 18 ten minutes of receptivity, and in the report they all 19 passed with 80 percentage or more on the test.
20 One from Dow Chemical did their own test on 21 some radiographers and found that 80 parcent failed.
22 Any regulatory commission goes on the basis of what it 23 sees as the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but 24 there is some question whether the training which has 25 been provided particularly by these small outfits is of
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
34
()
1 the kind we noted in some of the things you were saying.
2 In addition, we have been asked the question 3
with 30 inspectors and with the radiographers knowing rs O
l 4
full well when the inspector is coming out to the work l
5 site, when he registers at the hotel and they find where 6
he is, the knowledge that he is coming is well 7
established, and everything is pretty good.
If they l
8 find ten or fifteen overexposures in spite of these 9
things, what do you multiply that number by to find out 10 what they didn 't find?
11 Those are the kinds of things tha t came across 12 pretty clear.
In Texas and Louisiana, some of the 13 agreement states had a very concentrated effort on O
14 radiographers.
They came up with a litany of problems 15 that brought all of these things into focus, because 16 there the competition is very high.
The bidding on the 17 contracts is very close.
There is a great push for 18 productivity, get your 24 shots out and get those or 19 else, and if you are overexposed, we will have to fire 20 you, and one of the ways to escape that is not to wear 21 the dosimeter or s dummy one, things of that nature.
A 22 lot of these things brought that kind of thing into 23 focus.
()
24
,1f it were possible to find a way of having 25 third party certification where peer functions would O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
35
()
1 make the assurance tha t there was a minimal 2
understanding of safety, then we would have something l
3 that would relieve the pressure of having more 4
governmentsl participation and still be assured that the 5
people were aware of the hazards involved, and that is 6
what we are all talking to, so the numbers don't quite 7
tell the story.
The training that has been given us in 8
writing doesn't always follow through.
You are shaking 9
your head.
I think you accept that situation.
10 MR. !aITMANs I agree with you, yes.
11 MR. SINGER:
Those are the things we are 12 trying to resolve.
We are not picking on those who are 13 doing a good job, but there are too many out there who O
14 are not, and the concern is to improve that, regardless 15 or what the numbers show.
16 I want to thank you for putting this into 17 perspective.
18 MR. AXTMAN:
I would like to respond to your 19 statement if I could f or a minute.
20 MR. SINGER:
I wish you would.
21 MR. AXTMAN:
Our association has various 22 members.
We have some Fortune 500 companies which are 23 very large and would fall into the category you just 24 cited.
We also hsve quite a number of concerns who are 25 members of ABM A who have under 300 employees, and in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
36
(])
1 several cases under 100 employees, so I recognize what 2
you are talking about.
I also recognize that the 3
training program sometimes leaves some things to be 4
desired, not only for radiographers but for other 5
actions within industry.
6 I was chairman of the Heating and Power 7
Technology Department of Springfield Technical Institute 8
in Massachusetts for ten years, so with that for a 9
background, I can well relate to what you are talking to about.
I think industry is taking some steps to improve 11 the adequacy of their training programs overall, not 12 just with radiographers but overall.
I think we have 13 recognized some shortcomings in our training programs.
O 14 I would agree with you.
Someone sits there is the 15 class, and after 30 or 40 minutes, your motivation is 16 dirtated by the seat of your pants, and you get a little 17 uneasy there, particularly with people who are not 18 frequently involved with being trained.
19 That is one of the reasons we suggested a 20 minimal educational level.
We find in some cases some 21 of the people who are bidding for these positions within 22 the union structure are good people, excellent 23 employees, but they don't necessarily have the
()
24 educational qualifications to assimilate the training 25 properly.
That compounds the problem, so to speak.
O ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
37
()
1 So, the association has a very active safety 2
program.
It relates to all aspects of boiler 3
manufacturing, and we are concerned as you are about 4
this.
We just don't think that the solution proposed is 5
going to be one that will satisfy the needs of the 6
problem as you so adequately stated them.
7 MR. SINGER:
Thank you.
8 Our next speaker is here representing the Air 9
Transport Association, Hr. Vern Ballenger, Director of 10 Engineering of the Air Transport Association.
Mr.
11 Ba11enger.
12 PRESENTATION OF VERN BALLENGER, 13 DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING O
14 AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 15 MR. BALLENGER The Air Transport Association 16 represents 30 scheduled airlines which operate 17 approximately 2,500 transport category airplanes.
Many 18 of these airlines use radioisotopes for inspection of 19 airplane components, prima rily installed engines.
These 20 inspections are performed to assure the reliability and 21 saf ety of their airplanes.
22 The licensing of products and personnel is not 23 new for the airlines.
The original Air Commerce
(
24 Regulations which were effective on December 31, 1926, 25 required the licensing of airplanes, pilots, and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
38
()
1 mechanics.
The drafters of the original Air Commerce 2
Regulations apparently thought licensing would solve all 3
problems f or aviation, since they made no provision for 4
specific airline pilot and mechanic training programs.
5 During the 56 years since the Air Commerce 6. Regulations were adopted, the airlines learned the hard 7
way that the licensing of airplanes and airmen does not 8
by itself assure the safety of air transportation.
The 9
industry now lives with a very elaborate set of safety 10 regulations and policies which evolved through 11 experience.
These safety regulations and policies 12 require training programs for pilots who fly specific 13 airplanes and for mechanics who maintain specific O
14 sirplanes.
All flight operations and maintenance work 15 is performed in accordance with each air carrier's 16 manual, and by the way, a set of manuals for an airline 17 that flies a Beeing 747, for example, would cover this 18 stage probably.
It is that much paper. FAA licensed 19 mechanics are responsible for inspections and returning 20 airplanes to service after maintenance work is 21 performed.
However, all maintenance tasks do not 22 necessarily have to be performed by licensed mechanics.
23 Radiographic inspections performed by an
()
I 24 airline inspector must be performed in accordance with 25 his airline manual which must conform with Federal O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
39
()
1 Aviation Regula tion 121.135 and 10 CFR 34.32.
- Now, 2
admittedly, the objectives are different in the case of 3
the NRC regulations.
It is nuclear safety.
But from 4
the standpoint of the Federal Aviation Regulations, it 5
is to maintain the safety of the airport.
The inspector 6
must be trained on each specific radiographic
~
7 inspection, again, in conformance with Federal Aviation 8
Regulations in CFR 121.375 and, of course, with 10 CFR 9
34.31.
10 So, in the case of airline radiographic 11 inspectors, we have the following go ve rnm en t 12 certification and approval layers.
We start out with 13 the airline certification.
Each airline is certificated O
14 in conformance with 14 CFR 121 Subpart B.
The airline 15 has a manual system acceptable to the FAA in conformance 16 with, as we mentioned earlier, 14 CFR 121.135.
Each 17 airline radiographic inspector is an Airman certificated j
18 by the FAA, and each airline which uses radioisotopes is l
19 certificated in conformance with 10 CFR 34 either by the 20 NRC or an agreement state.
21 And now it appears the NRC wants to add 22 another layer of certification.
23 The 56 years of U.S. airline experience has
(
24 proved that certification of organizations and personnel 25 does not assure safety of those personnel or members of I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
40
(])
I the public, tha t is, certification by itself, and we 2
think the NRC surely learned this lesson with the Three 3
Mile Island nuclear power plant accident, where several 4
layers of certification existed, and by the way, in the 5
airline business we continue to relearn this thing, too.
6 The achievement of a high level of safety in 7
any endeavor requires specific training of maintenance a
personnel f or the specific tasks they must perform.
In 9
addition, maintenance personnel must be motivated to 10 perform in accordance with their training and in 11 accordance with the specific manuals which they are 12 required to use.
Certification does not necessarily add 13 anything to this process.
Training and motivation are 14 the key elements of safety.
There is another element, 15 too, and tha t, of course, is experience.
16 The air transport industry is familiar with 17 periodic attempts made by specific employee groups to 18 get their pa rticula r class of work covered by 19 certification.
For example, avionics technicians have 20 tried for years to get the FAA to adopt certification 21 requirements for their field of work.
The latest 22 attempt, at least in the airline business, was made by 23 the airline flight attendants.
These attempts appear to
()
24 be motivated primarily by a desire for group status, 25 recognition, and obviously higher pay, and by the way, l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, l
400 v1RGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 j
f 41
()
1 in the airline business, most of the airline union 2
contracts pay maintenance technicians additional money 3
for additional licenses.
4 In the preamble to the advanced notice of l
l 5
proposed rulemaking the NRC expresses concern about its l
6 inability to verify the eff ectiveness of radiographer 7
training.
The NRC admits it has been unable to 8
conclusively show that licensing of radiographers would 9
improve the safety level for the radiographers 10 themselves or for the general public, and the NRC 11 expresses the belief that a third-party certification 12 program is desirable to correct deficiencies because of i
13 the lack of NRC personnel and equipment.
This appears
(
14 to be an admission by the NRC that they really do not 15 know how to enforce their own regulations.
We don't 16 seem to have that trouble with the FAA.
~
17 Perhaps the NRC should focus their enforcement 18 resources, and I think that is what you gentlemen were l
19 trying to say this morning, really, on that segment of j
l l
20 the industry which produces the most exposure incidents 1
21 compared with the number of operations.
Now, in the 22 airline business, we really don 't know for sure where 23 that is, but we don't think it is in our business.
We
()
24 think the record clearly shows that it must be somewhere 25 else.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
42
()
1 Airline radiographic operations are generally 2
conducted at fixed bases which are limited in number.
3 This permits better training, supervision, and 4
motivation of radiographers, and as I just said, we 5
believe the actual airline sa f e ty record will support 6
the lack of need for additional radioorapher controls in 7
our industry.
However, if the NRC proceeds with 8
third-party certification of radiographers, ATA member 9
airlines will, I am pretty sure of this, participate 10 actively in the development of the rules to assure that 11 the certification burden will be minimized.
We do not 12 vant to have to do that, but we will if we have to.
13 It is unfortunate that the NRC is exempt from O
14 Presidential Executive Order 12291, which states among 15 other things the following requirements for rulemaking.
16 A,
administrative decisions shall be based on adequate 17 information concerning the need for and the consequences 18 of proposed government action.
B, regulatory action 19 shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to 20 society for the regulation outweigh the potentisl cost 21 to society.
C, the regulatory objectives shall be 22 chosen to maximize the net benefits to society.
23 In our opinion, the NRC proposal to require
(
24 third-party certification of radiographers would not 25 pass muster under Executive Order 12191.
We realize you l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
43
()
1 do not have to comply with that, and of course we also 2
realize the purpose of the advance notice is to gather 3
information to make up your minds whether to do it, so I 4
am not trying to be overly critical.
5 We believe the following general conclusions 6
can be drawn concerning the NRC proposal.
Number One, 7
the NBC does not seem to know how to effectively use its 8
enforcement resources.
I didn't know how many 9
inspectors you had.
Now that I know, I can see the i
10 problem.
Number Iwo, the effects of licensing on the Il level of radiographic safety is speculative and unknown, 12 and we believe that is pretty clearly set forth in the l
13 consultants' reports which you folks authorized.
()
14 Review of available literature again shows no 15 positive correlation between licensing requirements per 16 se and achieved levels of safety.
Incidentally, I 17 noticed in that report there was a little bit of talk i
18 about the impact of licensing in those industries where 1
19 safety is involved, such as the airline industry, and j
20 they made the point that no one knows because they have 1
21 always had it, and that is true.
We have always had it, 22 so we don't know what it would be like without it.
No 23 one has checked that.
But I did find out yesterday that
)
24 there is one major industry which has never had 25 certification, and that is the railroad industry.
None l
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
44
()
1 of their personnel, locomotive engineers and so on, are 2
licensed, and they still seem to do a pretty good job.
3 And the last thing, the proposed licensing 4
program would impose burdens upon NRC licensees with no 5
documented evidence to show any benefit to the public.
6 At least we haven't seen any yet.
7 Now, we would like to recommend that the NRC 8
consider the following, and I think you are doing this 9
anyway.
The NRC should determine what segments of the 10 radiological industry generate the most overexposures.
11 The NRC enforcement resources should be focused on the 12 most hazardous sequents of the radiological industry in 13 a manner that will produce the greatest reduction of O
14 overexposures.
What we are really trying to say there 15 is, why burden those segments of the industry which 16 aren 't creating the problem when you can use available 17 resources on that segment that is causing the problem.
18 And the last thing, any further action on 19 adoption of radiographic technician certification 20 regulation should be deferred until a thorough analysis 21 is conducted by NRC to show how certification will 22 increase the level of safety.
In other words, 23 certification sounds nice, but will it do any good?
()
24 Detailed responses to the 13 questions from 12 25 ATA member airlines who responded are attached to the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
45
()
1 statement.
These comments, I will go ahead and try to 2
summarize those, what it looked like the airlines said.
3 Question One, regarding the current training
/)
4 provided radiographers.
The responding airlines 5
answered yes.
6 Question Two, would a third-party 7
certification program reduce the number of 8
The airlines either said no or they 9
doubted that it would.
10 Question Three.
Would a third party 11 certification program motivate radiographers to work 12 more safely, and essentially they said no.
13 Question Four.
Are elements in the present 1
i 14 System or in the suggested alternative particularly 15 desirable or undesirable, and why, and the airlines 16 basically answered they think the present system is 17 satisfactory, and very simply, the proposed new system 18 would be economica11 undesirable.
19 Question Five, if a third-party certification 20 program is adopted, what items should be included in the 21 standard for determining competence of individuals to 22 act as radiographers?
Very simply, most of the 23 responding airlines said they think the present system
()
24 is satisfactory, so they didn't propose anything on that.
25 Question Six.
If a third party certification i
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l l
46
()
1 program is adopted, should it apply to individuals 2
presently working as radiographers or only new 3
radiographers?
The majority of the responding airlines 4
said they believe if such a program were adopted, it i
1 5
should apply only to new radiographers.
6 Question Seven.
If a third-party program is 7
adopted, should certificates be issued to individuals 8
for life, or should there be periodic renewals of the 9
certification?
The majority of the responding airlines to believe certification should be for life.
Incidentally, 11 on that score, the certificates issued by the FAA for 12 mechanics are issued for life.
Now, there are recency 13 of experience requirements before a licensed mechanic O
14 can return an airplane to service.
The same is true for l
15 pilots.
Licenses are issued for life, subject to l
16 periodic physical exams and periodic flight checks, or 17 unless FAA takes enforcement action and takes it away 18 from them, but there is not much of that.
Very few 19 licenses are ever taken away, very few.
20 Question Eight.
Would a third-party 21 certification program affect the ability of a licensee 22 to respond to variable manpowers needs?
And the 23 responding airlines said yes, it would be a handicap.
)
24 Question Nine.
Since third-party 25 cer tifica tion prog rams would likely be based upor, cost
)
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
47 1
recovery by a fee system, would the cost to the 2
licensees of such a program be warranted, and the
(])
3 responding airlines said no.
4 Question Ten.
Which alternatives of the two 5
discussed, the present system or third-party 6
certification, is preferable, and why?
Are there other, l
7 better alternatives, and if so, please explain why.
8 Some of the airlines explained what they meant.
I won't 9
read those, but basically they said they think the 10 present system is satisfactory.
11 Question Eleven concerns enforcement action 12 and the rights of radiographers to appeal.
The airlines 13 didn't respond to the question regarding enforcement 14 action, but of course the airlines are f amiliar with 15 enforcement actions taken by the FAA which are 16 relatively rare, but the'y are taken.
They can take 17 certificate action.
They can take an airman's license 18 away temporarily, or for good.
Again, it is rarely 19 done.
And of course all of the airlines have the power l
20 to take disciplinary action against their employees, 21 negligent employees, and they do, and of course all of 22 those employees have rights of appeal even for those l
23 airlines who do not have labor contracts.
I C) 24 Question 12.
Would a small licensee, because 25 of its siza, bear a disproportionate adverse economic
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 48
- ()
1 impact on the third party system?
The responding 2
airlines said probably yes, but difficult to really 3
predict.
4 Question 13.
For those organizations 5
interested in participating in a third-party 6
certification program, what would be the estimated cost
{
7 in implementing such a program?
Most of the airlines 8
really said, we are not interested in participating in 9
that kind of a program.
A few tried to respond with 10 what they thought it would cost them.
I think they 11 misunderstood the question.
And as I mentioned earlier, 12 the airlines will be forced, I think, if such a program 13 is pursued, to participate in the development of a I ()
14 certification requirement to assure that the burden is 15 minimized.
16 And that is the end of my presentation.
17 MR. SINGER:
Mr. Ballenger, I think there is 18 perhaps some confusion.
In your discussion, you talked 19 of the people who were licensed and third-party 20 certification.
We tried in our preamble to the meeting 21 to indicate that licensing would be performed by a 22 govenmental body, the state or the federal government.
23 Certification would be performed by a group of peers
)
24 re pre sen ting the industry.
25 What we are trying to find is if tha t is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
49
()
1 possible, if it is possible to have a self-policing type 2
of industry, where we are concerned with the fact that 3
}
the radiography industry is such a disparate group or 4
set of g roups, th a t we wondered who could represent i
5 them.
How would you establish a third-party l
6 certification system?
The difference between the 7
licensing aspect and having a peer function certify 8
adequacy like they do in the medical profession. Someone 9
who is board certified as a cardiovascular surgeon or 10 whatever has his certification through a group of peers, 11 and that is what this is all about.
It isn't what the 12 government would or would not be doing in terms of 13 certifying these people.
It would be a determination by O
14 parties within this industry which represents between 15 12,000 and 20,000 people at any given time.
16 How would you find a means of assuring that 17 the people involved in that industry who are not pa rt of i
18 a larger contained body we spoke of earlier would have l
19 minimum knowledge, and if they are far from doing things 20 they shouldn't do, go across the street and just accept 21 employment with someone else across the way, how would 22 you establish that type of system?
That is what we are 23 trying to define.
}
24 HR. BALLENGER:
I think in our industry the 25 distinction between a license and a certificate is nil.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
50
()
1 They are one and the same.
2 MR. SINGER:
That is what your indications 3
were, but that is not what we intended.
{
4 MR. BALLENGERs I can tell you how it is done
'S within the FAA.
They are regulating thousands upon 6
thousands of pilots.
I don 't know.
There are 200,000 pilots in this country, and there are I don't know how 7
I 8
many mechanics, but there have got to be maybe 100,000 ll
~
9 licensed mechanics.
I am not sure.
But they are 10 ce r tifica ted.
They are axamined by designated 11 examiners.
There in no way the FAA can have the number 12 of people to do it.
And what you folks are proposing in 13 so many words is really delegating the responsibility to O
14 do the examinations for knowledge and skill to a 15 third-party' organization.
16 Now, the FAA does it simply by delegating it.
17 The designees are actually acting on behalf of the
/
18 government.
What you are proposing to do is farm it out i
tSr to some outfit.
Who would control it?
20 MR. SINGERa I think that is part of the 21 problem.
EPRI and people like that have indicated ther 22 could set up such a system.
.23 MR. BALLENGER:
Who has?
()
24 MR. SINGER 4 One of the not for profit 25 organiza tions indicated that they could set up a system O
(
/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
51
(
1 of the nature we were discussing.
There are a lot of 2
people out there who don't receive the type of training
(}
3 you people provide, and don 't receive the type of 4
testing you provide, a nd that is the issue that we are 5
talking to.
We had meetings.
One that particularly 6
brought this thing into focus was one from Texas.
In 7
Odecsa, Texas, one of the people there wrote the 8
Commission, and we were essentially blamed for all of 9
the heinous things that occur out there, and in every to possible manner.
11 We thought because of the severity of the 12 paper with regard to the Commission, we should have a 13 public meeting there to discuss that problem, and of the 14 various things that came out of that discussion, four of 15 the vives of radiographers got up and indicated that
[
16 their husbands knew nothing of radiation and cared less, 17 but that they cared more, and they felt something should 18 be done by management to assure that their husbands were 19 swsre of what radiation could do to them.
The idea of 20 latency was not something they understood at all, and it 21 was this type of issue that broughe !
t3 focus the need 22 for some assurance that the people whc are involved in 23 industry and frequently they are off the street and have O
24 two days or two hours of training before they are put to l
l 25 work in the field, that we could curtail that type of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
S2
()
1 use of people, and that is what we are trying to find, 2
if there is a method of assuring that what we are told
/'N 3
people are trained to do is indeed what they are trained V
4 to do.
5 It is not easy.
This industry is not like the 6
airplane industry.
Relative to Dr. Janet Turnage's 7
paper you referred to earlier, I don't want to get into 8
a big discussion there, but in her first draf t she i
9 emphasized the fact that all licensing was bad.
While 10 we didn't try to tell her what to write or how to write 11 it, we did suggest it might not be to the best benefit 12 of all concerned to go to someone who hung a shingle out 13 in front of his house that said, I an a doctor, some see O
14 me and I will cure your ills, or someone that was flying 15 an airplane who didn 't have anyone assuring that he had i
16 a capability and understanding of how to fly an airplane.
17 Her paper then reflected the fact that in some 18 instances licensing might be a good idea, but that is a 19 different situation from what we are talking to here 20 about certification through a third party.
21 MR. JONES I would like to comment, too.
The 22 study was done at the request of my particular branch.
23 That particular study was a very limited study.
It was 24 only designed to -- this is when the petition we 25 received was still active and in THA.
In TMA they l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
53
()
1 indicated they felt a certification program would 2
improve motivation of licensed workers to work safely.
3 The purpose of this study was to do only a limited 4
subject.
There was no independent research done.
It 5
was just s resesr h of all the documents that had been 6
written on licensing and motivation.
They were looked 7
a t, and I think the tendency of anyone who writes an 8
article is to write on the negative aspects.
9 So, I think it was very predictable that 10 research would show up that most authors would write on 11 the nega tive aspects of licensing and certification, and 12 this is what the study came out with, but it was only on 13 one small issue, that of motivation, and it was strictly O
14 a limited subject.
So I think in many cases it is 15 spoken of broadly as being an overs 11 evaluation of 16 licensing, but it is only that one aspect of licensing.
17 MR. BALLENGERa We appreciated receiving that 18 document, because we are going to use it as a reference 19 work, but going back to the aviation business, the issue 20 of licensing of personnel, be it mechanics, pilots, or 21 whatever, it is basically a process of examining people 22 for minimum knowledge and skill, and of course in most 23 cases there is a minimum amount of experience required, 24 too, and there is no way I can tell you from practical 25 experience, both from the flying side and the mechanics O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
54
(
1 side, there is no way that anyone with a license has 2
really got anything other than a license to learn. There
(])
3 is no possible way.
You take a mechanic who has a brand 4
new mechanic certificate.
You can't put him out there 5
and say, do this on that airplane.
He has still got to l
6 be trained.
l 7
We have a couple of gentlemen back here from 8
the airlines.
I am sure they could verify that f rom 9
their practical experience.
The same thing is true in 10 flying and in anything you do.
It is much too complex.
11 BR. SINGERS It would be wonderful if the same 12 thing was true for radiographers.
It is not that case.
13 MR. BALLENGERa You are talking about having O
14 an examination for a minimum amount of experience?
15 Really, the point I as trying to make is that it still 16 requires specific training on the particular equipment 17 and the particular' application.
18 HR. SINGER:
I understand that.
19 MR. BALLENGER:
You have to have it.
As I 20 said, the airlines have learned that during 56 years, 21 and they keep relearning it.
22 MR. SINGER:
I appreciate it, and I thank you 23 very arch.
24 We vill have a 15-minute break here, before we 25 resume with the next speaker.
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
55 O
1 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. )
2 MR. SINGERS Our next commenter will be Mr.
()
3 Bruce Kovacs.
He represents Foster Wheeler Energy j
4 Corpora tion.
He is the senior radiographer with Foster 5
Wheeler.
6 Mr. Kovscs.
7 PRESENTATION OF BRUCE KOVACS, 8
SENIOR RADIOGRAPHER, 9
FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION 10 MR. KOVACS*
Foster Wheele r Energy 11 Corporation, the manufacturer of large boilers and 12 pressure vessels, is licensed by the NRC and at present 13 four egreement states to perform industrial radiography 14 using radioactive ma terial.
Our radiography activitives 15 involve activities at manufacturing facilities and 16 construction sites throughout the U.S.
17 Foster Wheeler is opposed to t..is proposed 18 third-party certification of individual radiographers.
19 The NRC in its May 4th, 1982, Federal Register notice 20 indicates that certification of radiographers is being 21 proposed in part due to Commission concern over the 22 problem of radiography overexposures.
23 In support of this position, the NRC presents O
24 sta tistics showing that radiography licenses account for 25 a significant percentage of the radiation overesposures l
ALDERSOtt REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
56
()
1 tha t occurred during the ten-year period of 1971 to 2
1981.
It is our position that this problem of 3
radiography overexposures is not as significant as the 4
sta tistics indicate.
Over the 1971 to 1980 period, 5
radiography licenses accounted for 27 percent of the 6
total number of reported overexposures.
The 7
overexposures of radiographers to doses greater than 8
five rem whole body or 75 rem extremity, the NRC cutoff 9
point, involved just 48 incidents in ten years.
10 However, looking at this exposure data from the last 11 three years of the period 1978, 1979, and 1980, we see a 12 marked decrease in both the number of overexposures and 13 the percentage of overexposures contributed by O
14 industrial radiography.
15 Specifically, radiographers contributed only 16 21 of the total 171 overexposures reported to the NRC 17 from 1978 through 1960.
Only six of the 21 radiography 18 exposures were greater than five tem whole body and none 19 were greater than 25 rem whole body.
Furthermore, this 20 decrease in overexposures continued in 1981.
There were 21 only f our reported whole body radiography overexposures 22 last year, none of which were greater than five rem.
23 This data obtained f rom va rious N RC sources
(
24 indicates that there is not a significant occurrence of 25 radiography overexposures and that our industry is in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
57 s
()
1 fact making significant improvements in its performance.
2 I will now address some of the specific points 3
the NRC requested comments on in the Federal Register 4
notico.
Point One, is training provided to 5
radiographers under the precent system adequate, and 6
Point Two, would a thi rd-pa rty program reduce the number 7
of overexposures in the radiography industry.
We would 8
say that for the overwhelming majority of radiography 9
licensees, the training provided under the present 10 system is very good.
Inadequate training by some 11 licensees has been a contributing f actor in 12 overexposures of their personnel.
13 We feel that an increased effort by the NRC O
14 Office of Inspection and Enforcement to weed out these 15 radiography licensees with less responsible management 16 would have a far greater impact on the reduction of 17 overexposures than a third-party testing and 18 certification of some 10,000 to 11,000 individual 19 radiogrphers.
20 Point Three, would a third-party certification 21 program motivate radiographers to work more safely.
We 22 believe it is management's responsibility to ensure that 23 workers perform in a safe manner.
We see no 24 relationship between third,-party certification and 25 increased employee motivation.
On the contrary, we feel O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
58
()
1 tha t the possession of a certification document may 2
increase complacency among less self-disciplined 3
{)
personnel, making it more difficult for management to 4
exercise its responsibility in the safety area.
5 Point Four, what elements in the present 6
system or the suggested alternative are particularly l
7 desirable or undesirable, and why.
The depth of 8* training required to ensure safe working habits of 9
radiographers of different licensees or even of the 10 different facilities of one licensee depends upon the 11 job scope of the given individuals.
These job scopes 12 with their safety-related responsibilities vary widely 13 throughout the industry.
The present system allows each
()
14 licensee to tailor his system and in-house certification 15 program to satisfy his specific needs.
The third-party 16 certification system would be too general in nature to 17 be applicable to all radiographers.
In some cases, it l
18 wouldn't prove adequate to determine proper safety 19 training, and in other cases it would cover items that 20 radiographers and some licensees would never need or use l
21 in their jobs.
22 We Wtso feel that in some cases the training 23 required for third-party certification would eventually 24 deteriorate to the training needed to pass a standard 25 exam.
Training intended to really improve the O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
59
()
I competence of the personnel would lose emphasis.
2 point Eleven asks what kind of enforcement
(}
3 action could and should be taken against radiographers 4
who do not operate equipment safely or follow 5
established procedures.
Again, we feel it is 6
management's responsibility to promote safe working 7
habits and to apply disciplinsry action when safety 8
rules are violated.
Management should be held 9
responsible as it is by the NRC for these actions.
10 How ever, for cases where it can be demonstrated that the 11 radiographer through his negligence violated regula tions 12 or procedures, we feel the NRC should also consider 13 taking enforcement action against that individual 14 radiographer.
15 The Department of Transportation uses this 16 approach, for instance, in fining truck drivers who 17 violate the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
Failing 18 to properly placard an automobile is an example of a 19 case where DOD uses this approach.
We feel that a $300 20 fine imposed upon the radiographer by the NRC would 21 provide more incentive for safe work in the future than 22 would, say, a $3,000 fine imposed on the radiographer's 23 employer.
O
\\"'
24 In conclusion, we do not believe that the 25 third-party certification of radiographers is either O
ALDEPSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
60
()
1 needed or desirable.
The present system has produced 2
thousands of well qualified radiographers.
Additional 3
regulation at this time is not warranted.
4 I do intend to submit written comments at a 5
later date.
l 6
MR. SIN" era Are there any questions?
7 MR. JONES:
I think I would like to ask one 8
question.
In your testimony you emphasized that greater 9
responsibility on radiographers was needed.
It would 10 appear to se that some kind of certification or 11 licensing program would probably be the best way to 12 increase the responsibility.
It is fairly difficult for 13 the NRC under present regulations to fine an individual O
14 in a company when the license is issued to the 15 particular corporate entity.
Wouldn 't you think that a 16 certification or some sort of licensing program would be 17 the best way to accomplish that objective about the 18 radiographer having more responsibility?
19 ER. KOVACS:
I think the existing regulations 20
-- well, maybe you would need some modification to allow 21 the NRC to fine an individual are.out.
The rules are 22 laid down, and if it can be demonstrated in many of 23 these overexposure accidents it is by experienced 24 people.
It has been the lack of management control in 25 some cases, or the individual's negligence.
If an AV ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
61 A
(_/
1 individual does something on his own, and I give him the l
2 best' equipment I can buy, I give him good trainino and 3
the best procedures, he still goes out by himself and
(}
4 does something wrong, and overexposes himself, he should 5
be held responsible, not me, the licensee.
6 I think the NRC, if the NRC finds six l
7 radiographers in one year a major problem would be 8
solved, because right now radiographers, the threat of 9
an NRC inspection or any enforcement action by the NRC l
10 is nil.
We get to this point of redirecting 11 enforcement.
I have an NRC inspection in my office 12 maybe every year and a half or so.
No work goes on 13 there.
It is an office.
We have had construction
(
14 sites, temporary construction sites.
One in Indiana 15 lasted nine years, and never saw an NRC inspector.
Yet 16 every time the NRC inspector came to my office, he would i
17 ask where the job locations were.
I gave him addresses 18 and telephone numbers, but he never showed up.
19 Also, I go out and I find a minor paperwork 20 discrepancy and say to the radiographer, if the NRC saw 21 that they would really yell at you.
It is an empty 22 threat.
The guy says, I've never seem them.
In the 23 eight years I have been with Foster Wheeler, we haven't
(
24 had an inspection on a job site, unannounced or even 25 announced.
O l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 62
()
1 MR. BASSIN:
Mr. Kovacs, how do you reconcile 2
your comment that management is responsible for its 3
workers with the statement, well, if the radiographer is i
4 negligent, he should be the subject of the penalty?
5 MR. KOVACS:
Well, both.
6 MR. BASSIN.
Wait a second.
How do yo u 7
determine when management has been negligent versus the 8
radiographer?
How do you adjudicate this kind of thing 9
under the system we have now of total management 1
10 r es ponsibili ty for the actions of workers?
There is no 11 question.
How do you get into reading someone's mind as 12 to whether he was negligent, which is sometimes very 13 difficult to prove?
O 14 MR. KOYACS:
The NRC does investigate 15 overexposure incidents.
In some cases, the radiographer 16 might admit, yes, I screwed up.
I didn't survey the 17 camera or whatefer.
If I can demonstrate, if I have 18 training records that the people did in fact have 19 training in this, if I have records that I did audit 20 each individual radiographer at intervals not to exceed 21 90 days.
I have years of records on this stuff, and 22 good reports.
And I will know that the guy is a 23 borderline or marginal performer.
But if he is a good
(
24 performer and for some reason he is the guy who makes 25 the mistake, I have got file cabinets to demonstrate i
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
63
()
1 that.
You can come in and look at it and say, yes, 2
management has done its job.
It is the individual who 3
)
was negligent in this case, and then, from that point, 4
take enfor ement sction as would seem appropria te.
5 HR. BASSIN:
Are you saying then that 6
management's responsibility extends only to providing 7
training and making audits, and once management has done 8
tha t much, then any adverse actions by its employees are 9
the employees' responsibility and not the employer's?
10 That is what is coming through.
11 MR. KOVACSs I am saying both.
They should 12 also consider taking action, you know, if the licensee 13 is responsible or partially responsible for an O
14 overexposure, take action against the licensee, but 15 there are many cases where the radiographers, when a 16 radiographer takes his film badge off.
Now, whose act 17 is that?
If I go out and say, okay, let's do this 18 right, and he says, gee, I want to get this done in a 19 hurry tonight, I have a date with my girlfriend, and i
20 takes his film badge off and leaves it in the truck or 21 the office and goes up and does something like that, and 1
22 then he gets caught, now, management can't be there 23 every second of every working day, and the employee has 24 to be held responsible to a certain extent, and I think 25 the NRC, if they use that approach, would find it works, l
(2)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
l 64
()
1 as it does with the DOT.
2 The Department of Transportation puts out a 3
hazardous materials newsletter that lists recent l
4 enforcement actions, and they will have on there, Joe 5
Blow, driver, fined $400 for f ailure to placard his 6
motor vehicle properly.
The trucking company provided 7
the placards, gave him the instruction.
He knew what to l
8 do.
He just didn't feel like climbing up on the ladder l
l 9
to put the placard on the side of the truck.
10 MR. BASSIN:
Isn't part of this a matter of l
11 mo tiva tion?
12 MR. KOVACS:
Yes.
13 HR. KINNEMAN:
The question I wanted to ask O
14 is, a lot of times in conversations I have had with 15 employers about this sort of subject, I think often I 16 have gotten a definite statement that most employers, 17 while they don 't relish tha t kind of situation, would 18 rather be more in control of that themselves.
In other 19 words, there is a certain advantage to the employer.
If 20 we take an enforcement action against the employer, he 21 can turn around and take a disciplinary action against 22 the individual and perhaps be more evenhanded about it 23 than the NRC can, because they can better judge this
()
24 person's record.
They have been working directly 25 together.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 65 l ()
1 I remember we investigated a man who had been 2
there for 17 years.
It would have been hard for me to l (}
3 j udge, how do I weigh the 17 years of good performance 4
this man has given the company versus the mistake he has 5
made.
The employer might be better able to give him a i
l 6
more evenhanded and f air disciplinary action, and also 7
be more effective in terms of the effect on other 8
employees.
What is your feeling on that?
9 MR. KOVACSs I think both.
If one of my 10 employees-does something wrong, I am responsible for the 11 disciplinary action.
I must eliminate that problem so 12 that it does not happen again, and I think the NRC has 13 the same responsibility to look at it and say, O
14 independent of what the licensee does, we will do this.
15 If the licensee wants to fire you, or give you a day off 16 without pay, or whatever, cut your salary, whatever it 17 is, that is the option, but I think if the NRC, if they 18 did that independently of management, because here is a 19 man vno has violated a regulation, it says in Part 34, 20 you shall survey the entire circumference of the 21 camera.
If he leaves the camera back at the crank and 22 walks up and starts changing film, he has violated a 23 federal regulation.
And if I can demonstrate that I
(
24 advised that person that that is a federal regulation, 25 who violated it?
Was it the licensee, management, or O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
66
()
1 that individual?
2 MR. JONES:
The problem here is that both Part 3
20 and Part 34 apply only to NRC licensees.
(}
4 MR. KOVACS:
Well, maybe instead of changing 5
MR. JONES That is the point we are making.
6 If we have the certification program, then the 7
radiographer would also have some responsibilities.
8 Tha t was the purpose of my question.
Wouldn 't it be 9
easier to do what you are asking under a certification 10 or licensing program which made the radiographers 11 responsible?
12 MR. KOVACS:
I don't think it would be worth 13 going through all of the hassle of getting the O
14 certification program.
It sounds nice on paper maybe, 15 but the actual implementation of the system would be 16 very complex and costly, and I can see problems in our 17 shops for instance, with union employees getting job 18 descriptions changed within the union agreement to 19 reflect this new requirement.
The unions a lot of times 20 say, oh, no, we are going to wan t more money.
You know, 21 it is difficult dealing with union labor, and you just 22 can't assume, well, we will just certify all these 23 people, even though it is a regulation.
You have other 24 situations you have to consider.
25 MR. KINNEMAN:
I have another question, O
l ALDERSON REPORTING CCnAPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
67
()
1 somewha t dif ferent.
In your opening statement, you made 2
the point forcefully, and I think it was mentioned by 3
other commenters, that there seems to have been an 4
improvement in the performance of radiographers in the 5
last few years.
6 MR. KOVACS:
Yes.
7 MR. KINNEMANs Do you have any comments on why 8
you think that may be so?
What is different in the last 9
few years that would have caused that change?
Or do you 10 think it is a statistical fluctuation?
11 MR. KOVACS I think the increased awareness 12 or emphasis by the NRC, since -- was it is in 1977 ve 13 had the five regional meetings?
A lot of licensees have 14 been involved with that.
Publication of the accident 15 case histories has been a help, and I think management 16 is just more aware of this now.
Then again, I don't 17 know what the exposure rates are in agreement states, 18 but the NRC numbers show there were only four last year, 19 whole body.
20 MR. SINGER:
The numbers shown in the 21 agreement states are larger than shown in the 22 non-agreement sta tes, principally because they are doing 23 more inspections.
When you get out there, you find 24 things.
If you don't get out there, you don't, and our 25 sta tistics a re very bad.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
68
()
1 MR. KOVACS:
Well, are your statistics getting 2
better or worse over the last three years?
3 HR. SINGER:
When statistics are bad, it 4
doesn't make any difference how you term it in time.
5 The statistics we have had are poor, because the number 1
6 of inspections we have had per year for the number of 4
7 radiographers involved are small.
The statistics vill 8
always be bad.
We had 15 overexpo'sures in a given year, 9
and the next year we had five, it is not necessarily l
10 true that there has been that much of a marked.
11 improvement in what is going on out there.
12 MR. KOVACSs There is a four-year trend, i
13 though.
14 ER. SINGER:
Only within the statistics of the
.l 15 nature we have in our f acility, and we don't think much 16 of them.
The statistics taken by Texas, where they have 17 gone out and made a concerted effort to examine 18 radiographers show all of the va rious things we have 19 discussed.
People just are not doing the things they i
l l
20 should bc doing.
They are not wearing thei r i
l 21 dosimeters.
They don't do their surveys, and all of
)
22 these other things.
23 MR. KOVACS4 Again, that is a management
\\
I ()
24 problems
(
25 MR. SINGER:
Yes, it is.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l l
69 l ()
1 HR. KOVACS:
And I don't believe, if a guy l
2 gets certified by a third party, having that certificate
(
3 isn't something he will threaten his employer with by 4
saying, I can't leave my film badge in the truck like 5
you have asked me to.
It will not ameliorate that 6
situation at all.
i l
7 HR. SINGERS I don't know whether it will or 8
vill not.
We know Texas proposes to license their 9
people in that stste.
Whether NRC does anything or not, 10 they will go to a licensing program, and they think one l
11 of the strong reasons for doing tha t is, they will have
(
12 a record on people who are bad performers, and they can 13 keep them out of the industry, at least in their state.
O 14 We don't know whether that is the real answer or not, 15 and that is the reason we posed these issues.
16 However, again, we thought, if it is possible 17 to get the industry to take over those responsibilities, 18 it would be to the benefit of all concerned.
The 19 governmental interpretation, if we go to a licensing 20 function and have to license every radiographer, we 21 would do this either through hiring more people to run 22 the program or go through a contractor under contract to 23 the government, and tha t migh t be something the populace
(
24 would bear through taxation one way or ano'ther.
25 MR. K0YACSa Or the industry will bear through O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
70
()
1 the fees.
2 MR. SINGER:
And the industry would pass it on 3
to the customer.
We recognize these problems, and that 4
is what we are trying to do, to find a solution to this 5
type of thing.
Some of the things that have been said 6
will be worthwhile reading in the Office of Inspection 7
and Enforcement.
8 MR. KOVACS:
I have been an advocate for years 9
for redirecting the efforts there, because they come to 10 see me, and every year, well, yes, you look real good, 11 but that is not representative.
My office is not 12 necessarily represen ta tive of what is going on at one of 13 our field sites.
14 MR. SINGER:
That is true.
15 MR. KINNEMAN:
I might comment on that.
That 16 has been mentioned several times here, and I certainly 17 don't disagree that that is the fact, but we have 18 recognized the fact that you can do a better job if you 19 can see the people at the field site, if you can observe 20 the work being done.
It is a point well taken, and 21 something we will have to make better efforts to try to 22 do more of in the future, both for the larger companies 23 like yours, and I think it is even more important for
()
24 the smaller companies where there is a smaller amount of 25 effort management can put into that function, because (2)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
71
(
1 they have so many other things to do.
So it is 2
certainly a legitimate comment, and one we are both 3
avsre of, and we vill, I guess, become more aware of 4
through your comments and the comments of other people 5
here.
6 MR. SINGER:
Thank you, Mr. Kovacs.
7 The last commenter we have today is Mr. J. E.
8 Mays of Combustion Engineering.
Mr. Mays.
l 9
PRESENTATION OF J.
E. MAYS, 10 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING I
11 MR. MAYS:
My name is Jim Mays, and I 12 represent Combustion Engineering.
13 Combustion Engineering is opposed to
(
14 third-party certification.
It is evident from the 15 history of overexposures that some additional controls 16 on training and certification of radiographers and 17 assistants is necessary because any overexposure is 18 significant.
And I think everyone would concur with 19 that type of statement.
In the Federal Register of May 1
20 4th, 1982, the years 1971 through 1980 were designated 21 by the NRC as the period of investigation for 22 overexposure incidents.
We have heard the figures given 1
l 23 of 3 percent, that the industrial radiographers make up 24 of the industrial licensees a very small number.
The 25 figure of 60 percent given is a very large number of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
72
(])
1 industrial radiographers involved in reporting 2
overexposures greater than five rem.
A figure of 80 3
percent was given for radiographers that were reported 4
for overexposures greater than 25 rem.
5 I do not have the figures of the 60 percent, 6
80 percent of the to tal radiog ra phers that were involved 7
in the nine-year period.
I understood at one time it 8
was 86.
Am I correct?
9 MR. JONES:
It was 84 for licensees and 52 for 10 radiographers, which is 62 percent.
11 MR. MAYS Eighty-four radiographers total?
12 MR. JONES:
No, 84 all, 52 radiographers.
13 MR. MAYSa The most common procedural O
14 violation stipulated in the Federal Register was 15 attributed to improper survey at reach exposure.
The 16 inspections conducted by NRC in the agreement states 17 indicated also that inadequate training may be a 18 significant contributing cause to overexposure.
19 Licensing by industry or manufacturers in order to get 20 an NRC license, they have a very specific guide that is 21 put out, and every individual company manufacturer that 22 is applying for a license is supposed to set up their 23 training guidelines in accordance with the 10 CFR Part
()
24 34 when they submit a copy to the NRC for approval.
25 NRC makes a review of this training program ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
73
()
1 tha t each individual company has set up, which to me, in 2
my opinion, would show a little consistency throughout l
3 the industry, that everybody operated under the Jame 4
guidelines.
Something I didn't understand a while ago 5
that was brought out is the number of licensees that the 1
l 6
NRC has to investiga te.
They have their budgetary l
l 7
constraints.
They are also lacking manpower, as l
8 everyone else is, and I can appreciate your problem.
9 NUREG-0419, that has been discussed and 10 mentioned a couple of times.
That is the occupational 11 radiation exposures.
It is a summary which was 12 conducted in 1975, and the original rule required 13 submission of annual reports on personnel monitoring for O
14 four categories of licensees since December, 1978.
15 Industrial radiographers were classified as one of these 16 four categories.
The ruling was changed in 1974 to 17 require the annual reporting of only a statistical 18 summary of estimated full body exposures. NUREG-0419 was 10 a summary of the statistical report from licensees on 20 the voluntary one-time request for activities during 21 1975.
22 So, then, there are some tables, one, two, j
l 23 three, four, five, six, and eight, that are contained
()
24 inside NUREG-0419 do not show radiographers as being i
25 quilty of overexposures between 1968 and 1975.
- Again, C)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 1
74
()
I that could be my intepretation of what I got out of the 2
summary.
The report, I go look at some of the probable 3
causes.
To me, the collective data, in order to really 4
make a proper decision of what area do we attack, some 5
of the questions that come to my mind would be age of 6
the offenders.
Your old-timers or people who have been 7
in the program for 20 years have a tendency to say, I 8
have done this many times, I will do it this way, and he 9
gets burned, where the younger guys coming in might have to more respect for it because they are still scared of it, 11 just like anybody riding a bicycle or motorcycle for a 12 while.
They think they have mastered it, and they get 13 stung.
14 Another question might come to my mind, who is 15 more guilty, the radiographers or the radiographer's 16 assistant, even though the radiographer has the sole 17 r es po nsibility.
How about the length of hours worked 18 prior to doing the radiographing job.
At some of these 19 construction job sites you will see the radiographers 20 have a dual function.
They will work all day and in the 21 evening go and shoot, and you get a man who after a 22 while gets tired, and he makes stupid mistakes.
23 Time conducted.
Is the radiography job
()
24 conducted during the day or night?
Do we have more 25 incidents during the day or night?
Was the radiography O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345
75
()
1 conducted on the ground or on different elevations?
In 2
some of these units, they go up quite high around steam 3
drums and so forth.
How about the number of people 4
doing the radiography?
Was there only one person, one 5
radiographer?
Were there two, a radiographer and a 6
radiographer 's assistant?
Had they been drinking?
I 7
have seen occasions where radiographers had been 8
drinking prior to coming to a job.
Alcohol and driving 9
don't mix.
Were they repeat offenders, whether these be 10 individuals or company related?
11 These are some of the data that I think would 12 be important to me or anyone else to make a proper 13 decision.
What areas do we jump on?
Some of the O
14 probable corrections would be possibly, why not 15 stipulate that radiographers will work only so many 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, or why not two radiographers be mandatory to 17 conduct the exposures in lieu of allowing people to do 18 one, or why not radiography to be conducted only during 19 the day, or why not more management audits conducted by 20 the licensees?
21 So, another thing to ask is, how will 22 third-party certification increase the integrity of the 23 radiographers?
What is to prevent an organiza tion f rom
()
24 being accepted as a certified agency who might be a 25 repeat offender of overexposures.
I am sure they will O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.,3.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
76
(])
I be screened closely, but that is a question coming to My 2
mind.
3 What about penalizing a company who has had no 4
incidence under third-party certification?
To me, the 5
only reliable deterrent in reducing overexposures would 6
be to put more stringent penalties on offenders, such as 7
licensing being revoked or stiffer penalties.
8 And the closing statement that I have is, it 9
seems the majority of the industry would be penalized 10 for the actions or results of accidental overexposures 11 of a minority of radiographers involved.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. SINGER Thank you.
14 Mr. Bassin?
15 MR. BASSINa I have a couple of questions, if 16 I might, a couple of points.
You indicated in looking 17 a t incident problems where there are overexposures at 18 the length of time worked which could lead to " stupid "
19 mistakes.
20 MR. MAYSs Yes.
21 MR. BASSIN:
To be contributory.
Isn't this a 22 management responsibility, to set its own controls for 23 that as you then advocated or suggested that perhaps
()
24 government, the NRC should set hours of work, whether 25 radiography is done in the daylight or dark?
Are these O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20024 d2) 554-2345
77
()
1 really matters that should be subject to NRC control, or 2
are these matters which are management responsibilities 3
and should be industry functions without prodding from 4
the government?
Why should the government set these 5
kinds of standards, if you will, to govern those things 6
which the industry should be doing on its own?
I 7
MR. MAYSs First off, Mr. Bassin, I didn't say 8
that this should be done.
I said that was strictly 9
something possibly, my own opinion.
10 MR. BASSIN:
I recognize you said it as a 11 suggestion, but it raises the question.
12 MR. MAISa To me, it is definitely a 13 management function.
I do quite a few radiograpy audits O'
\\'
14 on job sites and almost all of my radiographers have 15 dual functions, and there are many times they will work 16 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> a day and then go do a radiography job, and it 17 is like anyone driving a ca r.
You drive so long, you 18 get tired, and it is very easy to make mistakes.
I am 19 not saying the NRC themselves should be put to to make 20 that decision, to go back to management or the licensee 21 and say, your radiographers will not overdo a function.
22 All I was saying is, it is something we should take a 23 look at in order to make a proper decision.
I like to
()
24 have all of the f acts before I jump on the bandwagon one 25 way or the other.
I feel I can make a more sound O
ALDERSON REPORTING COh4PANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
r i
i.
78 3=a's eat tor rou ee t1e er aa =r=e1r O
1=o ir r a ve l
2 e ve ry thing there.
3
,.MR.
SINGER:
I certainly thank you, Mr. Mays.
p)
[
The Chait would Eecognize any comments from 4
li ; '
5 any of the audience that wishes to go on record.
Does 6
anyone have any additional comments they want to add?
(.
7 (No response.?
8 ER.JSINGER:
Ladies 'and ge'itlemen, I would
~
9 like to close this meeting, if there are no other
'o comments.
I believe that we have had a very useful i
,.1 1 session, and I would like to thank all of you for 12 coning.
I would like to request that any of you who, 13 have no,t re:sponded to our questionnaire be sure to do O
14 co..You may submit your comments or suggestions to the 15 - - Secre tary, U.S MucleariRegulatory Commission,
/
16 Washington, D.C.,
20555, attention Docketing and Service i
i 17 Branch.
18 With that request, I want to thank you again l
l 19 for your attendance and participation.
This meeting is l
/
20 closed.
l 21 (Whereupon, a t 11:30 a.m., the meeting was l
')
22 adjourned.)
23 24' 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
.~
Q NUC' EAR REGULATORY COW.ISSICN This is to certify : hat the attached preceedings befcre the O
ir. the :::atter o f:
Region 1 Public Meeting on Certification of Radiographers
- Date of Freceeding:
June 23, 1982 Decket !!umb er:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D.
C.
were held as herein appears, ar.d tha: this is the original transcript therecf fcr the file cf the Commissice..,
Sharon Filipour Official Reper e.- (Typed) l(O
<ersc; hfCd/#I Official Reporter (Signature)
O l
l
'O
~
--