ML20056G733
| ML20056G733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1993 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G728 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309070099 | |
| Download: ML20056G733 (116) | |
Text
____
W[.
de-wwV"_ a m. ::,-* m.-
a
- ~ ~ g!
- k
- a.
'"..n%..
.ep
,v. - Q%
+g% *.,:.. -
3.*
e
- e t
w
=s
.~x.
m.g~... -. ~..-s:
~n TRANSCRipTOEPRDdE5 DINGS
- awy
~g
.gt.hy T.; -g:tuk@y&g-q:s..s-n:....
v.w.,- - -
J df? y, w:i;c m s. -? w'Y ' D *C.P..1
.'.e.'4:.
= m m w ~r
~
L*J f &.N Q <a t*f;: n n -
> o - w,:~ ~ n v : :'
- 9.-
r~.: laf* *
- . .2 - ? '.
. '. g g;;ay& g g p c:f s. *.* y :;.--
wi
,. -rw.y
- - - ^
c ;~;.,7.jg w; g,.
.V.... i.n %....
-. F.. + u..- ~.
- ~.,.. - - '
t.m,. ?
. - i. /
~ v, '
- .ib - -
.,, ~.y *.vQ,~.q; -r x..
. pN
..th e 4
. =
r e.e
- % i_.;.-
- . - +s.&t.
s~.
2.
. : ;.3;...e.
- . ~ -
s.,. -.. -
A
.-~
4 l
AgtDCy Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
N Tide:
postic ne.ein,on comp e13111ty Policy Issues' '
i D ekM No.
4 l
~
4 4
a 1
4 I
s' QC4210se
, Rockville, Maryland I.
O j
DA3M M yf July 26, 1993 '
1 _ 114 i
4 4
4 n.. r u..-
~.
a
.v.
4.
-- g=es. e se j
6 i
~
1,r. _ '..
t
.J -.
J
~-
g
-9
.. ;.g
.g. -
w. ky y, 4 *.
,.'* A k.=0 l5
.s ;.s;. s; f: w**e.
':-
- j.
tw. * ~
n
..:n...,..
.:.~...c.. g.-
.-~.-n.
g e,. t s
=
.~m n;,
.~.-
.,...s.
. ~ -
-n
. :f;. s, w.y.ng 9,,,,c.,L
,.y...J.;;m&Mjkg f ~ 4 t..>. Q... qq~. a. y s..u,.
- -
- .L..,.;.,,.% -', -
~ - -
=
~~
pY -.
...m r ~
hh?'59;Yb?d%.-f. S W & M Q @
YcN:b
.y{, L 9309070099~930017-.
c-g ggW;%.t.r 3-#W.: -..
=-c.:
T
~ STPR9 E999EN PDR.
d' M i'.5 N i& 2$ s ' d.;. N. v3 L.tf'32^T3d:.-
.2 Il
v /+-.. {
~
e
- c.:,.. '.
.~v
~;..
~ %
_. k'$s.
PDR' s'M 3
.o-
-*.... as-psyg.a +p.... ->.,,,ex g.- a
- r;
~.-:%.*\\&.
r<
-==.r. g un
(
s
~
TRANSCRipTOEPRDdEEb.. --
v.%,,~. -::e....
9
<~
fN
'j ;,,r y k.5,f h?M J.h 5
2 k# ' d-)3 b'-Me.'
- X.[- N J-4
%.p..MP 3
(**,-
'. A + + urw r.
- .Wy ';@~$s - & 'Q ; *rjR3:.s
-.1 T '.
L
- E%ttE & &. p.
v Y
9,N$1. ;c &hj
.- 45&,mh.Nqqt ff}TR.rp. +'; ky 4['FDe%.-> -.. % M ".M. w % ::.
~
- :p} m s::
V a
- ,*}- Q ;*. f ~k yttp% p ?
Qw. ~.
t'
-f-
- rY.; M D. 'g. q ;*_ y.
<Q' g,h,'k?.1<% e,r 7%,$Qf
. ; {%r s. r.....W. u... -M,.* *. +.. c. f:.gy.r, 1.
. 's e ~...
W
~
.,i( 7.[.
. u
,^
.%.;&.?f$]'$*'.'.**
.k.3.Q:
' '_ Q] Y< N. 6.W.. '
i.
u..m,s..,,.,&v. w. 2.. j ;
-_ n-
..~
r.
u
.~.~..n'_.4.
..s
~..
c.
.+..;,...+-
n
.y..~.,
v 4
3 3
e..,
s:
.. ~.
p w.
- s -...
- f. -
~
AgtDCy LNuclearReNulatoryCommission N
,z y
~x 8:!
Public Meeting onL Compatibility-Policy Issuasi: ~
-s v
4-h.c
. Docket No;;
-J x
a w
p
+s
,p 2 :
a
[
14*ttu Rockville, Maryland:
4 ji ammany; auly 2s issa +
nam p
1 - 114 r
11 4
4 I'
4 -
1, ; ' ' 2,-h,.1 s
- $
- O'-
-4C '
,f 9
g lp*;g?-G*f*4[f..'%',~M.l 1-4.
I;
- ,; 4
+
~
m~
'y 3 7* w y u...r
- p.. r.
- J.
. r,. '.1 J l 'c.Q j.},4;. w.
,_ g,._
.y
,, h '.
- im **
4
+
.-g'.
.2 4l. v,
',, ",j,
i a
j
- 'd
-v y' *A #
f,
.,..'+.4:
2 s
. ;y,.. y g:.
g.*
~,s Y.:- Y e '.;,_ g :%
s
,y._
.--7, mz~
~.. -
"* ; ' *L,
- L,. %.t.i skJ,7 9.A 4 4,Q:;. ".ar.--;jm....
.,....... - =
?
t.
e.
t
.;.*J
-,, J. -
..+m
<;s 3.,.~.
- e....,,%.,..m
$. -@.~
= * ;. +*4 sfa #,*se
' *
- p esPh8 4 " 's A ep
' gym y4
- S s-7;;b[f'. +Mm, $6.['M'"f *h' k
? '~$ " " '.~ *
. !pi
'*:.'I.*'
8
-%. r,.U p -%
jyl.Q]b'h ['fG'Mk *.- Q :l. '.-. Uf-c,, p." 1,.,.;i ;:h :.. - '
VYmQ G
7
~~*
i M 4
4 s,e. i n
.../<@gr?,.aummu.m r.m%,nc2coass
~,J i
s
.n.
e w w w....o.
,m
.PDR\\
.... O. *t==+.W4.1.?K.k a Q.h:--M.:-
4:
a. **i
', ;R-PDR STPRQ;E990EN G*
T
~
Wik j !. ) & ; % :
?'
g ys'
. m
&qj
,;e W. _ [ % ,4. y.
.. c-
1 I
l i
1 l
1 UNITED STATES REGULATORY COMMISSION I
2 3
l 4
PUBLIC MEETING ON COMPATIBILITY POLICY ISSUES l
l
.5.
)
I 6.
l 7
Monday, July 26, 1993 t
8 Georgetown Room Ramada Inn Rockville t
j.
9 Congressional Park 10 1775 Rockville Pike l
11 Rockville, Maryland i
l' 12-l 13 l
14 l
15' 16 I
17 18 l
i 19 20
~21 22 L
23 i '
24-25 ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)' 293-3950
2 1-PROCEEDINGS 2
[1:00 p.m.]
3 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Ladies and gentlemen, may I have 4
your attention, please.
It's just about 1:00 o' clock, so 5
-why don't we start.
6 I would like to welcome you all, to the 7
Compatibility Workshop, the compatibility of agreement 8
states.
Our goal for the next day and one-half is to make 9
sure that we have -- this is my goal, and I think the goal 10 of the working group who is responsible for putting most of 11 the material together that is in your packets and the goal 12 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- is to build a record 13 on the issues of compatibility so that we a full record, and 14 hearing from the states and hearing from the general *public, 15 and hearing from the regulated industry as to what is 16 compatibility and what ian't, and what are the issues
-17 surrounding the issue of compatibility.
18 My purpose is to gather as much information at 19 this meeting, and to that end I would like to keep it as 20 informal as possible so that we can move forward on the i
21 issues.
The first thing that I would like to do is go
{
22 around the table and go around the room, and please ask 23 everybody to introduce themselves so they know who is here 24 and whom they represent.
25 My most important thing though, is that position ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 3
1 taking of individuals -- I_am not looking for consensus of 2
the state that you represent or the organization that you f
l 3
represent.
I think we-have the people in this room who know l
4 the most about the.. issue of compatibility.
I wish you to i
5.
take your positions and not feel that you are representing l
6-any one particular organization.
[
t i
7 There is a Court Reporter here.
The Court i
8 Reporter is here for the purposes of the discussion of the L
9 working' group, so that we will have a record.
It's for no l
T 10 other purpose.
i 11.
With that preamble, let me move and introduce Mr.
12 Nicholas Mann.
Mr. Mann will be responsible for moderating i
13 this session as soon as I finish.
f
[
14 MR. MANN:
Nicholas Mann.
I am from Resolution j
i 15 Dynamics, and I am a process consultant to the Nuclear i
l.
16 Regulatory. Commission.
t 17 MR. QUILLIN:
I am Bob Quillin. I am director of i
18 the Radiation Control Division for the Colorado Department 19 of Health.
L
-20
-MR. BRUCKMAN:
George Bruckman, Chief of l
21 Radiological-Health, Michigan Department _of'Public Health.
t
-22 MR. IACKER:
Dave Lacker, Texas.
L:
23.
MR. PARKER:
Gerald Parker, consultant to the i.
p 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/
25 MR. PARIS:
Ray Paris, representing the State of p
I I
l >:
ANN-RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
h Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 L
4 1
.2 MS. LIPOTI:
Jill Lipoti, New Jersey Department of 3
Environmental Protection and Energy.
4 MR. BRINER:. -Bill Briner, representing the 5
Presidents of the American College of Nuclear Physician and 6
the Society of Nuclear Medicine.
7 MR.-KULIKOWSKI: -Bob Kulikowski, New York City 8
Department of Health and Chair-elect, Organization of 9
Agreement States.
)
10 MS. HANEY:
Ms.' Kathy Haney.
I am with the NRC in 11-the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
12' MR. HILL:. Tom Hill, Georgia Department of Natural 13 Resources.
14 MR. KERR:
Wayne Kerr, Illinois Department of l-15
. Nuclear Safety-and Chairman of the Organization of Agreement 16 States.
17 MR. FRAZEE:
Terry Frazee, State of Washington, 18
. Department of Health.
'19 MR. COSTANZI:
Nick Costanzi, U.S.-Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission, Office of Research, f
I 21 CODMISSIONER REMICK:
Forrest Remick, Commissioner 22' of'the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner.
~23 MR. MANN:
Would we start around the room on the 24.
right-here, please.
m
-25 MR. BOYLE:
Regis Boyle, technical assistant to lv ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
5 1
Commissioner Remick.
2 MR. BAKER:
Bryan Baker, Corporate Manager for 3
Nuclear Licensing, Amersham Metaphysics.
4 MS. ROUGHAN:
Kate Roughan, Amersham Corporation.
5 MR. LUBINSKI:
John Lubinski, NRC Office of 6
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
i 7
MS. KEY:
Chris Key, Baltimore Gas and Electric l
r 8
Company.
9-MR. REEVES:
John Reeves, Duke Power Company.
10 MR. SHORT:
Brad Short, the American College of 11 Radiology.
12 MR. SURMEIER:
John Surmeier, Acting Assistant 13 Director of the Agreement State Programs, NRC.
14 MR. FUTOMA:
Dave Futoma, Office of General' 15 Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
j 16 MS. WINSBERG:
Kathryn Winsberg, Office of the 17 General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
18 MS. HIATT:
Susan Hiatt, Director of Ohio Citizens 19 for Responsible Energy.
20 MR. GORDON:
Craig Gordon, NRC Region I.
21 MS. MILLER:
Marie Miller, NRC Region I, Regional 22 State Liaison.
23 MR. KAMMERER:
Good afternoon.
Karl Kammerer, 24
-Director of State Programs.
25 MS. LOPEZ:
Maria Lopez, NRC, Office of State 1
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l
1612'K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950-
l 6
i
)
1 Programs.
2 MR. NELSON:
Alan Nelson, Nuclear Management and 3
Resources Council.
4 MS. RICH:
Phyllis Rich, Nuclear Management 5
Resources Council.
6 MR. BROWN:
George Brown, Ohm Art Corporation, 7
Cincinnati, Ohio.
A manufacturer, if you don't know us.
8 MR. EARLY:. Paul Early, NMA Medical Physics in 9
Cleveland, representing Mallinckrodt.
10 MR. KIM:
11 MR. TRUMP:
Carl Trump, State of Maryland, i
12 Radiological Health Program.
13 MR. KISHORE:
Raj Kishore, Office of State L14 Programs, NRC.
i l
15 MR. HORNER:
Jack Horner, NRC, Commissioner 16 DePlanque's office.
17 MR. WILLIS:
Charlie Willis, Health Physics i
18 Society.
I 19 MR. MANN:
Anyone else?
l 20 MR. SCHWARTZ:
I think that's it.
Please, the 21 people that are making it happen.
22 MS. LANDAU:
Mindy Landau, State Programs, NRC.
23 MS. MAUPIN:
Cardelia Maupin, State Programs, NRC.
24 MR. DEAN:
Dan Dean, Office of Administration, 25 NRC.
l.
L i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
7 1
MR. SCHWARTZ:
Welcome all.
It's an impressive 2
group, and I really appreciate you spending you time l
3 visiting with us today.
I would love to hear from all of 4
you.
In order to kick off the meeting, I am really very
(
5 pleased to have Commissioner Remick here.
6 Dr. Forrest Remick began his five year term as a 7
member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on December 1, 8
1989.
At the time of his nomination to the Commission by l
9 President Bush, Dr. Remick was Associate Vice President for 10 Research and Professor of Nuclear Engineering at the 11 Pennsylvania State University.
12 He was also serving as Chairman of the NRC's 13 Independent Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and as i
14 a member of various Scientific and Nuclear Safety Advisory 15 Committees for the Idaho and Savannah River Laboratories of 16 the Department of Energy.
He has also served in a number of 17 other capacities in the nuclear energy field, including 18 member of the National Nuclear Accrediting Board of the 19 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Director of the NRC 20 office of Policy Evaluation, Administrative Law Judge with 21 the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, and Chief 22 of.the Training Section in the Department of Technical 23 Assistance of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
24 Commissioner Remick, it is my personal pleasure to 25 invite you this workshop.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
8 l
l 1
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Thank you, very much.
Good 2
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
On behalf of the 3
Commission, I am pleased to have the opportunity to welcome 4
you to this workshop on the Compatibility of Agreement State 5
Regulatory Programs with those of the NRC.
(
6 As you know, the Commission directed this staff to 7
develop a policy on compatibility that focuses on all 8
nuclear materials activities except low level radioactive 9'
waste' disposal.
The purpose of this workshop is to discuss 10 and seek comments and recommendations on the issue of l
11 compatibility.
l 12 We believe that'the Agreement States program is a 13 successful.and unique Federal, state partnership that has 14 proven beneficial to the NRC, the states, the public'and to 15 the activities which we jointly regulate.
Although there
^
- 16 are a-number of program areas targeted for review including
~ 17 -
the area compatibility, we believe that overall the program 18 has fulfilled the intent of the Atomic Energy Act and 19 generally has been embraced by the states and the regulated 20 community.
l 21 Moreover, we believe that the Agreement States 22 program has'provided reasonable assurance that public health L
23.
and' safety have been adequately protected throughout the 30 l
24 year. history of the program.
Now, after 30 years of 25 experience and after~the growth of the program to include 29 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suiti 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950
i 9
1 Agreement states, the time has come for the Commission to j
l 2
establish compatibility policy that takes into consideration 3
the experience of both the NRC and the Agreement states.
4 We believe that it's important that we take a l
1 l
5 fresh look at our compatibility efforts so that we can I
. 6 identify what areas of uniformity and what degree of l
7 flexibility will contribute to the implementation of the l
s 8
coordinated _and compatible NRC and agreement state programs 9
which are envisioned by Section 274 of the Atomic Energy l
10 Act.
I i
11 Although the states are consultant and involved in 12 the regulatory process, we are seeking more cooperation and-l L
13 interaction throughout our regulatory processes just as we 14 are doingcwith this workshop.
We hope that the 15
-deliberations at this. workshop will lead to a mutually 16 acceptable and workable compatibility policy.
i l
17 5 3re certainly pleased with your interest and l
j 18 your attention to the issue, and we are confident that you l
19 will_ accomplish a great deal in the next day and one-half.
L l
20 Unfortunately, I will not be able to be here with you for
' 21 -
the full day and one-half,-but I plan to be with you for l.
22 most of this afternoon.
If you have any questions at this
[
23
-time of me, I'would be happy to entertain them, h'
24 MR. SCHWARTZ:
It's rare for-this group not to ask 25 questions.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters I
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 L
Washington, D.C. 20006
}
(202) 293-3950 l.
~,-
i 10 l
1
[ Laughter.]
p 2
MR. SCHWARTZ:
Commissioner.Remick, thank you very l
3 mucn for~those remarks.
t 4
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
You are most welcome.
5 MR. SCHWARTZ:
As I said earlier, what we are 6
about.is to get on the record discussions.
There are a few I
f l
7 people that arrived since we all introduced ourselves.
Mr.
i 8.
Eddie Fuente, from the. State of Mississippi has just I
L 9
arrived. - Judith Johnsrud has just joined us at the table.
10 Thank you very much for coming.' I appreciate the long drive 11
.that you-just~had from Harrisburg. I hope it wasn't too bad.
12 Has anybody else, joined us, that has not 13 MS. HOCKING:
Elizabeth Hocking, Argonne National 14 Labs..
1 U
15 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Thank you for joining us.
As I 16 said earlier, we are here to discuss the issues associated I
17 with compatibility.
The paper that you all should have in 18 your book dated June 29, 1993 titled Issues for Proposed 19 Policy on Compatibility-for discussion at the workshop on 20 July 26 and 27, I guess it's self-evident what that paper is 21'
.here for.
22 This paper is a working paper.
It was prepared by i
[
23" the working group that I participated in and a number of l
24 state people, Wayne Kerr, Terry Frazee, Tom Hill, Bob
.25 Kulikowski, all participated in.a very open and a very ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
11 1
comfortable kind of relationship that we al. wanted to make 2
sure to get all the issues on the table.
3 This paper was discussed at the May 20th public 4
meeting in San Francisco with the agreement states and l
5 modified accordingly.
Again, it serves as a discussion 6
piece.
7 I am about finished with what I wanted to say.
I r
6 am going to turn the meeting over to Mr. Nicholas Mann.
Mr.
t 9
Mann will be the~ moderator of this meeting, and to walk us 10 through the issues for discussion.
Nick, are you ready?
11 MR. MANN:.Sure.
12 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Thank you, very much.
13 MR. MANN:
Thank you.
I would like to add my 14 welcome to everyone here.
My role is to simply facilitate l'
15' the process of getting issues out on the table and to move 16 the discussion at a pace that makes sense.
If you will look 17 at the paper which is sort of the background for the 18 discussion -- let me turn it back to you.
There is an 19 additional paper which is also useful.
20 MR. SCHWARTZ:
There was some thoughts of many of 21 us that we just want you to consider in the back of your 22 minds when you discuss the issues of compatibility, here's l
23 some more discussion and I would say think material.
I 24 MR. MANN:
So, we have the June 29th background 25 paper, we have this additional set of issues that are coming i
l' (
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
r.
l 1
12 1
around, _and you also_have in your folder an agenda which j
i l
2 -
says that basically this afternoon what we plan to do is to i
i 3-try to open up the first and maybe the biggest of the topics i
i 14.
which.is called Issue'1, the Basics.
You will see the sub-l l
5 bullets-that are here.
1 6
On tomorrow's agenda, if you flip;to the second j
7_
page there you will see Issue 2, Flexibility, Issue 3,
. 81 Communictitions, Issue 4, Implementation.
i
.9 I.think what we would like to do is sort of i
lui violate this agenda.right away,'and do that by having an l
11.
opportunity;for people to make sort of opening statements on j
i 12.
-- you come here with some. points of view, with.some l
L 13'
~ questions, with some-things to say.
What I would like to do l
14 to sort of establish the lay of the land,-is to simply go
.15 around-the let' people make three to four minute comments,
(
I 16 and spend about the firs't hour on that.
l l
17 Then, we will come back to the top of our agenda t-and move in a more. straight line fashion through it.
With 18 I
19 that said -- let me also say that the-arrangement of the t
J20 room, with the chairs in the back for the public, the idea l
21 here is that we have tried to be sensitive to the fact that 22 there are many members of the public who can't come to a i
L 23 public workshop during the working hours and yet have 24 opinions to give.
.25 For that reason, we wanted to make sure that there I
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters u
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 t'
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1:o
13 1
was not only space for people who could come during the day 2
but also we anticipate that these areas may grow this 3
evening.
In terms of comments, anyone from the public who has a comment to give can give it during the day.
But we 4
5 want to reserve the after 5:00 time where people who are 6
sitting in the public have sort of priority for comments.
7 They perhaps can only get here after work hours.
8 With that said, let me just start anywhere at the 9
table.- Let's say three to five minutes of opening 10 statements on the issue of compatibility, starting with 11 anyone who cares to begin.
1.2 MR. KERR:
Wayne Kerr, Organization of Agreement-I 13 States.
I don't think I will be three to five minutes.
We 14 certainly appreciate the work that has gone into this.'
It 15 has evolved over twa or three years now. I hope that it will 16 result in a very positive change and improvement in our 17 relationships.
18 We are always looking for areas where we can 19 improve.
I just glanced at the sheet Shelly handed out, and 20 there are a number of very good statements on there.
I 21 think we are have a common objective with NRC, that 22 protection of the public health is what we are about out 23 there.
We all try to do our best, and we may do it 24-
. differently -- that's been a constant theme here from the 25 Agreement-States -- we may do it differently, but we think ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
j I-14 i-
-1 sometimes just as well.
1^
.2 It doesn't really matter how it-gets done, as long l
3 as it gets done adequately.
We appreciate all the work of 1
4 -.
Shelly and the work here-on the staff, and the groups that 5
we have had before working on it.
6' MR. BRINER:- Bill Briner, Society of Nuclear 7-Medicine,'American College of Nt. clear. Physicians.
We don't L
8;
'have.an openingystatement,=othu.T than to. indicate that over j
i:
9
- the years the Society and the College, numerous bits of j
'10
. advisory and testimony-before the Commission, have pretty n
t l-111 much advised against prescriptive. regulations except in very l
l a
12 rare circumstances where it's. absolutely necessary that it.
'13' be' enforced. countrywide.or all-over the country.
- 14-That would-be such areas as.10 CFR Part 20
15 packaging and labeling regulations-in the Department of r
16 Transportation, and that sort of thing is what we had in 17
. mind for that kind.of thing.
In fact, just coming up here 18 yesterday I read an~ interesting: thing in'a rather unusual
- 19 journal -- if you-want to call this a journal.
It's called 20 the Airline Pilot.
' 21 '
Here,-a behavioral psychologist is giving the DOT 22 and FAA some' advice on how'to attain safety in flight during 23'
.in flight emergencies.
This very learned lady says, 24.
- moreover,.the function of the regulations is not to describe
- 25' how this or indeed any other. requirement may be achieved nor i
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612-K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950
(
15 1
how its successes be measured.
2 I think it's a rather cogent statement of our i
i j
3 sensitivities in this area as well.
I will leave it to your
{
4 judgment, whether or not it meets with yours.
3 5
MR. MANN:
Thank you.
Mr. Paris.
i l
6 MR. PARIS: -My name is Ray Paris, from Oregon.
I l
'7 would like to echo Wayne's comments about the openness of 8
which we are now facing these issues.
I would like to 1
9 summarize the one comment that I think that has driven this 10 whole thing.
It can be stated in memo that Harold Denton 11-wrote in-1991 to the Commissioners.
Item 7 which said for 12 the review of the past Commission and' action and decisions,
' Item 7 said in general, the development of compatibility 13 14 criteria and categorization of NRC regulations have been t
15 made by the Commission or the staff, without state
~
l' i
16
-involvement.
17' I think that one statement summarizes a lot of the i
1
-18 concern in the past.
I appreciate the openness of the new i
19 direction that we are going.
I think we can resolve a lot 20 of issues by this participatory coordination approach.
I P
21 MR. MANN:
Ms. Johnerud.
22 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Judith Johnsrud, National Energy 23 Chairperson for-Sierra Club.
I also am representing an 24 environment coalition in Pennsylvania on our state's
.25.
Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee. I have run into L
i 2-ANN RILEY & AFSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 L
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
16 1
compatibility requirements with respect to low level waste 2
siting.
3 I would address two questions, quickly.
One is 4-the desirability of the exact compliance with NRC's 10 CFR l
l 5
20 regulations for public exposures.
I think here, we are 6
increasingly finding that there is variance of a substantial 7
nature among the states with respect to the other sources of 8
potential contamination, both nuclear, the frequency of 9
licenses within-a state, their locations are quite different r
10 from one part of the country to another.
11 Hence, there are potential problems in areas that 12 have a great many licensees, both to be regulated and public 13 to be affected by the effectiveness of regulation.
14 We would be concerned that the efforts of 's'tates 15 to be more restrictive, beyond NRC's baseline
~
16 minimum / maximum permissible doses, not be ignored.
This is 17 particularly significant, we believe.
Here, I am speaking 18 for a wide range of environmentalists, if I may.
19 With respect to the likelihood of multiple, i
20 additive, cumulative and synergistic impacts associated with i
21 ionizing radiation exposures and either other sources of 22 radiation or other sources of environmental contaminants.
23 They are not unrelated, with respect to the ultimate goals 24 which we take to be the maximum protection of public health 25 and safety and environmental quality over the long period of 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reportern l-1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
17 1
time.
2 Personally, I-must say that I have rather mixed 3
feelings as our state of Pennsylvania moves toward a full
'4 compatibility arrangement with the NRC.
We are eager to
)
5 take on responsibility. However, in another context as a 6
former employee of a state regulatory state department said, 7
good merciful heavens, the NRC can't be worse than our own 8
state.
We do have some problems with respect to the l
9 variations in the excellence and dedication of environmental 10 protection and public health protection.
11 MR.. MANN:
Thank you.
Ms. Lipoti.
12 MS. LIPOTI:
In the past few months I have had the 13-opportunity to think quite a bit about respective roles 14 between the Federal government and the state governmeht.
l 15 Through my work with the Conference of Radiation Control 16
-Program Directors, we ha've provided testimony on the issue 17 of radon.
18 There is some movement to have a mandatory Federal 19_
program put in place.
That sort of thing happened with 20 source byproduct and special nuclear material many years ago 21 here, and we are still talking about the issue of 22 compatibility and what is the Federal role and what is the 23 state role.
24 I think that in thinking abo'ut those roles we have 25 an accountability to the public and to the public's I'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I 18 l
1 representatives, Congress and the people that they elect.
i 2
We have to be responsive to the need for cost effective 3-regulation and non-duplicative regulation.
4 We have to be. ready to use innovative solutions to 5
.some very difficult problems. I really come to this workshop 6
-with an open mind, in trying to come up with my own 7
philosophy on what is the proper role for various levels of I
8 government.
l 9
MR. MANN:
Thank.you.
Are there other opening j
10 statements.
11 --
[No response.]
12' MR. MANN:
Any statements from the public?
~
i 13
-MR. BAKER:
Bryan Baker, Amersham Mediphysics.
I l
14
-appreciate.too,-the' opportunity 1for-the regulated industry 15 to participate in this meeting.
We are a nationwide 16-supplier.of radioactive' materials, and we are for a uniform 17 approach, as uniform as possible.
18-I want to give-you some~ examples where we find 19 considerable variation in the Agreement States regulations.
20~
First'of.all, with generally licensed devices.
Some of the 21-states are still working with the old AEC regulations which 22_
NRC changed many, many years ago.
We are then in a 23 difficult position, where we are trying to provide advice to 24 our customers for generally licensed devices.
.25 The cost, we find very considerable variation in l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
p Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 L
~ Washington, D.C. 20006 l
- (202) 293-3950-
1 19 1
the cost of do.tng business _ from one state to another, 2
various fees and the like.
We even find some variation in 3
the exempt quantities.
I am talking about NARM material i
4 from one state to another.
5 Another point where we as a manufacturer, we are i
6 registering quite a number of sealed sources and devices,
{
7 and we. find that there'is considerable variation there in 8
the way that one state to another will -- the amount of 9-information that they will require and the time that it i
10 takes to get a new product registered.
When you are in 11 business you are in competition, and these are factors which 12 considerably influence your competition.
13 We find variation in the rules for temporary job 14 sites working other states.
The one that I want to 15 particularly bring to your attention this afternoon concerns f
16 Metrastron, strontiam 89'which we have just had approved by 17 the Food and Drug Administration, which Illinois then is approved for distribution to specitic licensees.
They 19 established that indeed what we were supplying was a unit 20 dose, traceable to NIST.
21 Yet, we find that agreement states, quite a 22 number, are requiring additional information from their 23 licensees, requiring them to do a measurement before 24 administration.of that unit dose to a patient.
This is 25 holding up the supply of a much needed radiopharmaceutical, t-l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l-Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 p
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l
?
l 20 f
L l'
the first one that the FDA-has approved for therapeutic use t
l
'2 for the palliation of bone pain in metastatic bone cancer.
l l
1 3
The NRC regulations, current regulations, require f
4 that'.a' photon emitting radiopharmaceutical for therapeutic l
c
-5.
use be measured prior to administration, but there is 6
nothing.as far as I am aware in the regulations concerning 7
the administration of beta emitters.
The revised 10 CFR 35 l=
8 which was puM ished.in mid-June does not require any further 9-
-measurement for a unit' dose,'if~I am interpreting those new 3
10 proposed regulations correctly.
11' These are some of the frustrations that we find.
l.
l 12 What'do we advise. licensees who.want to use our metastron.
13 We:have to have.a different set of recommendations for every
\\
14 Agreement State that there is..When it comes to license 15' verification, checking.to make sure that the licensee is i
16
. properly licensed to receive material'before we ship it, i -
- 17-then we are in the position-that we are going to have to 18-have NRC regulations to consult and 29 Agreement State 19
' regulations.
L 20 We look at NARM. material, we have to have 50 sets i-L21
.of' state regulations.
This, as you can imagine, would be 22 quite a' headache.
23'
. What I would really like to see -- and I think I 24-speak?for our. company as well -- I would like to see ene 25
, Federal agency for the regulation of discreet radioactive
)
l i
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 j;
Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 i.
- m.,.
~-
i l
l 21 1
material, NARM byproduct, whatever, as long as it's l
2 discreet.
Thank you.
l 3
MR. MANN:
Thank you.
l 4
MS. HIATT:
Susan Hiatt.
One of my concerns is 5
public participation rights, specifically public hearing l
6 rights, in an agreement state versus what the people would l
7 have with the NRC.
8 Specifically concerning a low level waste facility i
(
9 which the State of Ohio is going to develop as host state l
l 10 for the Midwest Compact, it's one of the things we are i
11 struggling with now.
I am on the State of Ohio's Low Level 12 Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee.
The State has 13 expressed its intention of becoming an Agreement State, and
\\
14 one of my great concerns is, will citizens have the same 15 level of rights in the state licensing agency in that 16 proceeding for the facil'ity as they would before the NRC.
17 I believe that it ought to be a matter of 18 compatibility, that a state's rules of practice ought to be 19 as least as liberal as what people would get with the NRC.
20 For example, for a low level waste facility there would be a 21 full, formal Subpart G hearing.
I am not sure that all of 22 the states that are doing this as agreement states even have 23 full. adjudicatory hearing.
l 24 The NRC's rules of practice have some unique 25 characteristics, which I find rather favorable.
For i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
22 L
l' example, 10 CFR 2.713 (b) permits persons who are not
(:
2 attorneys to represent organizations to which they belong, 3
in a licensing proceeding.
And, looking at Ohio's revised 4
Leode, that does not appear to be compatible.
5 Ohio's-revised code wants organizations first to j
6 represent themselves or organizations that would be 7
represented by counsel.
That's a significant financial 8
burden on citizens and environmental organizations.
Results 9
of the interested state provision of 2.715 (c) which confers l
10 great benefits on the governmental entities.
i 11 I would like to see at least some degree of l
12 compatibility, so that people have the same level of rights
-13 before an Agreement State licensing agency as they would r
14 before the NRC.
15 MR. MANN:
Thank you.
Are there other, either at 16 the: table or the public.-
17 MR. WILLIS:
Charles Willis, Health Physics 18 Society.
As most of you know, we are the people on the 19 firing line, professionals who are tasked with protecting 20-people and the public and the environment from ill effects 21 of-radiation.
22-We have three pretty important concerns.
One is 23 the problem of unnecessary dual regulatio:1.
When we have 24 more than one organization inspecting our 1.Milities, it 25
.truly creates tremendous problems and a waste of resources.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I-h 23 1
Another very professional concern is that there L
i 2
seems to im a very great emphasis in our regulatory system 3
on consistency, compatibility which we have some 4
appreciation for, but we also are concerned that this is i
5
'done frequently at the expense of our neglect of public 6
health and safety.
g 7
We get numerous requirements that require a vast 8
amount'of resources and time, that really serve no useful 9
purpose as far as public health and safety is concerned.
I 10 think thCc perhaps'the most vivid example of this was the l
L 11 Austin Street clean up that was reported at the 17.st Health h
12 Physics Society meeting, where the EPA was going in and 13 cleaning up a facility that was contaminated from some old 14 iridium work.
They had a serious problem, as to what'they i
15 should clean up and what they should leave.
16-The material that was there looked very much to an 17
-instrument, like a natural material.
They. finally decided 18 that what was the more hazardous material would be left 19 because that was natural.
The less hazardous material had 20 the radium removed and that to be cleaned up.
21 To a professional health physicist, this is a 22-serious kind of problem.
The most important thing that 23 perhaps bothers us is where we have conflicting regulations, 24
.where there are things that are required by one organization 25 and absolutely forbidden by the other.
We have some very
'i' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.--.,-,p r-ry e
._.--_c r-w
i l
24 1
serious concerns about what's going on here.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. MANN:- Thank you.
Are there any other opening L
4 statements?
5-
[No response.]
6 MR. MANN:
At this point then, turning back to the 7
agenda in a more formal way, the framing question for this 8
initia?. discussion is, what is or are the core elements of a l
l' 9
compatible program.
I think Shelly, help me with this.
I 10 think that about 15 minutes, if we sort of target going
~
t 11 through these subparts and about is minutes each, does that i
12 sound reasonable, with latitude.
L 13 If we look at that question and then the first o
. 14' focus _ is on the issue of uniform national standards.' The 4
1 15 floor is now open under the umbrella of-that framing 16
. question, what is or are'the core elements of a compatible
' 17
' program, uniform national standards.
18 MR.-PARIS:
Perhaps we should talk about -- I 19 don't know where this is going to enter in but it's going to 20 enter in somewhere -- about the divisions of compatibility.
21-Are we talking about identical compatibility, or are we 22 talking about what is.the definition of compatibility before 23 we begin.
24 MR. SCHWARTZ:
I was hoping that you would help 25 us.
I would say as a going in position for a new policy on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite ~300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
25 l
1 compatibility, the working-group believes that it's a clean 2
sheet of paper.
Maybe division one, two, three and four is 3
not the best model.
Maybe there's another way to do it.
l 4
If you look at the Commission paper -- and we did l
l 5
include it in the book -- SECY 91-039, it did lay out some 6
factors to be considered in developing a policy on 7-compatibility, and not all of them lend itself to the 8
current division one, two, three and four.
l 9
When you ask the question of what are uniform 10 radiation protection standards, many times it's in the eye l
11 of the beholder as to what is a uniform radiation protection i
12 standard. -That's the basis for the discussion I think we 13 want to enjoin.
Most of us take Part 20 as a given.
I 14.
think that the discussions that I have had over the last few 1
15 years, everybody says Part 20, yes.
What else?
16 MR. LACKER:
dave Lacker, from Texas.
I still 17 like the old definition, compatibility is the ability to 18 coexist in harmony, not identical but able to exist in 19 harmony.
You take any reg and there can be some minor l
20 variations on that regulation, but it still can exist in a 1
21 harmony with someone else's regulation.
22 I don't know if that may be too broad and general f
23
- a. criteria, but that's what compatibility is, not 24 identicality but the ability to coexist in harmony.
l 25' MR. MANN:
As a starter definition, yes.
l t.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters L
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 c---
i' i
l' I
f l
26 j
i 1
MR. BRINER:
Dave, let me ask you this.
Is that
~
2 definition, would that indicate that so long as the basic 3'
standard is there, knowing how to get there is --
{
4 MR. LACKER: ' Pretty much,'yes, sir.
I don't think I
5 we have toLhave identical language to get there.
i 6
MR. BRINER:
That's pretty much the issue of the L
7 SNM, too.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I must admit, I am a little 9
confused because included in uniform standards is a concept
[
10 of what radiation protection standards are adequate to i
11 permit the public health and safety.
Are you saying that 12-
.those should vary across the country; that each of us should 13 have our own definition of what is necessary to adequately 14 protect the public health and safety as long as therd is i
15 harmony.
I am not quite sure that I understand.
j
-16 MR. LACKER:
I guess we still have to go a step 11 7 :
back in definition, and what standards are we talking about.
i 18 There is a broad scope of standards and regulations are j
19 standards in toto.
However, there are some specific l.
20
. standards for. protection against radiation such as discharge 21 limits, exposure limits, those sorts of standards which 2 2 --
probably should be a uniform, identical if you will, national standard in most cases.
12 4 However, if an individual state can make its case j
25 that a' lower standard would be more applicable to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
i 27 l
1 citizens of that state, then I really don't know that the i
2 national standard should necessarily prevail. I realize, the j
3 courts can-decide that so how can I.
L 4
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
In that case where you say 5
that a particular state it might be suitable for whatever l
6 reason to have other standards, would those standards be l
7 standards that you-would interpret as adequate to protect t
8 the public health and safety.
l l
9 MR. LACKER:
Yes.
I think that's what the Federal
'10 standards should be.
It should be the -- I hate to say 11 minimum or maximum -- it depends on what you are talking L
12 about.
It should be the level or norm, and then no one once 13 a national standard established, no one should exceed that 14 in exposure, for instance.
15
'However, an individual state based on the input I
16 from its citizens and its politicians, may choose to have a 17 lower standard which gives their citizens a greater degree 18 of protection.
1 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I was wondering if you would i
20 define that as-necessary for adequate protection, or would 21 you give it some other definition?
22 MR. LACKER:
I think that would probably be good, 23 adequate protection.
In other words, it would protect the 24 citizen from undue health risk, health or safety risk.
It 25 would be the adequate amount of protection.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
1 28
.1 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I was surprised that nobody 2
objected to Shelly's comment'that we take Part 20 as a 3
given.
Part'20 contains a lot of things which some of us
.4 might interpret as standards, like 100 millirem per year to 5'
the public.
There are lots of other things in Part 20 that 6
I just assume some_ states would prefer that you didn't have 7
to.be compatible with; am I right or wrong?
8 MR.RLACKER:
I agree.
I certainly didn't want to 9
preempt any further discussion by saying that right up 10 front.
11_
[ Laughter.]
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I think we are all being too
-13 polite at this point.
I tried to stimulate the discussion.
'14
.MR. FUENTE:
I would.like to expand on this' 15 discussion that is going right'now, regarding 10 CFR Part 16 20.
I think there are some sections in there that maybe the 17 states are'not adopting, and the issue of compatibility may 18
-be raised at some later date.
19 The ultimate mission and goal whether it be at the 20
' Federal or state level as we all recognize, is the i
21 protection of public health and safety.
To address an issue 22 thatan'few states -- particularly the oil and gas production 23 states are going through right now -- are promulgating 24-regulations dealing with NORM, Naturally Occurring 25 Radioactive Materials.
i l'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
.1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 E
Washington, D.C. 200Go (202) 293-3950
~,
m-.
=. ~,,
--,-.--,.,--,-v-
~
29 1
There'are no Federal standards that we have to be 2.
compatible with.
We in the states are having difficulty 3
promulgating these regulations, such that they will be 4
compatible with each other.
You could ultimately have 50 5.
sets of radiation addressing norm.
6' Certainly, when we first organized the little ad 7
hoc committee it was our hopes and desires that if three or
.8 four or five states could promulgate regulations alike, the 9
same, then we'could get other states to join us.
But 10 experience has'shown that this has not been the case.
11 I am aware of four states that do have effective 12 NORM regulations.
There will be others.
But we, in the j
13 state,.we feel like each state is protecting public health l
14 and safety but'we haven't agreed on certain numbers, and l
15-it's-posing some problems.
i 16 MR. KERR:
Wayne Kerr, Illinois.
I think one of 17 the things about more restrictive standards than Part 20, as i
18 health physicists we see occasions when it may not be very 19 difficult to do something better than Part 20 -- you don't 20 have a soil clean up standard per set yet but I guess you 21' are going to have one, one of these days.
22-It seems to me like it makes common sense that if 23 it takes a few shovel fulls or a couple of end-loaders full 24 of. dirt to reduce some exposure a little farther, then 25 that's the prudent thing to do.
I think that's.really a L
L ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street,.N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202). 293-3950 1
t
_..-._,.4
30 l'
principle of health physic _s that has been practiced for a 2
long time.
3 MR. KULIKOWSKI:
A couple of things that I would 4
just like to touch on, one of about the Part 20.
I agree, 5
we will probably put it to a test this fall as we implement 6
our regs.
There are several things.
I think that New York 7
City probably in its licensing and inspection program, f
8 provides a set of unique situations in which to look at l
9 radiation control.
i 10 We have an area of Manhattan known as Bedpan 11'
' Alley, which has about 14 or so hospitals on the East Side 12-of Manhattan.
We had an experience about two years ago 13 where one of these institutions petitioned NRC to be able-to i
14 burn radioactive materials in New York City.
Subseq6ent to 15 a fair amount of pressure from the neighborhood the petition 16-was withdrawn.
I 17 Notwithstanding that, our health code prohibited i
18 incineration of radioactive materials.
-I think it's not 19 that it cannot be done safely, but that there are -- I think 20-this points out overriding local concerns, where it just is 21 not appropriate whether it can be done safely or whether i
22
.t's_a matter of public policy and basic local politics.
l l
23 You can't ha a an institution burning something in i
24 the middle of probably the highest density populated area in 25 this country and having the stack go out on to a high rise
~
- t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I l
31 1
apartment.
You may meet all the emission standards but it's 2-still not a good health physics.
3-There are going to be areas like that, which 4
4:
really do need to be addressed on a local level, which l
5 should not jeopardize a particular non-NRC jurisdictions 6
status of compatible.
7 As I was getting ready for this meeting I went l
l 8;
through out office archives -- this is to change the subject 9
just very slightly -- I pulled out probably one of the first j
I 10
. guides that state programs issued.
It's called NROSP 001.
3 1
11 It says guide for' evaluation of Agreement State radiation 12 control programs.
That was published in 1977, so that is.
j 13
- 16. years ago.
141 I guess what I have seen is, when people talk 15 about compatibility now they are really talking abouc rules.
16-I think this is sort of' evolved.
When we go through program 17:
reviews people say are your rules compatible.
The question l
18 is, is compatibility limited to just rules. - I would argue 19.
that probably not.
It talks about how the NRC is going to i
20
' determine the status of the state when it does a program 21 review.
l One of them is, determination is also made that 22 l
23 the program is either compatible with the NRC regulatory
'24 program in areas related to the public health and safety or i
25 incompatible with the NRC regulatory program.
I think this i
ll
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters t
I 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
[
Washington, D.C. 20006 L
(202) 293-3950 ug
32 1
really encompasses more than just a set of rules.
2 Granted, rules form the basis for the program but 3
there are other ways of approaching a lot of the issues that 4
we discuss other than a formal rulemaking process.
5 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Yes, I agree with you, that there 6-was a time where it looked that compatibility was a 7
programmatic thing and not just rules.
Somewhere along the 8
line I'think it came to be focused only on rules.
I think 9
that's fair for discussion around this table with respect to 10 whether it should be programmatic elements, or should be l
11 1.
just rules.
1
-12 There is somewhere else on the program discussion 13 of programmatic compatibility with the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission.
It raises the issues of, in order to be j
15 compatible.with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission do you I
)
16' have to have the same enforcement mechanism, the same 17
. enforcement organization or the same investigation arm, 18 those kinds of things.
19 We are talking about uniform standards at this I
20 point, but somewhere along the line I would like us to chat 21 about compatibility meaning more than just rules and 22 programmatic elements, and'that leads us to another
'23 interesting discussion that I think we need to have around I,
24 the table.
25
-MS. JOHNSRUD:
I am sure we will have that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
'(202) 293-3950
i 33 1 ~
discussion.
Before we get to it, I-think that this issue of
'2 absolutely compliance _with the standards that are set down 3'
by the NRC is perhaps key.
I would suggest that there are 4
really-two underlying fundamental ~ issues that have to be 5
dealt'with.
6 One is the question of responsibility without
- authority.
If the states are-to take responsibility for the 8
regulatory activities on a programmatic basis and on a 9
specific site basis or licensee basis, then in our view the i
10 states must also have the full authority to do what they j
11 believe under their state constitutions will be necessary 12 for the protection of-health, safety and environment of i
l 13 their citizens.
14 Obviously, this has to be in conjunction wit;h the 15 interstate and national impacts and programs as long as the 16 materials continue to be'. generated and used.
17
-But what we also see'is a shift in the NRC's 18-approach to regulation that has been underway for some time.
19 It's exemplified by the elimination of requirements marginal 20 to safety program, the shift from a prescriptive regulatory 21
. stance to what appears to be a much greater flexibility with 22' regard to what the NRC-will' regulate.
23-Hence, that takes us back to the fundamental issue 24 that you said we all agreed upon, Dr. Schwartz.
But is 25 there truly agreement with respect to maximizing the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)- 293-3950 I
?
f 34 f.
i 1
protection of public health and safety.
I think that j
H 2
generally overall direction of regulation, as cost becomes 3
prohibitive _in a culture of. society that increasingly must u
4
-face the. realities of limits to available money of funds, we j
5 are headed for some tough times.
6 For the states with their variable conditions and
.7 requirements to be totally preempted as they feel they have l
l 8
been with regard to the most-basic of regulations, is very
.9 troubling from the public' interest and environmental 1
-10 perspective.
11-MR..MANN:
As I listed to us, we said we would 12 give about 15 minutes.- We have done about 15 minutes, and I l13 think we have been talking about.both A and B. Do we need to 14 continue on A and B our uniform standards and radiation 15 protection. standards regulations.
Are there other. comments 16 related to those two subparts?
Maybe I missed something along the 18-line, but I asked the question on what was compatibility 19 that I think started this process, and I don't know that we 20.
agreed on what uniform standards are and what was going to 21 be compatible and absolute or not.
22 7'
I don't-know that we have addressed A or B in 1.
23 MR. MANN:. I heard a suggestion about a definition 24 and I heard some conversation about that.
Would you care to l
25:
offer your definition?
i 1-ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
l l
35 l
1 MR. PARIS:
I don't know that I have a definition.
2 If we did, we would staff off on a great foot here.
I would 3
like to raise one other issue.
4 We hear about public health and safety.
In a l
5 state review when NRC reviews a state, they can usually now 6
look at the regs to determine compatibility.
Then, they l
7 also look at the program, being able to adequately protect 8
the health and safety of the citizens of that state.
- Well, 9
one of the criteria that they have is Category 1 indicators 10 and Category 2 indicators.
l 11 It has been determined, and I am not sure by whom, 1
12 if there is more than one category 1 indicator then that 13 state is not capable of adequately protecting the health of l
14 the citizens of that state.
I am not sure how that decision l
l i
l 15 was arrived at either.
16 When we look at protecting the public health or 17 safe to be adequate, that adequacy is subjective.
There 18 needs to be something in the line here where we look at 19 adequacy as well as compatibility.
I think what has evolved 20 is that the reason the NRC has looked at compatibility for l
l 21 the regs is that that is an easy way to evaluate.
It's a 22 numhte that you can look at in something black and white.
23 It either is or is not there.
Therefore, they are either 24 not or they are compatible.
25 When you look at adequacy there is some fuzziness ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
36 1-there in my mind, how that was determined.
So, there's a 2
whole realm of stuff here that is not easily resolved.
I 3
- don't know where I am going but the compatibility definition
.4'
-is.still'not
-- I don't know'where we are heading in this i
5
.whole process to come to some solution.
6 MS. MAUPIN:
Just to give you some insight into 17 the adequacy question, back in 1979 after the one that Bob 8
mentioned, we went out with.the policy statement on the 9
guidelines for review of Agreement States in terms of 10-adequacy and compatibility.
In that policy statement we 11~
always go out for putting it in the Federal ~ Register and we I
12 request.public comments.
13 As part of those guidelines there is wording which l
14 says that if one or more items -- the. Category l's, we felt l
t i
15 those were ones that had a direct impact upon public health 16 and safety.
We asked for-your comments, the public comments 17 on is this the right way to go.
If you didn't say no and we l
18 didn't get any other lightbulb to go off, we went in that I
-19 direction.
20-That's how we came up with those categories and 21' that wording, with assistance-from those who commented and 22
-from the public.
4 23 MR. BRINER:
We have been' dancing all around
-24 something that many of us.in the health care area have been 25
. wondering for years.
Who is best able to detemine adequate e
f; I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 g.;
Washington,:D.C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
. - ~.
37 1
public health and safety. _Is it a Washington based 2
organization or is it that organization which is reserved 3
the power of the states, the individual states.
4 Every other bit of health legislation that I can 5
think'of, of any import, delegates that responsibility to 6
the states.
I don't think there is any better indicator of 17 adequate public health and safety than that which is made 8
within a given state.
I would certainly speak against 9
having all kinds'of indicators on some piece of paper 10
-located here, in Rockville at White Flint or wherever, to 11 make that determination when it is better made at the state 12 level.
i 13 ICR. FRAZEE:
Going back to the basic regulations, 14 the national standard concept, I think one of the things 15 that I would like to see would be for us to go back in and i
16 take a very close look at.the regulations -- Part 20 would 17 be broken up -- we would look at each regulation and make a i
18-determination collectively, whether it's something that we 19 want to see as a matter of compatibility, something that is 20 a minimum national standard if you will or not.
21 If it's standard then that's the standard which we 22 could be more conservative but it becomes the standard.
We 23 can't relax it.
Everything else is not a question of i
24.
compatibility unless it is something that is going to be a 25 conflict.
l-6 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters L
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 f
Washington,.D.C. 20006 L
(202) 293-3950 i
j 1
38 1
What we would be_doing in essence would be voting 2-on each one of these regulations.
Every state would have a 3
vote, just like it's done in Congress.
It will pass or fail 4
on our collective wisdom, as to whether this is something 5'
that we can all' live with as a standard or whether it's not 6
a-standard, it's just a nice thing to do perhaps.
7 MS. LIPOTI:
I guess maybe I'm just confused.
I 8
look at NRC regulations and I am not sure what is the l
9 standard even within your regulations.
For instance, in 10 10 CFR Part 20 you have 100 millirem per year plus ALARA.
In t-l 11' 10 CFR Part 61'it's 25 millirem plus ALARA.
12 That doesn't seem to be compatible with each 13 other.
I know there are different purposes and there's the l
' 14 ten millirem that you can get from all different sides if 15-you havaLten sources that.will add up to 100 millirem.
But l
16 what ifiyou have 11 and'then you got a problem.
l 17 It's very difficult for me to see this in terms of 18 what is a standard and therefore what is clearly something
- 19 to be. compatible with or to be incompatible with.
So, 20
.that's a judgment there.
l 21 Then, I am curious about how compatibility l
l 22-compares with effectiveness.
This issues paper which you l
23 sent to us which'I read every word there's something where l-l 241 it.says that NRC'is in a position to gather information to 25 gage effectiveness of the nation's radiation regulatory p
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 L
washingten, D.C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950 m
r-3 1.c---4i
,,n.
y
1 1
39 I
program.
Now, there's a n_ew word, effectiveness.
2 How do you measure effectiveness.
Is that how 3
many places you found that were not in compliance or how i-4 many fines you collected, or how many inspections you did.
)
5 How do you measure this effectiveness and how can NRC judge 6
effectiveness.
Then, you get into that problem where who is i
7 the judge and who is being judged.
What if NRC doesn't i
i 8
perform.
9 In a non-agreement state you could have poor l
10 licensing practice by your regions.
If you are in an 11 agreement state, if NRC doeFn't perform enough auditing of 12 that-agreement state and they allow sloppy licensing and I
there's some sort of reciprocity and those people operate in 13 14 another state, then you still got that problem.
15 hhtt accountability is there for NRC in all of 16 this?
I am very confused.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I would like to respond to i
18-what you said.
I certainly agree with you, and have had 19 kind of 11, personal campaign while being a Commissioner to 20 strive for consistency and coherence.
I have looked at 21 those same things, Part 100, Part 61, Part 100 and so forth, 22 and you have to realize that those things were set by 23' different people at different times under different L
24 pressures or different purposes.
25 It's kind of interesting uhen you do it I have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I l
40 l
1 given a paper on that very_ subject.
Depending on the definition of compatibility, the 25 and 100 might really be 2
3 compatible.
They are not necessarily consistent but they 4-might be' cor:patible, - depending on how you define it.
I 5
If you look at that from a risk standpoint, it 6
turns out that from e public risk standpoint it's not great
[
7 differences.
It's kind of surprising how different they are 8
-from a risk of cancer fatality standpoint ~.-
9 I agree, and my mission has been striving for this 10 coherence and consistency,.and whatever the numbers are that l
h i
l 11-
-they' hang togetherlin some forth that'there be some
-12 consistency..
11 3 On the question of accountability, the NRC does
.14 have some accountability.
We have a lot of Congressional I
15 Committees.
In fact, Friday of this week we will going and i
~
16 speaking about this very subject.
We have an Inspector 117 General who looks very closely to see if we are carrying out 18-
.our-programs of auditing Agreement States or.what we are L
19-doing with non-agreements states and so forth.
l 20 There is some accountability, even in the NRC, j
21 that you may or may not have thought of.
We are closely L
22 scrutinised in some areas by a number of Congressional 23 committees.'
That's who we are responsible to.
That doesn't l
24-answer your question?
E25 MS. LIPorI:- I-was wondering if there is any
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950~
l 41 l
1 public involvement in some_of the areas of auditing of these 2
state programs.
Of course, each state has its own 3
legislature which can certainly ask for audita.
We are 4
under very close scrutiny as well.
5 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I am sure that you will read i
l-6 if you are not there this Friday, that the NRC will be 7
highly criticized for not providing more scrutiny to i
8 Agreement States programs. I am sure that will be one of the i
l 9
outcomes that we hear this coming Friday, that we are not -
10.
- that's one of the things why we are talking about, how can o
11 we determine and maybe effectiveness isn't the best word l
I 12 and so forth.
l t
13
-There are some allegations, that what we expect of 14 Agreement States is not what we. expect of non-agreement 15 states; that there's a lack of consistency in this case.
16 Whether they are true or' not, I don't way say nor do I l
17 completely know.
18 These are some of the things that we are under 19-scrutiny right now, and how well we perform our job and the 20 Section 274 does give us some responsibilities for l
21 monitoring the effectiveness of the Agreement States 22 programs.
That is a responsibility, ane we are being 23 questioned right now whether we are doing that adequately.
24 We will hear more about it Friday, I am sure.
l 25-MR. LACKER:
I am a little ambivalent about this i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 42 1
because I think the NRC certainly could do some things 2
better.
3 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Absolutely.
{
4 MR. LACKER:
We could, too.
I am not sure of the l
4 5
adequacy of the GAO report upon which you are being 6
criticized.
I wrote to GAO and expressed that opinion, for 7
the State of Texas.
1 8
I guess the problem we face in today's world is 9
that we are audited by accountants.
Our business, you can't l
10 necessarily count the beans and add up to a single total.
I 11 guess that's what we are all about here.
This is where 12 compatibility comes in.
13 Adequacy, I think there are probably some ways to I
look at that and make a determination on the broad scale, 14 15 but there is no way that you are ever going to satisfy 16 everyone in that. determination.
I 17-COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Going back to an earlier 18 comment that you had -- a Commiraioner should be here to 19 listen and not talk but I think maybe it helps to get the 20 people talking.
Maybe they will disagree with me and open 21 up.
22 You said somethippe about openness,_I believe.
23' This has to be self-serving perhaps, coming from a 24 Commissioner, but I have not been a Federal employee j
-25
'throughout most of my life. I come from the private,
{
i
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters L
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 3
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
43 i
1 academic sector into an agency.
I have had a lot of 2
association through the years.
3 I have said many times and I think I am right, I 4
know of no other agency in this town that is more open than 5
the NRC, whether it's meetings, whether it's votes, whether 6
it's documents, docket files for licensees.
There are very i
7 few things that are not cpen in this agency.
I know of 8
none.
Through my responsibilities in the past working with l
l 9
a' number of state agencies and other Federal agencies, I 10 know of none that are as open.
Not perfect, but we 11 certainly be better.
12 I can honestly say, it's a very open organization.
13 MR. KERR:
I think we-have to recognize that as 14 regulators we only sample what goes on with licensees'.
We 15 place a tremendous amount of trust in licensees.
When 16 things go wrong, you address those.
You can't be their 17 constant companion.
18 Secondly, we don't expect NRC to be our constant 19 companion.
You can only get a sample of what we do.
Part 20 of the issue is, just how much information do you need about i
21 our programs to judge adequacy, to me, is a more important 22 thing.
Does it have to be every little thing that we do --
E 23.
'and I think we all know that is not necessary.
I think, 24 personally, that the NRC gets a tremendous amount of 25 information about Agreement States, both during reviews and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
44 1
during the year.
2 In my opinion you probably have an adequate basis 3
to make decisions on whether we are protecting the public 4
health and safety.
5 MR. MANN:
Ms. Johnsrud.
6 MS. JOHNSRUD:
I think the references back to some 7
of the earlier statements going back to 1979 or even earlier 8
and then references to the shifts in responsibility and 9
occurrences as'these programs have moved forward, are 10 indicative of a need.for the maintenance of a substantial 11 amount-of flexibility, such that the NRC is providing a 12 basis of regulation, the grounding as some other speakers 13 have indicated, the minimum / maximum standards and 14 regulations and programs.
i l
15' But allowing the states to move beyond, to be more
~
16 restrictive, more protective but not less so, and at the 17 same time with an iterative process of reviewing these 18 adequacies given the. variations and circumstances over time 19 so that the program is ongoing.
It's not going to be set in 12 0 absolute stone, but it will give much greater opportunity i
21 for the states to do an even better job so long as they are 22.
taking that authority or that responsibility.
lt~think this doesn't need to be so impossible, so 23.
l 24 difficult as the issues paper that you sent to us would 25 indicate. California sets standards that are tougher in a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
45 1
number of very significant. national realms than do some 2
other states.
In a sense they are out there marching ahead 3
of the parade.
4 A lot of other states are glad to have them there, 5
in order to follow.
Illinois set its one millirem for a low 6
-level waste site.
A lot of the rest of us who would like to 7
be following.
I hope it's still that.
We have a zero 8
release for low level for design basis.
We don't think 9
that's adequate.
10 So long as it's moving forward toward ever better 11 control, ever better and not lesser protection of 12 environment as well,as health and safety, I think that 13 should be the governing principle for these relations'aips.
14 MS. LIPOTI:
I thought EPA had some role iN 15 setting standards?
~
16 MR. BRINER:
It's been very. interesting thus far.
17 I think many people around this table have been talking 18 about the individuality of the individual state's approaches 19 to meeting a common standard.
I think I agree with a great 20 deal of what has been said in that regard.
i 21 However, I would harken to one remark made by the 22 representative from Amersham with regard to those things 23 which absolutely must move in interstate commerce, those 1
L L
24'
- related to the health industry and other things too.
I
-25 can't speak for those other folks.
These must move without ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. ~.
i 46 1
unwarranted on the part of_ individual states, because the 2
help of individuals are frequently involved.
3 MR. MANN:
Captain, that was a wonderful lead in 4
to where I thought we needed to get to now, which is C on 5
the agenda.
You are right, Mr. Baker brought up that 6
comment and sort of plopped out in the middle of the I
7 discussion and the discussion moved on to other things.
8 It seems to me that we ought to open that up right 9
now, the issue of interstate commerce and what about this 10 standardization thing when businesses like his have to 11 operate where there might be 29 different regulations to 12 review and so fortl..
13 MR. LACKER:
I reserve a comment, because I am not 14 sure that I understood Mr. Baker's comment about the
15 strontium 89, where one state required a measurement prior 16 to administration.
How'does that interfere with the 17 interstate commerce or the approval of that drug but that 18 state?
19 It doesn't seem to me that that interferes with 20 the FDA's requirement.
It's just an added measure of 21 safety, to be sure they are getting their proper dose and 22 whatever, before it's administered.
That doesn't mean that 23 they can't get access to the drug, does it?
i L
24 MR. BAKER:
It has delayed the availability of the 25 material-in some of those states.
We are located in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 47 i
l 1
Illinois is an Agreement States.
They did what I 2
consider to be a thorough review of our application for i
3 approval for distribution of that strontium 89.
4 I had to. provide information to them, l
5 demonstrating that it was an NIST traceable dose, it is a 6'
unit dose and not intended for subdivision.
We have found l
7-that some states-including Texas, have required some i
8
' additional measures which has delayed the availability of i
9 that particular drug for patients who need it.in that state.
10 MR. LACKER:
That's'the reason I asked.
I wasn't I
t 11 sure'how it. delayed the access to the drug.
l 12 MR. RAKER:. FDA gave approval to the drug in the-i 13' middle of June.. Within ten days Illinois had given approval 14 for its distribution to specific licensees.
It wasn't until
)
15 last week that Texas finally decided that they would issue 16 license amendments to people who wanted to use the material.
17 MR. LACKER:
I understand now, thank you.
18 MR. MANN:
On the issue of interstate commerce, 19.
.are there other people who have points of view?
20-MR. BROWN:
As a manufacturer of fixed nuclear
'21 gages we used sealed sources, many of which are produced by
}
22; Amersham.
A couple ' of connents.
I appreciate the problem
'23 with' compatibility and trying to prove it.
We can't prove
-24 risk on highways and agree on a national speed limit, so 25-trying to come up with all of the problems with nuclear l;
j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- ^
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
[
Washington, D.C. 20006 4
(202) 293-3950L LY
48 1
safety is detinitely an issue.
2 As a manufacturer I have a unique perspective, 3
because I have to deal with individuals in all 29 states.
4 They will' turn to me for advice long before they will call 5
an agency.
Just because we are the supplier they expect us 6
to know the answers.
It's very difficult for us to know how 7
things are going to be interpreted.
8 Commerce has to be very, very tight.
But it also i
9 relates even to Part 20.
The best example that I can give 10 you is,.I think it was.the January issue of Material Safety 11 Data Subset.
NMSS had a statement in there, that two 12 millirem per hour is not the criteria for an unrestricted 13 area.
That has been accepted by most people but they said 14-
~there was a statement in there that says 100 millirem'per 15 week, today's rules and not next year.
It says if a person i
16 was continually present.
17 They divided that by 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br /> in a week and said 18 it has to below.06.
That sounds minor among this, except I 19.
have a bunch of people that read that and call me up and say 20 wait a minute, how does this affect things that you 21 manufactured ten years ago.
That's incompatibility within 22 the agency that is trying to set the rules.
l 23-From a commerce standpoint, just making the things 24
-and sending them down the highway and making sure that 25 everybody can get what they want and we can build the plants ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 t
i
49 1
and make them safe, there has to be absolute compatibility.
2 It's a very tough thing to come by.
It expects that we are 3
going to have a lot of interpretation.
4 I hold licenses in the NRC through Region 2II, 5
Kentucky because we have a manufacturing facility in 6
Kentucky and Illinois because of some issues of reciprocity 7
there and reciprocity with all the other states.
It's very 8
hard for us to deal from a commerce issue.
Safety issues we 9
would like to be able to be --
10 Just one other comment.
It also has to be from a 11 commerce issue, states have to realize that they have to let 12 people know.
Agreement States, even though they know who we 13 are because of the number of licensees, will not notify us 14 as a manufacturer of a change of a rule or regulation.
I 15 We have had contact with them in Januhry and send 16 them reciprocity information, notified them three days in 17 advance.
Somewhere in the next four months they instituted 18 fees and never told us.
When we went to the state they said 19 no, you haven't paid your fees.
They didn't even tell us.
20 So, while we have a problem of getting the rules 21 compatible there has to be somehow that states have to 22 agree. I mention this because I have 12 of the 29 states i
herek You have to let manufacturers know or the people that 23 24 are going to be dealing in your states if your rules are 25 going to be different.
To give me 14 pages of the thing and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i.
l 50 1
say pick out'what's different, that's a little tough.
2 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Excuse me.
You touched on a 3
subject that came up and it's not totally germane to this, I/
4 but since you mentioned it, it come up during the workshop s
5 Lin San Francisco, the notion that Agreement States licensees 6
don't always have time or are not asked for comment when the 7
NRC proposes a rule that will eventually be a matter of 8
compatibility for agreement states.
It was that discussion.
9 As a member of an industry in an Agreement State l
10 are you aware and how, of new rules that the Nuclear l
l 11 Regulatory Commission proposes that could be a matter of l'
l
'12 compatibility for you once the NRC puts it in place and the i
13 state takes three more years to put-it in place.
14
. MR. BROWN:
I find out mainly because we have an l
15 NRC license.
I am active in a group called ORAMUG, Ohio
{
L 16 Radioactive Materials' Users Group.
Through that group,
~
17 where there is a lot of information sharing -- I find things 18 more.often through third party things that I subscribe to, 19 Material Nuclear Licensing Report and things like that 20.
because I won't always get the copy of the Federal Register.
21 Sometimes they don't send copies.
~
22-MR. SCHWARTZ:
Public announcement is not only
[
'23 putting it in the. Federal Register.
-24 MS. JOHNSRUD:
As a matter of fact, that raises an 25 issue that.is a matter of considerable concern for members ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 L
51 1
of the public.
Indeed, we have to rely entirely on what is 2
or is not in the Federal Register.
I am particularly 3
concerned that as the Commission moves toward more and more j
4 guidance as opposed to prescriptive rule as has been 5
indicated is thee intent, there will be less and less 6
available in the public realm of announcements of the 7
intentions of the Commission which raises some questions 8
about how the states are supposed to know, not to mention 9
the licensed industry and not to mention the affected 10 public.
11 Certainly it seems to me that in conjunction with 12 this entire program there are some very important matters of 13 availability of information for all of us.
14 MR. WALSCH:
I just wanted to ask a general' 15' question about interstate commerce.
That is, clearly if 16 someone is doing business on a nationwide basis or even on a 17 multi-state basis it's a lot easier to function if you are 18 dealing with a product as to which they are only uniform 19 national standards.
20 Clearly, looking at the millions of products that 21 move interstate commerce it has to be only a small fraction 22 of them which are subject only to uniform national l'
23 standards. Yet, somehow companies manage to function i-24 effectively in such an environment..
25 My question is, what if anything is so special l
i-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
52
-1 about nuclear materials which renders them especially 2
amenable to uniform national regulation as opposed to 3
regulation which varies state to state.
1 4.
MR. BAKER:
I am not an expert on interstate 5
commerce and perhaps some of the other industries that you 6
are referring to, but my gut reaction to that is that there 7
isn't another industry that is regulated quite like the 8
nuclear industry. 'As I was saying earlier, when we are 9
dealing with the supply of radioactive materials on a l'
10 nationwide. basis where.we are supplying agreement states I i
11 said we are dealing with 29 sets of regulations plus the NRC j
12 regulations.
l
.13-
.Thank you for reminding me that New York City is 1
14 different.
I have to say 30 plus one, now.
15 MR. MANN:
Any other -- it seems to me that the
~
16 first sort of polarization in the discussion is around this 17
' issue..The strongest opinions seem to be uniform absolute -
18
- we have-heard the phrase absolute uniform.
We have heard i
19 absolute standards.
Sort of the opposite pole of that l
20 discussion is arguing for flexibility is the word that we 21 heard.
'22_
-I think that we have been going about an hour and
[
23 one-half:now and I want us to move toward a brTak.
Any 24L other opinions on this sort of polar discussion that is 25 happening?
ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
53 1
MS. KEY:
Chris Key, with Baltimore Gas and 2
Electric Company. You did say that we could speak for 3
ourselves,.right?
I 4
MR. SCHWARTZ:
' Absolutely.
5 MS. KEY:
This is a very personal situation that 6
I have.
We operate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant under 7
an NRC license.
We also have six licenses for materials 8
under the State of Maryland.
One of those is for our 9
metallurgy lab.
Our metallurgy lab has our radiographers.
10 Chur radiographers work at Calvert Cliffs.
11 I have the problem of how do I get these two 12 regulations to be compatible.
Our radiographer just called 13 me up the other day wanting to know about the training on i
L 14 the new Part 20 license.
I said you don't really have to 15 worry about Part 20 yet because your license is under the 11 6 State of Maryland and they are not ready to go with it yet.
L 17:
I don't think he' believed me.
18.
These are just the situations that I have to deal 19 with, where basically the rubber meets the road.
It's not 20 exactly interstate but it's the same basic issue.
21 MR. MANN:
Can I just press you, on this sort of 22 polar discussion, are-you on the end that would say more 23
. uniformity?
24 MS. KEY:
Yes.
[
25 lMR. KERR:
'I don't think any of us are out to L
l:
l i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters i
L 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 L
L ms
l 54 1
interfere with interstate commerce as regulators.
We still, i
2 I think, want to reserve some rights for things when 3
products reach our jurisdictions.
The states have worked l
4 for many years on sealed source evaluations for example, of l
5 one state or jurisdiction that says approve the sealed l
6 source and it will.be accepted by the other in general.
7 I can tell you of a very major incident that 8
happened'when that was not done, and it certainly served the 9:
public health in those states that did not accept the l
10 evaluation by the jurisdiction that approved it. The same l
l 11 goes for labeling of those kind of things.
Who could argue 12 about having the system labeling.
13 There may be restrictions for example.
Texas and l
14 Louisiana have two many radiographer rules.
That's a little 15 different than it is in NRC. But it achieves something they i
i 16 feel is necessary, and I think certainly should be 17 permitted.
18 MS. ROUGHAN:
My division manufactures the 19 industrial radiography devices, and I am also for uniform 20
' standards.
We have been manufacturing these devices for 21 about 25 years.
Over the years we have done source and 22 device registrations with pretty much with the Agreement p
23 States and the NRC.
It's a very significant difference 24 between.the quality of the review of those registrations.
25 There has to be some consistency between those, l
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 L
l
?
i i
55 1
because those manufacturers in other states that are not l
2 meeting the same standards that we are required to meet 3
being an NRC licensee.
4 In addition, with industrial radiography equipment l
5 there is a lot of proposed rules out and all the Agreement 6
States at this point concerning the new standards for 7
radiographic' equipment meeting an ANSI standard -- I-don't i
8 know what division of compatibility some of those 9
regulations have been given, but the NRC has been basically i
10'
.given a time line.
l 11 ~
In 1996, all equipment that doesn't meet that rule f
12 is taken'out of service.
A lot of the Agreement States have
. 13 not adopted that yet.
There is going to be quite a bit of t
14 old equipment out there in.the field that doesn't meet the i
15 new standards that will remain in use.
It has not had the 16-same type of high level' safety review,'and has been in the
~
17 field for quite a long-time, and doesn't have the added i
(
18-safety features to it.
l 19 There has to be some uniformity on those type of i
20-devices.
' 21 MR. KULIKOWSKI:
Just to follow up on your comment 22 about the_ uniformity especially with sealed source and L
L 23_
device evaluations, I think -- whether it's the device L-l:
24' evaluations or whether it's licensing or any other process L
25 Hwhere there is a review -- even within the same program I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters 1
L 1612-K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 L
Washington, D.C. 20006 l-(202) 293-3950-
~
f
i 56 1
know that I have had personal experience with our licensing 2
people that, you can give two people the same application 3
and get a different result out of each one.
i 4
While I appreciate your concern for the uniform I
1 5
standard nationwide, I think it probably i s -- that's sort
.i 6
of pie in the sky unless you have one person doing all of 7
the evaluations which I don't think is a feasible option.
8 You have personal differences.
The way one person will 9
interpret something will not be the same way that another 10 person interprets it.
11 MR. MANN:
The argument is that the uniform 12 standard is not feasible.
13 MR. KULIKOWSKI:
No, I didn't say that.
You can 14 certainly.have a uniform standard, and I think there are a 15 number of instances where there are uniform standards now.
16 It's how that standard is applied given the individuality of 17 people on your staff.
18 MR. MANN:
Got you.
19 MS. LIPOTI:
I will just make one quick comment on 20 that issue.
It's funny, that this issue is the one that is 21 so polarized because in your issues paper you talk about how 22 consensus standards are followed by both industry and 23 governannt.
So, maybe there's a consensus here that I am l
24 not seeing.
25 The other paper that I read quite closely is a l
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l-57 I
paper that was distributed-by John surmeier, having to do l
t 2
with issues relative to radiation safety in the medical uses
!~
l 3-of ionizing radiation.
The number one issue that was listed
.4 there was uniformity.
In fact, it was listed well before
}
l t
'5-health and safety.
Health and safety was only number four.
j I
6 I really don't see that uniformity is helping to l.
It.seems there really is no j
7-.
enhance health and safety.
.8 single way_of conducing an effective regulatory program.
9 Some states do it one way and they may be very effective.
10-
-Other states do it another way and they may be very l
L 11c effective.
I i
12-I'thint that forced uniformity could make states i
13
. unresponsive to their citizens, to their legislative 14-directions and to their administrative officials.
ThN issue i
15-has to be effectiveness, not uniformity.
I
\\
16
'MR. SCHWARTZ:
Can I make a-follow up question to j
'17:
that as to uniformity.- Are.we talking about uniformity of
- 18 standard setting or programmatic uniformity.
A pejorative 19 term,-a clone program of'the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 total rather than just narrow view of-regulations.
l 21 MS. LIPOTI:
I am talking about both, not just how 22 lyou enforce 100 millirem.. Certainly, you will have 23 difforent ways of using that_ALARA business.
Also, whether 24-100. millirem is the right standard in that particular state, 25 where you might have 14-licensees all discharging to the L
M l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 P
Washington, D.C. 20006-(202) 293-3950
. -. ~.. -
- - -,., - ~.. - -
i-l SB i
l 1
same sewage treatment plant.
i l
2 Whatever the issue is, you are going to have to 3.
take regional differences into account and provide an 4
adequate level of health and safety protection.
That's the l
5'
. bottom line, not uniformity.
MR. NELSON:
We in the nuclear industry share 6
)
7
'these states -- we are in 75 percent of our utilities are in I
-8 agreement states, and we are affected by the NRC rules and.
)
L.
1 l
9 -
regulations.
We would like to see a stronger compatibility.
1 10 We would like to see a stronger adoption of the regulations.
l l
11-I'will give you an example.
Many utilities in i
L 12 their emergency planning efforts are in overlap, not a 13 single state, two or three states. -They try to apply the 14 same rule or the licensee applies the same rule that' >the NRC
~
(
l 11 5 provides to'them.-They approach that with the. state and each 16 state individually takes' their approach.
They have three 17 different approaches-from each state that may evaluate the l
18 same rule that the NRC does.
l l
19 NRC comes in and evaluates the licensee.
The l~
120 state goes in and evaluates each one of their state programs u
21
-which may be three different state programs. FEMA comes i
22 along, and sets their criteria.
As it applies, it was an 23 ~
EPA criteria to start with.
24 You can see what's happening.
We are going around 25 and around in a circle.. I think I implore the Committee to l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 o
.~
l 59 1
look at those kind of things.
One, setting the rule and 2
make sure it's evaluated publicly which the NRC has done.
3 Does the state in question, do they comment on it.
Are 4
those comments included.
Is there a consensus on the 5
comments.
Is it finally applied evenly.
6 I ask you to look at those kind of things, so that 7
we and you can cost effectively apply health and safety and 8
look at it. in a reasonable manner, nbt in 100 dif ferent ways 9
of doing it.
I appreciate the time, and thank you.
10 MS.'JOHNSRUD:
I guess in response to that last 11 comment, I would have to say that the purpose of the l
12 Commission's regulations first and foremost and of the l
L 13 compatibility requirement and the Agreement State programs l
l 14 is not to assist the industry in doing business in the least i
15 cost manner for the industry if there is abridgement of i
L 16 health and safety.
l 17 It's the health and safety concerns and the 18 environment that are your responsibility.
These other costs 19 are part of the cost of doing business, even if there are 20 variations among the regulations with which the licensee L
21 must comply. =They should recognize this and be willing to l
22 accept it, as part of doing their business.
23 MR. KERR:
With all due respect to your comments, 24-Mr. Nelson, I think you have confused programs that are not l
25 similar in the way they are carried out.
The Agreement t
t l
J00i RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l-Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
!^
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I 60 l
1 States program is a program where the NRC gives up authority 2
and the states assume that authority.
i 3
~The regulation of reactors is still a Federal j
4 function, and the implementation-of the emergency 5
preparedness is carried out under a difference concept than c
i l'
6 the Agreement States program.
l i
7 MS. HIATT:
I guess I would play the devil's s'
advocate-with those people who are arguing for uniformity j
l 9:
among Agreement States. :If you have total uniformity I t
'10' think I would question then, what is the benefit or need for 11' the Agreement States program.
I 12 MR' LACKER:
I appreciate that last comment, since 13' I am basically a state's right state.
That was the reason 4
14 the solid south became agreement states first basical'ly, 15-with the exception of California and New York.
l
-16 The first compact was the Southern Interstate 17-Nuclear Compact.
They were effective in getting the
^18 southern states into agreements basically on states' rights 19 and states' responsibility in fulfilling that l
20
' responsibility.
l i
21-
.I feel that an argument that the Federal 22 goversument put up -- when the uranium mill tailings issue in
[
23 the mountain states became public affair, the Federal 24-government was:saying the-protection of health and safety of i
p p
25 the citizens of those states from the tailings was the state
~
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 6
.. ~ ~,.. - -
,,~-
61 1
responsibility and not a Federal responsibility.
The 2
Federal responsibility stopped at the production r_f uranium.
3 The AEC at that time was not concerned about the 4
tailings. Ultimately, the states won a good bit, in that at 5
least the Federal government's paying for 90 percent of the 6
remediation.
But the state is still picking up a 7
significant dollar amount of that issue.
8 My state was a little bit fortunate, in that we 9
didn't have a lot of tailings spread around.
We did have a 10 terribly bad uranium mill that had tailings in the open pit 11 mines, but that's a different story.
12 MR. MANN:
Thank you.
We are going to take a ten 13 minute break now.
Before we do, let me just do a little 14 procedural reminder.
We do have a verbatim recording'being 15 done which is being produced for convenience in creating a 16 report of the proceedings.
At the same time you will notice 17 these butcher sheets that I am doing which are only intended is for our use here, as sort of reminders of key comments that 19 have been made.
20 I would like to invite anybody who sees me write 21 their comment inaccurately please tell me.
Also, these will 22 be up tomorrow if you want to sort of walk around and 23 remember that is what they are to be used for.
Some of you, 24
.I know, have not checked in.
I don't know if people will 25 choose this time to do that.
Why don't.we do it at about ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Screet, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 i
i 62 l
l 1
five minutes to at the clock on the back of the wall there.
2 That~gives us about 13 or 14 minutes.
l 3
(Brief recess.]
j 4
MR. MANN:
Returning to our meeting.
The question 5
was, are we ever going to reach a conclusion to this 6
question; what is compatibility?
That seems to still not be 7
done.l[ will restate what Shelly said at the outset of the 8'
meeting.
The purpose here is to provide the broadest 9
opportunity that the issues are addressed from whatever 10 points of view are out there, that there is not the purpose j
11 to.come to closure on that issue.
l 12' I just want to sort of remind you.
At the same i
13-time, in the interest of getting positions stated, maybe 14 it's worthwhile to keep asking the question several times.
15.
What is compatibility.
If there are other people who
~
16-haven't stated an opinion on that who would like to sort of 17 take a crack-at a definition, we can stait there.
L 18 -
Where we are going to go from here is into our 19 next item, improved health and safety.
If you want to start i
- 20 us off, what is compatibility from your perspective.
Does 21 anybody want to try that one more time?
22-MR. IACKER:
I said I was going to be quiet.
l 23 MR. MANN:
Please don't.
24 MR. LACKER:
In the earlier discussion talking 25 about' uniform standards and standards and regulations, there 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l t
63 i
1 were a number of references to the state should have the l
2 right to be more restrictive.
Since it was my state that l
3 did it I didn't even think about it, but it can go the other 4
way.
l 5
For instance, we have a regulated below regulatory l
l 6
concern disposal rule in Texas that we have had for a number l
7 of years in place.
It doesn't just give blanket authority.
8 There are certain regulatory requirements for use.
- However, 9
many of our major medical facilities are using it right now 10 at a tremendous cost saving in terms of if they had to 11 dispose of that waste under the current circumstances.
12 There could be some judicious, less restrictive 13 standards.
14 MR. MANN:
Thank you.
Anyone else?
15
[No response.]
16 MR. MANN:
Item D, this has come up in some of the 17 past comments, but let's now make it the focus.
The framing 18 question is still, what is or are the core elements of a 19
. compatible program.
What is or are the core elements of a 20 compatible program, as it relates specifically to improved l
21 public health and safety?
22 MR. KERR:
First, I don't think anybody could l
23 argue about improving health and safety if the opportunity l
l 24 presents itself, and that's quite proper and should be done.
25 But in looking specifically at the issues paper as it leads i
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 l-(202) 293-3950
1 l
64 1
into the discussion, I guess I have a little problem with
]
2 the way it's stated.
3 Maybe instances that it's so important that a new 4
regulation should be adopted immediately, I think that is 5
sort of a theoretical problem.
I just don't believe there 6
are any lurking bombshells of anything out there 7
unregulated.
Certainly, the states feel that there should j
8 be more done in NARM and NORM.
We think it deserves some 9
attention.
10 In the materials that we currently regulate under 11 our agreements, I just don't see anything that rises to the 12 level of saying tomorrow we have to do something.
13 Second, down in there I had a little marginal note 14 about whether we could quickly adopt a new regulation, 15 essentially verbatim when it leads to a significant 16 improvament.
There is a' risk in that.
I am not sure I can 17 pin down where it came from.
I understand that NRC may be 18 considering a different formatting of regulations for 19 medical, for example.
20 Now, let's say a state has adopted this for 21 argument sake, verbatim the way NRC has it.
Now, NRC says i
22 well we are going to reformat the whole thing.
We are going 23 to do things differently.
We are going to put a bunch of 24 segments in there, brachytherapy, teletherapy, a little 25 different than we are now.
Then the state says we don't i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
65 1
have that same system in place.
2 I guess a few words of look before you leap would 3
be appropriate, in terms of adopting the verbatim rules.
4 MR. SCHWARTZ:
The question of are there rules and 5
regulations that are so significant that it requires 6
implementation as quickly as possible, there are some that 7
believe the rule that the NRC put into place with respect to 8
radiography on the alarming rate meter is one that I guess 9
we are seeing that it seems like it has really reduced the 10 amount of exposure when the person wears them, to zero.
11 It has shown some striking health and safety 12 impact.
I don't have all the data or facts in front of me.
13 I am just throwing that one out, that it might be one that 14 reach that threshold, as a point of discussion, to say maybe 15 that is one that people might consider to put on a fast 16 track.
\\
17 MR. QUILLIN:
My comments apply to the -- the 18 states could also build into their regulatory mechanism, a
i 19 procedure which would allow them to adopt a regulation 20 verbatim whenever such a regulation will lead to significant 21 improvement, et cetera.
22 There was a workshop several years ago, where we 23 discussed this whole process at length.
Gerry Parker was 24 the leader of that workshop.
I think the consensus was that 25 there was great difficulty for states to rapidly adopt a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
66 1
Federal regulation.
I think you can go back to that record 2
and review that with respect to this particular issue.
3 MR. PARIS:
There is a mechanism in a state system 4
where we can implement immediate rules by a license 5
condition.
We can administratively amend a license, to say 6
that you shall do this.
The case you pointed out, Shelly, 7
is what we did.
8 MR. KULIKOWSKI:
I was going to say the same 9
thing.
We have a whole host of mechanisms at our disposal, 10 license conditions and the like, that if something is of 11 such paramount public health and safety impact, that why 12 wait for even a week to get a regulation through when you 13 can do it immediately.
14 The second point I wanted to make is about the 15 cooperativity between -- it's sort of related to this.
The 16 Part 20 implementation has been synchronized so that through 17 the efforts of both the NRC and the agreement states that we 18 have one implementation -- things like this are possible, 19 with some planning and some forethought.
20 MR. HILL:
One other comment along the lines of 21 adopting rules essentially verbatim, a regulation to allow 22 that.
I think we must remember, that states have our 23 administrative procedures that we have to follow. Not only i
24 do the radiation control programs have to follow those but 25 all other state agencies have to follow the same rules.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
67 1
That has to be t_aken into consideration when 2
talking about implementing rules in a hurry.
License 3
condition is another way of doing it.
4 MR. MANN:
What are the core elements of a 5
compatible program in the area of improved public health and i
6 safety.
Any comments from the public on that question?
7
[:No response.]
i 8
MR. MANN:
Moving right along.
The next sub 9
bullet E, adoption timeframe. You may refer in the issue 10 paper to that section.
We are up to page 16, 17 and 18, 11.
adoption timeframe.
Are.there comments on that section.
12 MR. LACKER:
I guess I don't see what the issue is 13 in adoption timeframe.
What is an issue that has occurred 14 where the state's adoption of a rule is created a bad' 15 situation with health and safety, is there one.
I am not 16 aware of one.
~
17 Generally in our state we get our rules adopted 18 within the timeframe allowed under the rule.
Although i
19 sometimes we don't quite make it, it's generally some rule 20 we consider not necessarily that important to health and 21 safety or protecting the worker.
22 For instance, we were not compatible one year 23 because we didn't have a rule adopted that had been adopted 24 by the NRC, which was basically the quarterly review of the 25 radiographers.
We, at-that time, had a certification ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court. Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
s 68 I
program for our radiographers where we tested all of them 2l and required two man crews and other things, that we thought 3~
were:more critical to health and safety of those 4) individuals.
t 5
We just'didn't-get that rule done.
We were about j
l' 6-six months late.
We were considered not compatible under 7-that adoption occurred. ~ There's not.-- I-don't know how you 8
could do it.
There isn't any leeway there, I guess.
l t
l 9
I guess-_if we are going to'have a hard and fast i
10.
rule,.a rule must'be_ adopted within the'three years or i
. ~
11 -
- whatever the timeframe is.
Shouldn't there be some j
i 12-indication of what the significance of that rules is that l
13 requires it to be' adopted within that period of time'.
14 MS. JOHNSRUD:..Perhaps I missed'something. 'In the f
~
i
[
'15 event:that the Commission should find an incompatibility l
l-i 16 sufficient _to take action, can you specify for us what are 17 the formal-appeal procedures.
Does the NRC have such in I.
~
place on a standardized basis for appeals.and other 18 19 decisions. Have you worked out within agreement state 20' review, what to do if you decide to yank the agreement.
21 MR. SCHWARTZ:
That's a very interesting question, 22 and one that we have been grappling with for the last six t:
l 123
' months in great detail.
When a review is done of a state as 24 we said earlier, there are two decisions that are
[
25 essentially made with respect to an agreement state program.
L
- 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i<
1612 K. Street,.N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950-
. - ~
L I
l l.
69
?
1 One is that it's, adequate to protect the public l
p 2
health and safety-and compatible with the NRC program.
As 3
we were saying earlier, the adequacy portion that i
4.
determination is principally based-on the programmatic l
5 elements and how the program is being carried out.
The l
6 compatibility portion principally deals with whethei or not l-7
'the recent regulations that have been adopted by the Nuclear P
8 Regulatory Commission and are matters of compatibility by f
9 Jthe various divisions, one, two and three, whether the state 10 has adopted.them within three years.
j i.
I 11-
-The record is mixed with respect to how long it l
12 takes or what the NucIear Regulatory Commission does with 13 respect to.a state ~that does not have compatibility I
\\
~14
. regulations within the three_ years.
i 15 Our principal ! node of working with the stats.s is r
t 16 to say. folks, it's impor' tant to have these regulations in
-17 place'.
The states.almost always put the regulations in l
\\
18 place likeLthey are supposed to do.
There are some i
19.
outliers, where there.are states that do not have all of the 20 regulations in~ place that are necessary for compatibility
.4 21 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
22-
-Ne work with the states, we recognize that they l
23 have a difficult. time'sometimes with respect to the 24.
-resources available to put regulations in place, with 25 respect to administrative procedures that need to be put in L
L
't -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l'
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 L
1 i
70 l'
place.
But by in large, t_he states do cover -- I am making 12 a generality and I know that through the years when making 3
generalities 'whern I say the states, that there will always j
4-
- be the-exceptions on all sides.
~
5 Generally, the states'do put what is the purpose 6-of the regulation as through a licensing condition, to make 71 sure that public-health and safety is, protected, although
~8' they may~not have the' regulation in pla c 9
MR. KERR:
Let me just make an oisservation.
Three 10 years doesn't give us-much heartburn in terms of adopting
-11 regs that we think need to be adopted in Illinois.
I think
-- 12
.most agreement states don't have any great difficulty with,
{
13 that..
I I
i 14.
But we have to remember that NRC revised 10'CFR i
1 15_
Part~20 in 1991, and it took 11 years and three years for an I-16 implementation date, for'a good reasons for implementation 17
'date.-
It's sometimes a little-hard to get excited about I
.18 adopting something in three years when you have a regulation 19 that took 11-years plus three, that is very far reaching and 1
20' touches essentially;all licensees.
-21'
~I think, to me, that puts it a little bit in L
22 perspective.- Most of them are not of the same importance as l:
23-that: major revision to Part 20 l'
24 MR. FUENTE:
One of the things we may want to look 25' at.here is not.how long it's going to take to get the L,
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters h
1612 K Street,-N.W., Suite 300 p
washington, D.C. 20006 y
-(202) 293-3950
.y.
--.r
.m, 4-..,,m--
-.-,4-,.,,
- -,,,-..wm
71 1
correct regulation place.
_ e should stop and think about W
2 the fact that many licensees being state agreement 3
licensees, are disenfranchised in the procesc because the 4
agreement states don't in essence promulgate ae rule at the
.O 5
same time that the NRC does.
6 What typically happens is, the NRC notifies their 7
licensees and they also notify the agreement states.
One 8
thing after another it's a very quick process, relatively I
9 speaking.
Our licensees don't really get a heads up that L10 something is coming down the pike; that in three years they 11-are going to have to comply with.
12 I think what needs to happen is for the agreement 13 states to catch up with the NRC so that we really do things 14 sort of at the same time..That is cumbersome.
That creates 15 all sorts of problems for the regulators in terms of 16 justifying' decisions that are made, but it's probably the 17 most effective way for licensees to get some input into the 18 process.
19 There was a comment earlier about communications, 20 the differences between states.
That would be really a 21 great time to bring those things up, because both the NRC 22-and the agreement states, collectively or individually, 23 would be handling it at the same time.
There would be a L
24 forced effort to reconcile the differences between the f
25 states.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
L l
l-72 i
\\
(
1 MR. QUILLIN:
I_certainly agree, that the states 2 _-
should have really a substantial involvement in the 1
i l
3 regulatory development process.
However, I do have a
[
4 question about this process because.it involves a use of 5
resources.. Some states have people available to do this
)
l 6
work, other states do not.
{
i l
-: 7 Is-it envisioned that only those states which l
8 would have those people available would participate in this 9'
process?
Is there some other mechanism which you envision, r
-10 in which all agreement states would have equal opportunity 11 to participate in this rule development and regulatory guide
-12 development, et cetera?-
13-MR. BRINER:- Maybe I missed something here in the
)
i 14 discussion'so-far.
Did we ever come to any conclusion about
?
15 what constitutes compatibility?
What are the real issues I
16 you are t'alking about?
17 MR. MANN:
We did not.
Would you care to offer
[
18 your shot at that question?
i 19 MR. BRINER:- I think my opening statement pretty l
l 2 0'-
- well summed that up, from my perspective.
Reduce it to the 21.
barest minimum that you have to, to guarantee certain basic 22 lalamanes such as 10 CFR Part 20 if you want to use that as a r
L 23.
starting point.
Beyond that, go very cautiously, because l
24
.you may find that there are better ways of complying with 25 Part 20 than your current full breadth regulatory structure i.
L 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 73 I
'l
-will allow.
l.
2 In other words, so not micro manage.
Micro manage f
3-where it's important, but_let the states take care of it j
4 from there on in.
5 MS. LIPOTI:
If nobody else is going, I will.
6
~Let's.just think about'how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission c
L 7.
is going-to look ten _ years from now.
I think it will be j
r 8
smaller,: because I think every state is going to have to i
9-become'an agreement state, because the fees that are going l
10 to be charged to the licensees that are in non-agreement l
l 11 states'are: going to be so high that they are going to force l
12 the non-agreement states to become Agreement States.
l l
13
.So, if you are not going to have fees to support i
'14 the program at the Federal level to come up with revisions l
' 15 '-
to the regulations,Lwho is going to write the regulations.
i j
16 It has to be-the states.
We are going to have to write our i
.17 own regulations.
18.
Then, how long is it going.to take for us to reach 19 consensus.
My goodness.
(
J20
[ Laughter.]
L j.
21 MS. LIPOTI:
I wish that there was a time limit t
-22' aftebNCRPandICRPmakearecommendation, for a revision of 23 10 CFR Part 20 or whatever the equivalent would be in 24 state's rights..These international agencies came up with
.25
' recommendations for what is adequate to protect human health r";
y o :.-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,'LTD.
l' Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington,.D.C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950-E
74 1
and-safety and it took NRC-11 years to act on the old 2-recommendation and-a new recommendation came out in the 3
meantime.
4 We need to have those kinds of things.
But if we 5
try and.do it fast then'where does the public participation 6-go.-
I think one of the best models you have is what's going 7-
-on with the enhanced participatory rulemaking on the clean 8
up standards.
It surely is going to take more than three J
'91 years to come up with a good regulation there. In the end, 10 everybody is going to buy into the process.
11 MR. SCHWARTZ:
If I may, let me open up, since in 12
.this section-there was a little tie in to Issue 4 13 implementations.
Let me take a little bit of license and j
14 moving into a little' bit of future speak here.
-15 In-answer to your question, ten years from now 16 where-are we going to be, I would like to throw out for 17 consideration -- maybe not now but maybe_later and tomorrow 18
.I really believe that somewhere along the line the 19' Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors suggest a l
'20 state' regulation ought to get a status of consensus 21 regulations, consensus regulations that everybody would 22 salute and everybody would say that's the law of the land.
23 If you have suggested state regulations in place, 24 ergo, you are compatible with the Nuclear Regulatory r
~25 Commission.
You are compatible with whatever new radon, l
i l
i l
L_
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
-Washington, D'.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
75 1
whatever is coming down the pike.
Look to that organization l
[
2
.to be where you are going to get comments on new 3
regulations.
Let's maybe first go to a committee of the 4
CRCP -- I am looking forward -- a Committee of the CRCPD as 5
the experts in this particular area in the United states and 6
seek their comments.
7 I guess I am a mechanical engineer by training, 8
and I am used to dealing with ASME standards and all those 9
other things.- They grew out of these kind of industry and l
10 also state regulators, the need to protect the public health 11 and safety from boilers.
It was that simple.
People said 12 we better do something.
L 13'
'I am looking a little further and saying, maybe 14:
that's'the' kind of status we~ought to give to the radiation 15 standards and tag the CRCPD and empower the CRCPD and get f
i l
16 the insurance industry or others who worry about the costs l
17 of radiation across the board, and maybe that's the way we 16_
'ought to go and the NRC ought to get out of the business of 19-making compatibility determinations if they say you live on 20 this standard and you apply that standard, and we are there, 21 with the'NRC still having -- it's still going to have a 22 rulennaking and a regulatory role, there's no question about 23 that, as long as we are a statutory agency.
24 Still, somewhere along the line there's a way of 25 coming together.
I will throw that out for some discussion.
I ANN RILEY E ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 0
76 1
MR. BAKER:
My first comment, I am pleased to hear the recognition of the work of the CRCPD in developing those 2
l.
3 suggested state regulations.
I know that a lot of work has 4
gone into those, and I am very pleased to hear that i-5-
recognized.
6 My other comment is concerning an earlier 7
statement, that some of.the agreement states have limited l
8 resources.that they haven't got sufficient-to deal with that 9
program.
I have a question then, whether in fact such a 10 state.should be.an-Agreement State.
11 MR. WILLIS:
I would like to make a comment on 12.
your suggestion about reliance on ICRP, NCRP regulations.
13 It also reflects a little bit on Jill's comments.
i 14 As many of you know, there was a great-deal. of
.15 discussion within the NRC staff about the new Part 20.
One 16 of the objectives.was to come up with something that was
'17 compatible with the new ICRP recommendations, 1977.
There 1
18 was at one point a differing professional opinion brought 19 up.
20 We brought in Charlie Meinhold who is head of ICRP 21 and NCRP, and we got a recommendation from him as to what 22 actually needed to be done to Part 20 to make it compatible l
23 with the new recommendations.. Charlie's comment was, all we 24 needed to do was eliminate one phrase,-the dose limit for 25
~ occupational exposure that was the five N minus 18 and ANN RILEY E ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 77 1
simply go to a five rem per year limit, and we would have 2-achieved it.
1 1
3 There was a great deal more to our regulation, the 4
new Part 20, than getting general compatibility with the 5
ICRP, NCRP recommendations.
6 MS. MAUPIN:
I do want the question to be on the 7
record, whether an agreement state which does not plan to 8
regulate a particular activity, what if any should be their 9
timeframe for adopting a regulation which they do not have,a 10 licensee in their state that is doing that activity and they 11 do not plan to have a licensee.
Can they do that by license 12 condition or should we continue to withhold compatibility in i
i 13 those cases.
14 MR. KULIKOWSKI:
I would like to direct a response
)
H15 to that.
New York is probably the unique agreement state,
\\
16 in tha',. we have four agencies implementing our agreement.
17 The health departments do not have statutory authority over i
18 industrial uses of radioactive materials.
The Commission 19 has never withheld compatibility if the health deparuments 20 don't have regulations on radiography.
21 MR. FRAZEE:
Also in response to Cardelia, a state 22 that does not have a low level waste site -- which would be 23 our Section M of the CRCPD suggested state regulations.
We, 24 in Mississippi, have not adopted those regulations.
l 25 I would like to second Shelly's comment regarding l
8 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
V 78 l
1 the suggested state regulations.
I think this is an avenue 2
that.we:in the states should follow.
I think it's working much better than it was a few 3
f 4
years.'ago.
I know when I was chairing the ROC, the SL Regulations Overview Committee, one of my greatest l
-6 disappointments was that you had this hard working groups
.7.
working on the different sections of the regulations and we l
8 had all of these resource people from the different Federal 9
agencies during the promulgation of these regulations.
f v
10 Then, when'it,came time for the different Federal l
11 agencies to concur on'these. suggested state regulations,
-12 that's when they would take it to their legal counsel, thus, 13-delaying the' states getting'the regulations for them to
'14
' follow.
15
.MR., SCHWARTZ:
You are suggesting end the process l
h 16
- earl, L
i
'17-MR. BRINER:
Just for the record, Nuclear Medicine
'~
c i
l 18
' organization would support that concept too, the conference
. 19 taking;over this activity if they so chose.
20 MR.. PARIS: -Along that line, as the Chair of the 21
.SR council for the CRCPD working group on regs, I will carry l-22 that massage back.
I would also like to reinforce that 23-Eddie~ implied.here,--that we need a good turnaround time for
- 24 all comunants, states' as. well as Fed's 'on these rules.
25-MR. KULIKOWSKI:
I would like to take that one i:
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
p
' Court Reporters L
-1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C. 20006 L
(202) 293-3950 s-
l 79 1
step further.
I think this was something that Terry Frazee l
2 and several.other people discussed at the Orlando conference l
3 meeting almost a year and one-half ago.
4 That was that the suggested state regulation 5
committees, because they are all matched up with the Federal 6
regulations, the Part G for Part 35, would be the ideal 7
place for NRC rulemaking to begin.
That committee can form j
l 8
the core group of a state, Federal working group, to start i
9 regulations right at the'very beginning.
10 I know that this was one of the concerns that a 11 lot of states have voiced, is that we see the regulations l
12 sort of when the regulated community sees it, and it's sort i
13 of set in concrete.
I know that has changed over the past j
14 couple of years.
Back when I started in this game seven or 15 eight years ago, we saw the regs further on.
I know that j
16 there has been a significant improvement in that.
17 If I can just take it one step further, go right 18 to the conference committees.
19 MR. SCHWARTZ:
I was speaking for myself, not the 20 Agency.
i 21 MR. LACKER:
When did you start that, Shelly?
22 (Laughter.]
23 MR. SCHWARTZ:
When it's convenient.
24 MR. LACKER:
When the boss is sitting beside you?
L j-25 MR. SCHWARTZ:
You got it.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l~
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
b i
80 1
[ Laughter.]
1 2
MR. LACKER:
The question was raised about smaller 3-states with l'mited staff, and whether or not they should be t
4 ~
an agreement-state.
There are limited agreements available, l-L-
.5 I don't know how far the division of those limited t
6 agreements go right now, but I can see where some smaller
)
7 states have very limited responsibilities in licensees in 8
.their state and might not have a large staff.
9 At the same time for those thirgs that they l
j 10
' regulate, it might be well for them to have the opportunity 11 to be an agreement state.
l 12 MR. MANN:
Judith, and then Jill.
l l
13 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Going back to some of the comments 14
-concerning the use of_ICRP and NCRP,.
I think some of.us l
15 from the public interest. community are a bit _ concerned that i
16
-- very concerned -- about the length of time that it make
~
17 take for there to be an alteration in NRC's Part 20.
l 18 We might have the same problem with states.
On 19 the other hand, there are some states that have been looking 20_
at independent standards that are more restrictive, that are l
5 l
21 more quickly responsive to new information in the medical
.22 and other scientific literature that would cause the state 23 to conclude that they need to have a more restrictive 24 approach in order to be prudent.
L 25-I think that concept of prudence and ability on i:
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950
-,,.s
i 5
81
_the parts-of-the. states to respond and respond more quickly 1-2 than the NRC at least has chosen to do, is significant for 3
them.
i 4-MS'. LIPOTI:
I just wanted to comment briefly on 5
the use off the CRCPD to come up with your suggested state 6
regs..I love the CRCPD.
One of the biggest' problems that we r
7
.have is that everybody working on these committees is 8
basically volunteering their time cur their state is 9
volunteering their time.
10 We-have been working a long time on the Part N 11 regulations.for NORM.
The reason that we haven't made a lot r
j;
.12' of.. progress.is because EPA said we are not going to do NORM 13 anymore.
We.are going to.take all our resources and put i
14 Jthem on the WIPP.
We don't have that Federal presence and 15 that Federal;research and development that is needed to 16-bring about regs.
I 17 I-am going to ask you once again, what is going to 18 happen to NRC in ten years,.when you don't have all those 19 licensees to pay the freight.. Who is going to do the 20.
research necessary to then get ready to write the next round j
21 of regulations to revise the regulations.
l 22-MR. SCHKARTZ:
Not to be flip Jill, that's 4 very 23 good question, but it's. going to be the licensees in
~
24-
-Wyoming.
25
.[ Laughter.)
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1612 K-Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 r
L Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)'293-3950-
-=
82 l
1 MR. SCHWARTZ:
It;'s a good question.
I don't have 1
2
'an answer for it.
It's something that we are going to have
~i 3
- to; deal with, no question.
l-4 MS. MAUPIN:
Just to follow up, the reason I j..
S' raised my question'is, I know that New York has a unique l-
.G situation in that'they have four agencies.
Even though we 7:.
didn't get that particular agency because they didn't do 8
2:-dustrial -- your partner agency might have caused the l-9 whole state to have compatibility withheld.
j 10 The reason I asked that is, looking back over the i
)
11-
. history of the Agreement State program I have seen cases 12 where a state did not plani as Mississippi said, to do low.
L 13 level waste.
Another state that I know of did not plan to 14 do--lou level waste, and they were cited for about three J
)
l 15-
' agreement state reviews for not having those regs.
I 16'
'I just want to put that on the record, we might 17 ~
need to consider that.
If they don't have it, should we say l.
18.
withhold compatibility.
l 19-MR. FUENTE:
Cardelia,-what Captain Briner said,
~
-20
-the-reason we didn't adopt them in Mississippi --
L Mississippi being a member of the Southeast Compact 21 L
22' Commission -- it would'be-120 years before we will be
.~
23-required to have the regulations in place.
24 MR.-MANN:
One-more comment-on this.
25 MR. BRINER:
I would simply observe, that I find L
l I.;
l: d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
p Court Reporters L
1612 K' Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 L.
Washington, D.C. 20006 l
1(202) 293-3950
l i
l 83 l
L 1-it astounding that there i_s a state that doesn't want to 2
handle low level waste.
1 3
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Before we leave this i
4 subject, I think Judith Johnsrud asked a question at the i
5 beginning as I understood it, I don't think it was 6
completely answered.
You asked something to the effect of, l
7 if the NRC determines that the state is incompatible what i
l 8
appeal or rights or what criteria do we use.
l 9
There has been no instance where we have suspended 1
L 10 or terminated an agreement as a result of incompatibility or j
11 even inadequacy.
If we did that, the statute speaks to i
12 that, if I recall.
It requires a hearing before doing that.
13 It is spelled out.
We must admit, we don't have criteria to l
14 determine when we take that action.
That is one of the 15 things we are committed to move toward and consider 16 establishing such criter'ia.
17 I think that was the basis of your question.
18 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Yes.
Essentially, a state would 19 have to go through an appeal process of the agency before it 20 could go to court.
21 COlWISSIONER REMICK:
Absolutely.
Yes, by 22 statute.
l 23 MS. JOHNSRUD:
It is En appealable, judicially 24 reviewable --
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
There is a statutory process l
r l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 L
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
84 1
involved,-yas, but it's never been implemented.
That's one 2
of the things we are going to answer to Friday, why haven't i
3 we.
4 MR. SCHWARTZ:
On page 28 of the issues paper we 5
do deal with issue 5, which is called revocation.
It's a 6
thumbnail sketch of exactly the issue.
We will get into I
7 more detail tomorrow.
8 MR. MANN:
The next issue, scope of policy, begins 9
in the position paper on page 18.
This is interesting, j
l 10 given the conversation that we have had so far in the day, 11 especially the uniformity or is it going to be some L
12
' definition of compatibility.
I 13 What this one seems to really ask is, how fnr does 14 one'go in seeking to show that the core elements of l
15 radiation control program are compatible.
On the next page L
16 there are some examples that sort of illustrate the 17 question.
18 The question is, how much of the state's program, 19-regulations only, regulations plus certain program elements 20 such as licensing and compliance or the entire state 21-program, should be reviewed by the NRC and considered in 22 determining compatibility with its national program.
i 23 Comments.
24 MR. HILL:
I will start.
I think that it's going 25 to have to be short of the entire program.
I think it needs i
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-i I
l-85 L
l 1-to.be more than just rules and regulations.
The licensing I
l l
2 compliance may be a good point.
For instance, reciprocity l
3 l hinges on what other states do and what we accept.
4-We would like'to know that the other agreement
['
5 states are doing a good job with their licensing before we
(
6.
grant reciprocity, before we accept for licensing or i
-7 something of~that nature.
8' I think that it_has to go beyond just rules and l
1 9
regulations.
When you start'getting into the entire program 10-you may get-into-administrative procedures that are in that 11 state and, there, I don't'think NRC would have jurisdiction I
12 to get involved-in those areas.
13' MR. LUBINSKI:'
I think from previously in the i
14.
discussion'we talked about baseline' regulations, wha't' are 15 the baseline, essentials.
We really looked at Part 20, and I L
16 guess.in further discussion talked about interstate commerce 17 wast the next place.
We started to talk about compatibility 18 and what;.is compatibility.
t j
19 I am throwing this out as a comment.
Should we l
'20 just look and find what are the basic requirements, mark l
~21'
.those:as'being these are the basic minimum standards, taking 22 consideration such as Part 20.
Also, take into 23 consideration state commerce and say any parts of the 24 regulations which meet these two requirements would be what 25 we would call now a Division Level 1 compatibility.
That I
ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 L
Washington, D.C.-20006 (202) 293-3950
. a
86 L
1 is, must be identical.
2 That would take care of some of the concerns that i
3l we are talking about now, as far as the reciprocity of I
4 someone going _into another state and also interstate 5
commerce.
Set that up as your minimum standard regulations 6
-between the states.
If that is in place that could be the 4
7 first level criteria for evaluating an agreement state.
EF Also, for the timeframe of implementation, they 9
could be the items that have to be implemented immediately t
'10
~and not to say immediately -- within the three year 11 timeframe t1utt we have discussed.
Then,-when you start to 12 get to regulations outside there which aren't the baselines, 13 then_you can start giving leeway.
But I think the decisions 14 ought to be made on what are the baseline regulationk in 15 dealing with Agreement States.
16 MR. MANN:
Wou'ld you just restate those two 17 questions.
18 MR. LUBINSKI:
In looking at the minimums the 19 comments were made earlier, basing it on exposure levels and 20 Part 21, basically on doses.
The second one is for the 21 interstate commerce.
Anything affecting interstate commerce 22 really should be on a division level one, because now you 23 are affecting other states' programs and you are ensuring 24 that when people are regulating items that will go to other l
25 states the other states can have the confidence that they l
t l'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950'
~
~
1 in 87 1
meet minimum safety levels.
)
2 MR. MANN:
Judith.
3 MS. JOHNSRUD:
I think there are many ways in i
1 4'
which other states may be impacted, apart from interstate 5
commerce.
Certainly, an accident at a facility regulated in
.6
^ one state for example can markedly affect adjoining states.
I 7
That' raises some important issues that would far l
8;.
transcend-interstate commerce with the exception of -- I j
9 won't go into that one.-
I will come back to that one.
1 l
10.
MR. QUILLIN:
I would agree with what Tom said, l
11 that the compatibility should go beyond the regulations and i
12~
rules.
If it does, I would like to see the NRC regions l
L i
13-evaluated on the same criteria.
14 MR. KULIKOWSKI:
Just to follow up on what' John 6
l
[
15 said, and to take a far left' position on this whole thing.
l
. Basically, I think that no one in this room probably would 16 l
17.
disagree that~there are certain regulations if you will, 18 that need to be uniform throughout the country.
I mean, not 19_-
only the. basic safety standards and interstate commerce 20 definitions, how you define a radiation symbol.
We don't i
21 want 50 different radiation symbols out there.
22 There are certain things that are intuitively g
23 oknrious that need to be uniform throughout the country. I 24 think as-I said a couple of years ago when we the states 25 were asked'for comments on compatibility.
I said, why don't M
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~ _,
m,__--.,__
BB 1
we make it as simple as possible.
2 Make those ones that absolutely have to be uniform 3
matters of compatibility and let everything else be handled 4
in a way that is most appropriately addressed by the states.
i i
5
.So you really have a division one which is verbatim 1
6 compatibility.
Division two, which is handle it any way you i
7 would like, basically a Division three and eliminate 8
division two at this point.
Division three would subsume 9
that.
10 It also would give you a little more latitude in 11
_that, if you-have one licensee that you have to deal with 12 and you have to address that particular licensee, it may be 13
.more cost effective, resource effective, to deal with it in 14 a license condition or an order rather than writing a,whole 15 regulation for one person.
16 MR. MANN:
Did I understand you to say that you 17 believe there's general agreement on what those --
f 18 MR. KULIKOWSKI:
No, I didn't say there's general 19 agreement on what they were.
20
[ Laughter.]
21 MR. MANN:
If you do, I would like you to recite l
22 them.
l
(
23 MR. KULIKONSKI:
Net on what they are.
There is a l
(_
24-certain set of things which exist, which need to be uniform.
25 The definition of that set is quite another matter.
r ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 89 l
1-MR. SCHWARTZ:
.I_was looking in the issues paper l
2 as to whether it is address and it may be somewhere.
Let me 3
just throw another thought, and maybe it's a cross cutting 4
thought here.
j i
5 That is the notion of requirements for the 6
agreement state program and its effect on the much larger l
i 7
Eset of the rest of the radiation control program that'you i
I 8:
are all responsible for.
Somewhere along the line there's a l
9 relationship.
I am not sure how to characterize it, good, l
i 10 bad or indifferent, whatever..
'11
'What is:it, with respect to the agreement
\\
12 materials program and its affect if there is one, on the l
l 13 rest of your radiation control program whien is three or
-14 four times larger -- maybe it. isn't but in my view tliree or i
15 four times larger -- than the~ agreement materials program.
l 16
-In the context of the requirements for l
17 compatibility and the subset of the uniform requirements and l
18' so on, on down the line, I would'like to see that joined 19 together somewhere along the line because I think it's l-20:
really important as to how those things fit together.
Maybe 21:
we got it somewhere else in there.
Let me just throw this 22
.out.for-discussion, if I may.
t 23 MS. DICUS:
You have hit on one of the things that H
24:
did bother us, and we' brought this up in several cases with l
L
.25 our-regulations because the Diagnostic Misadministration l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l
~1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
t 90 1
rule for example which was-a compatibility item, I think we 2
were going to have to implement it.
Which means that, since 3-
.also regulate radiation producing machines to be logical to l
4 address.the public health and safety which is what we should 5
be addressing, I was going to have to implement some sort of i
6
-diagnostic misadministration rule for x-ray machines, i
7 That was a nightmare, to try and figure out what l
i 8
.that rule would be.
We. looked at it.
Is it so many 9
retakes,- it is this or that.
What is it going to be.
We 10' simply could not do it.
Fortunately, we were able to 11 somehow or another pull back from the Diagnostic i
12 Misadministration Rule, j
13 It becomes an example of where, as a program, as a i
l 14 total program, that we implement.
We feel a sense of i
15 frustration in. dealing with this small segment of our
-16 program because the agreement part of my program is about 20 17.
percent of it.
You have;to do the coordination.
18 Since I have the microphone, I might talk about 19 Dave's definition of compatibility which I can go -- I think 20 that's a great definition. I probably wouldn't even try to L
21 define it so much, because I am not so sure compatibility is 22 the. term that we should be using anyway.
I 23 In looking back over the history of 274, it seems i
24 as though' Congress hadn't intended at that time to try to V
l 25 put together a coordinated program.
I thought about some of l
i
.O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
[
(202) 293-3950
,e...,,v.,,m-y
-.,v..m vm...,
l 91 l
1 the things we were looking,at in core issues.
If we talked 4
2 about them in terms of not compatibility but read it off --
l l
3 if I can find my outline.
4 What are the core elements of a coordinated i
i 5
program operated in a cooperative fashion for the objective 6
of the public health and safety. 'If you'go at it from that 7
. angle and you looked at each one of these things you see l
8' them a little differently.
l 9
I know that the Act says that the program be l
10 compatible and I understand that, but it started talking i
i i
11 about'the coordination which is pointed out in the issues 1
12 paper, talking about coordination and. cooperation of a l
t 13 program through these multi-regulatory agencies.
Again, it l-14 comes back to addressing some of the concerns the indostries have,.in getting too many programs out is what was happening l
[
16-and too many differences.
Yet, we need the flexibility to l
17 address what we have to deal with at the local level.
.18 What are more potentials for impacts on the public health.
j 19 Safety in the oil producing states with l
l l
20 radiographers, that is much more of an issue than it will be i
l 21 in some of the other states.
You need that flexibility for 22 the oil producing states of which Arkansas is a minor one at 23 least, to have to address.
'24 Then, you get into NORM of course.
We have a 25 problem with it.
we are trying to address it among L
I C
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
t i
92 1
ourselves because no one else is, and we have to at some 2
point in time.
-3 MR. BAKER:
That sort of raises a question, when 4
we come to definitions and symbols.
Shouldn't we be looking 5
at this from an international point of view.
A number of 6
licensees are involved in international transactions.
7 In another area, that of transportation, we find i
8 ourselves is we are in compliance internationally with the 9
IAEA regulations and out of compliance with the U.S. DOT.
10 But I won't -- my main focus is that radiation symbols and 11 definitions of units surely should be on an international 12 basis.
l 13 I was very pleased to see that NRC has gone that 14 way with the radiation symbol, the black on yellow instead 15 of a magenta on yellow.
~
16 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Let me throw out the question of 17 what trade agreements such as GATT, NAFTA might do in terms 18 of' impacts on both the NRC's programs and those of the 19 states with regard to regulation.
That is to say, there 20 have been raised questions concerning the override of state 21 and Federal requirements by the international treaties that 22 they may or may not lie ahead of us in this regard.
23 We have seen the recent court decision with 24 respect to environmental inrpact statement on NAFTA, as an 25 indicator of something related to this concern.
l I
l' l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950-
93 l'
1 MR. SCHWARTZ:
I-don't have the answer.
I was 2
going to turn to legal counsel.
Kathryn, do you have an 3
answer.
4 MS. WINSBERG:
The example that you just cited had i
l l
5 to do with the prevalence of the NEPA over the trade l
l 6
agreement,.not the trade agreement over NEPA.
7 MS. JOHNSRUD:
But we haven't signed that trade j
8 agreement yet.
9 MS. WINSBERG:
Right.
Anyway, my main point is 10 that I am not aware if we have looked at anything about l
11 international treaty affects on our regulations.
l 12 MR. PARKER:
With regard to the last question, we l
13 had an opportunity some years ago to look at the EC, what l
14 they were doing.
You will not be allowed to Ecll anyEhing 15 from the United States to the EC, unless you meet their i
16 regulations.
Their regulations are going to be all together l
17 different than ours. They already are in many areas.
f 18 I am not sure about in the radiation area.
j 19 Perhaps our people from Amersham can tell us whether their 20 regulations are the same as ours.
They will have a
(.
21 requirement that you will meet their regulaticas, or you l,
22 won't be allowed to sell.
23 After what Greta said went back to what you were i.
24 speaking about before, Shelly.
The Conference covers 25 everything.
If the conference is allowed to do this, they f
i l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
)
l (202) 293-3950
94 1
will~have'to take into account what impact does Part D have 2
when-it comes to the other parts where you folks don't have i
3-to do it.
4.
It may be time for somehow the Conference to get I
5 together with the' Organization of Agreement States, and
~
6 decide how this is going to be done.
If you pass a new Part 7.
20, Part D, Part N, these other parts will have to be in l
.i 8
'conformance with Part D'and won't cause them any problems.
l
-- 9
-The. Conference, I believe,;will have to takeLa look at this I
10 and make sure they are compatible or-coordinated -- whatever f
11 are the words~that Greta used -- and I think there is an
-.12 advantage to let them do it because they have all the parts.
13 They will cover the machines, NARM, NORM, et 14
. cetera.
i
'15 MR. MANN: ' Scope of policy, we are still on.
Are 16 there any'further comments on it?
~
p l-17 MR. BRINER:
I wonder if that might be a way for 18 the commission to get their. hands on areas of radiation that 19' they. don't have right now.
20 MR. PARKER:
I wasn't proposing that.
21-MR. MANN:. Any other comments on scope of policy.
22 MS. HIATT:
Getting back to the comment that I
'. 2 3 '
made at the outset about participation rights, particularly
.lega[hearingrights.
I know there is a section in Section 24 25 2741of the AEA and also in 150.31 which echoes it regarding l-L E
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
95 1
hearing rights, judicial review for both licensing and 2
rutemaking.
3 I would like to throw out the question to the NRC, 4
how much attention do you give a state's administrative 5
procedure in determining whether or not it is compatible.
6 MS. WINSBERG:
That is one of the criteria that is 7
looked at, in looking at a state in becoming an agreement 8
state.
But it's not an area of strict compatibility.
So, 9
the state is required to have administrative procedures but 10 they are not required to have identical procedures to the 11 NRC's.
12 MR. MANN:
Any other points of view about 13 MR. PARIS:
I don't know if it's a peint of view, 14 but we are talking about the scope of policy, and I think it 15 would be good if the Commission were to take a serious lcok 16 at this issue of SSRCR's and how they may fit into this 17 whole scheme of things.
We talk about the early and 18 substantive involvement in rulemaking, maybe the staff at 19 least would contact the SSRCR groups for that initial 20 process.
21 It would be good to have the Commission evaluate 22 the SSRCR's and how they fit into the whole scheme.
23 MR. MANN:
Other comments.
We are about 15 24.
minutes ahead of the point that we thought we would be in, 25 appearing to close out A through F.
Going back through, if ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
96 1
there arc any comments on A through F, what are the core
~ 2 elements of a compatible program in any of those, let's hear 3
those comments now.
i 4
COMMISSIONER REMICK: - One point I might go back.
5-A statement was made earlier, that there is no known case l
6 where the fact that a. state did not im;'.ement our regulation
'7
.in.a' period of three years with any health and safety 8
' impact.
i 9
I trust that is the truth.
The reason I say that 10 is, we are testifying to that effect on Friday, that that is f
-11 the case.
If any of you-know.of an instance it would be 12 good to know at this moment.
13 MR. IACKER:. Commissioner Remick, I said I don't
-'14 remember.
You have to take into account my age and t'he 15 short' term memory is about gone.
16' COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is anybody aware of any case 17-that went beyond three years that have resulted in health 18 and safety impact on the public?
We are now aware of any.
~
- 19
[No' response.]-
L
' 20 MR. LUBINSKI:. We have been talking a lot about l
21 the state's involvement as well as the' licensee from l
22.
- agreement' state involvement early in the regulatory process 23
.in-forming new regulations.
i 24 I guess the question that I have is, in going b
25-through'the process the proposed rules go out in the Federal
' ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street,.N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.
T
-e.
q.y wyya
-~
i i
7 l.
1 97 1
1 Register and the NRC sends, copies to the agreement state 2
programs as well as to all affected licensees by the rule 3
changes, giving them a chance to comment.
l 4
I know in many rules that we have worked on, we 5
have gotten a fair number of comments back from licencees 6..
within agreement states.
I guess the question is, where is l
l 7
the breakdown where the agreement state licensees are not 8
getting the input into the rules prior to NRC making them 9
final rules.
That is, in the NRC's proposed rule stage.
l 10.
We have seen some comments.
The question is, is l
11 therelreally a breakdown.
It sounds like there is, and I l
.- 12 was questioning where.
1 13 MR. MANN:Any information on that?
f 14 MR. IACKER:
I am not sure there's a breakd6wn.
I 15 think it's'directly proportional to the interest of the 16
' licensees in the agreement states to what's going on at the
.17 Federal level.- They know the trickle down is going to 1
18 trickle down.
19 MR. LUBINSKI:
That was the reason for the 20 question.
It seems that we have been getting the comments.
21
.If we are taking them into consideration during our proposed 22 rulemaking tho' process when the agreement state decides to 23 make'it compatible -- during that rulemaking we are also 24' making.the statements of. compatibility and putting that out 25
-to.the public to the question of, should this'be Division
'0 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
._ ashington, D.C. 20006 W
(202) 293-3950
..i
I
\\
l 98 1
level one, two, three compatibility, getting the input back i
i 1
2 from the states.
3 With that, I guess we have trouble seeing where 4
the states are having problems getting the rules through 1
5 their states if we have already taken their licensee's 6
viewpoints into consideration.
7 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Let me parse it, if I may.
- Yes,
]
i 8
the issue that I raised was Agreement State licensees and we 9-did hear that in San Francisco.
Again, I guess you are 10 saying we are hearing from agreement state licensees on i
l 11 proposed rulemaking.
)
12 The other part of your question and that is early l
13 and substantive involvement of' agreement states themselves 14 in a rulemaking, that is where the process I think wks nor l
15 working well early on, a number of years ago.
I think we 16
.have worked to this point of trying to get involvement of I
17
~ Agreement States through two major meetings that we have in 18-addition _to trying to get the rules out to the Agreement 19 States early on before it's cast in concrete, before it's a 20 proposed rule.
If it's a proposed rule it's too late.
21 That's not what I mean and not what the states 22 means early and substantive involvement, It's when thoughts 23 are being -- when somebody raised the issue should we take a 24 rule on a particular issue, that's th'e time.
25 It's not just a procedural thing.
It's the notion i
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
)
(202) 293-3950
1 l
99 1
that there is substantive information, substantive technical 2
expertise in the Agreement States.
The Agreement States 3
have 15,000 materials }icenses and the NRC material program l
4 is about 7,000 licenses.
There is substantive expertise in 5
the Agreement States.
6 I really think that since the reach is larger than 7
the Agreement States program and the NRC materials program 8
in that area and also there is substantive expertise in the 9
Agreement States programs themselver, that's the reason that l
10 I think it's very important that we get the early 11 involvement, before we get to tha. point of protecting turf 12 and protecting our ideas and draftsmanship.
That's what I-13 mean in early and substantive involvement.
14 MR. FUENTE:
I raised the issue on Agreement State 15 licensees, and I guess I would ask you, have you looked at 16 what states they are coming from?
And, are these big 17 businesses that can support regulatory compliance staff and t
18 they have some feelers out there.
19 I think there are some states that try to tip off 20 their licensees that something is coming down the pike.
But 21 that's probably the exception rather than the rule.
There l
22 is certainly an economic impact on all licensees, small 23 licensees in particular.
They deserve the right to know
.24-
'about these regulations at a time when they really can truly r
l 25 submit comments that will be heard and acted upon.
l
.l.
j b
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters j
L 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i'
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
l 100 1
Not three years later, when I, as a regulator have 2
to say sorry, this is a matter of compatibility.
I can't 3
change the wording here.
l 4
MR. LUBINSKI:
The reason for the question as you 5
are.saying, some of the comments that we may be getting are 6
from bigger business who hear about it from a third party, I 7
guess is a procedural question.
Why can't we just at the f
8 time of putting out a proposed rule, require all the 9
agreement states to send to all affected licensees as well.
l 10' MR. LACKER:
We do notify our licensees when the 11 rules are coming, and sometimes we even mail them out.
But 12 it gets to be more and more difficult.
Tight economies in.
13 states, just for the mail bill.
I think that every state is 14 going to have its approach to that.
15 I think I can speak pretty unanimously.
I have l
16 heard it in Organization of Agreement State meetings.
We 17 don't like to be told to mail these to our licensees.
18 That's another issue.
l l
19 I have been around a long time, as most of you are l
20 aware, back when they came off the. ark with these first AEC 21 rules I was there, wasn't I, Shelly?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ:
I don't remember it.
1 I
23'
[ Laughter.]
.24 MR. LACKER:
I think the issue of compatibility -
I L
25
- before I came to this meeting I read our agreement again.
j i
i
'l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters l.
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l'
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
101 E
1 One article says the AEC -- that's how old it was -- will i
2-use its best efforts to have compatible regulations with the 3
states, and the states will use the -- the second issue is,
(
4 the states will use their best efforts.
5 I' guess one of the discussions we have had over 6
the years in the Agreement States meetings with the NRC is,
.7 we have some good ideas.
Let us get involved early on.
It 8
has improved some, but it's still not.where we would like to 9-see it'.
Take advantage of our expertise out there.
We do 10-have-now,-35 years worth of' Agreement' State expertise 11 developed ~over years.
i
'12 I would also like to' point out that the agreements
.13 says~the AEC will.use its best efforts to develop compatible 14
'regs with the states, too.
i 15 MS. JOHNSRUD:
There are two points here.
- First, 16 I really want to commend the NRC for its residual i
17 radioactivity public process.
I am more than a little i
i 18 concerned to hear that the states will let the licensees 19' know when presumably the real concern is public-health and 20-safety and the environment.
21 The public is in need of being at least as fully
-22 informed:as the licensees who will be affected by regulatory 23 fchange.
24 My other. point, I want to again the raise the 25
. question of. guidance as opposed to rulemaking.
I am very i
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
102 1
much concerned that the move in the direction of ever 2
greater guidance on the part of the NRC rather than the 3
formal rules that do require public notice, may reduce the 4
opportunity for members of the public and maybe the 5
licensees and maybe even the states to be fully informed in 6
advance of rulemaking.
7 I think that would be a most unfortunate 8
direction.
So, maximizing the opportunity for information 9
for all affected parties is very important.
)
10 MR. BRINER:
I would agree with the need for 11 public information, certainly informing the public.
I think i
12 regarding some of the problems that others are talking about 13 here, I can speak from some perspective from a medical
's 14 program at NRC.
15 They have recently taken a program on where they 16 have fellows.
I use that without a sexist orientation, 17 believe me, ladies.
They have people who come in from the -
18
- that NRC brings in -- to kind of a two way street.
It's a 19 medical program it was a practitioner and a nuclear 20 pharmacist recently that they had on board.
There might be 21 a similar type of program taken on by the Commission, where 22 members of the Conference of organization of Agreement 23 States might be brought in on that sort of personship.
1 24 MR. FUENTE:
I just wanted to expand on what Dave 25 was saying.
It wasn't until after the first three agreement ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 1
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
103 j
1 states, Kentucky, Mississippi and California, that the l
2 wording was changed.
Originally, it was the states will use 3
its best efforts.
Later it was a change, that both the 4
state and the Atomic Energy Commission will'make best 5
efforts.
l 6-MR. KULIKOWSKI:
That was in the New York f
7_
agreement.
8 MR. SCHWARTZ:
We have heard a couple of 9'
statements about the. enhanced participatory rulemaking, that l
10' being.one that we all ought-to-look to-as maybe the right i
11'.
way to approach a new rulemaking, particularly one_that is I
12-sensitive and controversial.
13
-Maybe Nick Costanzi can be thanked for it, Bob
[
14 Meck can be thanked for it.
One of the things that t. hey 15 just started within the last month I believe is, there is an 16-800. number which I think is absolutely terrific.
It's one 17 that I would like to look at.
Maria Lopez-Otin is here, and i
is
' Maria is in charge in our office and one thing that is on 19 her plate is how to improve the early and substantive 20
-involvement of the agreement states in rulemaking.
~
21 That's one: of the things we are really looking at.
'22-Ne any use a 900 number, I don't know.
'23
[ Laughter.]
g l
24 MR. SCHWARTZ:
It's one that is on~our plate,.one 25 that'I think is real and it's getting us into the 21st i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.H.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
104 1
Century.. I think that's what we all have to realize that we
'2 are all about.
This age of information is something that we 3
all~have to come up to speed to -- David -- no matter what.
4 We are trying.
5 MS. JOHNSRUD:
You need to have an 800 number for
\\;
j 6
those of us who have a modem and an 800 number for us who l
- 7 would rather use our own voices, please.
-8 MR.' SCHWARTZ:
Well taken.
9-MR. MANN:
Jill.
10 MS. LIPOTI:
Since we are on sort of a public
.11 -
participation' area, I will just' add.to that.
When you do 12 your findings of compatibility and adequacy NRC makes that, 13 decision,JI believe, in a closed door session with the 14 state. 'There is no public participation in that finding.
.15 That is a decision of the NRC's. solely and 16 completely, and not based cn any input from the public or 17 input from the licensees or input from anyone.
I was l18-wondering.a little bit about if there is any conflict 19 resolution procedure that is used in case you and the state 20 don't agree,-and if there is any opportunity for broadening y
21 the representation of those that are involved in the 22 decicace.
(23.
MR. SCHWARTZ:
I would like to hear-the agreement
'24-
-states. respond to that.
25
'MR. LACKER:
I have been in that argument.
l L
ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 L
(202) 293-3950
l-f 105 1
[ Laughter.]
2 MR. LACKER:
I won a couple and lost a couple.
3 But there is a procedure -- I don't know if it's a formal 4
procedure.
We write and object to that decision, and state 5
our reasons why.
Then, we ask the NRC to come to our state 6
and discuss it with us if they don't agree with our 7
objection.
They even did that a couple of times which is B.
very nice of them, since it's harder for us to get to i
t
! ~-
9 Washington.
i 10 Yes, there is an informal procedure.
Someone else l
11 would have to speak to a formal procedure.
We have argued f
L i
l 12
.the compatibility issue with the decision made of i
13 compatibility or lack of compatibility and won a couple of h
14 times.
l 15~
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Would you welcome the public r
'participftinginNRCdecision or in your decision to 16 17 respond?
P i
18-MR. LACKER:
I think that at that particular point 19 where it-is an interpretation of your rules, our rules and 20-so forth, that it's much better to be between the parties i
21-
. involved.
Then, if there can't be a resolution of that 22 issue, then perhaps get public involved.
23 MS. MAUPIN:
Basically what we are looking at is 24 responsibility and accountability.
The Atomic Energy Act
'25 gave.us the responsibility, and we in turn deliberate with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 g
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 106 the states, and there has_to be some type of accountability.
1~
i 2
When we went out with the GATT lines we went out 3
for public comments, and there has to be some level of trust 11 in a Federal agency because we are public_ servants.
When we 5-make our findings we do put them in the public document room 6
of each state.
So the state and public has an opportunity I
L 7
to go'and review those findings.
t 8
When we send our findings to the state the state
(
l 9~
does-have the opportunity which has already been stated, to 10?
say.look we.have done this or you overlooked this, so let's 11 reconsider.
We will then in turn go back and acknowledge to I
12 the states that we find this acceptable.
We will come out 13 in three months or six months and we will sit down and we i
l 14
'will talk'over this issue or resolve this issue.
15 As a Federal government employee, I think you do l
. 16 have to have some level of trust in terms of the people who i
17 are in those positions.
18 MS. JOHNSRUD:
I.would like to respond to Dave's 19 comment.
.I would strongly urge that it not be the two
-:20
. parties:alone. -After all, both of you are hired by and paid
. for'byfthaltaxpayers,.by the public.
Moreover, in facing 22 some of theseiconflict' situations between the two agencies I 23J think you,will find that the public that relies on your 24 various capabilities will begin to comprehend a lot more
-25 about the kinds of problems that are being addressed by the
[.
[
-1
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters
)
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
107 1
agencies.
l 2
I think you will find it to the benefit of both 3
levels of governance.
There is a really serious underlying i
4 constitutional issue at stake in this entire compatibility 5
probability problem, and it has to do with reserve powers of l
! the states.
It has to do with Federal preemption.
It has 7
to do with_ authority and responsibility.
Get the public l-8 knowledgeable and informed.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
There are two sides to what 10 I think you -- I understood-Jill to be saying she wanted the 11 public to be involved in the determination of compatibility l
12 and the determination by the state of whether they are going i
1
-13 to respond.
14 I heard Judy saying that that process where the 15 20U: get together and argue it out, that should be a public
\\
16 process.
Am I right?
Those are two different things in my 17
-mind.
i 18 MS. JOHNSRUD:
I think they may be two different 19 things.
I think what I am speaking for is openness,
~ 20_
openness, inclusion, in order -- we are all affected.
21 ColetISSIONER REMICK:
But that's different than i
g
- 22 what 1 heard Jill was saying, that she wanted the public to i
23 help'the NRC make that determination and help the state l
24 decide whether they are going to come'back and argue.
25-I guess I am not quite sure how I see that process 4
ANN R%EY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 t
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i l
los 1
would work effectively.
2 MR. KERR:
We just last month, were a recipient of 3
conflict resolution.
There was only one NRC person who was g
4 at that meeting that is here.
Five NRC people came out to i
5 discuss some regulation' changes of ours.
Frankly, we said 6
five people. coming'out to talk about trivia -- we really 7
thought 1they were trivial-items -- but they had to do with 8
various. regulations.
9 In retrospect, I think maybe it was very useful.
10 Th2re were some people who came who aren't exposed to us on i
11
'a daily basis, and:they heard us talk.
I think they came 12-
'to the conclusion that maybe these people do have a point l
13 Labout how they are responding, that we are-not out just to
~
i l
14-cause them grief by changing the regulations but we had a j
15 reason from changing them.
16 We-haven't heard from them formally as to how l
17, things turn.out, and in the end the decision is theirs.
But 18 it did turn out to be useful.
l 19
--MR.
MANN:
I am going to see the two hands that I L
20.
see now, and then we are going.to take a break.
21 MS. LIPOTI:~ I guess'I am responding partly to 2 2..
Cossaissioner Remick and partly to Cardelia's comments.
I am L
L 23 concerned about'this level'of trust that Cardelia believes I
24' that people have in government -- whether it's state or 25 Federal.- In this case-lump us all together, and government a-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
i 109 1
has not much trust anymore.
I would like to see us regain 2
that.
1 l
3 I feel very strongly about us regaining that, and l
(
4 I think we are doing a good job.
Perhaps we haven't shown l
5 how good a job we are doing.
It gets to Wayne's comment j
6-about-when how, when five people from the NRC came out and I
-7
. talked with the people out there on the front line doing the 8
work.- I said gee, they have'a point there.
l
(
9
-The more that we communicate in meetings like this 10 but also in other forums, the more we will regain that i
11 public trust..
Once something is lost it's very difficult to 12 regain.
It's too bad we lost that.
l 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I think that's a given i
l 14 though.- I have no problem with what Judy suggested, that i
15 those processes be open.
Personally, I have no problem with 16 that at all.
That's part of openness.
i 17 But for the public to participate in the NRC's 18 decision whether the State of Texas is compatible and then 19' to help that state decide whether it's going to come back 20 and argue with'us, I have difficulty finding how that 21 process.would work in a very efficient and effective manner.
l
- 22
'MR. LIPOTI:
Perhaps, if.you had some sort of l
- 23 advisory committee made up of individaals from within that 24-state who are affected by the state's decisions on
'25 licensing, that'could be a way to advise you..Not that they l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 p
(202) 293-3950 j
b' i
i 110 l-1-
would makelthe decision for you, but to give their input to l
l 2
that decision before you make a decision.
3 I recommend the same thing on the SALP process, 4
'where there are people who are very familiar with licensing 5
conditions and state conditions that may wish to provide 6-input-to the decision before it's made.
7 MR. HORNER:
I am a state agreements officer, and 8'
I am the' guy who is on the front line of these decisions.
I
'9
. ant to tell you that the public can be involved if they w
10
'want to be involved, and we,give them that opportunity.
11' First of all, there.are three levels that we go 12-
'through with the state, we go through with the person who 13 actually' physically does the work, the middle management, 14 the upper management, and then we will them that is $or our 1
15' own management and.we go back to the office.
That goes 16 through'about 100 concurrences.
When the letter goes out 17
'the letter is put in the public document room, and the 18'
_public can get involved at that time if they so desire.
19
. hen the response comes back that is put in the W
20 public document room, and they can get involved again.
When 21 the acknowledgement is put out that goes into the public y+
22 document room and they.can do it again.
23 What you are_ assuming-to say to me is, if you go L
U 24 out and -- fer instance let's talk about your x-ray program 25
-- you1 cite a person in the x-ray program, do you want the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 lt Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.~
i 111 i
i public involved in that.
I don't thin-cuat you do.
I 2
don't think that's an effective means.
l 3.
You also said that we have to consider the money i
4 aspect of this thing too.
I agree-with the public 5
involvement in making the original decision, what is 6
compatibility,.what rules should we have out there, that 7
goes along with it.
But our job in going out in looking at 1
8 the states or going out and looking at an individual r-9'
. licensee, that's what we do each and every day.
We can't 10
.put that out to the public each and every day.
We are doing I
11
.it to the extent that we can.
If they want to be involved
-12 they can.
13 I just'want you to know that the process is quite 14-a bit more involved and our time is for public.commeht in 15 there if they so desire, but they generally don't.
I have 16 had them comment.
17 MR. MANN:
Shelly, I need your help on this 18-
. timing.
We have gotten to the point where we have pretty 19
.much aired the issues under the basis issue number one.
I 20 will remind the people here that the real intention in 21 having a-session that went beyond 5:00 was that new members 22 of the public may show.up who'could not get here because 23 they work during.the day; and that they should have an
-24
-opportunity'to comment on the same th'ings that we have been 25-talking.about during the day.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950:'
112 1
That means'then,.that for those of you who have 2
been here all day one of your decisions is, do you want to 3
come back for that session which is going to recover the 4
same turf that we have been on during the course of the day.
5 That is certainly your decision.
6 Shelly, as I understand it, we are not intending 7
to open up tomorrow's issues in this evening's session; is 8
that right?
9
'MR. SCHWARTZ:
That was my intention, but I would 10 like permission from the group'if'anybody can help and give
.11-me some guidance on what your: schedules are.
I really think 12 there is adequate time tomorrow to discuss the remaining 13 issues.
Does anybody have any questions about that?
)
14
[No response.]
15 MR. SCHWARTZ:
We could start the discussion later 16 on this evening, but I inow many of you traveled today and I 17 don't think anybody wants to get into substantive issues. I 18 seeking guidance from the group.
Does anybody have any 19
. ideas.
20 MR. PARKER:
I don't know whether we should open 21 them up.
I certainly think the public should have the 22 opportunity to say whatever they want about either today or 23
- tomorrow, 24 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Absolutely.
25 MR. PARKER: I thought that's what you were talking 8
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
}
(202) 293-3950
I 113 l
1 about.
The public should have that opportunity.
2 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Can I offer, that we would recess 3
until 8:30 tomorrow morning, but I will reconvene at 5:30 l
4 for you all if you want to join.
It will be open for i
l 5
members of the public who want to speak on the record, for J
6 any issue.
If anybody wants to be here to help me, I would i
7 appreciate it.
8 MR. MANN: -That being said, let me adjourn you 9
with a little piece of trivia -- not really trivia this was 10
-important -- specifically I smiled at the conversation that 11
' Captain Briner on language. I was recently at a meeting l
12' where I was given the formidable task of resolving the 13 question of ladies and women.-
14 I went out and purchased the 32nd Edition of Emily
(-
15 Post and brought it into the meeting.
In that document and I got the group to-agree, that this is a reputable reference 16 1
17 if we can find it in here and resolve it in here, will you 18 agree to that.
The' group said that they would do so.
19 We all kind of poured through that twelve hundred L
20 and some_pages of that document.
What we could find was 21 that there were two references to the word, ladies.
One 22 was, ladies and gentlemen at dinner, and there was about a i
23
' paragraph that discussed ladies and gentlemen at dinner.
24 Then in the ending section in the index there was the i'
~25 citation:
Ladies, see women.
a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l I
114 1
[ Laughter.]
l 2
MR. MANN:
We kind of resolved it that way.
With i
l 3
that, I will let you go.
We will come back at 5:30 for the 4
.public session.
l 5
[Brief recess.]
6 MR. SCHWARTZ:
It's ten minutes to six, and seeing i
7I no new people other that Joe Lubinow who might want to be 1
t 8-represented as a member of the public, we will adjourn until 9
8:30 tomorrow morning.
Thank you all for your 10 participation.
I appreciate it.
t 11
[Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m.,
the meeting concluded.)
l l
12 L
13 14 t
15 l
?
?
16 17 18 19 20 21-22
~
L23' I
l_
24 25 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached, proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission I
in the matter of:
j NAME OF PROCEEDING:
Compatibility Issues DOCKET NUMBER:
l l
l-PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD vere held as herein appears, and that this is the L
original transcript thereof for the fils of the l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken i
by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by =a or under the direction of the court reporting
- company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
$s*T n f.e?.nu.r;-1 Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
l i
l n
l t
..