ML20127G090
| ML20127G090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301210142 | |
| Download: ML20127G090 (234) | |
Text
<" - --- - -
=:. . _
._ = - =_. ., -
<mi l l
,-- OFFICIAL dI 035ROCEEDINGS Agency: u.s. Nuclear Regulatory commission Elle: Office of State Program Vorkshop on 10 CFR Part 34 (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
I IDCATION: Irving, Texas DATE: Tuesday, November 17, 1992 PAGES: .124:- 355 i
1900JA ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,_LTD.
- 1612 K St. N.W, Suke 300--
ushington, D.C. 20006 ' --
(202) 293-3950 D) f# ~
. coa 2b014'd ao h een 17 .
porJian mpu gg 9 >q
124 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
4 5 OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS 6 WORKSHOP ON 10 CFR PART 34 7
8 ***
9 [PUBLIC MEETING) 10 11 ***
12 13 Crown Sterling Suites 14 Salon B 15 4650 West Airport Freeway 16 Irving, Texas 17 18 Tuesday, November 17, 1992 19 20 The workshop _ met in open session, pursuant to 21 notice, at 8:30 a.m., Vandy Miller,_-Presiding Official.
22 23 24 25 l
ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
125 1 NRC PARTICIPANTS:
4 2
3 VANDY L. MILLER, CHAIRMAN 4 DONALD COOL, MODERATOR 5 CHERYL TROTTIER, DISCUSSION LEADER 6 BRUCE CARRICO, NMSS 7 JACK HORNOR, REGION V 8 JIM MYERS, OSP -
9 TOM RICH, NMSS 10 MARJORIE ROTHCHILD, OGC 11 12 AGREEMENT STATE MEMBERS:
13 14 TIM BONZER, COLORADO 15 CINDY CARDWELL, TEXAS 16 MIKE CLEAVER, KENTUCKY 17 VICK COOPER, KANSAS 18 MARTHA DIBBLEE, OREGON 19 MIKE DUNN, TEXAS 20 DAVID FOGLE, TEXAS 21 BOB FREE, TEXAS 22 ROBERT FUNDERBURG, CALIFORNIA 23 BOB GOFF, MISSISSIPPI 24 MICHAEL E. HENRY, LOUISIANA 25 GEORGE L. KASYK, NEW YORK ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
_j
> 126
-1 AGREEMENT STATE MEMBERS, CONTINUED:'
.2 3 RICK KELLEY, ARKANSAS 4 JOE KLINGER, ILLINOIS.
5 MARGARET LOPEZ, NEW MEXICO 6 CORNELIUS MARYLAND, GEORGIA 7 JIM McNEES, ALABAMA 8 EDDIE NANNEY, TENNESSEE -
9 CARL TRUMP, MARYLAND 10 ROBERT VERELLEN, WASHINGTON 11 12 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:
13 14 GARY AMMON, OKLAHOMA 15 ROY L. BAILEY , DELTA AIRLINES 16 BRUCE R. BALLARD, CONSOLIDATED, NDE, INC.
17 W.-DENNIS CABE, DUKE POWER 18 ALLEN CASH, YUBA HEAT 19 RONALD SINN, ST. LOUIS TESTING LABS 20 HUGH K. HOWERTON, CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON CO.
21 RICHARD LOWMAN, U.S. NAVY 22 JIM MORGAN, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES 23 A.R. PATTERSON, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 24 CATHLEEN ROUGHAN, AMERSHAM CORPORATION 25 SHEARN SPENARD, AMERICAN AIRLINES ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
'i612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
127 1 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, CONTINUZD:
2 3 RONALD C. STEPHENS, DELTA AIRLINES 4 EMMANUAL TUAZON, CONSUMERS POWER CO.
5 BOB WALKER, CANADA 6 TERRY WALLANDER, WISCONSIN INDUSTRIAL TESTING 7 ROGER WHITE, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 8 -
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ,
20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, -N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
.- . . ~ . . - - . -..-- --- .. - - - . _ - . ..
128 1 PR0CEED.INGS 2 (8:30 a.m.]
3 MR. MILLER: Good morning. I have not changed. I 4 am still Vandy Miller. This is our full day today to 5 discuss the Part 34 Revision. I understand that there is an 6 event in here at about quarter till 6:00 this evening. I 7 would like to see that put that off, because I don't think 8 that is possible. We are not due out of here until about 9 5:30. So, let me just say this. Don thinks he is on 10 schedule, I think he is on schedule, because once we get 11 some of these very tough issues out of the way, some of 12 these other issues are going to move on very smoothly -- not 13 that we have not been moving very smoothly, because I think 14 we have. And there have been some very fruitful 4
15 discussions. And I think our public has been very 16 cooperative here, and has used the opportunities that we 17 have presented to them to make contributions, and we 18 appreciate that.
19 And I don't have any complaints today. _ We have I 20 think everybody that we had yesterday. I see a couple of 21 seats over here still not filled. Let's have a great day 22- today and get to some of these other tough ist-.v, that we 23 need a lot of input on. Hopefully, Wednesday, we'll be out 24 of here on time. We are scheduled to be out of here on 25 Wednesday at noon. But, the way the schedule is going, I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. -C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.
129 1 think we will make that.- But, if not, then we always have 2 an opportunity to write things down and send them in.
3 Now, if the hgreement States send things in, I 4 always kind of like to know what it is you .are giving to 5 research. And you can always send me a copy of your * ,
6 comments that you want to put in writing to research. And 7 if you provide Ine a copy, my project manager will monitor 8 what they have done with your written comment. So, always 1
~
9 feel f ree to write your comments down that you don't get in 10 in the discussion.
11 I think we are about ready, Don. What about you?
12 MR. COOL: You can interpret Vandy's comments 13 about wanting to know what he sends us in one of two ways.
14 Either he's real interested or he doesn't trust us.
15 MR. MILIER: I'm interested.
16 MR. COOL: I'm going to assume it is the former 17 and not the latter. Cheryl? We will start where we left 18 off.
19 MS. TROTTIER: What I thought we would do first is 20 hopefully quickly go through the related issues that go with 21 items three and four that we were discussing yesterday.
22 We'll point out the related issues for four first. Since we 23 have someone here from Canada, maybe he'would -- I hope I am-24 catching him when he's not -- since we have someone here 25 from Canada, naybe he can talk a little bit about the first i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
(202).293-3950 j
130 )
i i two items, which are signing the acknowledgement of !
2 responsibility to supervise the assistants, and prohibiting !
l 3 them from conducting operations. I guess a little bit about l 4 the reasoning of why you put that in your regs, and the pros 5 and cons of having them, 6 MR. WALKER: Our radiography regulations put the 7 onus on both the licensee and the individual radiographer.
8 And that first issue there is one of the ones that puts the 9 onus on the licensee to make sure that the person who is 10 assigned to train an assistant acknowledges that, and also 11 that the onus has to be given and it has to be accepted on 12 both sides. Without that, in the case of an incident in 13 field, the senior man on the job could wipe his hands of it 14 and say I'm sorry, it was this guy's responsibility and I 15 didn't have anything to do with it. So, that's the reason 16 for the first one.
17 The second one is much the same. The onus is on-18 the senior person on the site to be responsible for the work 19 that is taking place. And we don't want an assistant to be 20 operating with people alluded to here, with the senior 21 fellow in the darkroom developing film, and the junior man 22 on the job doing the shots. So, we want to tie that down.
23 MS. TROTTIER: That may be helpful, if you just 24 read the passages for everyone who may not be aware of them.
25 Under the first one, the-actual language is that, under the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 4
- - - - - - - _ - - . - ~ . . . . - - - - ~ - - . - _ _. ._ .
131 1 section that a licensee may appoint a qualified operator to 2 supervise a trainee if, and this is B of that, the licensee-3 requests the qualified operator to supervise the trainee in 4 the operation of the device, and the qualified operator 5 gives his written consent to act accordingly, 6 The second item, which is about prohibiting them 7 from conducting operations. Where a trainee supervisor 8 permits a trainee to operate an exposure device, the trainee 9 supervisor shall maintain a continuous visual observation 10 and supervision of the trainee during the operation of the 11 exposure device. And, if during the operation the trainee 12 breaches any provision of these regulations, the trainee 13 supervisor shall immediately remove the exposure device from 14 the possession of the trainee, or shall prevent the trainee 15 from further operating the exposure device.
16 So, I guess the question is should we incorporate 17 language like that into Part 34, which doesn't now 18 specifically have those kinds of words? I guess what.I 19 would like to do is hear views from the Agreement States on 20 whether you think it's appropriate for us to-put that kind l 21 of language'in there? Part 34 now is silent on these 22 issues.
( 23 ~MR. COOL: Cheryl, I think perhaps while they are 24 thinking _about that, we need to think about-that also in the 25 context of whether we're going to allow assistants to i
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
132 1 conduct operations at all. It's not clear, even after you 4
2 read those, whether, given the discussions we had yesterday 3 about the rules and the relativo qualifications of those.
4 We are going to go back to some of the related issues.
5 But, one of the ways you could read that second 6 bullet would be that assistants could conduct operations.
7 And I think the sentiment that I was hearing yesterday.is 8 that an assistant or a trainee, whichever word you used, 9 chould never be conducting operations without direct 10 s.upervision or oversight, or whatever word -- continuous 11 visual observation of what they're doing so that those 12 things may, in fact, be tied together.
13 MS. TROTTIER: The only issue here is the actual 14 language which says -- I mean, you could imply that a person 15 who is the trainer can stop the assistant, but do we need-16 the actual language? Do we need language that says that 17 they have to sign that they will supervise?
18 MR. McNEES: A question about the first check mark 19 there. Does this mean that the rookie is always being 20 tutored always by the same experienced person? Or does he 21 work for this on today, and this one next week on a 22 different job? In that case, would each one of them be 23 signing, or does he just sign the onn?
24 MR. WALKFR: No. He could be assigned to a 25 different one each day. But the fellow the second day would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
133 1 have to sign that consent form saying that he agrees to takez 2 responsibility for that training. i 3 MS. DIBBLEE: I guess I am going to approach this 4 one in a little different direction. Having worked with 5 radiographers for a few years, you can get them to sign a 6 paper. I mean, they will sign all kinds of pieces of paper.
7 MS. TROTTIER: So, you're saying there's not a lot 8 of safety benefit in having them sign? -
9 MS. DIBBLEE: Yes. It seems to me that we ought 10 to be approaching this whole thing on strictly a health and-11 safety. Now, if you are going to go out and cite them for 12 every 10,000 or 15 or 5,000 or whatever it is, sooner or 13 later you're going to drive all of these bad actors out of 14 the business, and maybe that's the thing to do. But, in the 15 meantime, you are going to continue to have accidents like 16 we've had, and you're going to continue to have people who 17 are paid under the table, and you are going to continue to 18 have people burned out, and you are going to continue to 19 have all of the things that go on right now, because there 20 are cont:: mtors out there on oil rigs or whatever that have 21 got to get the job done.
22 So, citing and acknowledgement, or doing any of 23 these other sorts of proactive activities that you might do 24 in a hospital just don't work. I was hopeful that maybe 25 this workshop could come up with some performance-based ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street,--- N W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
134-1 standards that we could use, although-I don't --_I know-2 you've done a lot of work on this -- but, to turn it around 3 so that we look at from either the standpoint of the 4 radiographer management, or something that would be 5 feasible, or from the standpoint of what is a good 6 radiographer, and try to sort out what is reasonable and 7 what is citable, from what is desirable, form the agency-8 standpoint.
9 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. I want.to make something 10 clear. This list is not a list that we are wedded to. This .
11 is just the list that came about as a result of last year's 12 inquiry. So, the question that we're trying to raise now is 13 is this the list that we should be addressing? Should we 14 just throw this list in the trash? What are the_ elements 15 that we need to incorporate when we revise Part 34? This 16 was just the starting point, because thoJe were the issues 17 that we gleaned as, one, being different in other places 18 from Part 34, or issues that had been brought to the 19 attention of the staff.
20 MS. DIBBLEE: Yes. See, I would like to see this 21 workshop set some ground rules, and then have this workshop 22 reconvene in another three months and go through and put 23 some regulations together or have people have enough time -
24 - I didn't even bring my regulations along. I think that l
l 25 you have enough professional people and agency people-here l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 -
,- (202) 293-3950 L
l -.
135 1 to-put their heads together and set some ground rules that 2 we really and truly intead to review these regulations. And 3 you could have a consensus on the ground rules at least, and 4 then people could go back at a later date, and come and 5 convene and do this kind of thing, and review them. That 6 would be my recommendation for this workshop.
7 MR. McNEES: Just an aside issue to this, not that 8 I am particularly oppose to this. But, let's think about 9 this. It is already a utilization log that he is filling 10 out. It is a daily survey report that he is filling out.
11 In some companies there is a daily checklist of equipment 12 and maintenance that he is filling out. There is a 13 transportation paper that he is filling out. We already 14 have, in my opinion, a great log of paperwork that is being 15 filled out in the testing business, and it is going to add 16 another sheet, and it will be just one more sheet in many.
17 Are they going to be taken seriously?
18 MR. WALKER: Yes. The inspectors on the site look 19 for that piece of paper. I had to be present at the work 20 site. And it is a way of making sure that somebody is 21 taking responsibility for this untrained person. Otherwise, 22 it kind of falls from heaven, and nobody here is responsible 23 for it.
24 HR. KLINGER: Joe Klinger, Illinois.
25 Did you list the trainera_on your license?
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Repoders .
( - 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293 3950
136 1 MR. WALKER: We don't have specific qualifications.
2 that we want trainers to have. Anybody who is a qualified 3 radiographer may assume themselves as a qualified trainer.
4 MR. KLINGER: Okay. That's the same situation 5 that I am faced with right now. It seems to me like those 6 states, Texas and others, that list the trainers, they-are 7 already elevated to that status. These individuals have 8 already been designated as tra!.ners. They know that they 9 are responsible'for supervising the trainees. So, I don't 10 think it's quite as critical for them. And maybe, if I get 11 stuck with not being able to list trainers and stuff, I 12 think this might be useful.
13 And the second item, yes. I mean, it's a trainer, 14 trainee relationship. And it is really kind of like the 15 captain and the ship doctor and the medical field. If they 16 are out there in the field and the trainer sees something 17 that's being done, it's his responsibility to cease 18 operations. If the trainee is performing operations in an 19 unsafe manner, it's the trainer's responsibility to take 20 corrective action.
21 MS. TRoTTIER: Do you think that without it 22 written in the regs, that they think they can't stop 23 operation?
24 MS. CARDWELL: This is Cindy Cardwell. .:a s . I 25 think that has a lot to do with company management. I mean, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
137 1 that -- to me that falls into -- I don't think it would hurt.
2 to have it-in the rule, but if we don't -- I think that -
3 falls in company management, as to what power they give l
4 those trainers.
l 5 And, back to Joe's comment. I checked with Mike, 6 and, like you said, because we list them on the license, 7 that does elevate them. They are designated as a trainer.
8 And Mike tells me we issued a notice of violations to the 9 trrsiners, whether it was the trainee that screwed up or not, 10 because he is the --
11 MS. TROTTIER: Oh, really?
12 MS. CARDWELL: -- he is the responsible person.
13 MS. TROTTIER: And the trainers know that ahead of 14 time that that's what will happen if the --
15 MS. CARDWELL: Well, they know by rule that they 16 are the responsible -- they are the supervising
~17 radiographer. MS. DIBBLEE: Martha Dibblea, Oregon. Are we 18 going to hear a report from the gentleman from Canada? Are-19 you going to get up and talk to us about the way you measure 20 radiation?
21 MR. WALKER: I hadn't planned to.
22 MS. DIDBLEE: I would be curious to-see because it 23 seems to work. Is that the idea? Do you have fewer over-24 exposures and such than we do?
25 MR. WALKER: I. don't think so, no.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 138 1 MS. DIBBLEE: So, you have.the same type of good 2 actors, bad actors, that we deal with here? Because, I 3 could name you a number of people in Oregon, even though we 4 don't have a lot of radiography people in Oregon, but I 5 could name you a number of radiographers that are very good, 6 and I would trust anywhere. On the other hand, I can also 7 name you a laundry list that I would just as soon have out 8 of the state and never come back in. And, if I catch them, 9 they don't come in. But, the thing is is that we don't have 10 enough people-to go out and clean these people out. They 11 are going to continue operating. And I think these ,
12 regulations should be addressed at those people who work 13 unsafely, and try to convince them that they've got to work 14 safely.
15 MR. TUAZON: I believe-that right now there are 16 enough requirements already in place regarding this subject, 17 specifically in Part 34. It is certifying that the 18 assistant radiographer must perform operations under the 19 oirect supervision of a radiographer. I believe that it
, 20 behooves the management of that licensee to really see 21 indeed, we have to comply with this requirement. And, in-22 the process of the training, it must be repeated down the 23 line. We are sincere. We are here to comply with this 24 requirement.
25 And, in my own experience, I will tell you our ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
139-1 people, our radiographer would not, in one way or another, 2 rely on the assistant-to do anything unless he or she is 3 right there. And he or she will tell the assistant 4 radiographer, regardless of his or her previous training and 5 say, in our license, as long as you are working as my 6 asoistant, you will not do anything unless I am there. And, 7 as a trainer myself, I stress that to our personnel. Our 1 8 vice president is committed, and this is in writing, and -
9 said this must be the way we have to coroply with this. And 10 down the line we follow that through.
11 I kind of disagree with you when you say we just 12 sign anything. Because, in my experience, again, we would 13 look at them and say hey, what am I signing here? So, we 14 have some different kinds of points here from state to 15 state. But, I could tell you, from where we are right now, 16 on Part 34, we follow that by the letter. The NRC says-you 17 must be under the direct supervision and we do that. We do 18 that. That's the only way we do it. And I think that this 19 is an overkill right now. To my personal opinion this is an 20 overkill.
21 MS. DIBBLEE: Yes. I would like just to answer 22 you on that. I agree with you. You are the type of person 23 who I have confidence in, and I know that'your radiographers 24 are going to be well-trained, and that you are going to do 25 things correctly and work safely. I am looking at the other ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. _C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
.. - - - . -~ - - - . - . - - - . .- - . - . - .
140 l
1 side of the radiograhors who have small companies, or who j 2 have diverse companies, where they-don't have the personnel ,
3 and, in my state,_I can't discriminate between a small !
-i 4 company and a large~ company. I have to issue a license 5 based on a license application. And, if the license 6 application and the operating emergency procedures and such-7 appear adequate, and if the inspections that we do appear 8 adequate, then I have to maintain that license. The problem 9 is is that we don't have the personnel to go out and inspect 10 every radiographer every day of the year. And so we have to 11 trust them somewhat. That's one of our mistakes I realize.
12 But, I'm not in any way saying that what you're 13 saying is wrong. I am saying that to have them sign a piece 14 of paper, or some radiography companies, is still going to 15 be - it's not going to keep the incidents from happening.
16 In your case it will, in other cases it won't because of the 17 attitude that's involved in management. It goes back to 18 management.
19 MR. WALKER: Bob Walker, Canada. I guess I should 20 point out that our regulations put the onus on the licensee 21 for administrative matters, and on the qualified operator 22 while he is operating the camera. If you have got a 23 situation where there is a trainee and a qualified operator, 24 the qualified radiographer may be sitting back with his arms 25 folded watching the trainee work. So,-if something goes on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. . - - - . . _ _ . - - . - . ~ - - .- . . _- . - - - .-
'141 1 there, the only person that we have any regulatory control 4
2 over at the site is_the qualified operator, lie is not 3 operating the camera. So, this is a way of tying the 4 qualified person to whom we have some ties, regulatory tie, 5 to the work that is taking place on the site.-
6 MR. BALLARD: Bruce Ballard, Region I licensee.
7 I see the point the representative from Oregon is 8 making. All of our employees sign a general statement of 9 acknowledgement, that they understand the rules and 10 regulations and will obey the rules and regulations. But, 11 that doesn't prevent them from not following-the rules and 12 regulations, if they, at a particular job site, at a 13 particular time, choose to take a short cut.
14 And the other points, I think, are already 15 covered, if you will read companies' operating manuals. Our 16 manual says that radiographers will be responsible for any 17 assistant under their supervision, not only for his 18 operating equipment, but- for his completing dosimeter logs, 19 and the rest of the utilization-logs. And I think you might-20 look at it there -- to your licensees' operating manuals.
21 And, number two, should you prohibited an-22 assistant from conducting operations? I read into that 23 conducting unsafe operations. That's almost comical _to me,.
- 24 because to think that you could have a radiographer that
-- 2 5 _ would let an assistant conduct an unsafe operation -- I-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Repoders l
1612 K. Street, N.\N., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 -
l l
142 ;
I 1 suppose you could write that in. It's not that it is-a bad !
2 idea, but it is sort of like the analogy of two people in a 3 truck, and the driver is doing 110 miles an hour, and the 4 other guy just sits'there and goes, well, I am.not driving.
5 You know, I don't see how it would really do any -- it 6 wouldn't hurt, but I don't see what it would help.
7 MR. HENRY: Mike Henry, Louisiana.
8 Just a couple of points. Actually, at a company I 9 used to work for, the radiographer could run off the 10 assistant if he had any trouble with him. I don't -- we 11 didn't address ',his problem of responsibility, because the 12 level two radiographer was a boss on the job and, if he had 13 any trouble at all with his assistant, he didn't usually 14 fire him, but he called in and we sent out another one'and 15 somebody else fired him. I didn't see.any problem with 16 responsibility. I don't know why it would be necessary to i
17 sign any more of that.
18 And, quite honestly, you are geing-to hate to hear
, 19 this, but half the stuff that is signed is just pencil 20 whipped. This business of checklists -- you know, a 4
21 checklist for the daily maintenance. Nobody really does 22 that, they just check it. I don't think you're getting-23 anywhere with anymore paperwork and signing off.
24 And, finally, a little bit off the-subject, but-I l
25 .think you had really better face the fact that assistant ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
'143-1 radiographers aren't really under the supervision of a 2 radiographer when they are on a temporary job _ site. That's 3 not how radiography is done. And if you think that,-you're 4 just not going out with enough crews. The radiographer-is 5 in dark room, and the assistant is cranking the source.
6 That is how it is done. The radiographer does not maintain 7 direct surveillance of an assistant. That is why in 8 Louisiana we don't have assistant radiographers. We want 9 two radiographers on every crew so we don't have to worry-10 about that.
11 And, by the way, I realize that in power plants 12 and in the military and in the aircraft industry you have a 13 different situation. I am talking about mobile x-ray 14 companies that send a crew out to a temporary job site. The 15 radiographer does not supervise directly the assistant; he 16 works by himself most of the time.
17 MS. TRoTTIER: Now, I want to ask you one other 18 question, because I think it is the last bullet on here. In 19 our regulations, we now say direct supervision, which 20 obviously can be interpreted broadly. And yet, if you see 21 in Texas, they say direct surveillance. In other words,_
22 then you visually see it. What are the Louisiana Regs like?
23 Do you say direct surveillance or supervision?
24 MR. HENRY: We say direct surveillance of the 25 trainee. _But the trainee in Louisiana is a 1.hird party.on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
144 1 the crew.
2 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Not the assistant?
3 MR. HENRY: We have two radiographers. So, even-4 though one radiogra~pher is in a darkroom, we still have a -
5 radiographer who can maintain direct surveillance. But, by 6 the second -- let me take it a step further though. We 7 don't require that our trainee have any training at all. We-8 believe that he ought to see some work done before he takes 9 his 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of training. We think it is more effective 10 that way.
11 MS. DIBBLEE: Martha Dibblee, Oregon.
12 To add to what Mike said. It has been my 13 observation that a radiographer who is crar.xing the source, 14 or who may be the lead person, had no management supervision 15 over the other person. And so, if you have got a couple of 16 union guys that are working together as a team, they are 17 really not supervising each other, they are working 2
18 together. And, Mike, maybe you can add to that. But, it 19 has been my observation that, if you have two people that 20 are both level two radiographers, that one of them will be 21 in the darkroom and one of them will be out on the field 22 cranking the source; but they might switch roles, if one of 23 them gets tired or cold or whatever. The supervision-24 doesn't appear to be there, because it is not the way it's 25 done. Maybe if you have -- like in a larger company, where ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
145 1 you had a --
4
-2 MR. HENRY: Martha, can I comment on that?
3 MS. DIBBLEE: Yes, sure.
4 MR. IIENRY: Don't confuse the term radiographer 5 with level two.
6 MS. DIBBLEE: No.
7 MR. IIENRY: Okay? A radiographer is a person, as 8 far as regulators are concerned, that has all his safety. -
9 MS. DIBBLEE: Right. ,
10 MR. IIENRY: But, on the crew, even though we have Il two radiographers, one is senior and the other one is a 12 helper --
13 MS. DIBBLEE: Right.
14 MR. IIENRY: -- even though we call them both 15 radiographers.
16 MS, DIBBLEE: But, yes, I have been able to see 17 them switch roles --
18 MR. HENRY: No.
19 MS. DIBBLEE: -- half way through.
20 MR. HENRY: They won't switch roles because only 21 one can read film. This is what it all comes down to. The 22 guy who can sell the piece of film is the senior man on the 23 crew.
-24 MS. DIBBLEE: See, I have actually observed people P. 5 where both of them would read film.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
__ - _ . - . _ - _ . . _ _ _ - - -. - ._ ~ - - ----._ -e 146 1 MR. HENRY: I see.
2 MS. DIDBLEE: And both of them would be cranking-3 the source. -When you're radiographing in mud in Oregon, and 4 it is 30 degrees out, they will switch. I mean,-it-is so S miserable working out in that. They're knee-deep in mud and 6 whatever else. This actually happens. So, this is just one 7 of the extenuating circumstances in radiography.
8 MR. McNEES: I think that might be a producticn
, 9 issue. Because if I havo got to sit there and watch you, 10 then that is not being as productive as I was actuelJy doing 11 some work myself. And most of them when they're out there, 12 they don't want to be out there beside that ditch, and both 13 of them are going full-time on work issues in order to get 14 fit.ished, and also, in order to make the company name, 15 because it is a very competitive business. ,
16 MR. CARRICO: What Mike is saying-is that, by 17 their regulations, if they have an assistant and trainee, 18 they is still a radiographer out there watching his 19 performance the entire time -- direct surveillance of that 20 assistant or trainee, the entire time he is cranking that 21 source out and performing the survey. There is another.
22 radiographer in there who is doing the film. But, that is-23 fine. They are complying with regulatory requirements.
24 I-thinkit's the same thing-that Martha was saying 25 too. There are two qualified radiographers out there, and ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. '
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D. C. 20006 ;
(202) 293-3950 l
147 1 they are just taking turno. Well, it la not supervising an 2 assistant or a trainoo.
3 MR. IlOWERTON: llugh floworton, from the Chicago 4 11 ridge & Iron Company, one of the things that I agroo with, 5 that level two radiography han nothing to do with inotopo 6 radiography. A radiographor is not defined as to whether ho 7 in a level one or level two. Just v. cad::e the guy is a a radiographor, he may not have the responnibility for solling 9 the film.
10 In addition to that, if there are two licensed 11 radiographorn on sito, Cil&I designatos one an a radiographor 12 in chargo, lie in the guy that, when the source is locked up 13 at night, he signs the report that the isotope in in the 14 storago position, no that if they move it from ono job sito 15 to another, as they're going down the road, 11111 looks at 16 John in a truck and says well, I saw you put the inotopo in.
17 No. You put the source in the truck. And, consequently, wo 18 have what han happened beforo. So, wo donignato a 19 radiographor in chargo, when two radiographora -- two or 20 more radiographora are en the site.
21 MS. DIBill EE: 11ut that's in your operating and 22 emergency procedurou.
23 MR. IlOWERTON: That'n correct.
24 MR. CARRICO: Is there a record generated?
25 MR. !!OWERTON: You, from the radiation safety ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _- - - - - - - - - - - --- J
i 140 1 officer, or aasistant, there is a designation letter that 2 !)l11 llampton in the radiographor in charge on this job sito.
3 MR. CARRICO: And will be involved --
4 MR. IlOWERTON: That's correct. .
5 MS. TROTTIERt Okay. Thore was one moro question 6 in the back. And then I am going to novo away from tho 7 insuo of radiographor, radiographer assistant. 13ut , I will 0 take that, and than we'll stop.
9 MR. CAllE Donnis Cabo, from Duke Power Company.
10 It looks like we're looking for someono to accept 11 responsibility. We have to instill the responsibility in 12 someone for the oporations out in theco temporary job sitoa.
13 We do the name thing. We, an a company, designate a 14 radiographor in chargo. 11 0 may bo down thoro working with 15 five guya, and he may have more seniority, or he may have 16 loss seniority than the other guys that are working with 17 him; but he is the radiographer in chargo. And our 18 definitions, in our safety manual, wo've got -- I mean, in 19 our -- one of our acctions, we've got one that anya the 20 radiographor shall be responsible for the personal 21 supervision of the radiographic operationn to onoure that 22 they are conducted in a safe manner and in accordance with 23 current stata regulations and those procedures, 11 0 shall bo 24 directly responalble to the radiography supervisor. We go 25 right under that and say a radiographer's assistant may use ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 149 1 radiographic sources, related handling tools and survey 2 instruments under the personal supervision of the 3 radiographer. May -- that does not mean that he's in the 4 darkroom. The personal supervision of a radiographer means l 5 that -- of the assistant -- means that he is there with him, 6 and that's the way that we-look at it. And by saying that 7 he understands these operating procedures, he is accepting 8 that responsibility, and for him to accept it somewhere 9 else, I don't think that is necessary. ;
10 MS. TROTTIER: I would say that probably, in NRC 11 history, that direct supervision has been broadly '
12 interpreted as to what is direct supervision. And that does 13 not necessarily mean watching that person. You had a 14 comment, and then we will move on to another.
15 MR. SINN: Ron Sinn, St. Louis Testing Lab. It 16 seems like there is a lot of discussion about the 17 radiographer being in the darkroom. I can tell you, from 18 our experience, that the trainee is generally in the 19 darkroom. The main reason is the radiographer is going to 20 get a lot more shots done, get it done properly, and he puts 21 the trainee in the darkroom. I can train a man to process 22 film a lot quicker than I can to be a radiographer.
23 MS. DIBBLEE: That's our experience too.
24 MR. COOL: Can I just try to sum up this. I see 25 some heads going up and down in agreement, that they've got ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300' Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
150 1 assistants and trainees in the darkroom, and I see other 2 heads vehemently going in the other direction, saying no, 3 that's not the case. It's the assistant out there in the 4 cold and mud. So, I am not quite sure -- we have a completo 5 variety out there in many possible situations.
6 What I wanted to do, before Cheryl goes to the 7 next topic, is to try and sum up a little bit what we just 8 heard bere. What I think I heard was sort of a general 9 sentiment towards a performance situation, without 10 necessarily having a long list of pieces of paper. But, if 11 I put it at NRC's feat, where the licensoo must take the 12 responsibility, must or shall establish the specific 13 delegations, must supervise and visually maintain contact or 14 whatever, and then leave it to the particular licensoo, the 15 particular radiographers that he is charged out on a site 16 with exactly how they get that accomplished, and, if we are 17 moving towards, as you talked about earlier, if we are 18 looking at a performance-based sort of approach.
19 I recognize also that there maybe a little bit of 20 a difference between what we do and what say is done up in 21 Canada. I thought I was hearing the flavor of them being 22 able to issue notices directly to individuals. I don't 23 think we've got the authority, or ever in the past have 24 taken authority specifically to cite individuals. We cite l 25 the licensees.
?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Espoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293 3950 i
, - - - - - - . - , .n , , . , , .
151 1 HS. TROTTIER: We have the authority now.
d 2 HR. COOL Have I distilled that correctly? If ,
3 not, tell me where I have not captured it. Heads are 4 nodding up and down and there is silence.
5 HR. McNEESt Can I ask you a question about the 6 last bullet on four? It seems to be not only a radiography 7 or radiographer's assistant issue. Under the current regs 8 we require that surveillance be maintained in high-radiation 9 areas. And if there is an object in the way, a wall or 10 something, they have to be able to see overy bit of square 11 footage that's in the high radiation area. If we put this 12 in, would it be interpreted as he has to be able to see all 13 the area that would be in or out?
14 HS. TROTTIER: Since it's Texas' regs, maybe I 15 should get an answer. Let me read the statement anyway.
16 During each industrial radiographic operation, a 17 radiographer shall maintain visual surveillance of the 18 operation to protect against unauthorized entry into a 19 radiation or high-radiation area, except where the high-20 radiation area is equipped with a control device or alarm 21 system.
22 HS. DIBBLEE: What was the question?
23 MR. McNEES: Currently, I think the NRC says high-24 radiation area. If it's down in the Butler Building, and 25 the high-radiation area is out there, you know, you have got ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
152 to be able to see overy bit of the high-radiation area. Do 2 you interpret that a crew member must be able to see -- have 3 visual surveillance of the radiation area?
4 MS. TROTTIER: See, what we have now -- what we 5 say is maintaining direct surveillance. We don't say 6 maintain visual surveillance. Visual means sooing -- yes, 7 Bruco?
8 MR. CARRICO: NRC regulations do require 9 maintaining surveillance of the high-radiation area. But wo 10 encourage our licensees to commit to maintaining 11 surveillance of the radiation area, because someone is going 12 to enter the radiation area. Keeping them out of the high-13 radiation is one of their big problems. So, we sort of do 14 that by licensee for the time being. Did I say that right?
15 MS. CARDWELL: It sounded right.
16 MR. CARRICO: It's not far distant than what wo 17 use in licensing now.
18 MS. CARDWELL: To put the visuals in, we eye-19 balled. I've got to be able to see it.
20 MR. McNEES: Currently it is two square feet 21 behind the tank. And, as you can see from this side or that 22 side, if it is two square feet behind the tank in the 23 radiation area, I have got to put another man over there to '
24 -see the back side.of it.
25 MS. CARDWELL: And whether they're doing that, I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
153 1 don't know.
2 MS. TRorTIER: All right. I would like to run 3 through these issues, and then we can go back to it.
4 These were things that were dealing with training.
5 And, again, these are issues that are not currently in the 6 NRC rega, but are in other regs. And the question is are 7 these issues that NRC ought to adopt in Part 34.
8 The first one that came from the suggested state 9 regs is really a pretty of.mple one, it in just including 10 photos, which is probably a good idea. That is really what 11 was in the list currently in appendix A of our Part 34, as 12 far as what subjects to cover.
13 These other three items are things that are 14 currently in Part 39. And the language in Part 39 is 15 slightly different than the language of Part 34 in many 16 cases. So, the question here is it worthwhile to adopt this 17 new language that you see in Part 39? Does that provide 18 more clarity for Part 347 Does it climinate confusion? For 19 instance, right now, under the second one about 20 demonstrating equipment confidence through a field 21 evaluation. The rule does not specify what the field 22 evaluation should include. And, if you go into Part 39, it 23 is very prescriptive. I will read a little bit of it so you 24 get the idea.
25 The issue is whether or not that would be useful.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C 20006 (202) 293-3950 s w*
154 1 Right now what it is in part 39 is on page three. Ilas 2 completed on the job training and demonstrated competence in 3 the use of license materials, remote handling tools and 4 radiation safety instruments by a field evaluation. That 5 does not exist in Part 34 now. So, the question is should 6 that be added?
7 See, right now, what Part 34 currently says is 8 just that they've been instructed that they have received 9 copy and that they've demonstrated competence. It doesn't 10 say through a field evaluation. So, that's the primary 11 difference. And Part 39 clearly says that you have to be in 12 the field to demonstrate it. Is that an advantage to put 13 that in? Everyone seems to be in agreement. Yes?
14 MS. CARDWELL: Again, for what it's worth, wo 15 didn't put that in our rules, anything about a field 16 evaluation or a practical exam on the equipment because --
17 our reasoning behind that was -- ours says the same thing, 18 demonstrated competence, it just doesn't say for field 19 ovaluation. Because we looked at what we required for OJT.
20 And, in our revision, we specified numbers of hours.
21 There's a form they have to fill out which specifies who the 22 trainer was, what kind of equipment they used by make and 23 model number. So, we've got that kind of detail. And we 24 didn't put that in because we figured well, that's another 25 piece of paper. And to use Mike's term, it's going to be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C 20006 (202) 293-3950
155 1 pencil-whipped out in the field, and you have to check it 2 off. And we said well, thny've got the OJT and they've 3 documented that. At least t.iey've goc -- you know, we have 4 a record somewhere where they have admitted that they have 5 used that camera, and somebody has watched them do that.
6 And we saw it as another piece of paper that wasn't 7 necessary considering the other things that we had to fill 8 out, in terms of the OJT, and documented that to us. MS.
9 TROTTIER: All right. The other one. Again, Part 39 10 clearly states that they have to have on the job training.
11 Part 34 does not say they have to have on the job training.
12 It says they have to do the things I mentioned, you know, be 13 instructive and demonstrate competence. Is there an 14 advantage in having the regs require on the job training?
15 MS. CARDWELL: Well, again, the same argument. We 16 went out it the other way. When we beefed up the on the job 17 training, and required that, we dropped that practical field 18 exam.
19 MS. TROTTIER: And the last one then are just 20 things that are listed in Part 39 as additjonal training 21 that is apparently not in Part 34. And that, again, comes 22 from the Appendix A list. Part 34 currently has just remote 23 handling of equipment, radiographic exposure devices, 24 storage containers. And Part 39 added storage control and 25 disposal of licensed material, and maintenance of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
156 1 aquipment, and the requiremonta of portinent Federal i
2 regulations. Those were the thingo that were added to Part 3 39. So, the qucation la just, you know, do we nood to boof 4 up Part 39 -- put things in thoro to cover those additional 5 areas that were addronood?
6 VOICE: In your comment, in 34/31 training, under 7 four, you say that, by succonsful completion of the written 8 test and a field examination, he has to be competent. And 9 no it in already in the training.
10 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. I think the question is la it 11 in there in a clear enough way that it in undoratood what 12 the field examinat. ion in. You know, the way it in writton 13 in Part 39, it is clear what tho field examination covera, 14 and it la bit clearer in Part 34, 15 VOICE: It'n more performanco-based in 34 and 16 prescriptivo in 39.
17 MS. TROTTIER: That could be. Or also Part 39 was 18 written to correct the problem identified earlier. Yos?
19 MR. WALKER: Bob Walkor, Canada. Who conducts the 20 field evaluation it refers to in Part 39? In that the 21 omployer? The licensoo?
22 MS. TROTTIER: I believe that it in normally the 23 omployer.
24 All right. Now, I don't want to boat those issues 25 anymore.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suito 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 J
157 ,
1 MS. ROUGHAN: Cathleen Roughan of Amersham.
2 MS. TROTTIER: Okay.
3 MS. ROUGRAN: I just wanted to mention in the 4 training -- I have been in the radiography training for 5 probably about 15 years now. We offer a 40-hour course 6 covering the subjects outlined in Appendix A. And, even 7 with the 40-hour course covering all those other 8 requirements, we still have several people per course that 9 have a problem with that. For them to learn about 10 shielding, basic radiation safety, it is very difficult for 11 them to learn that in a week. If you are going to put 12 in some other requirements, such as a transportation
?.3 requirement, which -- I hate to say this in front of my 14 customers, but all of our radiographer customers are very 15 week on it. That course is going to be extended. And it 16 takes a good day or so to learn about transportation.
17 The other Federal regulations that aren't 18 specifically covered are enforcement actions, information 19 notices that are important to radiographers. Our course is 20 going to get longer and longer. And it is difficult now 21 sending people out in a week, so there is going to have to 22 be some type of compromise there.
23 I personally think it's needed, based on our 24 conversations and lack of knowledge in terms of 25 transportation. The information that gets out to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
158 1 customers is sometimes very minimal. They don't know 2 whether they have to comply with the information notice or 3 not. There is a whole set of training that should be 4 implemented. We don't know if this should be forced upon 5 the customer, but it does need to be looked at.
6 MR. MARYLAND: I guess, on the third bullet, about 7 specify the radiographers must complete OJT training. Do 8 you mean radiographers or trainees or assistants?
9 MS. TROTTIER: No. Right now, the way Part 34 is 10 written, it does not say that they have to have on the job 11 training. The question is should they have to have? In 12 other words, Part 39 says they must have on the job 13 training. Part 34 does not say they have to have on the job 14 training. Should we require that?
15 MR. MARY 1AND: Okay. For a radiographer?
16 MS. TROTTIER: A radiographer.
17 MR. CARRICO: Cheryl, the difference perhaps in 18 Part 34, Part A, says an applicant has to describe the 19 program and provide on the job training. Part 39 is done to .
20 take that -- the application process and made it a 21 requirement. In essence, it said that the radiographers 22 must have OJT.
23 MR. MARYIAND: So, we're removing more from the 24 licensing guide issue, to actually incorporate them in the 25 regs?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~ _ _ _- . . . - _ , ._ _~-_- . - -- _- .
I 159 1 MR. CARRICO: That's in part, yes. You might look 2 at B in that way. It is not necessarily a movement, but 3 instead of simply being part of the application process, 4 which a number of people have complained about in the 5 application process. Why isn't this something we can cite 6 theln against in the application? We are expecting this --
7 the cito and regulation says hey, you must obtain this 8 period of OJT. And right now, we cite them for failure to 9 comply with their license.
10 MS. TROTTIER: A lot of enforcement hinges on the 11 strength behind the part that this issue is referenced in.
12 And if it is a situation when we have had problems in the 13 past, then many times that then is corrected by putting it 14 into a section of the regulation where it is clear that it 15 is a requirement, as opposed to an implied requirement, 16 which then, when we take it to our legal people, and 17 Marjorie doesn't really want to hear this, but they say to 18 us you can't enforce this, you know. And so, then there's 19 really no violation. And so, when you are trying to correct 20 behavior, sometimes you just need a larger stick. And that 21 is the case here, you know -- it is to just try and put it 22 into a place where it is clear that it is a requirement.
23 MR. HoWERTON: Hugh Howerton from CBI. If I read 24 Part 34 11(b)2, it says that the licensee shall have an 25 adequate program which specifies JJT. -Is-that correct?
ANN RlLEY & Af,SOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud R3poders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
160 1 MS. TROTTIER: Uh-huh.
2 MR. IlOWERTON: So, therefore, the NRC cites a 3 licensee for not following their license, rather than the 4 regulations?
5 MS. TROTTIER: Right. Right.
6 MR. HOWERTON: If the licensee doesn't follow the 7 licence or doesn't follow the NRC regulations, it doesn't 8 make any difference, lie is still cited.
9 MR. CARRICO: That's why we're here. As I say, I 10 think many of our regional staff have the question, why is 11 it we can't cite them against the specific regulation that 12 says that this is a requirement, rather than citing them 13 against the license?
14 MS. CARDWELL: Cindy Cardwell. Fortunately or 15 unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, it goes back 16 to what cheryl says. It's a legal question. Because of the 17 fact that they can interpret that as a -- I mean, that's 18 part of the license application, it can depend on who 19 reviews the license application -- whether they think X-20 number of hours is okay or 20 more than that or a hundred 21 more than that. And so there's an inconsistency. And 22 lawyer said, if you want it, and you go by -- or even if it 23 is just a policy that it is a certain number of hours, put 24 it in. And that's just the guidance we have-been giving.
25 The numbers are now specified.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Rep 0ders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C 20006 (202) 293-3950
161 1 MR. CARRICO: Also, you can get into areas of 2 grayness. And it causes a great deal of problem. It is 3 sort of like fixing a single definition. What constitutes 4 regular use? When you get into licensing you have those 5 things happen and not realize they're happening. When you 6 get into perhaps an inspection / enforcement case, they start 7 to crop up. So, I think that's one of the reasons why the 8 regional folks identify this.
9 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. I would like to move into 10 this issue only because I think that this is going to take a 11 while. We are not making a lot of progress.
12 One of the other issuon is do we need to increase 13 what we have defined in Part 34. And this was I guess 14 mostly comprised of things that came from other regs that 15 were not in our regs, and some problems that have been 16 identified. For instance, I believe the concept of the 17 field station is something that came from Part 39, correct -
18 - and possibly a potential area of problem, where licensees 19 have established almost places of business away from their 20 permanent place of business.
21 Do we need to have a definition for field station?
22 Part 39 currently has a definition for a field station. Let 23 me read that quickly, and maybe that will help here. A 24 field station means a facility where licensed material may.
25 be stored or used, and from which equipment is-dispatched to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I 162 1 temporary job sites. So, I guess a question then that came !
2 up is do we need to have that kind of definition in Part 347 3 Is there an advantage in having it? Or does it not add 4 anything to the rule to put it in there?
5 MR. CARRIco: Bruce Carrico.~ One thing just came 6 also about, because it has, as Cheryl mentioned, other 7 regulations -- suggested regulations -- they talk about 8 permanent locations. And you have definitions. We have 9 licensees that have started to operate on a temporary job 10 site and dispatched people to other locations into the work 11 area at the nuclear power plant, and they have been there 12 for years. And they are starting to branch out from that 13 location now. And NRC staff believe that when that happens 14 we should know about that.
15 In Texas, the state regulations have a way of 16 trying to identify those locations. Now, you can say what 17 those were, Chery1? Cindy?
18 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. We have one. In our revision 19 we tried to even clean it up more so than that. We put in a 20 definition. Additional authorized user storage site. And 21 what it means is that an authorized user storage location 22 that is specifically on a license, but is other.than the 23 main site where all the records have to be kept, and it is 24 other than a temporary job site. And I don't know if that's 25 a unique situation, because we have so many radiography ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
163 1 licensoon, and some of them are largo, and have those kind 2 of locations all over the state. Wo do have that in thoro, t 3 And it may not be the main place where all the personnel 4 monitoring records are being performed, but it is an 5 additional sito where there may be materials stored thero, 6 and shore we fool there needs to be an inspection.
7 MR. CARRICO: Is that typically a part of the 8 licenso condition?
9 MS. TROTTIER: Does anyone also uso this concept?
10 MS. CARDWELL: It would be listed as an additional 11 site. That would why we would use the term additional 12 authorized uso.
13 MR. CARRICO: Okay.
14 MS. CARDWELL: It would be on the license -- one 13 specified for all the records, as the main sito, and it 16 would list the additional user storage site. And it is not 17 a temporary job site. This may just be one that they have 18 permanently thoro, but it is not their main facility, it is 19 soma other site they work out of. And, like I said, it may 20 be unique, because we are such a largo stato to have that 21 kind of operation.
22 MR. FOGLE: Fogle,-Texas. It's generally a 23 storage facility too.
24 MS. CARDWELL: Right.
25 MR. CARRICO: Okay.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., . Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
164 1 MR. IlORNOR: Jack llornor, NRC. Cindy, did you say 2 that all the records are required to be at these temporary 3 field stations also, or only back at the main office?
4 MS. CARDWELL: The main office. In the body of 5 our rule, it specifies -- we have sections that specify 6 records that have to be at the main facility, records that 7 have to be at temporary job sites. I think we have one on 8 records that have to be at this additional authorized site.
9 But there are not as many at it seems.
10 MR. IlORNOR: Thank you.
11 MS. CARDWELL*. Like, for instance, the persvnnel 12 records.
13 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
14 MR. WALKER: Bob Walker, Canada. We issue 15 licenses that authorized radiography anywhere within Canada.
16 That's what's shown on the front page of the license. But 17 the licensees are required to tell us of any location where 18 they use or store radioactive material for more than 30 days 19 in a calendar year. Then we list that on our database, and 20 that becomes part of the record that the inspectors have 21 access to, so they know where to go to do the inspection.
22 And, like some of the other states here, we require records 23 to be kept at such locations.
24 MS. TROTTIER: Apparently, under NRC regs, they 25 would only have to keep records at the permanent facility, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
165 1 right, Bruce?
2 MR. CARRICO I would say that Part 34 is 3 relatively quiet about record retention.
4 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
5 MR. McNEES: Is this a utilization log issue?
6 Because we face the problem at the main office, and he puts 7 down on the utilization log that so and so is going to the 8 Warrior Base, which is a methane gas field, and out there he 9 has got his own little storage thing, and his own storage 10 shed, and that's almost like an office. They can take a 11 camera out to this line and take a camera out to that line.
-12 But, if you go back to the main office, and it is signed out 13 to this guy on the Warrior base for 60 days?
14 MS. CARDWELL: That's our problem. That's why we 15 came up with that additional definition. And they have to 16 keep -- the records they have to keep at that kind of place, 17 where it truly is another -- almost snother permanent 18 location, but it is not one where they do the business out 19 of -- where all the business is being conducted. They have 20 to keep a copy of their license, O&E procedures, and 21 transfer records, shipping and trsnsfer disposal records. j 22 MR. McNEES: Where is the utilization log? I 23 MS. CARDWELL: It should be with him. I 24 MR. McNEES: Not the one back at the main office 25 that says he signed out?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers.-
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
1
166 1 MS. CARDWELL: Well, they have to have that at the 2 main office too. But, he has to have -- if he is going out 3 in the field, even if he stops by there, he has to have that 4 utilization log with him all the time.
5 H3, CARRICO Druce Carrico. I think also of 6 interest horn, as has been mentioned previously, are those 7 characteristica that have been used to try to identify these 8 parcs%ner t atorage locations, thia place of business, versus 9 a temporary job site that has been impased, a telephone, and 10 aome of those other criteria. That is how I read Texas' 11 suggested and state regulations. Do you agree with those.
12 Cindy? And what are those criteria?
13 MS. CARDWELL: I'm sorry. I am reading.
14 MR. CARRICO: The SSR has those criteria that 15 trice to identify them versus a place of business -- things 16 like setting up a telephone, advertising from that location, 17 various other things that help to differentiate in 18 situation.s. I am not sure that if someone is working a 19 location for a long period of time, that 10 a temporary job 20 site, but when you start branching out from there, just 21 working at the location, to actually conducting operations 22 as a business, that I guess is what is the concern.
23 MS. CARDWELL: Well, it is not a real clear issue.
24 It is not as if it is either a temporary job site or it is a 25 permanent main facility. Because they don't authorize ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
167 1 business out of it. They may or may not even have a phone 2 out there at that particular site. It is like Dave said, it 3 is usually another storage site. But it may be -- for 4 purposes of inspection and compliance, we want to know where 5 it is so that we can inspect that, because there are sources 6 being stored there and used out of there. And -- but it is 7 not put in the main site, and it is not really a temporary 3 job site, because they use sources from there to go out to 9 temporary job sites from that storage area. So, that's why 10 additional authorized storage an issue.
11 MR. COOL: What is the trigger whict gets you on 12 that? Is that there for 30 days or 60 days?
13 MS. CARDWELL: If it doesn't fall into any of the 14 other two categories. If they don't advertise business from 15 there, have phone service connected from there or what not, 16 and it is not just a temporary job site-authorized. They've 17 got -- I'm not sure what the -- there is not a trigger date 18 that says they have to be there some day for additional 19 authorized usage.
20 MR. CARRICO: Then the criteria might not 21 necessarily apply either then -- having the telephone hook-22 up, or advertising the business.
23 MS. CARDWELL: Right.
24 MR. CARRICO: They still have to notify you about 25 that.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
. . _ . . . _ . . ~ - - - _ _ . _ _ _ - _--._ . . - - -
168 1 MS. CARDWELL It's a new definition that has gone-t 2 into our revision.
3 MR. CARRICO: In the previous edition?
4 MS. CARDWELL: No. It wasn't. It's not in our 5 existing rules. The definition is not in our existing rules 6 right now. But, we have come up with this problem as to 7 what are these places. It is truly not a temporary job 8 site, so this is -- this was our answer. If it hadn't been 9 --
10 MR. CARRICO: This is even going beyond what wo 11 had looked at when we came up with this laundry list here.
12 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. This now. We proposed this 13 rule in February.
14 MR. CARRICO: The language?
15 MS. CARDWELL: Yes.
16 MS. DIBBLEE: Martha Dibblee, Oregon.
17 Do you have a database so that you can identify?
18 I realize you've got a large area to cover. When you 19 inspectors go out, do you have regions that do this 20 inspection? Is there a database that manages these so that 21 your people can look up at any one time and know where these 22 people are, like Mr. Walker's database?
23 MS. CARDWELL: We have an inspection database that 24 has -- this is a two part question. We have a database on 25 all our radiographers -- all the individual radiographers.
ANN FilLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i 169 1 And then I will lot Mike answer since ho is in our 2 compliance division, about our inspection database and find 3 out how it works.
4 MR. FOGLE: We have the stato divided into eight 5 regions, and each regional inspector it, aware of where all 6 those sitos aro. He does receive an updated database on 7 inspections. But, as far as fleid radiography, most of the 8 time they just kind of have to -- we don't know, unless 9 people are working in the stato under reciprocity. We don't 10 know exactly where the fields sites are.
11 MS. CARDWELL They do have the information on 12 where all the main sitos are and where all these additional 13 authorized sites are.
14 MS. DIBBLEE: Okay. So, your field site -- field 15 stations are listed in the database, is that correct? So, 16 that they do serve the purpose?
17 MR. DUNN: Anyplace that has a storage site --
18 authorized storago sito is-inspected and it is on the list.
19 MS. DIBBLEE: Whether it's the main --
20 MR. DUNN: Field station is kind of a foreign word 21 for us.
22 MS. CARDWELL: Wo don't over use the field --
23 MS. TROTTIER: It just came from the weld log.
24 MR. VERELLEN: Bob Vore11on from the State of 25 Washington. I was wondering, do you make your 11conso, or ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
170 1 can they start them up themselves?
2 MS. CARDWELL: It was supposed to be amended.
3 MR. FOGLI: Within 60 days.
4 MR. VERELLEN: Do you charge any extra fee or 5 anything for multiple storage locations? In Washington 6 State we charge them if they have a multiple storage 7 location. Storage is a key for us.
8 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
9 MR. VERELLEN They have traditional storage 10 locations. They may require additional inspections.
11 MR. KLINGER: Jos Klinger. So, 90-days? It 12 really is triggered by the temporary job site it sounds 13 ike. Like if they go out there and build a shed or 14 something, and they're operating out of that and it's less 15 than 90 days, that's fine. If it is over 90 days, then 16 that's beyond the temporary job site, so it becomes a 17 permanent site, and has to be listed on the license. So 18 then they would come in with a licenst 4.aendment request, 19 giving the details of the storage, and then the license 20 people would revir.N it and make sure it is adequate, add it 21 to the license, and then it gets in the database. They 22 would pay an extre fee I am sure for a subset.
23 MS. CARDWELL: That is an answer to Don's question 24 that-triggered.
25 MR. CARRICO: One thing I want to make sure is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 P
171 1 clear when we talk about field stations. I guous we aro 2 talking about your accond clanalfication, when they were 3 actually sotting up a business operation. Now, if I 4 understand this correctly, you have gono a stop further and l 5 said if they had a fossil fuel plant for a year, you want to 6 know about that. If they are storing material in their 7 fossil fuel plant to 90 days, they have got to notify you?
8 MS. CARDWELL: That's right.
9 MR. CARRICO: That's a stop further than what wo 10 have talked about previously.
11 MR. COOL: If you take the stop of amending the 12 license, that means you're charging them an amendment foo.
13 MS. CARDWELL: We don't chargo.
14 MR. COOL: Cortainly, if they como in for an 15 amendment, do they got popped with an amendment foo?
16 MS. CARDWELL: No, wo don't charge for amendments.
17 MR. COOL: You don't charge for amendments.
18 MS. CARDWELL: We chargo an annual foe.
19 MR. COOL: What about for storage sitos?
20 MS. CARDWELL: But, if you add an extra storage 21 site, that ups your annual fee.
22 MR. FOGLE: By 25 percent por site.
23 MR. COOL: The more you have then the more 24 expensive it gets, because it is 25 on the base each time.
25 MR. FOG LE: Only of the base.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud - Repodors 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
172 1 MS. CARDWELL: That's because of the additional 2 cost to have an inspector then go out to that oxtra site and 3 inspect, because you have the same potential hazard at a 4 site, in terms of contamination or a loss of control of the 5 sources, loss of inventory.
6 MR. TUAZON: I am interested about these temporary 7 locations. Because it seems to me that right now there is 8 already in place how to keep track of all these sources 9 through the Jog -- through the utilization log. Let me tell 10 you that maybe source is inside A today, that same source 11 could be on side B tomorrow, because that source is the 12 hottest source in the licensee. There is a hot yard on side 13 B, and that is what is required to finished the job. Now, 14 don't tell no that I have to amend my license because I have 15 to move it from a location to another -- wait for your 16 approval before I produce that source.
17 Now, there has got to be-a sort of common sense 18 here. We have a utilization log, okay? And this in 19 defining the source, the model, the activity, who is using 20 it, where. That give you everything you want to know about 21 the source. If we had more than what we have right now,
.22 believe me, we will be adding a lot of burdenn and financial 23 to the industry that I do not think we could handle.
24 MR. COOL Let me ask you a. question.. Let's 25 dialogue this just a second. From what you said, I would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
173 1 interpret that your utilitation log would be something more 4
2 than what I heard a few minutes ago, which was source signed 3 out to X-basin, which is an oil field, and that is all the 4 utilization log said in that particular case. I am 5 interpreting what you just said that you have a much more 6 detailed utilization log.
7 MR. 1VAZON: Yes. We have --
8 MR. COOL So, part of the trouble we have hear is 9 that people are using that term to cover a whole host of 10 different possibilities. Am I right?
11 MR. TUAZON: Our utilization log is the 12 utilization log that reflects the criteria in Part 34. It 13 says the source activity, the source number, the model, who 14 is using that, and the place of location. So, overything 15 you want to know about the source is right now -- they're 16 looking at it right now. And, at times, when the inspector 17 from NRC comes and audits me, he would ask about the 18 location of the source, and right there in front of him as 19 everything he wants to know.
20 MS. CARDWELL Let me just add to that. The i '. problem -- and, again, this came up with these additional-22 use sites, and it goes back to exactly what Jim said -- from 23 the main facility, it can be checked out to this Warrior 24 Basin field forever and_ever. But, from there, it can be 25 checked out every day by a different radiography crew, and i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Repoders 1612 K. Street, - N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
174 1 we have lost it from there.
2 The way the rules were, as it is, they have met 3 all the regulations by filling out the utilization logs, 4 that says from the main office, is checked out to this site.
5 But, from there on, our inspectors could go out and that 6 source may not be there -- may not have been there for the 7 last 90 days. It could have been checked out somewhere else 8 from there.
9 Now, maybe yours go further tha, that. But, then 10 we are back to having to write these regulations for the 11 minority that is the problem, and not the majority that's 12 not.
13 MR. TUAZoN: Let me add, part of the training is, 14 hey, Mr. Radiographer, you could be anywhere; but prior to 15 using that source you are, by law -- you are to notify us as 16 to the whereabouts of that source. You can be in 250 miles.
17 But, that is the reason why we have access to this 18 telephone, so that before you use the source, I'm using the 19 source today, on this location. So, it may not be in the 20 main office, it may be in the field. But, the NRC is fully 21 aware of where the source is at that particular location.
22 MS. CARDWELL: We are fortunate enough to have the 23 resources -- cellular telephones and all these resources to 24 put into this -- the management and the training. And so 25 many of our licenses have not done that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
175 1 MR. TUAZON: A cellular telephone was just 2 recently part of the training. Prior to using the source -
3 - and this is part of the training -- prior to using the 4 source, you must notify the RSO to comply with the 5 requirements. So, the telephone right now is -- if I'm not 6 personally in there, there is another telephone where there 7 is a recording where that source is being used. There is a 8 recording answering machine the tells you, hey, if the RSO -
9 is not available, where the source is so that at least he 10 knows where the source is.
11 MR. BALLARD: Region I Licensee. I don't really 12 see a problem with defining additional field stations, '
13 except that it is going to cost us money. And I don't see 14 it hampering the transportation of the source because you 15 can move it around as much as you want. This just gives the 16 regulatory agency -- and this is common -- we have outages 17 at refineries or chemical plants, and we may be onsite for h
18 four montha, and we get a designated area usually in the 19 basement, because the basement has concrete walls. And it 20 can be also used as a shielded room radiography, but not as 21 a permanent facility. And we have a locked gate, and we 22 keep our exposure device there, because it simply is an 23 unnecessary risk to transport that thing on a daily basis, 24 when that is the only place it is ever going to go for the 25 next six months. So, a field station wouldn't really bother ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C.- 20006 (202) 293-3950
176 1 us, and I don't see-how it would affect or have a 2 deleterious affect on our ability to transport. And it-3 would give the agency another place to go look.
4 MR. McNEES: I just question why is it necessary, 5 in that case there, if they are doing an outage at chemical 6 company X, and they are reworking their piping system, and 7 they are going to be there for four months, why is it 8 necessary for them to have a license amendment for that?
9 Does that mean we have more paper coming in, and that's more 10 paper for us to process, and a fee to charge them and more 11 stuff to make sure that gets mailed out, and more stuff to 12 make sure -- is the license amendment really necessary for 13 that?
14 MR. HOWERTON: Chicago Bridge & Iron Company just 15 recently had to amend our NRC license to add our New Castle, 16 Delaware facility, because, for many years, we have had an 17 office in New Castle Delaware, which contracts work out of 18 that office. The NRC asked us to add New Castle to our 19 license. The licensee's address is licensed with an address 20 in Texas. This is probably where some of it came about.
21 Now, in addition to that, we contracted work out 22 of that facility -- sent sources to and from their facility, 23 therefore, we agreed it should be on the license. But I 24 don't agree that a temporary job site, for a period of four 25 or six months at one location where the isotope remains.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
177 1 And we do many of these jobs in chemicals and in refineries, 2 where we will build four or five spheres, and have a source 3 down there for six to nine months. But that is the only 4 place that it remains.
5 MR. FREE: Bob Free, with Texas. We' don't 6 disagree with that. The problem that we encounter comes 7 where the source leaves that temporary job site during that 8 four to six-month period and goes nomewhere else.
9 MS. CARDWELL: Goes to several smaller sites?
10 MR. FREE: In Texas, anyway. With some companies 11 that tends to be a common occurrence -- that suddenly this 12 temporary job site, if you have sources stored for four to 13 six months, becomes more like an office operation, and these 14 sources leave there to go to other jobs that are more or 15 less spin-off contracts from that temporary job site.
16 MR. McNEES: Are you saying the temporary job site 17 becomes like a dispatching place?
18 MR. FREE: Yes.
19 MR. COOL: I think maybe we have -- if I could try 20 and refine the case here? We have got a case such as what 21 we were talking about over here, where you have, in essence, 22 a particular location -- this fossil fuel plant that's down, 23 or a nuclear plant that is down, or anyplace else, a 24 refinery. And that is one location that is going to be used 25 there. It is within a fairly small complex -- a couple of-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
178 1 buildings perhaps. But, that is where it is going to be.
2 And when you are done there, you walk away and you are done.
3 The other case that we have here is a slightly 4 different case, because they have gone up -- they have 5 established this shed location on the edge of what may be 6 thousands of acres or square miles of area, and from there 7 they're dispatching to quadrant six, quadrant three, go over 8 to someplace else. Am I correct? Have I picked up the 9 differences?
10 MR. FOGLE: That's right. They will dispatch from 11 that place to other jobs in different cities. And, also, 12 maybe some geography. Texas is so large that the majors 13 will establish these field stations -- one in Dallas, one in 14 Austin, one in El Paso. So, that is another reason for the 15 rule. Your Honor 16 MS. TROTTIER: To go back and read the definition 17 that we have in Part 39, I think that makes it -- if we were 18 to go in this direction, it would clarify this distinction 19 about what's a temporary job site, and what is a field 20 station, because it specifically says where material may be 21 stored or used, and from which equipment is dispatched to 22 temporary job sites. So, if' equipment is not dispatched 23 from that site, in fact, if the equipment is used in the 24 area of that site, that would just be a_ temporary job site, 25 it would not be a field station. And I think that would be ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D, C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
179 1 the distinguishing characteristic.
2 MR. HOWERTON: Hugh Howerton, Chicago Bridge &
3 Iron. Is that the way the Texas regs are written?
4 MS. CARDWELL: With what? I'm sorry.
5 MR. HOWERTON: Is that the way the Texas regs are 6 writter, that if it is dispatched from that temporary job 7 site to another location, then it becomes a different 8 category?
9 MS. CARDWELL: Well, this is the revision that I 10 am reading off of. We ran into this problem, and we are now 11 in the process of revising it. It doesn't -- our current 12 regs don't have this extra definition of additional storage 13 use site.
14 MR. HOWERTON: Okay. Can the proposed regs --
15 what triggers you to go from a temporary site to now a new 16 criteria?
17 MS. CARDWELL: Well, the definition we've got is 18 just -- it means an authorized use storage location 19 specifically named on a license, other than-the main site 20 specified on the license or.other than a temporary job site.
21 And then you have to go on what.is a temporary job site.
22 MS. TROTTIER: I believe NRC would go with this 23 definition.
24 MR. HOWERTON: You had-mentioned 90 days.
25 MS. TROTTIER: That it actually be a place where ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court _ Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
-180 1 things are dispatched from, not used in that.
t 2 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. And that may be something 3 that we need to look at in this revision that we are working 4 on, is putting something like that in. We don't right now 5 have it. And, of course, these haven't been proposed until 6 February. But it is a problem that has been identified by 7 our inspection staff and our licensing staff. Because David 8 is right. They may have a corporate headquarters in 9 Houston, one of these additional sites in Dallas, El Paso, 10 somewhere, and from those then they may dispatch to 10, 15 11 or more different temporary job sites from each one of 12 those.
13 MR. COOL: Does it work better to focus upon 14 dispatch than storage? Because I am hearing storage -- if I 15 am going to be at this outage, and that is what I am hearing 16 people say is a temporary job site. But, for transportation 17 purposes, for safety, get back to the bottomline. Why are 18 we doing this? To try to have the maximum amount of safety.
19 It makes sense to store it there rather,than drive it back 20 each night.
21 MS. CARDWELL: And that may be something that we-22 need to look into in our revision -- this idea of 23 dispatching from that location.
24 MS. TROTTIER: We might as well look at the second 25 one at the same time. Do we need to define temporary job ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
181 1 site? Is there a need to define it? State regs have a 2 definition, which is a simple definition. It is any 3 location where industrial radiography is performed other 4 than the locations listed in a specific license or 5 certificate of registration.
6 So, the other issue then that we are raising here 7 is do we need to define these areas of use, so that it is 8 clear what is meant by temporary job site, permanent 9 facility, and field station, if we go in that direction.
10 MR. MARYLAND: I would like to read something --
11 Neal Maryland, from the State of Georgia -- that we have for 12 storage or use location. And it pretty much came from the 13 state suggested regs. And it says that a storage or use 14 location is considered permanent if a radioactive material 15 is stored at the location for more than 90 days, or any one 16 or more of the following applies to the location. Number 17 one, telephone service is established by the licensee.
18 Number two, industrial radiographic services are advertised 19 for or from the location. And, of course, number three, is 20 industrial radiographic operations are conducted at other 21 sites due to the arrangement made from the location.
22 So, I think that if we -- we have got a definition 23 for temporary job site, and also we have got a definition 24 for permanent job site. And that would clear that up.
25 MR. COOL: Are there other approaches?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
182 1 MS.- CARDWELL: We use the same approach.
2 MR. KASYK: George.Kasyk, New York State 3 Department of Labor. I am bothered by the word dispatched.
4 You were in the field station and~you know to dispatch 5 somewhere to another job. It has got to come from 6 somewhere. Somebody has to do the dispatching. And for 7 what reason? Is it solicited business? I mean, otherwise, O it is handled from the main office, the main facility. So, 9 once you say dispatching from that site, it means conti'.auing 10 some kind of a business activity there. I think the vord is 11 very unfortunate -- dispatching.
12 MR. KLINGER: Let me ask something. In Texas, if 13 someone is merely storing material at a site, let's say in 14 this refinery or something, it is longer than 90 days. They 15 are not dispatching it. They are not using it in any other 16 temporary job site, only that one. Do you still have to get 17 that site listed on the license; is that correct?
18 MR. FOGLE: I believe so.
19 MS. CARDWELL: It's a permanent storage site.-
20 MR. KLINGER: A period of time, whether they're 21 dispatching it or not, they have it stored there for 90 22 days. In Illinois it's 180 days. In reciprocity it is 180 23 days. That is what it is based on.
24 MR. FOGLE: I would also like to answer Jim's 25 question. The reason we want to put it on the license is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite - 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293 3950 ,
183 1 because we want to get information on that site to make sure ,
2 that it meets.the requirements of posting the exposure 3 levels around the area. And also, during the amendment 4 process in Texas, we require that the owner of the facility 5 be notified or knows that this other~ company is storing 6 radioactive material tnere.
7 MR. CARRIco: Again, I indicate that Texas is not 8 revising its regulations to incorporate this, but it sounds 9 as though you are still talking that it.could be a temporary 10 job site, if they are in a fossil fuel plant conducting 11 radiography for more than 90 days and storing that source 12 there for more than 90 days. You would ask them to amend 13 the license to identify that as a storage location. A year 14 later they left, that's fine. Take it off the license.
15 MS. CARDWELL: For that one year they would pay, 16 in their annual fee, the additional 25 percent of that site.
17 The next year they would drop it.
18 MR.-CARRICO: They don't have to-separate-it out.
19 It's just that they had it~at that location.
20- MS. CARDWELL: .And for the very reason stated.
21- MR. FOGLE: It gives the opportunity for-our-22 . agency to go out and do an inspection, and-just to make-sure 23 that what they told-us is actually-the case. And, in most 24 cases, I mean, that's why the 90-days is there. . So, you 25 give them three' months at that facility before they have to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,~ Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K.- Street, N.Wi, Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)-293-3950
. - _ ~ . . .
184 1 put-it on their license. And, anything beyond that gives us.
2 an opportunity.
3 MR. COOL: How does that time period work out?
. 4 And here maybe I am looking for our folks that are members 5 of the public to do that. Does 90 days sort encapsulate the 6 amount of time that you would usually spend out there at a 7 particular location, or do you run into a lot of situations 8 where you are there for four months or five months?
9 What sort of timeframes do you usually work at a 10 single location to get a lot of particular work done?
11 MR. HOWERTON: Hugh Howerton, CBI. We have worked 12 on job sites anywhere from two hours to three years. Back 13 in the nuclear days, when we were building nuclear reactors 14 in the field, we were on a job site for three years. And 15 that is the only place the sources remain.
16 For most of work now, three months is too short a 17 period of time.
18 MR. COOL: Are you usually at a facility more than 19 three months?
20 MR. HOWERTON: That is correct.
21 MR. COOL: What is it averaging now? Six perhaps?
22 MR. HOWERTON: For most of our work, it is over 23 three-months.
24 MR. COOL: It's over three months?
25 MR. HOWERTON: Involving 30 to 40 percent of work, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders-l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
E 185 1 three months would be okay. We take large contracts 2 building pressure vessels,-and 60-foot diameter-sphere, and 3 it may take four months to build. When you have six spheres 4 in one location -- in Fort Comfort, Texas, we were there for 5 a little over a year.
6 MS. TROTTIER: I have a question. Would the 7 utilization log, then indicate that location for that period 8 of time?
9 MR. HOWERTON: Yes, ma'am.
10 MS. TROTTIER: So, in fact, for inspection 11 purposes, you could determine that the material was at that 12 location by looking at the utilization log?
13 MR. HOWERTON: Yes, ma'am.
14 MR. COOL: Do we have anybody else who would like 15 to give me some feed back on my question?
16 MR. TUAZON: Manny Tuazon, Consumers Power 17 Company. It changes from day to day and from job to job.
18 For instance, we would be at a specific site today and then 19 tomorrow that same source would be used in another site. Or 20 maybe a certain source would be used for two, three-or maybe 21 a month on a certain site. So, these change from day to 22 day, as per the demand of the customers. When there is a 23 demand of the job, that is where the source will be used.
24 Sometimes you don't have the luxury -- they want it today, 25 that's it. _So, it changes from day to day, from month to ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006
-(202)-293-3950
186 1 month, and there is no specific timeframe. <
2 MR. KLINGER: Okay. So, are these-sources being i 3 returned back to your main facility then? Because there is 4 no provision against that. It is just working as a 5 temporary job site, and it goes one place one day, and in 6 the next couple of days it goes someplace else. Is the I 7 source coming back to a site?
8 MR. TUAZON: Not always. If we are about a 9 hundred miles from the job site, then we have to stay there, 10 instead of traveling back and forth. But then they will say 11 I will be there two days on that job site. So, we know two 12 days they will be at the job site. And I say, if you have 13 to extend that let me know, so they know we have to go down 14 the whereabouts of the sources.
15 MR. KLINGER: There is no prohibition against 16 that. I don't see any problem with the additional permanent 17 site -- with that scenario. Because let's say they are out -- ;
18 there for a month and-they are storing it on_the truck, they 19 are living in a motel or something, that's fine. It.is just 20 that if the source is out there-for six months and it is-not 21 coming back to the main-facility, and you set up some sort 22 ~'
of a storage facility, you set it up with some rental place, 23 and then you return it to a storage site, and then you ,
24 operate out of that storage site. That is what we are 25 looking at as an additional permanent site. And so Texas ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K.'
Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
187 1 has a 90-day trigger. We have 180 trigger.
2 So, I don't see that it is in conflict with what 3 you're saying. It shouldn't interfere with the way you are 4 conducting business, unless NRC comes up with a really short 5 period of time that will trigger this license.
6 MR. TUAZON: You said 90 days. Say if we used it 7 for 89 days. They consider it under the definition? Okay.
8 Suppose we stay there, we use that location. Would that be 9 90 days covered by that definition? You know what I am 10 talking about?
11 MR. KLINGER: Okay.
12 MR. TUAZON: T5is is 90 days. That was just in 13 case it was used.
14 MR. KLINGER: Is the source coming back to your 15 main site?
16 MR. TUAZON: No , it stays there, because there may 17 be a need for it. Would that be covered under that 18 definition? I think, like I mentioned earlier -- I think we 19 have a -- right now we have a good requirement. With the 20 utilization log, the people that follow that -- it will not 21 remove the problem, but it will minimize -- bring the 22 problem into minimal conditions.
23 MR. BALLARD: Bruce Ballard, Licensee, Region I.
24 About 10 percent of our jobs .last more than 90 days at a 25 single location, and I have no objection to notifying the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
188 1 regulatory agent that we are there. I would object to 2 having it put on our license, unless we have established 3 telephone-service and dispatch-from that point. So, just 4 because a source is there for more than 90 days, I would 5 object to having to put that on our license, simply because 6 we will probably be there 120 days, and now we have got to 7 take it off our license. But, if phone service and 8 dispatching is established from that location, then I have 9 no objection to putting it on our license.
10 MS. ROUGHAN: Kate Roughan from Amersham. That 11 was going to be my comment. A system of notification as a 12 license amendment would be more workable if the licensee 13 could notify the regional office of the appropriate 14 agreement and state that they would be there for more than 15 90 days or 30 days, whatever the trigger date is going to 16 be. But, it could be inspected, and we could go at it.that 17 way, instead of an up-front cost.
18 MS. TROTTIER: From what I am hearing here, the 19 thoughts that I am coming up with, this should a health and 20 safety-based issue. And the only real health and safety 21 , , issue is where is the source? And there is a mechanism for 22 knowing the location of the source. That is the important 4
23- piece of information. As long as that is known, either 24 through utilization logs or some other system, at least the 25 information is available, and there is not an occasion, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
189 1 should the owner die, that we have source laying all over 2 the country with no known location.
3 All right.
4 MR. FUNDERBURG: Bob Funderburg from California.
5 I would advice NRC that, if they establish a deadline or a 6 number of days for a field station, that they make the 7 number of days equivalent to how long it take them to amend 8 the license.
9 MS. TROTTIER: You mean number of years?
10 MR. COOL: And perhaps with that comment we should 11 --
12 MR. MILLER: It's getting to be break time.
13 MR. COOL: Let's take about 10 minutes to get up 14 and stretch.
15 MR. MILLER: Before you leave, hold just one 16 second. A couple of people have asked about the names of 17 everybody that's here, and we did bring our laptop with us.
18 Jim is out typing this roster up. And I asked him to put a 19 third column on there, and we will post one out here so_that 20 you can put your telephone numbers by your name. That way 21 we can always call you. Did you really say this?
22 We will post it out here so everybody can put 23 their telephone numbers on there.
24 MS. TROTTIER: Are we back? All right.
25 MR. VERELLEN: Bob Verellen with the State of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
190 1 Washington. We are currently revising our regulations.
2 They are supposed to go into effect around the first of the 3 year regarding temporary job sites. We are going to put in 4 1 requirement for a 24-hour prior notification by telephone 5 on a 1-800 service for tenporary job sites by all of our 6 radiographers. And I have talked to Texas a little bit and 7 can appreciate Louisiana and California, and the volume of 8 theJ r rndlog'mpnv work they have. We don't have that 9 massive vo'n.r.c. We are under 20 licensees, but we would 10 expect somewhere in the nolghborhood of maybe 10 call a day 11 max. They are going to have to declare a temporary job site 12 and give us a chance to get out in the field and see it, 13 rather than just by chance, which is what we use now.
14 I did want to request anybody who has any input 15 with that sort of system, if they could let us know what 16 some of the problems might be.
17 MR. KASYK: George Kasyk. I would like to comment 18 on your regulations. We don't ask them to send us state 19 licenses -- our own to send us a license -- only state 20 licensees. To handle your situation, what we do is we -- a 21 couple of times a year, we declare what is called a blitz.
22 That means everybody gets in the office in the morning, and 23 we call them up and ask them where the jobs are. People get 24 in the car and go out and inspect. And if we have a 25 priority, you can meet the manager. He dashes out with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. . . . ._ -.- .~ . . . _ . - .. --
191 ,
1- spare meters, and pocket dosimeters, and whatever they-would.
-2 need.
3' -MS. TROTTIER: And do a lot of the inspectors have 4 -Ferraris?
5 MR. KASYK: No.
6 MS. TROTTIER: We should all go to work in New.
7 York State then. ,
8 MR. KASYK: But this works very well. We catch -
9 - most of the time you can catch them at field operations.
b 10 That's essentially what you want. So, they are notified _in 11 advance that they do--this' blitz.
12 MS. TROTTIER:. All right. I want to deal --
13 before we move on, to the last three items on our list of 14 definitions. There is one other thing that's in the related 15 issues that I thought this_would.be a good time to bring up, 16 since-when I actually created these lists, you know,_ it was ,
'17 -- whatever seemed.lik'e:it went together,-and I grouped them-
-18 by where they came from. But,-this one_comes out of-the i
19 suggested state regs,cand-it-is-a definition of-a 20 residential location. ,
21 .I-want to bring this up because-I want'to have -
-22 some feedback _on is there a: problem-with not having-:a- '
-23 definition.of what is a residential-. location?- Do'you have
~
24 problems where people are' storing sources in a residents and: -
i ..
25 you don't know they're storing sources:there?: =This came ANN - RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
g Court Reporters L 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 L Washington,- D. O, 20006 L(202) 293-3950
192 1 from the suggested state regs, so I am going to leave it 2 open to feedback. But, I would like to get some sense of 3 whether this is a real problem. Because apparently it is 4 not something we discuss in Part 34 at all. And is this 5 something that we need to add in Part 347 6 MS. CARDWELL: The reason we have it in there is 7 because, number one, we prohibit storage at a residential 8 location. So, therefore, we had to define residential 9 location. And, yes, we do find them there chained around 10 trees, in garages and sheds out back. And it is na and pop 1 11 organizations that are problems.
12 And, again, this is the difference between the 13 airline radiography industry, and some of the big, major 14 companies, and some of the ma and pop, smaller ones.
15 VOICE: In California they require that the 16 licensee have a storage site and an office at a location.
17 It happens to be that I have a neighbor who has that on his 18 requirement -- on his license that he has got a storage site 19 there, but he only has the one truck. So, he drives it home 20 to his condo every single night and is at his condo every 21 night, but the inspectors have never caught-him at it. Now, 22 I can catch him at it if they want me to. And they prohibit 23 residential storage of equipment. But, how do you handle 24 them.
25 MR. FUNDERBURG: I don't think the problem:is the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
193 1 definition of residential. It is pretty straight-forward.
e 2 You have city laws' that have' residential properties - and:
3 commercial properties already defined. And I would not'want1
4 to try to put it into a regulation. In fact, the State of ,
5 california has-a law that says if-you have already-got a .
6 definition, you can't put it in a regulation.. You'can't F
7 have two redundant regulations.
8 MR. FREE: To respond to that somewhat, Houston 9 has no zoning requirements, where most of our radiographer ,
10 licensees are. So, you have commercial and residential s
11 right there together. And that also winds up to be the 12 situation in other cities, as well as neighborhoods become-13 older and commercial zoning moves in on those neighborhoods.
14 Also, companies hire -- when they-would get a 15 contract, and realize that it is not a long-term' contract, 16 or one that they might get renewed, they tend to hire 17 radiographers on a short-term basis from that general area 18 of a state to work on that job. Those radiographers'are 19 sort of free agents, and tend to takelthe equipment home 20 vith them. And that causes another situation 1for storage in 21 a residential location.
22 MR. MARYLAND: Neal Maryland from the State of 23 Georgia.- We have'two licensees-in the State of Georgia that 24 'used to store material-in a residential area.- And we have 25~ pretty much adopted the: state's-suggested regs with the
- ANN RILEY_ & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Coud - Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W.,: Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 '
(202) 293-3950
194 1 residential -- well, definition of residential in theres 2 And one of the problems that we face is that all 3 the licensees they use in residentii areas all ended up 4 storing in the warehouse. So, I don't know if that is going 5 to be a problem or what. But, we have amended the license 6 where they can store radioactive material in warehouses.
7 And I think that is probably less secure than where they 8 used to have it, especially if they own two or three acres, 9 and, you know, put it in the backyard and have a good 10 garage, and a big dog. As a matter of fact, one of our 11 licensees had it in their driveway, in the garage, 12 underground, where they stored their gauges, and locked and 13 secured in two-acre land. But, it was considered 14 residential, so they had to find a mini-warehouse to store 15 the gauges -- I mean, cameras in now.
16 MR. PATTERSON: How do you handle a situation 17 where you have crews on so-called temporary job sites? They 18 are going to be aware from the permanent job site for two or 19 three days. They stay in motels. Rather than to leave the 20 unit out there in their darkroom locked up, they bring it-21 into the motel room with them. Classify that as residential 22 or non-residential?
23 MS. TROTTIER: I guess the real question here is 24 what is the issue? I mean, is the issue that it just ,
25 doesn't seem right to store it in a residential location?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
195 1 or is the issue whether the mate'ial is properly secure? I 2 mean, if the material.is properly secured from unauthorized ,
3 access, does it really matter where it is? Is that a 4 problem?
5 MR. McNEES: We thought about this when we were 6 going to change our regs. But, does it-really-matter, like-7 you say, if he has a -- you know, a box made out of half-8 inch plate steL1 with a good lock on it? Does it matter if 9 that is in his garage, or if that is in a storage warehouse?
10 Is ora safer than cnother? Who would get exposed in one or 11 the other, if it's shielded and secure?
12 MR. FREE: Bob Free, with Texas. The complaints 13 that we received on this issue tend to come from the 14 neighbors, when they see that the vehicles that may be 15 placarded, or whatever indication they give that there is 16 radioactive material aboard, tend to get nervous and upset 17 about the fact that there is this radioactive material in 18 their neighborhood. That tends to be one area where we have 19 to take some sort of a stand in opposition.
20 Personally, I feel like that that could be handled 21 on a case by case basis. The problem is we are not notified 22 of every situation where this material is stored in a 23 residential location. Most of the time we get the 24 information from an informant, and go out and investigate 25 it. So, the prohibition, as a rule, prevents that situation ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
196 1 to some extent, and also allows us some enforcement q 2 capability.
3 MS. TRoTTIER: Well, I don't want to spend a lot 1
4 of time-on this. i 5 MR. BALLARD: Bruce Ballard, Licensee, Region I. )
6 There are, I think, two categories where this cold 7 come into play. What I think you need to prevent is a 8 person not officially dispatching himself from his home, but l
9 a person who brings his truck home and goes to his different 10 job or the same job and always parks his truck in his house.
11 I think this is something I have no objection to preventing.
12 Because he is there all the time, you know. Week after 13 week, month after month, through the whole year, he has got 14 this truck parked at a residential location.- And I have no 15 objections to that.
16 And we have complied with Georgia, because we have 17 a state license there. And we have got a mini-warehouse, 18 and we put in a wire cage, a lined tool-box. We notified 19 the local fire department, emergency response people, nr.d 20 the warehouse people that we are going to have radioactive 21 material in your self-storage.
22 What I would object to is a pipeline. And 23 pipeline radiography is a big industry. And you may be out 24 there for one month or four months, in a 20 to 50 to 70-25 mile radius, because it's a pipeline; it is not very wide, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
197 1 but it is certainly very long. And I would object to having-2 to find a place to store this other than in the truck in the 3 motel parking lot, because the nearest storage facility 4 could be in -- in a lot of pipeline from rural areas, it 5 could be two hours away.
6 Or do you go to a local farmer? And now, his 7 property -- you know, how far will you get from his farm?
8 You know, if you get -- he may have a four or five-acre 9 farm. Well, if you get a quarter of a mile away from his 10 f arm house, are you not residential? Well, you are on his 11 property, but you are not near anything. So, that's the 12 only objection I would have.
13 MS. CARDWELL: Well, it has come up about this 14 storage in a motel. And what we did was add wording that 15 said that it is prohibited in a residential location, but 16 that that particular prohibition docan't apply to the 17 storage of radioactive material in a vehicle in transit for 18 use at temporary job sites, if they comply with the section 19 on vehicle surveys and what the limits have to be, and if-20 the vehicle does not constitute a permanent storage 21 location, as defined.
22 MS. TRoTTIER: So, in other words, you think-that 23 would prevent someone from concentrating _it?
24 MS. CARDWELL: Right. That would take care of 25 this situation we're talking about on the pipeline.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612- K. Street,- N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
198 1 MR. KASYK: I believe there are DOT regulations i
2 that came to this point, under the driver qualification, and-3 how many hours where he can drive, where he can park a truck 4 with hazardous material under DOT regs. I think you can 5 just as well look there, and follow the DOT regulations on 6 transporting hazardous materials. The parking and resting 7 is all described in there, so there is no need to invent 8 anything.
9 MS. TROTTIER: We can basically not add this and 10 still not have a problem.
11 All right. Now I would like to move aware from 12 the area of where we put it and talk about a couple of other 13 definitions that are currently not in Part 34. And the 14 question has been posed from our staff as to whether they 15 need to be added.
16 The first one on the list there is safety review.
17 And this I think came from Part 39, which does have a 18 definition for a safety review. Which is a periodic review 19 provide by the licensee for its employees on radiation 20 safety aspects, of course, weld logging. The review may 21 include, as appropriate, the results of internal 22 inspections, new procedures or equipment, accidents or 23 errors that have been observed, and opportunities for 24 employees to ask safety questions.
25 Now, is there an-advantage in having a safety ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. _. .__ . - _ _ _ ...~. - . . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - _ . - - -
'199 ;j 1 review so defined in the definitions? Is that adding 2 confusion? Yes?
3 MR. VERELLEN: Bob Verellen, from the State of t-4 Washington. It sounds like that's the-annual refresher 5 training requirement.
6 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. I think it is pretty much the-7 same. So, the real question here is is it needed in_the 8 definitions? Does that cut down on the confusion? Bruce, 9 do you want to -- ,
10 MR. CARRICO: And that is the point though.
11 Should the regulations be changed? It is clear what is 12 intended in the safety reviews. And Part 34 is quiet about 13 that right now.- We have done it-through licensing. -Should -
14 the regulations make it clear what is expected?
15 MS. TROTTIER: We are trying to find the language-16 - that is currently used here. Yes. Go ahead.
17 MS. DIBBLEE: Martha Dibblee, Oregon. It seems 18 that, as you become more prescriptive _in these regulations, 19 you are bound to leave something out. And, iflyou-had your 20- list of requirements for a safety review,-ultimately there-21 will be something that licensee will not do that may produce.
22 a safety problem, and-yet they can come back_and say well, 23 you didn't require it so we didn't do it. And I think it is 24- better for you to do it, based on the.ALARA principles-that ;
25 are in Part 20,:which are already in place. We make our
- ANN RILEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters -
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950; p r,- = ,--e r--,, , - , v--s- - m
200 1 medical licensees go through this. There is a QA Program 2 that most licensees have that should cover this. The 3 refresher training, within the procedures, should cover 4 this. And I think to be more specific would just add 5 confusion to the general issue.
6 MR. TUAZON: Manny Tuazon, with Consumers Power 7 Company. I would just like to add to what you have 8 mentioned -- that we also perform, and it is required by 9 Part 34, quarterly audits. And I think that we have more 10 than sufficiently complied with the safety review for the 11 license.
12 MR. KASYK: George Kasyk, New York State 13 Department of Labor. The audit is fine with us, except, who 14 does the audit? Now, you cannot accept a radiation safety 15 officer who is in the vernacular, messing up the whole 16 quarter, then he puts on another hat on his head and becomes 17 an auditor and audits himself. How can he audit himself?
18 And he may be some part of the management. I think the 19 important part is that it be audited by somebody outside of 20- the radiographic operation who is not involved in tdua daily 21 running of the operation. It is just more important than 22 the audit itself.
23 MR. TUAZON: Do I have the floor?.
24 MS. TROTTIER: You can have it.
25 MR. TUAZON: Where do we end? Are you saying to ANN RlLEY. & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
201 1 me okay, right now I am audited by the NRC? Are you sayi.sg--
2 that, in addition to the audit by the NRC, somebody else 3 will audit me? Let me ask you, who audits me?
4 MR. KASYK: The NRC.
5 MR. TUAZON: So, do you expect -- see, there had ,
6 got to be a limit. The NRC audits my operation?
7 MR. KASYK: But I don't do radiography. I am the 8 regulator.
9 MR. TUAZON: As a regulator, you are audited by 10 the NRC.
11 MR. KASYK Yes.
12 MR. TUAZON: To what?
13 MR. KASYK: To the company operations and 14 licensing inspection.
15 HR. TUAZON: The same thing. The NRC comes and 16 audits me to ensure that I comply with the requirements.
17 MR. KASYK: They don't run my daily operations.
18 They come from outside, somebody else from the program.
19 MR. TUAZON: You're saying somebody outside of the 20 NRC?
21 MR. KASYK: No. In your company.- Somebody who is 22 not a radiation safety officer has to come in, like NDT 23 management nr somebody has to come in. You cannot audit 24 yourself. How can you audit yourself?
25 MR. TUAZON: We have the corporate officers of the ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
202 1 company uto are often onboard to work with me in doing this 2 audit. We have the-Department of Public Health of Michigan 3 who performs audits of the operation. We have the NRC who 4 performs audits of the operation. We have the authorized 5 inspector who audits the operation. We have the American 6 Nuclear Insurance who audits the operation. What else do 7 you want from me?
8 MR. KASYK: I am not talking about your company.
9 MR. TUAZON: I am talking about these outside 10 people from the company. This is regularly done every 11 years.
12 MR. KASYK: I am not talking about your company.
13 I am talking about a comnany where the president is the RSO, 14 and has four or five or six people working for him, who is 15 going to audit. He is the president, and he is also the 16 RSO. How can he do the audit -- impartial audit?
17 MR. CARRICO: I think we're getting off this issue 18 here. It is just a question. Should we clarify what's 19 intended in the safety review? I am getting into a whole 20 new area of audits here.
21 MS. TROTTIER: Actually, that is a later question.
22 MR. COOL: I would like to refocus back and get us 23 looking back a the fundamental issue, because we have gotten 24 ourselves a little bit sidetracked on who does what to.whom 25 when. So, let's.go back to the undsrlying issue here, which ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- COud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
203 ,
1 is are there certain things which a licensoo, or which wo k
2 should require a licensee to do, in order so that he, 3 himself, is satisfied that operations are being conducted in 4 the propor mannor? And if the 11RC or the states or the 5 American 11ucioar Insurers, or anybody o}so who might fool 6 some sort of jurisdiction sometimos just shoes up, does ho 7 have confidence that ho is mooting the requirements, and 8 that he has dono a good job? But, more Arnportantly, that ho 9 has confidence that each day when his radiographors go out 10 to do their thing, that they are doing things the right way, 11 and that they are not going to cause an exposure to 12 themselves or to somebody 01so inadvertently.
13 So, I would like to get ua focused back to that 14 underlying question of a review, which the licensee should 15 conduct in and of themselves, in order to assure that 16 operations are being conducted proporly.
17 MR. VERELLEll Bob Verellen, from the State of 18 Washington again. I find it hard to believe that overybody 19 0100 operatos differently than wo do. But, wo epecify that 20 in our licence review process. I think the only issue you 21 are talking about here is whether you change it from just a 22 license tie-in clause on a license, versus putting it in the 23 regulations.
24 MS. TROTTIER Right. that is correct. Does it 25 need to be explicitly stated in-the regulations? It is a ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
204 1 problem ~~ you know, has there been a problem with not i 2 having it stated? Is there a broad interpretation of what 3 is meant by a safety requirement?
4 MR. CARRICO Again, we are not talking about the 5 internal audits of radiographers, we are talking about the 6 periodic safety review, as we sit down and go over those 7 topics with the radiographers.
8 MR. VERELLEN: We usually include that in the 9 training program. The topic in very well-defined.
10 MS. TRoTTIER: The question really is just, you 11 know, has it been up to the discretion of the license 12 reviewer on the quality of that application? In other 13 words, if that application is deficient in this area, then 14 it is deficient in that area forever.
15 MR. CARRICo: It helps focus the applicant on the 16 areas that need to be addressed in his discussion of what he 17 plans to do for the safety review are these areas. Here is 18 what is to be accomplished. It is more a force than the 19 licensing guideline.
20 MR. BALLARD: Bruce Ballard, Licensee. Region I.
21 I think it should shift from a license item to a specific 22 item in the regulations because, as a license item, it 23 allows it to vary at times greatly from licensee to 24 licensee. And I think it would put everybody on a leveler 25 playing field. And I do think it needs to be spelled out, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
205 1 because it tends to be a little ambiguous in the 2 regulations, and it leaves it up to the interpretation of 3 the particular region as to how strongly they want to 4 interpret it.
5 MS. TROTTIER: And that, in fact, is another 6 advantage of having things spelled out in the regulation, 7 and produces more consistency, as opposed to it being at an 8 individual reviewer's discretion, which could, in fact, work 9 against a licensee, by being an overly burdensome 10 requirement.
11 MS. ROUGIIAN : We have helped some people come up 12 with this annual refresher training for eight hours, 16 13 hours, whatever they want to implement. And there is a lot 14 of variation between it. But everyone seems to have the 15 same basic idea on the subjects that need to be covered. No 16 one seems to dispute what needs to be covered in the annual 17 refresher training. In addition, when the inspectors come 18 in, one of the things they should be looking at is the 19 refresher training program, ask the employees if they 20 received the training, if they understood the changes in the 21 procedures. And that, in effect, checks that the training 22 has been done. And then, in addition, with the new Part 20, 23 you have that annual safety review of the whole ALARA 24 program, and that has been incorporated along with the same 25 features. So, adding a specific regulation as to the actual ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
206 1 list of subjects, then you are bound to leave something out.
2 It is too prescriptive I think. You have the Part 20 ALARA 3 on an annual basis. We are just going to be looking at the 4 overall program, to be sure it is adequate for the 5 operations.
6 MS. TROTTIER: Actually, this could be 7 incorporated into regulatory guides also. That would be an 8 appropriate forum for it.
9 All right. Let's move to the last two items in 10 there. Shielded position. Now, I think that also comes 11 from Part 39. Let me read to you what Part 39 says. No, it 12 isn't in Part 39. Where does it come from?
13 MR. McNEES: A shielded person. A survey, Part 14 34.
15 MR. CARRICO: Maybe there are some in Texas. '
16 MS. CARDWELL We have it defined because it is 17 referred to in all the equipment standards about the source 18 being able to return to the shielded position. It is 19 referred to in the survey section. It is referred to in 20 notification of incidents section, which it is not properly 21 -- cannot be properly returned to the shielded position, 22 that requires notification. It is referenced throughout the 23 rule, so we had to define it.
24 MS. TROTTIER: So, that's why you put it in there.
25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.t 207 1 MR. LOWMAN: State regs.
2 MS. TROTTIER: The question now is there an 3 advantage in NRC also including this in their definition?
4 Up until now it has not boon included. And, you know, maybe 5 it was an oversight.
6 MR. McNEES: 34.43(c).
7 MS. TROTTIER: The location within the 8 radiographic exposure device or storage container which, by 9 manufacturer's design, is the proper location for storage of 10 the sealed source.
11 MR. KASYK: Question. This defines the position 12 of the source. But, does it mean also that the camera is i
13 locked?
14 MS. TROTTIER: No. I don't believe that that l 15 means that it is locked, because there are separate 16 requirements about locked. I can't imagine anyone saying 17 this would be a problem for us to add it.
18 All right. And then the last one in there is 19 personal supervision.
20 MR. FUNDERBURG: Can we go back to this? We have 21 had more of a problem. And, again,.I am kind of getting 22 away from the shielded position. But, we have had more of a 23 problem with the terms secured, versus locked.
24 MS. TROTTIER: We will talk about that. We have
-25 that on one of the future slides, so we will deal with that
- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters ;
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950
200 1 inuuo. Lot me road to you the definition that I find in l
2 part 39 for personal superviulon. It :noans guidanco and l
3 inntruction by a " logging supervisor," but it would be 4 radiographor, who is physically procent at a temporary job 5 sito, who in in personal contact with the assistants and who-6 can give immediato asolutanco.
7 Now, thin in in enounce the samo language that D currently appearn in Part 34. And, I guoun -- and Bruco in 9 going to have to help me out on this -- that you just wanted 10 to have it in the definitions, or the question was whether 11 it ought to be in the definitions.
12 MR. CARRICo: It han boon a long timo since wo 13 generated thin liot. There was comothing different. It in 14 not in Part 34's definition, but it does show up in the 15 back. And I think thin is just stato regulations. There is 16 a definition. Perhaps it in in Texas and also in others.
17 In the definition -- I guous that's the quantion. Should wo 18 have it in that list of definitions, rather than hidden way 19 back in the back, an it is currently?
20 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. Currently, it in at the end 21 of the paragraph on supervision.
22 MS. CARDWELL: It's cleanor to put it in the 23 definitions noction. But I question the personal contact 24 voraus visual contact, and those other words we have boon 25 kicking around.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reportors 1612 K Stroot, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
209 1 MS. TROTTIER: And it may be we want to use the 2 language that is in the suggested state regs. That means 3 guidance provided to radiographer trainee by the 4 radiographer instructor who is present at the site, in 5 visual contact with the trainee, while the trainee is using 6 sources of radiation, and in proximity so that immediate 7 assistance can be given if required. It is the visual part 8 that is really the difference, that our current regs on 39 9 don't deal with. 34 deal with visual.
10 MR. FUNDERBURG: We use two terms, general 11 supervision and direct supervision. And I think, if you add 12 another term, personal supervision, you are going to have 13 more of a conflict. And I would say let's stay with the 14 terms that have already been established which has been 15 general supervision.
16 MS. TROTTIER: Now, we don't apparently have a 17 general supervision term. We have direct supervision.
18 MR. FUNDERBURG: You have direct supervision. I 19 would like to know-what the difference between personal and 20 direct is.
21 MS. TROTTIER: I don't think there is a 22 difference.
23 MR. COOL: Perhaps it would help this discussion 24 if we went around the room. The question would be what term 25 or terms do you use, and what that definition is? Because I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
210 1 have a feeling that there are a couple of different 2 variations on the theme around here. And I am not sure we 3 are really have a handle on exactly what those are.
4 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. We can do that.
5 MR. COOL: Start with New York this time. What 6 term or terms is used? In the visual observation part or 7 not part of it, so that we can get some idea of what a definitions are currently up there? What terms are being 9 used?
10 MR. KASYK Under the supervision of -- but that 11 can be broadly interpreted. What does that mean? Does that 12 mean next to or in the same room? And sometimes it is also 13 depending on the situation. Now, you certainly cannot have 14 a senior person watching the person all the time, and yet 15 you want, on occasions, that this person actually walks in 16 the other room or whatever, and observes what the person is 17 doing, which, you know, cuts across not only radiography, 18 but in general.
19 MR. COOL: You used just the term supervision.
20 Okay.
21 MR. CLEAVER: Mike Cleaver, Kentucky. We say 22 under the supervision, and in the physical presence of.
23 MR. FUNDERBURG: Reiterate what I have said. We 24 uso direct supervision and the physical presence of. And I 25 just found a problem. We adopted the NRC regulations for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
211 i i compatibility in NRC, and it is in conflict with our l
2 definition of direct supervision.
l 3 MS. TROTTIER: Dut yours is more stringent.
4 MR. FUNDERBURG: Yes. But I have got a definition I 5 now that I have got to pull that out.
6 MS. DIBBLEE: We use the SSR's.
7 MR. HENRY: Louisiana says an instructor who is 8 physically present while using sources of radiation. And I 9 would prefer to say visual contact.
10 MS. TROTTIER: Okay.
11 MR. COOPER: We use under the supervision of, and 12 the physical presence.
13 MR. MARYLAND: We have adopted the state suggested 14 regs pretty much.
15 MR. DONZER: Direct supervision.
16 MR. WALKER: I don't have my regs right in front 17 of me, but I think we use continuous visual surveillance.
18 MR. KELLEY: In the presence of the direct 19 supervisor.
20 MS. CARDWELL: We use personal supervision with 21 visual contact.
22 MS. LOPEZ: It says a radiographer must be 23 physically present at the time and location where 24 radiography is performed.
25 MR. TRUMP: Under the supervision and in the ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
212 1 physical presence of.
2 MR. KLINGER: Ours currently says physically 3 present. We are proposing to change it to say guidance and 4 instruction to a radiographer trainee, including the visual 5 contact.
O MR. McNEES: We currently say under the direct 7 supervision.
8 MR. GOFF We use personal supervision --
9 supervision which the radiographer is physically present and 10 watching, and in such proximity that immediate assistance 11 can be given, if required.
12 MR. MANNING: Ours is almost word for word like 13 Bob Goff's. I was thinking it was the SSR; but, in hearing 14 people talk, I am not so sure that it is. I am wondering 15 now where it came from.
16 MR. GOFF: I thought it came from the suggested -
17 -
18 MR. NANNEY: You didn't say something else?
19 MS. TROTTIER: That is a little different.
20 MR. NANNEY: It was not a new thing in '89. '86 21 was the last one.
22 MR. VERELLEN: The language here says that the 23 radiographer has to be in the personal presence at the site 24 -- has to have an ability to communicate, give immediate 25 assistance, and also must be able to observe the performance ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 213 1 and the whole operation. In our regulations, we put 2 definitions in one part of our regulations. We also have 3 nuclear medicine, physician working under the supervision of 4 his named individual named on the license. So, we have to 5 be a little careful when we start changing definitions under 6 supervision.
7 MS. TROTTIER: Because it could affect others.
8 MR. VERELLEN: This is a category called 9 radiography assiotant, so it is separate from our basic 10 supervision definition.
11 MR. CARRIco: Cheryl, while this doesn't add 12 anything, I didn't see one of the things identified. But 13 something that Don Nellis put together -- I see that it is 14 an item that had come up from other sources. It says 15 something along the lines, should a definition of direct 16 supervision be added, which I will assume means that there 17 are thcoe differences in terminology.
18 MS. TROTTIER: I am going to throw this one up, 19 which is a related issue.
20 MR. COOL: We have one comment.
21 MR. BALLARD: Just a quick one. It doesn't really 22 matter to me what you call it, as long as you define it.
23 That is the important thing. And the three or four main 24 points that were mentioned already, and they are common 25 sense. But, you can call it anything you want, just tell us ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
.__ _ __ -_. . _ ___.___m.___.- __ . . _ _ .
214 1 what you mean.
2 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Now, I think some of 3 these were discussed a lot, and I don't want to spend a lot 4 of time on that now. I want to discuss the issue of the 5 collimator. Currently NRC -- I think later on in here I 6 even have a thing about requiring it. NRC does not require 7 that now. Is that not correct, Bruce?
8 MR. CARRICO: Yes.
9 MS. TROTTIER: Should the regulation require the 10 use of a collimator?
11 MR. McNEES: We kind of require back to the ALARA 12 regulation.
13 MS. TROTTIER: That means they have the option to 14 use it. So, there is no need to require? Because I notice 15 that -- I think Texas uses it, don't they?
16 Now, that list was the first one I did, so I 17 didn't put SSR. But, the first one comes from the suggested 18 state rogs. And then the middle one comes from -- no, the 19 first one comes from --
20 MR. COOL: Before we leave collimator, I guess I 21 would like to hear what rationale Texas used to say that a 22 collimator needs to be in place? What was the justification 23 for that?
24 MS. CARDWELL: I have got to find it first. I 25 vant to say it is under certain conditions we require a ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
215 1 collimator.
2 MR. COOL: That would make a great deal of 3 difference.
4 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. It says a collimator should 5 be used in industrial radiographic operations that use 6 crank-out devices, except where physically impossible.
7 MR. COOL: Okay.
8 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. They don't give much of an 9 option.
10 MR. COOL: Okay. Now, I'll go back to my first 11 question. If we went with an approach like that, what would 12 be our rationale? What health and safety basis or otherwise 13 would we be using, other than this great ALARA procedures 14 and engineering proposal? If I want to do that, I will go 15 back to 24.1001.
16 MS. ROUGHAN: As a manufacturer of collimators, 17 one of the big advantages in the radiography industry is 18 that it allows them to cut down their high radiation area 19 boundary, and the research area boundary, allowing more 20 immediate control. That-is one of the biggest advantages.
21 And, obviously, in addition to cutting down the exposure,. it 22 just allows them much more control over the area where they 23 are controlling _the radiography.
24 And there are all different types of collimators, 25 uranium, tungston, leh- and it is not very difficult to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud RepOders 1612 K; Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
,.m 41 ima E. * . _ _A ..m aA a +4 - A- - 4.4 A _+e,-- --- 1A A J -- u- L - E- *- - A . - -
l l
216 1 manufacture. But, if we put it in the clause, as Texas did, 9
2 it is physically impossible, I think, it would not be --
3 customers and anything like that. It would be a big 4 imposition to require its use of a collimator again with the 5 clause.
6 MS. TROTTIER: I don't know, hand went up 7 immediately.
8 MR. SPENARD: 90 percent of the use of the isotope 9 is for engine work, which you can't use the collimator. We 10 rarely use it. We have got one procedure that uses a 11 collimator, everything else does not.
12 MS. TROTTIER: Would you view it as a problem 13 though, if it said when physically impossible, that you 14 would have to go justifying that it was?
15 MR. HOMivin For shooting the insido diameter of 16 a pipe, it is not physically impossible to put a collimator 17 on, but it is not the way you shoot panoramic inside the 18 pipe, 19 MR. BALLARD: I have a problem with how far can 20 you push physically impossible?
21 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
22 MR. BALLARD: I mean --
23 MS. TROTTIER: That is my concern.
24 MR. BALLARD: -- almost nothing is impossible, but 25 to what degree of difficulty do we make the licensee go to ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
217 1 for what beneficial effect? If it is of almost no 2 beneficial effect, I don't see any good of it.
3 Now, I see your point. What you want to do is 4 make licensees that have poor radiation safety practices, 5 improve their operations. We use collimators on all of our 6 crank out devices unless there are an internal exposure.
7 How, on an internal exposure, you have the object itself 8 it's shielding, and you are also using the exposure device 9 as shielding. So, the only unshielded directions are where 10 you want them to at the weld, and directly in front, inside 11 of a pipe. So, to say we have to use a collimator, now you 12 have narrowed our beam. You have increased the likelihood 13 that we have a reshot. Now, we hcve the source cranked out 14 a second time. We have increased the person's occupational 15 exposure, because you have made it so difficult he has got 16 t Jo it twice.
17 MS. TRoTTIER: I guess I would like to hear from 18 Texas what kind of feedback they got from licensees on 19 inspection problems.
20 MS. CARDWELL: It has been in the rule for six 21 years. We haven't had a problem with it. I venture to say 22 we don't -- and this is personal opinion -- we don't get 23 real strict on this. This gives us the option. It is 24 exactly what Bruce said, you have to write the rules for 25 those who are not doing it properly. And it gives us --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
218 1 that part of the rule, when we go out there -- and obviously.
2 somebody is not using a collimator, when it definitely 3 should and could have been used, to come back and do 4 something about that.
5 MR. IIENRY: Louisiana uses the term whenever 6 feasible in the O&E procedures, not in the rega.
7 MS. CARDWELL: But we haven't been challenged on 8 it. We haven't had a real problem with it.
9 MR. Wif1TE: I am curious as to what Texas feels is 10 the extent of the compliance? Do they fool like people are 11 really always using a collimator?
12 MR. DUNN: In field inspections that we see over 13 the years, it really hasn't been a problem. It hasn't been 14 cited that much. It seems to be what Bruce was saying.
15 There are procedures, but it is not practical. I think our 16 inspectors know that they're not going to require it where 17 they need a panoramic view. So, they won't cite them.
18 MS. CARDWELL: There are all these definitions 19 listed up there.
20 MS. TRoTTIER: Yes.
21 MS. CARDWELL: And our policy historically has 22 been -- and this -- we got some input from legal on that.
23 If we use a term in our rules that is not a Webster 24 definition or that is a term that is unique to that 25 particular industry, we define it. So, whether or not it
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
219 1 hurts or not, it goes in there so it is clarified.
2 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. l 3 MS. CARDWELL: This is what it means in this 4 situation.
5 MR. PATTERSON: I wonder if the state of Texas 6 defines the amount of attenuation that the collimator should 7 have?
8 HS. CARDWELL: No, it doesn't in the rule.
9 MR. PATTERSON: You just say to use the 10 collimator. I sold a tremendous number of mini-collimators 11 to customers -- that they were using them in cases where 12 they didn't do a heck of a lot of good. So far as they were 13 concerned, they were following your rules and regulations.
14 But, as far as I was concerned, it wasn't really a 15 collimator that was of any benefit to them. So, if you are 16 going to have a mandatory use of collimators, you really 17 should define what a collimator should do.
18 MR. FOGLE: I would like to collimators in our new 19 proposed regulations. A collimator means a small radiation 20 shield that is placed on the end of the guide tube or 21 directly onto the radiographic exposure device to restrict 22 the size of the radiation beam when the scaled source is 23 cranked into position to make a radiographic exposure.
24 MR. PATTERSON: You still haven't defined what you 25 want the collimator to do.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.V/., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 2 0 -3950
220 1 MS. CARDWELL: Yes we have. Rostrict the size of 2 the beam.
3 MR. FOGLE: Rostrict it.
4 MR. PATTERSON: Rostrict the sizo of the beam.
5 But, if you are going to do it, let's rostrict the size of 6 the bonm to where it is some bonofit to the radiographor.
7 MS. CARDWELL: This is a problem with rulo 8 writing. You either writo rulos that are so general that 9 they hre no good, or you writo rules that are so rostrictivo 10 that thora are too many holes in them. I mean, we are not 11 perfoct at this.
12 MR. HORNOR: I have problem with your rulo, 13 because maybe your inspectors can go out and 800 something 14 and bypass it, liko in this panoramic, where you could put a 15 collimator on there. Our inspectors cannot go out and do 16 that. If they soo the problem, and the rulo says, if it is 17 not physically possible, they would cito. So, the way that 18 Louisiana has dono it is a much botter arrangement, because 19 there the situation is covorod. It is a problem betwoon the 20 inspectors. I inspectors havo to cite what they soo if it 21 lu in the regulation, and you force them to do that. But, 22 now you are telling mo your inspectors don't have to do 23 that. Just a comment.
24 MS. CARDWELL: Well, we are all different. Wo 25 like the rule.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. -C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i l
l 221 1 MS. TRO1* TIER: All right. Unless there is a !
4 2 burning issue to saying more on the collimator, I would like 3 to move away from it. Thank you.
4 I have put all those on here, and, again, only 5 because they were on the list. These were the differences.
6 And I don't necessarily think that we need to talk about all 7 of them. But, there is one that came from Texas that I 8 would like to talk about.
9 To be honest, I was dumbfounded. NRC does not 10 define radiation safety officer. And I thought, oh, this is 1 a mistake, you know. I am sure it is in here. And I went 12 rummaging around and I went c- I said, well, it's got to be :
13 in Part 20 then, you knew. I don't even remember Part 20.
14 And I am looking, I said Part 30, it has got to be in Part 15 30. We do not define radiation safety officer.
16 I guess my inclination is we would put a 17 definition in here. If there is a major problem with 18 putting a definition in here, we won't put a definition in 19 here. But, I would be inclined to put it in. It just seems 20 like such a ludicrous thing to actually discvss this person 21 and never over define what this person is.
22 MS. ROTHCHILD: In Part 35, I know there is a 23 section that discuss qualification for an individual who ,
24 will serve as a radiation safety officer, and there is 25 another section that describes the duties. But I am not ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i 222 1 sure that the term is defined.
2 MS. TROTTIER: I will road Part 35 to you. Oh, I 3 won't read it all, it is too boring anyway. It goes on and 4 on and on and on and on and on. But, we don't have anything 5 in Part 34. So, it just neomed like something should be in 6 there. Now, whether we need to have a full sec0 ion that 7 describes duties or just a definition, I think the states 8 mostly have definitions, right, on what a radiation safety 9 officer is? And that probably would be all we would need, 10 you know, is the definition, not long lists of duties. I 11 wouldn't follow any rule after the Part 35.
12 MS. ROTilCllILD: There is a definition. It doesn't 13 tell you much, in Part 35 of radiation safety officer.
14 MS. TROTTIER: Oh, there is a definition? But it 15 doesn't say anything?
16 MS. ROTilCl!ILD: It says radiation safety officer 17 means the individual identified as the radiation safety 18 officer on the commission license.
19 MS. TROTTIER: Let me read what Texas says then.
20 I think maybe that is the direction we would go. Radiation 21 safety officer means an individual named by the licensee or 22 registrant, who has a knowledge of, responsibility-for and 23 authority to enforce appropriate radiation protection rules, 24 standards and practices on the behalf of the licensee and a 25 registrant, and who meets the requirements of 31(a),
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
223 1 whatever that is.
2 MS. CARDWELL It goes into qualifications.
3 MS. TROTTIER: My understanding, in all my years 4 at NRC, is that the radiation safety officer is our 5 representative at the licensee. And so I expect the 6 licensee to know what that person's duties are.
7 MS. CARDWELL: Our reasoning for putting in not 8 only the responsibility part, but the authority to enforce 9 was that management of the company should give that 10 radiation safety officer that particular authority to be 11 able to enforce these rules.
12 MS. ROTHCHILD: In Part 35, the responsibilities 13 are spelled out in a different section, as are the 14 qualifications of the individual.
15 MS. TROTTIER: I sort of think we should put in 16 the responsibilities.
17 MS. ROTHCHILD: And the definition.
18 MS, TROTTIER:- Well, we could put them in there.
19 MS. ROTHCHILD: No, I don't think we want to do 20 that. If it is a substantive requirem'nt --
1.'. MS. TROTTIER Put it in the rvle?
22 MS. ROTHCHILD: Right. And we could say who has 23 the responsibilities spelled out.
24 MR. BALLARD: I do think you need to define it.
25 Because I have worked for several companies, and, in one ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
224 1 company, it is the radiation safety director. And, under 2 him, he has radiation safety officer. And I have worked for 3 other companies where you have a corporate radiation safety 4 officer. And, I just think -- and then we have agreement 5 states where they call it a radiation safety officer. So, I 6 think you need to define it and have it fairly uniform, 7 because it -- there is no confusion, and you know who to go 8 to and who is responsible for the program.
9 MR. CARRICO I don't know if this is going to be 10 another item, but do we get into qualifications for the RS0?
11 I think, since it has come up --
12 MS. TROTTIER: It is not in the slidos. It wasn't 13 one of the issues.
14 How, the next issue we are going to deal with in 15 about training and emergency source retrieval. But that's 16 not really -- it's just an RSO thing.
17 MR. CARRICO: Getting too far off to talk about 18 that. I think I heard Cindy say they included that.
19 MS. TROTTIER: Let me read the qualifications and 20 duties in Texas.
21 MS. CARDWELL: Do you want me to read it as we are 22 going to revise it?
MS. TROTTIERt Oh, sure. And then I don't have to 24 read them. I like that.
25 MS. CARDWELL: Well, first of all, it says they ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 ,
225 1 have to be named on the license, it specifies that. And 2 then that the RSO's qualifications have to be submitted and 3 shall include possession of a high school diploma or GED or 4 equivalent, completing of the testing and training 5 requirements. In other words, they would have to be a 6 radiographer, and then two years of documented radiation 7 protection experience, including knowledge of industrial 8 radiographic operations, with at least 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of active 9 participation in industrial radiation.
10 We have spent I don't know how many hours of staff 11 time -- and this goes back to that question we hit yesterday 12 on what makes a trainer a trainer versus a radiographer.
13 And, yes there is the concept out there that a radiation 14 safety officer maybe has a little bit more than that. And 15 this is what we have come up with. Again, this will be --
16 this last part I road, about the two years of experience 17 with the active participation and all that kind of good 18 stuff is something that we-will be field testing to see what 19 will happen.
20 But we also yo on -- we have a whole section.
21 MS. TROTTIER: List the duties.
22 MH. CARDWELL: Oh, that's long.- It is a page.
23 Well, it goes over just the basics -- the generalities of 24 what really any RSO should do.- Oversee operating and 25 emergency ALARA procedures; to_ oversee and approve all ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293 3950
226 1 phases of training; ensure that radiation surveys leak tests-4 2 are performed and documented; personal monitoring devices 3 are calibrated and used properly -- blah, blah, blah --
4 accurate records are kept; interlock switches, warning 5 signals are functioning; providing all the repos and 6 boundaries; investigative report to the agency of each case 7 of any known radiation -- or case of suspected radiation 8 exposure, that is the incident notification responsibility; 9 thorough knowledge of management policies and administrative 10 procedures of the licensee; assume control and have the 11 authority to institute corrective actions, including 12 shutdown of operations, if necessary, in emergency 13 situations or unsafe conditions; maintain records; ensure 14 proper labeling; transport and storage of sources of 15 radiation; inventory inspection and maintenance programs are 16 performed; and to ensure that personnel are complying with 17 the rules and conditions of the license; and operating and le emergency procedures.
19 MS. TRoTTIER: Now, Bruce, I have a question for 20 you. How much of 10.6 addresses this?
21 MR. LOWMAN: In 10.6 it doesn't mention the word 22 radiation safety officer. It talks about the person who has 23 the day to day supervision of the radiography.
24 MS. CARDWELL: I might add that it talks about 25 emergency source retrieval.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
227 1 MS. TROTTIER Yes.
2 MS. CARDWELL: In our revision, we also spent a 3 lot of time talking about this. Because we are still trying 4 to work out how much more should a radiation safety officer 5 have in terms of either training and experience than say 6 just a designated radiographer, we didn't add it in the 7 specific duties. There is a section on a prohibition -- I 8 think it is in the prohibition section -- somewhere in this 9 new part that says that a radiation safety officer or any 10 other radiographer will not perform emergency source 11 retrieval, unless it has been approved by a license 12 condition.
13 MR. CARRICO: Can I ask a question? You said that 14 they had to have two years' radiation safety experience-I 15 guess it was. But that is not in the radiographer.
16 MS. CARDWELL: And that is because we got into the 17 discussion of okay, you can have someone who has worked as 18 say a health physicist in a reactor setting or some other 19 setting that has that background in the radiation safety, 20 biological hazards and what not, and therefore has that 21 knowledge of radiation safety, but doesn't know anything 22 about radiography. We don't want that. They have to know 22 something about the equipment. So, therefore, we put in 24 this thing that says they have to meet the requirements of 25 the radiographer training requirements that has the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
(
228 1 classroom training in it. They have to have that. They 2 don't have to have as many hours of OJT. That specific 3 section was left out. And then we added at least 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 4 of operating equipment.
5 MR. CARRICO: If somebody worked from say Allen 6 Kron and an RSO staff, a radiation safety staff, that is the 7 kind of thing you would be looking for -- that they have 8 that kind of experience, plus qualified as a radiographer.
9 MS. CARDWELL: Well, qualified as a radiographer, 10 up to the point of having all the classroom training, and 11 pass the exam, yes.
12 MR. CARRICO: And pass the exam, and not 13 necessarily be " certified?"
14 MS. CARDW"LL: We didn't want to leave out some of 15 these people who have the ability, but just didn't want to 16 come in and take the exam. And then somebody said, well, I 17 have to at least know how to crank out camera. So, that's 18 the 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />. Again, this is the new part, this thing about 19 the 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />, so we will be seeing how this works.
20 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Now, what I would like 21 to do is ask --
22 MR. KASYK: I think what is escaping here is the 23 requirement whether the RSO should be a full-time employee 24 of the radiographic company. We have many people who come 25 to us who had to consultant to become a radiation safety ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 !
229 1 officer. It is a difficult situation. We had to live 2 normally by having a written agreement -- a contract between 3 the consultant and the company, so that he does not become 4 only a name on the license. It is a big problem.
5 The other problem is that smaller companies can 6 hardly afford a person of the caliber to pay him. I don't 7 know. What do they pay a qualified radiographer or RSO to 8 retain a person of appropriate qualifications? So, they 9 tried to get a qualified person, but he is not a full-time 10 employee, he is a contract employee. And I think they 11 should be spelled out somehow.
12 ME. ROUGIIAN: I just have a comment. I have been 13 teaching a radiography course specifically for radiographers 14 -- a 40-hour rad safety training, and, over the past several 15 years, we have had people come to our radiation safety 16 course, it is a 40-hour course, attend that course. And 17 when they get back to their company, it doesn't meant that 18 the hours go on the license. They come in with no prior 19 experience in radiography or no prior experience in 20 radiation safety. That is not right. I mean, they have got 21 to know the equipment, they have got to know the basic 22 radiation safety. But that has happened several times 23 between both NRC licensees and agreement states.
24 But, I feel very strongly that there has to be 25 qualifications of the RSO listed somewhere in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
230 1 regulations. Right now, it is just so different from 2 licensco to licensee. They need to know all the paperwork 3 requirements, notification requirements, over and above, 4 again, the basic safety requirements in that 40-hour course.
5 MS. TROTTIER: Bruce .
6 MR. CARRICO: I would think that it would be 7 imperative that they have good understanding of radiography 8 operations. I mean, they can't get into a situation --
9 they've worked in laboratory settings, and applied that to a 10 source recovery operation. I think it would be imperative 11 that they hava a minimum experience period working as a 12 radiographer. These two things are too different.
13 An alternative to this. People have often in the 14 past, should there be -- should RSO's and radiography 15 require additional training -- there is at least one vendor 16 who provides a training program, and that is oriented toward 17 the RSO, that gives them that additional knowledge they need 18 to have to run a program. Maybe we should be thinking about 19 that.
20 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. In the back?
21 MR. DALLARD: I think you should ha'ce very_ strict 22 guidelines on the qualifications of radiation safety 23 officers, because the whole program reflects that person. I 24 am a radiation safety officer by designation and on the 25 license. And I was a radiographer for eight years, and then ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers '
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 g - --
231 l_ 'I was an-assistant manager and an assistant safety officer 2 for.another four years before I was a radiation safety _l c 3 officer. And you'have to have an extremely -- a very good 4 background in radiography, if you are going to be a
, 5 radiation safety officer for that company.
I 6 And, also, you have a problem in smaller companies 7 -- the radiation safety officer is the president. Well, who 3
8 is going to tell him he has got a deficle'ncy? And.I realize
~-
9 it may be a burden on a small company, but I don't mean to 10 be callous, but that is too bad.
I 11 A radiation safety officer has to be able to work-12 independently of everybody else in that company, and he has 13
~
to have the authority to say no. And, in small companies, I 14 have snen it where the radiation safety officer is the vice 15 presider.t and he is also the daily radiographer. . So, if 16 there is an emergency, where is this guy? He is out in-the 17 field someplace, and we-can't get a hold of him. That 18 doesn't do you any good. A radiation safety officer needs 19 to be a r' ?' At / on safety of ficer and nothing ~ else.
20 hn _KASt'K: Expanding on what I said before. 'When 21 a c:ompany comes to us and -asks us - about qualifications and l
22 requirements, we have a one-page requirement for a-. radiation.
23 safety officer. We would'like to have a person:who is an.
24- experienced radiographer, worked-for at least one'or-two -
25 years as a radiographer,: has some management training, and l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. ]
Court Reporters 1612 - K. Street,- N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
232 1 has run-a program of similar magnitude -- what we call an 2 experienced senior manager. That means that would be a 3 radiation safety officer. He writes them in over the period 4 of a year -- an absolute minimum of six months, because some 5 of these things are one only quarterly. So, he has to have 6 the experience. This is what we would like to get, but it 7 is very difficult.
8 MS. TROTTIER: What I would like to do is I would 9 like to go around now and get from each st**e how you 10 address this issue. And how about if we ste ', with 11 Washington?
12 MR. VERELLEN: I believe our minimum requirement 3 13 is a trained radiographer, and I think there are probably 14 some places that get away from that. It is pretty rare. We 15 don't have that many licensees, so most of'the folks have l 's training. But, if somebody pushed us, I think that is our bare bones requirement -- a trained radiographer.
18 MR. COOL: Is there a requirement that they be 19 independent of the ongoing radiographic operation?
20 MR. VERELLEN: Not necessarily.
21 MR. COOL: They can be participating?
22 MR. CLEAVER: It is the same in Kentucky.
23 MR. FUNDERBURG: In California, we have three 24 definitions. One is that radiation safety officer. Then we 25 have an alternative radiation safety officer. Then we have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Coud Repoders i 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
233 1 an assistant radiation safety officer. There is no 2 regulatory basis for it. It is sort of a policy handed down 3 from generation to generation. I am not sure if it started 4 with Moses.
5 MS. DIBBLEE: We address this issue in the license 6 review process. And, fortunately, the license reviewer is 7 very disciplined in how he assess them, so I don't think we 8 have very many radiography RSOs who are not radiographers, 9 because he won't let it pass. There is no rule.
10 MR. HENRY: Louisiana has no rule. And I think 11 probably, if they are a radiographer, they would be 12 accepted, because I don't know of any that haven't been 13 accepted. And it has been a problem, especially part-time 14 RSO's. A couple of the revocations that we have had over 15 the last five years, involved e problem with part-time 16 RSO's.
17 MR. COOPER: We have no rule either.
18 MR. MARYLAND: It is through the licensing 19 procedure, as far as -- pretty much he has to be a 20 radiographer before he can become an RSO. And, for smaller 21 companies, I think that is probably the only way you can go 22 about it.
23 MR. BONZER: It is through the licensing also.
24 And it is just a radiographer that is employed by the 25 licensee.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
234 1 KR. WALKER: We have no requirement for RSO, but 2 we would insist that it was a radiographer.
3 MR. KELLEY: Again, it is through licensing. We 4 require a trained radiographer, and he can't participate at 5 the same time.
6 MS. CARDWELL: What we do about a rule -- you are 7 probably tired of hearing about what we do by the rule.
8 Dave tells me that the licensed reviewers, even though it is-9 not in the rule, they require that -- well, as policy, they 10 have to be employed full-time with that company and with 11 only that company, not with several companies.
12 MS. TROTTIER: So, you would not permit a contract 13 employee?
14 MS. CARDWELL: But that is not a rule.
15 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
16 MS. LOPEZ: New Mexico doesn't have a rule as.far 17 as RSO's.
18 MR. TRUMP: It is through the licensing process, 19 and there are no part-time RSO's.
20 MR. KLINGER: Right now it is through the 21 licensing process. We look for a radiographer, a full-time 22 employee. We have an agency in Illinois, where some 23 consultants were allowed as RSO's. We will be able to 24 change that. So, some licenses, mostly outside of 25 radiography-have got that. But, the way we deal with it --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
235 ^
1 George, you were talking about this problem -- we require 2 that the licensee have an onsite radiation safety officer.
3 We have an RSO, but we want somebody onsite that is able to 4 respond to any emergencies rapidly, because some of these 5 consultants are on several licenses and cannot be there 6 within several hours or so.
7 Plus, our draft rule is just like Texas.
8 MR. McNEES: Ours is done through license review, 9 and we have a little licensing guide in which we ask to be a 10 radiographer, with one year of experience on a situation, 11 the consultant RSO or a corporate RSO, or someone else. We 12 ask them to name the RSO on the site, but we are kind of 13 faced with the situation where the RSO appears often to be 14 somebody that has been hired, whose primary purpose is to 15 keep the paperwork straight. Because, traditionally, when 16 the regulators get that, they are going to sign them, and 17 maybe even lead to civil penalties and so forth, and 18 enforcement-actions based solely upon the paper down here in 19 the drawer. So, they will have a youngster hired as an RSO' 20 -- a relative youngster hired as an RSO -- whose job it is 21 to make sure that all the correct pieces of paper have been 22 pencil-whipped and are in that drawer. And I have been 23 concerned -- and that is often the number one duty of the 24 RSO.
25 MS. TROTTIER: A chronic regulatory problem.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
236 1 MR. GOFF: The State of Mississippi, through the 2 licensing process, we require that the radiation safety 3 officer have experience as a radiographer, and that he be a 4 full-time employee.
5 MR. HANNEY: We handle it through the licensing 6 process too. I don't believe we have any specific 7 requirements on experience as radiographers. We do have a 8 definition in the-general part of our regulations about it.-
9 I think I would like to read that for the record. It is in 10 the general part, because we use the same definition for all 11 operations. We don't have anything specific. Let me just 12 read that definition.
13 It reads, a qualified individual Giro7cly 14 responsible for the safety of all persons at *.n 15 installation, using the sourcas of radiatio'.1, froa hazards 16 associated with such sources. This indivilual shall have 17 the authority to stop operations whenever ha believes that 18 persons are being endangered. Parenthetically it says some 19 other commonly used titles to identify this individual or 20 radiation protection officer, radiation safety officer.
21 I think that addresses Mr. Ballard's suggestion 22 about the authority to stop unsafe operations. It is 23 written directly into this definition.
24 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. 1[ put primary issue five up 25 here, because I figured we were about at that point now.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
237 1 The issue of emergency of source retrieval has 2 come up, and I guess there was a concern -- maybe Bruce can 3 address this -- on whether or not there should be something 4 that the RSO la permitted to do, or if it always has to be 5 soccone who has either the equipment or the skills as a 6 contractor, to do this.
7 MR. CARRICO: I am not sure there is anything more 8 to say than that, or even the employee. It's not just the 9 RSO. But, generally, I guess, the NRC has taken the 10 position that, if there is a source, they should establish a 11 restricted area -- controlled areas -- and contact rather 12 than having to describe specific procedures about how they 13 should go about retrieving that source. So, that-is a 14 question. Should we expect them to do such things?
15 MS. ROUGHAN: One of the things we have. noticed.-
16 - and we have been doing source retrievals over since the 17 company came into existence -- but every source retrieval is 18 difference. To ask a licensee to set out, by procedure, how 19 they are going to retrieve a source, you can't do that. You 20 can set up general requirements -- control the area, throw 21 down some available shielding, but that's about it. And 22 every source retrieval is different.
23 In terms of training the RSO, a lot of the 24 companies currently do a lot of that in-house. It is not 25 very extensive. They know-they have got to throw down bags ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud - Reponers-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l i
238 1 of lead shot. Some don't even know they should be using 2 long tongs. We have to advise them of that.
3 So, if you require the training -- right now there 4 is no course available that I know of. We have put out the 5 outline for one that we will probably have in 1993. The 6 problem there is that there are all these liability issues.
7 If you offer a course to the RSO's, they go through the 8 source retrieval, and something goes wrong, and you come -
9 back to the company and see the person providing the 10 training. So, there is that difficultly. But, we believe 11 that we can give at least the basics, the terms and the 12 tools you should have available -- drive cable, six foot-13 long tonga, whatever else you may need.
14 But, again, the big thing here is that every 15 situation is different. No licensee can set out in writ: 1g 16 how they are going to perform the source retrieval. If they 17 have fresh guides to pick up the source counts and separate
- ;f 18 them from the drive cable. The drive cable could break.
19 There are just so many different conditions. To set them 20 out on paper before hand is not the real issue.
21 MR. PATTERSON: The experience that an RSO needs 22 varies from customer to customer. And just like the State 23 of Alabama here, it says that a lot of times that he is 24 there as a little paper-whipping boy to keep the records up.
25 But, as he says, no two retrievals are ever alike. The ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 !
239 1 RSO's qualifications should be only that he has sense enough-2 to recognize what he can and what he can't do. And that is 3 really all he needs to know, other than be familiar with the 4 equipment, he should be qualified as a radiographer. But, 5 to have to go in and retrieve sources and this and that, 6 would be totally different with different people. He would 7 just simply have to have the ability to recognize his 8 limitation and have available someone that he can call for 9 help, and not necessarily the president of the company, 10 because he knows nothing about it.
11 MS. DIBBLEE: In Oregon, having fewer 12 radiographers than some of you, we have a couple of people 13 who have voluntarily offered their services for source 14 retrievals. And we have convinced our licensees to call us 15 if there is a source retrieval necessary, if they choose to 16 do that. But, these two individuals have one source 17 retrieval satisfactorily and safely.
18 I, however, agree with what Cindy in Texas is-19 doing, because I think that the prohibition on the license 20 may be the way to go.
21 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. They are prohibited by rule, 22 and then they have to be specifically: authorized to do that 23 source retrieval. The procedures will say they are going to 24 call a consultant who has had experience.
25 MS. DIBBLEE: But at least they make it clear to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
240 1 them that we don't expect them to go out and attempt it, if 2 they don't know what they're doing.
3 MR. FREE: In the past, that allows quite a bit of 4 latitude also in the licensing process, from one company to 5 another or to us. And they allow an individual 6 radiographer, for instance, to retrieve a source under some .
7 conditions. It depends on the company's situation. And we 8 have had situations where that didn't work very well, but 9 others worked very well.
10 And the only way -- that we did insist upon in the 11 past was that the radiographer notify the RSO or someone in 12 management with the company prior to retrieving the source, 13 and-that was after ensuring that the area was secured. But, 14 I think that's a good system. I think it's practical. And 15 you have to leave it to the company's judgment as to whether 16 an individual on the site is capable of retrieving the 17 source, and can make decisions on whether he has the ability 18 to retrieve it.
19 MR. MARYLAND: It goes back to the need of a two-20 person crew also.
21 MS. ROUGHAN: Just a little more history on source 22 retrieval. We probably go out in the field probably about 23 three times a year to help our customers who have a problem.
24 During the year, we probably help another five or six 25 customers through some type of difficulty they are having,
! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Repoders l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
241 1 maybe not strictly source retrieval, but they can't get the 2 source back in for some reason. We can he?p them through 3 it.
4 The other side of that though is that we get a lot 5 of sources in that have been damaged in the field. We get 6 no call from the customer as to what happened. They do no 7 notification that is required by Part 34. And yet, somehow, 8 you know that source had become disconnected at some point, 9 when we get it back in or back in the camera or some type of 10 shipping container. We don't hear anything about it. I 11 don't think they report it, under Part 34 in come cases.
12 There are a lot of retrievals, I believe, going on that no 13 one knows about.
14 MR. FREE: I reviewed some of our incidents prior 15 to coming up here. It does appear that that is correct. In 16 1991 we had a total of six equipment malfunctions reported.
17 That may also include improperly connected sources. ~But, 18 then in 1992, so far, there have been 13 reported. So, it 19 kind of gives me the impression that there are companies 20 that have just discovering the requirement to report this.
21 MR. PATTERSON: On the RSO and so forth, for many 22 years, I don't know of anybody in the United States that was 23 licensed to do source retrieval. Industries had the 24 condition in their license to do source retrieval, and then 25 I think that later on some others came in.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i l
242 '
-1 One of the problems that I see with specifically 2 licensing somebody to do source retrieval, is you go out and i 3 work that on your license, and you're licensed to do source 4 retrieval, then you are responsible. If I had it to do all 5 over again, I would never ask to have license ability on my 6 license on source retrieval. I would work on the customer's 7 license, because I don't want the NRC fining me for going 8 out to help somebody else, and then have an accident myself 9 and be sued for it.
10 There are a lot of people who have the ability to 11 do source retrieval, but they will not do it simply because 12 they're afraid of some big fine from the NRC, and this has 13 happened.
14 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Well, I have that it is five 15 minutes to 12:00. Should we break for lunch, Vandy?
16 MR. COOL: We have got this discussion pretty much 17 at a close. I think perhaps it is.
18 MS. TROTTIER: Unless anyone else has another 19 topic they want to bring up on source retrieval.
20 MR. BALLARD: You need to have some mechanism in 21 place, because if the source cannot be returned to the 22 shielded position, who does it? So, the radiographer always 23 has to notify the radiation safety manager. But, who -- if 24 the radiation safety officer has no training in source
- 25 retrieval, who does? Does he automatically have to call in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-243 1 the supplier who sold him that source? If he okays a source.
2 retrieval -- well, if has never been trained, how can he 3 okay a source retrieval?-
4 Somewhere, somebody has to accept the 5 responsibility to either okay a source retrieval, or they.
6 have to say we will never do any. Because, I mean, this is 7 a circle. You just go around and around and around. Well, 8 I asked hin, and he asks him, and they ask him, and he asks 9 him. You have to have somebody somewhere that can either 10 authorize source retrieval, in which case they have to know 11 how to do them, or they could authorize a bad one, or they 12 would have to be trained to do it themselves.
13 MR. HORNOR: Right or wrong, Arizona requires you 14 to have training in source retrieval, or they have training 15 in source retrieval, and tell you to call them and they will 16 go out and do it themselves.
17 MR. BALLARD: I'll buy that.
18 MR. HORNOR: But most people won't.
19 HR. COOL: All right. At this point, we are going 20 to take a break for lunch. Let's get back together at 1:15.
21 22 (Whereupon, at 11:57 o' clock a.m., the above-23 entitled workshop was recessed for lunch, to reconvene at-( 24 1:15 o' clock p.m., this same day.]
25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
I Coud Reponers l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950 1
244 1 A F T E R N 0.0 N SESSION 2 (1:15'p.m.)
3 MR. MILLER: Okay. We are ready to start for the 4 afternoon.
5 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Before we begin, Oregon has 6 requested to make some statements for the record.
7 MS. DIBBLEE: I am Martha Dibblee from Oregon.
8 This is just a general statement, and I wanted to make sure 9 it got into the record. Several All-Agreement State 10 meetings ago -- conference meetings there was this 11 discussion that NRC was not cooperative in letting states 12 and the general public participate in the rule:.naking 13 process. And Oregon wants to put into the reccrd that we do 14 appreciate NRC's allowing us to get in on the ground rules, 15 on the ground rulemaking for this particular procedure, and 16 we hope that NRC will cooperate and allow us the time for 17 this type of input into the rulemaking.
18 MR. MILLER: Well, certainly, Martha, we thank you-19 for your remarks there. And let me just assure you, for 20 those that attended the All-Agreement State meeting, knew j 21 that that was the theme of that Agreement State meeting, is 22 early and substantive involvement of the states in not only-23 regulation, but any other types of agency /NRC actions that 24 could impact their program. And that is what we are all 25 about. And that is from the Commission all the way through l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
245-1 the staff. And we had a keynote speaker, Mr. Hugh Thompson,-
2 who is the deputy executivo director of operations, who we 3 report through further emphasize that issue of early and 4 substantial involvement of the states in matters impacting 5 their programs. And this is just another one of these 6 vehicles this week. And there will continue to be others as 7 we move on through the new fiscal year. Thank you.
8 MS. TROTTIER: We will get back on track here.
9 I am going to hold the related issues, five, until .
10 we get to other dosimetry issues. I think that would be a 11 good way to do that.
12 Now, we're on to a new issue which is survey of 13 the guide for uranium contamination. Now, I can remember-14 this from discussions with Don Nellis. But, what I would 15 really like is for Druce to explain why we think this is a 16 topic, even though Don Nellis is probably the one.
17 MR. CARRICO: I think you're right. And I think 18 it is one that has come from some of the contacts with 19 outside organizations that have recommended this. I won't 20 say a whole lot more than that, unless the outside 21 organizations want to say anything else.
22 MS. ROUGHAN: Uranium contamination, just to 23 explain the internal radiography device, you have a depleted 24 uranium shield that has an S-tube normally that goes through 25 the shield that the source passes through. That S-tube can ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
246 1 be made out of a variety of components, titanium, stainless 2 steel, zircalloy. And, depending on the bend of the S-3 tube, we can have a lot of friction running in that tube.
4 And, as you wear through that material, you get down to the i 5 depleted uranium.
6 We have found many many cameras out there in the i 7 field that have eventually worn through the S-tube down to 8 the uranium. As a result, we found contamination in excess 9 of five nanocuries in a lot of the cameras. So, the 10 potential health and safety impact is that, number one, you 11 have got uranium contamination in excess of five nanocuries 12 possible. The other problem is once you wear down through 13 the S-tube down through the uranium, you are cutti- a 14 groove in that S-tube, and that can cause a source hang-up, 15 where you are cranking a source out, and something gets 16 caught in that groove, and the source could be stuck in it 17 in an unshielded position causing a source retrieval 18 situation. Those are the two primary health and safety 19 concerns of a worn S-tube.
20 The current leak test for iridium sources'is a 21 six-month leak test is only for the source. Those wipe 22- tests are only analyzed-for iridium contamination, they are 23 not analyzed for uranium contamination. So, it is possible 24 that the leak test may only find several deep gamma on that 25 count. We attribute this as no contamination. You then do ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
247 1 another proportional count on it to_ determine if there is_ i 2 alpha contamination from the uranium, if you can detect.
l i
3 But, again, a normal wipe test is not going to detect it, l 4 unless you specifically are looking for the uranium. So, 5 there is no mechanism in the field now for people to be able l 6 to inspect for that wear-through.
7 The other option for the leak test is to use a 8 boroscope. You have to have some type of flexible boroscope 9 that you put into the S-tube for you to visually inspect to 10 source through the S-tube. Unfortunately, for people to 11 interpret those results, you need to really know what you 12 are looking at. When you wear through the uranium there's a 13 discrete covering pattern and things like that. But, for 14 someone who is not educated or hasn't looked at a lot of S-15 tubes, wouldn't be able to determine if it has been worn 16 through or not.
17 MR. CARRICO: What's different about it?
18 MS. ROUGHAN: It's different on the different 19 cameras. Don't quote me on -- I am going to get quoted.
20 But, the 20,000 possibly?
21 MR. PATTERSoN: .035 generally is what is the 22 rule.
23 MS. DIBBLEE: I don't recall that there11s a 24 requirement now for radiographers to send their cameras back-25 to the manufacturer for any_ kind of maintenance of anything ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. . . - = ~ . . - . . ~ - - - . . - _ . - -. . -
248 1 like that. I have recently observed a camera that had no 2 bottom. The whole case was gone. They were still using it.
3 Perhaps a requirement for some kind of maintenance -- some 4 kind of periodic maintenance on the cameras themselves would 5 at least pick up the source tube. It would pick up the 6 destructive characteristics of some of these cameras like I ,
7 have seen in the field and that sort of thing. That is just 8 kind of a completely off-the-wall comment. Because I know 9 that these cameras, generally speaking, once they enter a 10 licensee's possession, stay there for an indefinite period 11 of time.
12 MS. ROUGHAN: To add a little bit more to that.
i 13 We do routinely get cameras in for maintenance.
14 Unfortunately, when we find something that is wrong with a 15 camera, such as a worn S-tube, our policy is not to send out 16 a source in that, because it violates the type E 17 certificate, because it unsafe, and all those reasons.
18 The licensee sometimes gets very upset about that.
19 You are taking one of their devices out of service, which 20 may cost them several thousand dollars. So, without any 21 support from the regulatory angle, it is very difficult for 22 us to tell them, or for that matter for them to listen to us 23 to take it out of service. We--will routinely send a camera-24 back to them without a source. We will send the source out 25 to source changers, so that they can still use that camera, 4
! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
, Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
^
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
249 1 even though we have told them it should be taken out of 2 service. But, there is no regulatory requirement for them 3 to take it out of service. The same thing with all the 4 other conditions on the camera. If the casing is worn out, 5 that violates the type E certificate. And we ask the 6 customers if they feel they can still use it. The facility 7 will continue to do so. Again, no one is_ forcing them to 8 take it out of service.
9 MR. HENRY: We all heard that the licensee is 10 probably not going to have the ability to do this, so 11 somehow we are going to have to propose how we are going to 12 go about this. Because, for the licensee to purchann that 13 kind of equipment is just out of the question. So, you 14 know, it is a necessity, but they can't do it with equipment 15 they have.
16 MS. TROTTIER: My recollection is, and what Don 17 had been working on before, that the concept could be even 18 having leak test kits available that you could purchase the 19 kit.
20 MS. ROUGHAN: Specifically for uranium analysis.
21 MR. KASYK: I have two comments. One of them is 22 that the type B certificate also supposedly requires the 23 user who is a registered user, to have a quality assurance 24 program. Now, this kind of a mechanism would go a long way 25 to make sure that the B-type packaging is in a resting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20nn6 (202) 293-3950
250.
1 condition, et cetera, et cetera. The other one is that the 2 DOT, in its regulations, requires any package that is put 3 into a transportation has to be wiped for surface 4 contamination. There is no exemption for radiographic 5 cameras. So, in a sense, any time the fellow starts from 6 his installation, he should have found out whether the 7 camera has surface contamination.
8 MS. ROUGHAN: That is required by both the NRC and E 9 DOT regulations, but not the type that wears through the S-10 tube. In addition, the DOT policy on that wipe test -- if 11 the licensee is being inspected, they advise you to meet two 12 conditions. If your source .is in a special form, and you 13 can show that the exposure device or the shooting container 14 has not been in any type of contaminating environment, 15 basically you can assure that you have no external 16 contamination. Therefore, you would be in the intent of the 17 rule. Ycu are not specifically required a physical wipe 18 test prior to shipments. That is the understanding. That 19 is not what is in the rule, but that is the understanding.
20 MR. KASYK: But it should be spelled out. Either-21 the regulations have to be changed, or they should not be 22 ignored, number one.
23 MS. ROUGHAN: I agree.
24 MR. KASYK: And, number two, the_ quality assurance 25 on the package is not only on the shipment itself, but it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
251 1 checks the transportation system. The camera can get 2 contaminated, not by Amersham, and not by the user, but 3 somebody else along the path. This is a very good way how 4 we can catch it and trace it back when the package comes 5 through and find contamination in the system. The 6 transportation, which is the actual reason for all of this.
7 MR. McNEES: If we are going to impose the 8 requirement of check insiae the S-tube for uranium 9 contamination, how often should we do this check -- wipe 10 inside the S-tube for uranium?
11 MS. TROTTIER: I'm not sure.
12 -MS. ROUGHAN: We're recommending annual in our 13 maintenance manuals, just annually.
14 MR. PATTERSON: There are so many times that the 15 customer, himself, will arrange the return or the disposal 16 of that source, prior to the six months' time that you 17 require the wipe test on the source, consequently, the 18 device itself never gets a wipe on it. If you would require 19 the wipe on the device, rather than on the source, you might 20 be doing more good. You also, with that wipe on the device, 21 you could be checking for the uranium contamination. But 22 there are a lot of people that will simply forgo the use of 23 that source any further in order to prevent a wipe test 24 charge. And I know that that doesn't hurt the customers, 25 but it is for their own good that you do it.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ;
(202) 293-3950 '
r-l l
4 252 1 MS. TROTTIER: Does anyone have any other comments-2 on this particular issue? If not, we can move on.
3 (No response.]
4 MS. TROTTIER: On the related issues here, there 5 are a few, and I thought we would just run through them.
6 Again, these are just things that have been 7 gleaned from other regulations. The Canadian regs specify 8 that they have to conduct a leak test after an incident that 9 could have damaged the source. I don't believe Part 34 10 specifically addresses that at this time. So, the question 11 is is this the kind of thing we ought to consider adding?
12 MR. WALKER: That section in our regulation talks 13 about not only after an incident, but also deals with 14 routine leak testing, and we require it every six months.
15 We don't specify what radioisotope they look for. So, in 16 other words, they have to look for other cobalt iridium.
17 MR. BALLARD: I just have a question. Would that 18 be that general in its wording? Or would you say some --
19 what instances? Because, again, I fear that you will have 20 different inspectors givirg you different interpretations to 21 what they have. I have seen interpretations taken to the 22 very extreme. However unlikely an incident might occur, if 23 it is at all possible it did occur, it comes under the 24 umbrella of it could have. And, I think, if you are going 25 to require leak tests, you need to be more than just general ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
)
(202) 293-3950 1
253 1 on when they are required.
2 MS. TROTTIER: I agree.
3 MS. ROUGRAN: Can we respond to one of the 4 incidents again? I agree with Bruce that it needs to be 5 defined. In overy situation, when we have seen a source 6 that has been involved in some type of incident -- the guide 7 tube has been crushed, or a truck ran over it or whatever, 8 we have never found a problem with the leaking nource. What 9 we would advise the customers, if they are involved in an 10 incident, we talk to them about it. We try to get the 11 conditions that it may have been subject. And then we 12 advise the use of leak tests. In fact, in Canada, we just 13 had a camera and a source that was basically electrocuted.
14 Because of the high heat potential, it possible it damaged 15 the welds, so we asked that customer to conduct a leak test.
16 Under most normal physical conditions that happen out in the 17 field, there is really not much' damage done to the source.
18 I mean, if they are specifically tested special form 19 requirements and all the ANSI requirements for use in 20 radiography. So, the chance of actually getting. leaky 21 sources in the normal type of incidents in radiography is 22 fairly low, extremely low. I don't know of any.
23 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. We will move on to the next 24 one then.
25 I guess the Texas regulations, require a survey ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 254 1 after source exchanger, may be beneficial. So, I actually 2 pulled that out and read it no that you can hear the words.
3 And this comes under a section which is headed radiation 4 surveys and survey records. The survey meeting the 5 requirements of 31.33(b) shall be performed on the 6 radiographic exposure device and the source changer after 7 overy sealed source exchange.
8 And 31.33(b) just says that it shall be made 9 around the entire circumference, and it shall also include 10 the guide tube and any collimator.
11 Now, I thought we already covered that in Part 34.
12 It doesn't when you replace it? So, I guess the question is 13 is this a change that we need to make in Part 34 to include 14 leak testing after source exchange? I mean survey. Survey.
15 It's the leak test that we do.
16 MR. CASH: I see a potential for having several 17 unnecessary wipe tests in a situation such as that. If you 18 have a requirement for every six months, and then you get 19 your wipe test after six months, two months later you 20 replace that source. So, it would be more beneficial I 21 believe to do it after each change. But, if you are going 22 to do that, you would have to, I would think, drop that six-23 month requirement.
24 MR. FUNDERBURG: I don't see the reason behind it.
25 If you are going to send the source changer back, you have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 I
!255' 11: - got_to make a survey.anyway before shipment. If you are-2 going to put the storage -- if you'are going to make a-3 survey in the storage area -- if you are going to use-it, 4- you are going to.have to make a survey of the-area anyway.
5 So, what are we accomplishing by this?
6 MR. CASH: We are talking-about wipe test, not 7 survey.
8 MR. FUNDERBURG: 1. says survey.
9 MR. CARRICO: Survey is I believe right.
10 MS. TROTTIER: Radiation surveys.
- 11 MR. CARRICO: And is that survey meter verifying 12 the source-is in the safe storage position?
13 MS. TROTTIER: The survey with a radiation survey'-
14 instrument shall be made after every exposure, and after-you
- 15 exchange the source.
16 MR. CASH: Let me apologize then. - I went to sleep-17 I guess, and-thought we were still talking about leak tests.
18 MS. TROTTIER: .Yes.
19 MR. PATTERSON:- I_ don't think.youlhave a licensee 20 that that particular thing is not covered in their operating 21 procedures. Why is it covered in the operating procedures?
22 It is just-normal procedure that when you make a source 23 change you do a survey.
24 MS. TROTTIER:. Okay.
I 25 MR.'PATTERSON: And why does it do thel survey?-
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. = Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, . D. C. 20006 (202): 293-3950 r ,---sm .y_c- ,-,. ey.. -- ,.
l l
256 1 Somebody told him he had to, whether it is in the 2 regulations or not. If he is going to then he should have 3 it in the regulations and spelled out why.
4 MR. FUNDERBURG: The question is how does the NRC 5 inspector cite them if he doesn't do it?
6 MS. TROTTIER: Are we saying it shotld be in the 7 regulations?
8 MR. PATTERSON: The NRC inspector knows that he 9 didn't do it.
10 MR. FUNDERBURG: Say that again?
11 MR. PATTERSON: How does the NRC inspector know 12 that he didn't survey after each source exchange?
13 MR. FUNDERBURG: That is a good question. Another 14 record?
15 MS. TROTTIER: Records shall be kept on the 16 surveys required.
17 MR. CARRICO: You don't have to keep records. You 18 don't have to record every survey you make after you put the 19 source in and out, they only have to record certain specific 20 surveys. Maybe we should make them do everything.
21 MR. FUNDERBURG: I go back to my original 22 question. What does it accomplish if you are going to do 23 these others?
~l4 MR. "1AZON: They exchange the source every time 25 we bring the source from source changer to the camera. We ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. E0006 (202) 293-3950 l
l 257 1 look the camera. We verify that, indeed, through a survey, 2 that the reading at six inches is on that set radius. That 3 is required by the Part 34 right now. The source changer, 4 prior to sealing that -- there is a problem now that they 5 provide. And prior to shipping it out, surveys are needed.
6 The question I have is is this requirement over 7 and above this process now, or -- and then, are we going to 8 document the survey to verify compliance with the j 9 requirement, or the survey that we did is enough to comply 10 with the requirements?
11 MS. TRoTTIER: Well, whether or not it is reported 12 is another issue. What Part 34 currently says is that we do 13 a survey after every exposure, how you do the survey, and 14 anytime the device is placed in a storage area. If we were 15 to add this, I would assume we would add it with that -- in 16 that section, and it would require a record.
17 MR. CARRICO: As I say, we do not require a record 18 of every survey that is made when the source is cranked in 19 and out. We conduct a survey every time you crank that 20 source in and out. You only have to record -- I can't 21 remember the time and storage time -- is that how it goes?
22 So, that's the only record. This might be looked at as 23 being a situation that may be makes it clear that, 24 regulatory-wise, you are expected to conduct a survey 25 whenever you do a source exchange. If there was a problem ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D, C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l I
l 258 1 in the regulatory agency, and you fail to do that survey, I 2 then the regulatory agency can take enforcement action and 3 cite you for failure to perform that survey, because there 4 was an over-exposure that resulted from that survey. We ,
5 would have to have records for everything, and I'm not sure 6 that the records are a critical thing.
7 MS. TROTTIER: Well, how would you know they 8 didn't take the -- do the survey?
9 MR. CARRICO: Well, we don't know about it every 10 time now, after they crank the source in and our either, you 11 know.
12 MR. McNEES: If they had a record, you didn't know 13 they did a survey?
14 MS. TROTTIER: All you know is they did the 15 record.
16 MS. ROUGHAN: In most of the licensee's operating 17 procedures, one of the specific procedures they have to have 18 written and approved by the regulatory agencies is how to 19 perform a source exchange. In every single one of those 20 they require you survey the source change. I mean, that is 21 just a basic safety practice.
22 MS. TROTTIER: This would just simply be coding 23 something that is already being done by the licensee?
24 MS. ROUGHAN: Yes.
25 MR. BALLARD: It seems so obvious. I would like ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
__ _ . _ . _ __ __ _ __.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ . - - ~ - . - _ _ _
259 1 to see the company that doesn't from a distance. And my 2 question is has there been a problem with over-exposures 3 because these weren't conducted? I mean, if there isn't a 4 problem, and it in definitely covered in operating 5 procedures, I mean, you can write in all the regulations you 6 care to, but if there is not problem, and it is covered 7 somewhere else, fine. And has there been a problem? That 8 is what I would like to hear from the NRC. !! ave you got 9 data that says people in exchanging sources are over-10 exposing themselves because they are not surveying?
11 MR. PATTERSON: Yes. There has been a problem, at 12 least one, and we don't know how many others. These 13 problems you generally don't know about until it is a major 14 oblem. The largest incident in the United States that 15 caused the most confusion was caused by a source exchange, 16 and a lack of a survey after the source exchange, what we 17 call the Delta incident, back several years ago. The man 18 exchanged sources, put the source in the source exchange 19 backward. Obviously he didn't make a survey. All of the ,
20 people on Delta from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta vere 21 exposed. The people in Atlanta were exposed. The people 22 between Atlanta and Baton Rouge were exposed. That is not 23 much of a problem. He got a hell of a fine out of it, and 24 vent out of business. It did kick all the transportation 25 off of the commercial airlines in the United States. And it ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
260 1 la just normal proceduro. None of those people would 2 approve a liconne without a source chango procedure in it.
3 That enlis for a survey. And if you are going to not 4 approve their licenso without all of this in it, then why 5 not put it in the rcegister and nay do it? Otherwise, you 6 don't have a log to stand on if ho doesn't survey it, 7 because you didn't toll him to.
8 MR. TUAZON: I am trying to envision the picturo 9 that you have just mentioned. The sourco exchango was dono 10 backward. Toll mo how it happened? Because there in only 11 one source in an exposure devico, flow could it be dono 12 backward.
13 MR. PATTERSON: I can toll you. 11 0 picked it up 14 with his hands and put it in, Do you think ho still would 15 have made a survey, even though it was required?
16 MS. CARDWELL Probably not.
17 MS. TRO'!' TIER: Okay. Let's koop moving here.
18 All right. The last three issues here are simply 19 things that exist in Part 39. So, tho question that was 20 raised, in our staff anyway, is are they good things that 21 ought to ba added to Part 34? Let no just run through them 22 real quickly, and I will go to Part 39 so that you can hear 23 the language.
24 All right. The first one is specify method of 25 conducting leak tests. .This is on 39.35(b) The wipo must
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
261 ;
1 be performed using a leak test kit or method approved by the- f 2 Commission or an agreement state. The wipe sampit must be 3 made from the nearest. accessible point to the sealed source l 4 where contamination might accumulate. The sample must be 5 analyzed for radioactive contamination, and then the 6 analysis must be capable of detecting the presence of .005 i
7 microcuries of radioactive material on the test sample, and l 8 must be performed by a person approved by the Comission or 9 an agreement state to perform the analysis.
10 Comments?
11 MR. PATTERSoN This particular regulation, if it '
12 is carried out to the extent that you would wish it to be-13 covered, you would use the word contamination -- is the i 14 source contaminated? Well, depleted uranium contamination 15 should be involved and added at the same time. When the
- 16 wipe test is performed normally, you-would check for those ,
17 isotopes. If you happen to be using the cesium source, you ;
la would also check for the cesium and everything. _
You would 19 use that contamination, and that covers the.whole bit.
20 MR. LoWMAN: I think it-is covered in 34 already.- ,
21 MS. TROTTIER: Well, for some reason, this was on-22 the list. Bruce, do you think this is not -- I don't-think 23 it is covered in the same way.
24 MR. CARRICO: I don't think it is as_ specific or 25 clear.
- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. ' Street, N.W., Suite 300- ;
Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
(202) 293-3950 a - -. - - . _ - = _ - . - . .a. - . . - . . . . - . ~ .~
262 1 MR. IDWMAN: It is covered in two different ,,
2 paragraphs. That might be the problem.
3 MS. TROTTIER I think 34 is not as clear.
4 MR. LOWMAN: 34.11(f) and then the other part.
5 MS. TROTTIER: I am also not sure --
6 MR. CARRICO: It doesn't talk about things like 7 leak test, kit model number. There are things that are i 8 different in the two situations. I don't want to use the P 9 word.
10 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Well, if nobody -- yes?
11 MR. KASYK: Years ago, I believo, the NRC and 12 Agreement States used to evaluate leak test kits. And 13 actually they were listed in the old registry of sealed 14 sources and devices. That practice was discontinued. Who 15 is going to evaluate the leak test kit now and who is going 16 to approve it? I mean there are leak test kit and leak test 17 kits. I have soon some of them which were quito inadequate, 18 the instructions were jumbled up so nobody could understand 19 what to do. And, in general, I think there should'be some 20 kind of law and order in this -- if you want to do the leak 21 test, to use a kit which is approved by somebody or 22 evaluated.
23 MS. TROTTIER: Comments?
24 MR.-CARRICO: Are we going to get the SSS going 25 back again? STIS, is that what it was?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 -K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
263 1 VOICE: That is my department now. !
2 MS. RoUGHAN: Again, as s provide of leak test 3 kits, as long as you wipe one part, that is a wipe test. I 4 don't think there needs to be an evaluation of the kits. It 5 is just a standard wipe. Again, it is more common sense 6 than anything else. What would we submit for approval? The 7 cotton swab, and that is about it.
8 MR. CARRICO: There are various levels of service 9 licensees we have identified that have reg guides for, and 10 one of them is people that perform leak tests as a service.
11 And what kind of information are you providing to your 12 customer, how do you take the analysis, things like that. I 13 think that is what this envisions. It never got up to the 14 situation it probably could have. I guess that is part of 15 the Government's problem. They don't have enough staff and 16 time and money with other projects.
17 MR. KASYK: I would like to make a comment on the 18 leak test. You said common sense. Common sense is the most 19 uncommon property around. We had a licensee or applicant 20 submit a procedure for leak testing the source and the 21 procedures. I don't have it verbatim, but, it essentially 22 meant that you unplugged the cover. The front tube attached 23 the tables, cranked the source two inches outside of the 24 camera, and wiped it with the wipe. Okay, that was the .
25 procedure. Now, we got on the telephone right away, and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
264 1 started screaming and hollering, immediately stop doing 2 that. Don't try to do this. So, that is common sense for 3 you, Patterson? Why would you give somebody like that a 4 license?
5 MR. TUAZON: Somebody has to review and approve 6 that.
7 MR. KASYK: This was in the approval. They asked 8 for the approval. They hadn't been doing it yet. But, we 9 said send us the procedure for leak testing, so they sent 10 application to alla. tnew to take the wipe, and this was in 11 the procedure.
12 MS. TROTTIER: I guess there are some things I am 13 hearing here that -- my suspicion is that Part 34 is not 14 spacifically broken here, and maybe it doesn't need any 15 fixing. Lots of heads up and down. Okay. I am ready to 16 abandon this slido.
17 MR. COOL: I have got a general question I want to 18 go back to George on here. In New York, do you specifically 19 review and approve all of the licensees' procedures prior to 20 approving a license?
21 MR. KASYK: Yes.
22 MR. COOL: All of the procedures?
23 MR. KASYK That's right.
24 MR. FUNDERBURG: That's a standard application.
25 MS. TROTTIER: Even we would do that, Don. If ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 4 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
265 1 they were going to do that, we would have to approve that, 2 right?
3 MR. CARRICO: Radiography depends upon the 4 application. A broed licensee, he doesn't get into all of 5 his procedures. They have got committees and things like 6 that, you'd look at different things. But, radiography is 7 required -- they have got to submit their operating 8 procedures to the agency they report to -- the same for 9 other types of licensees.
10 MR. KASYK: I would like to add one more comment.
11 The only time we run into a problem, and this is quite 12 serious, is when people come to us and they have an NRC 13 license, and they show us an NRC manual, which sometimes I 14 must admit is not very good, and they start to beat us over 15 the heat -- Well, NRC approved it, why don't you accept it?
16 You know, we have found that the standard procedure for l
17 discharge dosimetry. This I think is a very important 18 thing. In many NRC-approved manuals it says that find a 19 dosimeter discharge, you recharge it in the low background 20 area and watch it, and it says, if it doesn't discharge, it 21 was probably okay. But, the case, that is okay is not i
l 22 treated, it says it was discharged because it was faulty 23 period.
l 24 But there is another case. The dosimeter is in 25 good shape. You have an incident, and you have to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 i (202) 293-3950
266 1 investigate.
f 2 MR. CARRICO: I would certainly never approve a f 3 licensee like that.
4 MR. KASYK: I can show you manuals, if you would r
5 like to? We could number them and send them to you. !
6 MS. TROTTIER: I thought we had an incident l 7 related to that in here. I thought there was one anyway.
8 okay. We are done with that topic.
9 MR. TUA20N: I just want to mention that there is 10 right now a statement in Part 34 regarding the dosimeter.
11 And it says, if an individual's dosimeter is discharged, his 12 film badged is immediately sent for processing. ;
13 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
14- MR. KASYK: Okay. But that doesn't treat the case 15 of the dosimeter which is okay, and was found to be 16 discharged. Obviously the fellow has to stop working. The 17 film can come three days later or four days later. He has 18 to be' stopped right away.-
19 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
20 MR. KASYK Okay. You can't wait until the thing 21 comes back.
22 MR. COOL: That is an unrela:ed issue.-
23 MR. KASYK:
You have to investigate how it.
24 happened. Did he drop it -- a reenactment._ There are all 25 kinds of things we demand for them to do before we let them -
1 ANN RILEY, & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters
-1612 - K. - Street, N W., Suite 300 Washington, D, C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 v -
267 1 continue work, but that is not in the manual.
2 MS. TROTTIER: We will get to this point when we 3 get through with this.
4 All right. Let's move to issue number seven, 5 which is records at temporary job sites.
6 I believe that we currently require no specific 7 records at temporary job sites. Is that right, Bruco?
8 MR. CARRICO: We don't have a definition that says 9 every job site will koop records.
10 MS. TROTTIERt What we are looking at here is 11 would it be appropriate to add some requirements, and what 12 might be the best thing to add? A question comes up, should 13 we add those in Part 39, which I am now trying to dig out 14 without success.
15 Now, the suggested state regs also contain records 16 for temporary -- they are tables of contents. All right.
17 The records in Part 39 are operating and emergency 18 procedures, calibrations for survey instruments, latest 19 survey records that are required, shipping papers, if that 20 is an issue -- of course, this is wold logging -- and 21 reciprocity agreement, if they are operating under j 22 reciprocity.
j 23 MS. DIBBLEE: Leak test.
24 MS. TROTTIER: What is in the suggested state 1
25 regs? Does that include Icak tests also?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters -
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
268 1 MS. DIBBLEE: We put it in our license. Is it in 2 the SSR's? We put it as a licensing condition.
3 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. It is appropriate license and 4 certificate of registration or equivalent, operating and 5 emergency procedures, applicable regulations, survey 6 records, daily pocket dosimeter records, and latest 7 instrument calibration and leak test records.
8 So, I guess the question is should we put 9 something like this in suggested state rogs in NRC's Part 10 347 11 VOICES: Yes.
12 MR. COOL: Why? What is the value of having the 13 radiographer truck all of that stuff around? I mean, look 14 at it pragmatically. What is the probability he is actually 15 going to stop and read that sort of thing if something 16 happens?
17 MS. TROTTIER: He could read the regulations while 18 he didn't have anything else to do.
19 MR. COOL: I am going to ask the question. Why?
20 MR. HENRY: Well, Dr. Cool, if you were making the 21 inspection. How are you going to know what he is supposed 22 to do if he doesn't have copies of.all this stuff? Because 23 you know, as an inspector. As an inspector, he has-to have 24 all of this so he can do the inspection.
25 MR. COOL: I have certainly got copies of the ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 1
269 1 regulations.
2 MR. HENRY: You don't have it with you if you just 3 wal!:ed up on him on a sito,. You do these covertly, don't 4 you? Unannounced?
5 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. Although, I will say --
6 MR. COOL: I'll play devil's advocate. If I am 7 going to walk up covertly on a site, am I going to want to 8 make a paper inspection, or am I going to want to inspect 9 what he is doing?
10 MR. HENRY: You are going to want to do both.
11 VOICE: Yes.
12 MR. HENRY: We do both, don't you do both?
13 MR. FUNDERBURG: Let's take an example. I am 14 going to come and inspect you. Now, you don't have a leak 15 test for your source. I am going to stop you and I am going 16 to say wait a minute. And if I allow you to operate, and 17 that source is leaking, we are both in hot water. So, if 18_ you have a copy of that leak test there, and that record, .
19 can let you operate. But, if you don't have it, then we 20 have a problem. We can't continue.
21 MR. COOL: Okay. Play it out for a minute. If I 22 sign a utilization log at the office this morning,.and I I 23 drove out to the site, why should I carry along that piece 24 of paper? You can go back to --
25 MR. FUNDERBURG: We don't go back to the office.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 270 1 MR. Cool: I am looking for a health and safety 2 reason. Because I am not yet convinced that a convenience 3 of the inspector is a sufficient reason to require them to 4 haul around paper. If the only reason they are doing it is 5 so that I can walk up on them at any time, I am not quite 6 sure why it is I am doing it.
7 MR. VERELLEN: Believe me, you spend all week --
0 you are bouncing all over the place looking for records.
9 MR. FREE: With Texas, you are going to have to 10 remember the temporary job site which may be in operation 11 for six months. And, it is important that those people who 12 have those resources available to them, they are not 13 necessarily the same radiographer at that location during 14 the entire six months. They rotate, just like other 15 operations.
16 MR. HoRNoR: The pocket dosimeter is supposed to 17 be recharged each shift. How would you know if he in 18 recharging his pocket dosimeter if you didn't have a record 19 of it? He could tell you anything he wanted to tell you.
20 MR. McNEES: To pick up on what Bob says.
21 Supposing you were taking comments here, and you were 22 operating at a temporary job site in Alabama, and the source 23 comes up for a leak test, and you are over there for three 24 or four months. If we go over there to see you we have no 25 way of checking that. And since it wasn't at the home ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
(202) 293-3950 l
271 1 office, the RSo didn't bother to do it, so that's why we ask-2 to see -- actually to have the leak test there. Probably 3 the same logic to the survey meter. The survey meters in 4 our state are done overy three months. Supposing he has 5 been over there at that job site for the last two weeks or 6 three weeks or three months, and the meter comes up? They 7 don't take the time to UPS him one over and send it back, so a we want to see the calibration on the meter he has got to 9 see that that hasn't happened. Every day he is supposed to 10 do a survey, at least for the place of use. So, he is 11 already making those records. So, that is one reason why wo 12 ask for that record -- to make sure that he has that survey 13 at the site.
14 Everyday he is filling out a dosimeter report, or 15 he is charging it. So, I want to see every dosimeter report 16 that he has made. And our rules say at that site, but we do 17 allow them -- if he went home to the home office, drop off 18 the ones before this trip out. We, in the field, interpret.
19 that as this trip. So, he gets home and drops off one, and 20 all your previous ones -- your procedures -- so he can refer 21 back to them if something comes up in the regulation, so 22 that he can refer back to them. I guess the only one that 23 we really require him to have for the convenience of the 24 inspector would be a copy of the license, or that could be 25 the license might have expired, and he didn't bother to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders.
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950
272 1 renew it while he was over there, so it could be for our 2 benefit to check those. Those are just the things that we 3 put in our state regulations several years ago.
4 MR. MARYIAND: I guess you mentioned reciprocity. <
5 A licensee from Alabama came over to Georgia -- records that 6 he is going to have to maintain in Georgia, if he is going 7 to be doing work.- And I may just happen to find him doing 8 work, and I don't have a copy of his license or emergency 9 procedure. I don't know what he committed to that he said 10 he would do. If he committed to having two instruments 11 instead of one instrument and so on.
12 MR. BALLARD: In Part 34, one of the requirements 13 to be a radiographer is to be issued and operating an 14 emergency procedures manual. And it would seem odd that you 15 would issue your radiographers an operating and emergency 16 procedures manual by regulation, and he not have it with 17 him. What does he do with it? Leave it home?
18 And another thing though. We have been inspected 19 by the NRC six times this year. And the first things they 20 do is come out and say lot me see your records? And yet, I 21 am hearing here that we don't have to have them?
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. BALIARD: They want to see the transport form, 24 they want to see the utilization log, which has survey 25 meter, dosimeter, area surveys, camera surveys, maintenance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
273 1 check lists, dosimetry logo, and leak tests, decay charts, 2 the labeling on our boxes and transports. And I always -- I 3 don't know, I just always thought that you had to have them.
4 MR. TUAZON: This is the operating and emergency 5 procedure that wo issued our people when they become part of 6 the program. It is not a requirement that they must have 7 this onsite.
8 Now, to address your question of concern on 9 documents available on the site. Now, I do not know about 10 other states' requirements. But, I can tell you how we do 11 it, and maybe you can adopt it or consider it. And that is, 12 on the camera, we have a plastic pouch on every camera. We 13 have a plastic pouch, and, in that plastic pouch, we the 14 leak test, and the maintenance information about the camera.
15 The question was raised, so we make the calibration. All 16 survey meters have a sticker when it was calibrated, when it 17 is due for calibration.
18 About a month ago I revised the field radiography 19 record so that when the person doing the completion of that 20 everyday will indicate what was made and when it is due for 21 calibration, so that there is no assumption. Whenever you
- 22. complete the paperwork you have verified that this is the 23 date and that date is okay.
24 MR. KLINGER: To me, I always like having l
t 25 specified records. To me, it is better for the licensees.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D, C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 274 1 As they go from one jurisdiction to another, they will know 2 what is specifically required by that jurisdiction. And, 3 plus, as we review these individual licenses, we might 4 overlook a particular reg, or a particular record that would 5 be required by the licensees. And this way, if it is in 6 regs, it is uniform. Everybody knows what the rules are, 7 and they have complied with those. A lot of it is the 8 convenience, not only for ourselves, but for the licensees.
9 MR. HORNOR: Recently we have done a lot of 10 inspections of reciprocity of radiographers, unfortunately 11 for California. None of them had our regulations, and that 12 is one of the things they are supposed to have. And there 13 are enough differences in our regulations and their 14 regulations, that it was very inportant for them to have 15 those regulations, so they would know those differences and 16 be complying with our regulicions which were different.
17 MG. TROTTIER: Does that answer your question, 18 Don?
19 [ Laughter.)
20 MR. COOL: Well, I answered the question, because 21 it looked to me like we were going to say yes and move on 22 without the record giving me any basis to go to my 23 management, who tends to ask these sorts of questions and 24 say why should I have this? Why should I have that? So, 25 while I an agreeing with you -- and we needed to know this ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 )
(202) 293 3950
275 1 sort of information, because, as a matter of fact, what 2 seems obvious is not always obvious to those who haven't 3 taken part in these discussions -- who haven't gone out with 4 the inspectors.
5 MS. TRoTTIER: All right. We are going to move to 6 a related issue, which is what about the storage locations.
7 Do we need to require specific records for storage 8 locations? I will tell you what Part 39 says. And, of 9 course, dealing with the fact that you are dealing with 10 different ratcrial, a copy of the regulations, a license 11 authorizing the use of the material, operating and emergency 12 procedures -- I lost my way -- survey instrument 13 calibrations, leak test results, inventory records, 14 utilization records, records of inspection and maintenance, 15 training records, survey records. Now, that is what is 16 required at a " field station" under weld logging, which 17 could be the same thing as a license storage location which 18 you did or did not operate as a business, from which you 19 moved this material.
20 So, the question here is is this something that we 21 think needs to be addressed? Do we need specific 22 requirements? Should they be the same thing as a temporary 23 field site? Should they be the same thing as at the 24 permanent site? What kind of records should be required at 25 these " storage locations" or field stations or whatever?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
(202) 293 3950 !
l l
276 1 '7. CARRICO: I believe there are similar 2 provisions in the SSR's also about records and storage 3 locations; is that correct? Nobody jumped at that one.
4 MS. DIBt1 LEE: We would considor it a temporary job 5 site?
6 P" TROTTIER: You would considor it a temporary 7 job site?
8 MR. COOL In there a reason for that to be any 9 different?
10 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. That is the question?
11 MS. CARDWELL As a stato licensee, no. In Texas 12 --
13 MR. McNEES: A radiographer goes to the storago 14 location and pick it up, it is going to have all the 15 temporary job site records with him. He is fixing to go to 16 a temporary job site.
17 MR. CARRICO: Are there other things, such as 18 training records, that you might not have expected at a 19 temporary job site?
20 MR. McNEES: We go to the home office for thoso.
21 MR. COOLt That is why I am trying to define the 22 differences hero. Because, as we were talking about whether 23 we were going to call it a field station or a location from 24 which they are sending out sources -- why would you want to 25 treat that, or would you want to treat that as a separate ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
277 1 category from the home office? or would you just treat it 2 as the field station? I am looking, once again, for some 3 rationales here for drawing distinctions between the various 4 classes that we talked about earlier for these classes.
5 Your home office and these other places for which you are 6 disburning sources, where we are keeping utilizhtion logs 7 and things, and then your field location -- you may be at 8 your field location for a long period of time. And I am 9 hearing that no, you wouldn't have to keep things at this 10 storage area. That would be the same set of records as you 11 would keep at a temporary job site.
12 Dut, I am having a little bit of difficulty with 13 that, because Texas puts them on the license.
\ 14 MS. CARDWELL: Is there another one of those 15 additionally? See, we have that other category 16 additionally. What storage?
17 MS. TROTTIER: And you require those sites -- the 18 same records?
19 MS. CARDWELL: Inventory records that are not 20 required at temporary job sites?
21 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
22 MS. CARDWELL: Inventory records. We specifically 23 said utilization records, but those are, like Jim mentioned, 24 almost -- they try to put everything on one record, and 25 sometimes utilization record also has your dosimeter checks ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 2000G t (202) 293-3950
278 1 and all the other stuff -- surveys and that sort of thing.
2 We require personnel monitoring on those. Because often 3 times, again, this is that additional use/ storage sito, 4 where there may be radiographers working out of this 5 particular offico that never over go to the main office.
6 So, we want those records on that -- those particular 7 persons at that offico. So, ours geto a little bit more 8 specific because of that additior=1 designation, and 9 additional uso source.
10 MR. Cool: Wouldn't that arw.aont mean that 11 overything you wanted at the home office you would want to 12 have at that location?
13 MS. CARDWELL I guess I could mean that. Except 14 it would just be for that particular -- personnel out of 15 that site, whereas, the main office would be entire.
16 MR. CooLt Right. Personnel out of that site.
17 Anybody that they dealt with would have to have the same 18 sets of records.
19 Martha is desperately waiting.
20 MS. DIBBLEEt I think what you are talking about 21 is something that is licensee-specific, rather than l 22 regulation-specific. Because I am not sure that oregon has 23 a situation that would fit this -- where we might have a 24 licensee -- being as we have a fairly cmall state, we would
- 25 just go back to the main office, l
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
279 1 Itaving to do with this other issue though, we 2 wrote into the full reciprocity authorizations and licenses 3 for various de,, ments that had to be carried with the 4 licensee at the time that the radiography was being 5 performed, partly because of an identification problem, in 6 case of a transportation accident of something like that.
7 And then the utilization log itself, which they would take 8 to any specific job, and usually it is on NCR paper, and 9 they just tear it off and it has got all kinds of stuff. It 10 has got their dosimeter log, and it has got their surveys, 11 and their transportation surveys. You know, it is an all-12 purpose form. A lot of our radiographers have this. So, 13 really, the number of records or pieces of paper that they 14 keep would be fairly minimal. On the other hand, I would 15 say that for your temporary sites, like Cindy is talking 16 about, that that would be a special case, and that should be 17 handled specifically by a license condition rather than by a 18 regulation.
19 MS. CARDWELL: For your state?
20 MS. DIBBLEE: Yes.
21 MS. CARDWELL: Whereas, we need it.
22 MR. KLINGER: I think, even in Texas, with those 23 additional sites, sometimes if it merely storage, or greater 24 than 90 days, I am sure they are not going to have all the 25 training records for all the people.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
280 1 MS. CARDWELL: We get enough of them that not 2 every one of our licensees had these additional use storage 3 sites.
4 MR. KLINGER: But it seems like you would want to 5 specify all the records in those sites, because you would 6 want to have enough flexibility to reflect the wide variety 7 of those.
8 MS. CARDWELL: HRC might not need it, but ours are 9 in to fit us.
10 MR. McNEES: Maybe it could be a branch office.
11 You have got the home office in Michigan, and the branch 12 office in Missouri, and the home office in Missouri, and the 13 branch office in Oklahoma. What records would NRC expect 14 the branch office ought to have that we don't have? We 15 don't have this problem in Alabama. We don't have that 16 designation. We only have the three designations. We have 17 just got the home office.
18 MR. FUNDERBURG: This may be unique to NRC because-19 they are so big.
21 MS. TRoTTIER: I believe we have a number of 22 licensees who have offices in multiple states.
23 All right. I think we have kind of beaten that 24 one to death. So, let's move to issue eight.
25 This is one where Texas has some specific ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
)
281 1 requirements, and NRC does not. Currently, Part 34 only 2 requires inspections of the device, and I guess the changer 3 and the storage container, but none of the auxiliary 4 equipment that would go along with it. And Texas has an 5 entire appendix, which lirte each of the components and what 6 needs to be inspected. I guess my question is, in this 7 something other states do? They have requirements in 8 addition to those three pieces of equipment? In other 9 words, all of the little auxiliary pieces of equipment that 10 your regs require inspection of those, as well as the camera 11 itself? And, if not, do we need to?
12 MS. DIBBLEE I believe we considered that covered 13 under the SSR, or Part 34 for inspection maintenance. And 14 we expect that inspection procedure during the license 15 application. And, rather than hav1 3 4t in an appendix, or 16 as a separate attachment, because some types of equipment 17 are different, we let the licensee provide their own 18 procedure for this inspection.
19 MS. ROUGHAN What the manufacturer normally will 20 do is give you suggested maintenance instructions for the 21 exposure devices. Normally, as part of that, they also 22 included instruction, in the guide tubes and the control 23 housings. Those need to be inspected too, because the 24 source passes -- especially in the -- passes through the 25 guide tubes -- so they have to make sure the fittings are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
282 1 attached firmly, for them to have a field, and that the 4
2 controis operato properly -- that the drive cable is not 3 rusted or whatever, which may cause a break sometimes. That 4 la normally, again, in the manufacturers instructions for 5 maintenance for that specific control device.
6 A lot of licensees tend to just pretty much xerox 7 what is in the manufacturer's manual and put that into their 8 licenso as one of their conditions, which is good, except 9 that the one problem wo soo on that is that a lot of people 10 don't, as you perform all that maintenanco -- the equipment 11 we normally got in for maintenance or service has obviously 12 boon not proporly maintained for a long period of time. So, 13 oven though they may agree that those things nood to be 14 done, and they put it as part of their licenso, a lot of the 15 actions are not completed by the licensee, in terms of the 16 maintenance.
17 MR. CARRICO: I believe that this one came up as a 18 comment that Don Hollis roccived from an outsido source.
19 Part 34 is not necessarily a fear about equipment and 20 maintenanco, so -- whether or not that is intended to 21 include auxiliary equipment, such as the drive mechanisms, 22 the guide tubos, the source heads, whatever. With the new 23 equipment rule in effect, it is becoming more and more 24 critical that these things all operato correctly -- those 25 maintenance and some of those safety features are critical ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
283 1 on them being -- you want to put this for me, Tom? You are 2 probably more familiar with it?
3 MR. RICH: This is Tom Rich, NRC. We agree that 4 the equipment should be maintained. However, I guess I am 5 going to take up from Martha carlier -- that, if you try to 6 put it in the regulation, you are going to forget something.
7 There are too many new designs coming out, and so many 8 different components and controls, that if you forget that 9 there may be some that the licensee may not maintain, which 10 would mean more health and safety issues.
11 The way it is currently written, in which it says 12 the licensee e aa l check for obvious defects and 13 radiographic exposure devices, storage change and source 14 changers. I think you just nood to put the wording in, 15 associated equipment.
16 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. That might be a simple fix.
17 MR. RICH: That really covers it. And, then 18 submit the license application for the following 19 manufacturer's suggestion and operating procedures.
20 MS. CARDWELL: Well, our appendix doesn't get so 21 specific as to the manufacturer's instructions.
22 MS. TROTTIER: No.
23 MS. CARDWELL: It has stuff like --
24 MS. TROTTIER: It says what to look for.
25 MS. CARDWELL: Right. And, for instance, it has a
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
284 1 whole section on source tube. Things it lists are rust, 2 dirt or sludge build up in the source tubo, condition of the 3 connector to the source tube, condition of the source stop, 4 kinks or damage that could provent proper operation. I 5 mean, those are pretty general. We are not getting specific 6 as to model. And it gives them something specific to look 7 for. Back in the rulo it tells them that they have to have 8 this program that has all of those checks on it. As a 9 minimum koop a records of them. So, at least -- if wo've 10 got a camera that was -- if we went out and it was 11 supposedly checked off on the list as having boon looked at 12 yesterday and they hadn't used it, and it is filthy dirty, 13 and it obviously hadn't, at least we have got that to look 14 at.
15 MS. TROTTIER: And I am not saying that the 16 appendix is not good. I think that something like this 17 would be offectivo in a reg guido, or some other guidanco 18 document.
19 MR. LOWMAN: It is in the Reg Guido.
20 MS. TROTTIER: It is in 10.6, if we over issuo 21 10.6.
22 MR. PATTERSON: I had a comment. I was just going 23 to comment that it was in as far back as 1967 that you asked 24 the different manufacturers if the equipment to make up a 25 daily checklist that would be attached to the devices, and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers
, 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- . . _ . - - - - _ . . . . . - - . - _ - . = . . . - . . - . - - - -
285 1 then a quarterly checklist. And it would just be so simple 2 to incorporate in the use of auxiliary equipment.
3 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. That is simple.
4 MR. PATTERSON! And that is all you need to do. i 5 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. ;
a 6 MS. DIBBLEEt Especially when you are dealing with 7 pipe liners that don't use things like that, and other kinds l 8 of odd devices. ,
9 MS. TROTTIERt All'right. These are some of the l 10 other issues that I added in that seem to be related. i 11 The first item comes out suggested state regs. l 12 And I think somehow Part 34 must not say locking prior to
-13 moving.
14 MR. McNEES: It's just spelling out what used to 15 be in the procedures.
16 MS. CARDWELL: Is that outdated? The new I 17 equipment standards are automatically secured each time.you i 18 crank it back in, as far as deliberate operation, and be 19 able to crank it back out again?
20 MR. RICH. Yes.
21 MS. TROTTIER: I think that is, r
22 MS. CARDWELL Does that make'that obsolete? I 23 mean, we have both of them.
24 MS. TROTTIERt' Yes.
25 MS. CARDWELL : We have the equipment: standard that.
' ANN RlLEY. & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court- Reporters:
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006
..(202) 293-3950 -
. . . = . - . . - . - - - . . -. - . . - .a . . - - -
286 1 says that, plus we have the locking.
HR. CARRICO: So, is locking and securing, in the '
2 3 new regulation, the same thing? Locking is turning the key?
4 MS. CARDWELL: They are two different things, but 5 it is the same thing accomplished by both rogs. I mean, 6 this locking thing was in there prior to the equipment 7 standard that required that automatic securing device to be 8 on the equipment and a part of the equipment. Now, it may 9 not be now, because we have until '96 just to have used all 10 this equipment. But, are we looking at possibly an outdated 11 rule?
12 MS. TROTTIER: That we don't need?
13 MR. BALLARD: Even if it is outdated by the 14 automatic securing feature on a new camera, I think it is a 15 good idea.
16 MS. TROTTIER: As a requirement?
17 MR. BALLARD: And I think you should add 18 " install," if it has one, a front in safety plug. Because 19 moving the device -- while moving the device can be fairly 20 simple, in that you are only moving it 20 feet down a room, 21 or it could mean you are taking it off the eighth floor of a 22 tower, lowering it by rope to a platform, and then taking it-23 down an elevator across a facility up into a tent. So, 24 moving can becomo very involved. And I think you should 25 make your regulations say lock, and also install, if ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
287 1 available, a front-end safety plug.
2 MR. FUNDERBURG: I made a statement earlier this morning related to the term secured versus lock. And it was 3
4 brought to my attention some time ago that the California 5 regulations say secured, and our radiographers are getting r
6 confused with what secured is versus lock. My 7 recommendations to the other states is look at your regs and 8 see what it says. I don't know what the NRC regs state.
9 MS. TROTTIER: Tht term locked is used.
10 MS. ROUGHAN: In terms of the exposure devices, 11 themselves, on some of the exposure devices, when you bring 1
12 the source back, you do a deliberate operation to secure the 13 source. It doesn't lock it. And, other exposure devices, 14 when you bring the source back, in order to secure it, you 15 have to physically lock it. So, it really depend on the 16 exposure devices.
17 Securing may also mean lock; but securing doesn't 18 necessarily mean lock. It depends on the exposure device.
19 There are two different meanings.
20 MR. FUNDERBURG: If it were locked, and you got 21 rid of the word = cure, and just said it shall be locked, Lh 22 and then the only way that it will be locked is if it is in 23 the dc. tee.
24 MS. TROTTIER: That would mean, on some of the 25 exposure devices out there, the most common series out ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 I Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
288 1 there, the 660's, you would have to turn the selector 2 reading to secure it, and depress the plunger lock to' lock 3 it. So, you would have two operations to lock it in that 4 Case.
5 MR. FUNDERBURG: How about the new dw9 n ,? Do you 6 have to turn a key?
7 MS. TRoTTIER: You have to depress the key, and 8 not turn.
9 MR. FUNDERBURG: Would that be corrected after 10 '96?
11 MS. ROUGHAN: The svinute you bring the source 12 back, the locking slide that locks in place.
13 MR. FUNDERBURG: After the '96, change your word 14 from secure to locked.
15 MS. TROTTIER: The exposure device or its 16 container shall be kept locked when not in a direct 17 uurveillance of a radiographer or an assistance, or as 18 otherwise may be authorized. In addition, during operation, 19 the sealed source assembly shall be secured in the shielded 20 position each time the source is returned to that position.
21 MR. BALLARD: Just one comment on the new devices.
22 If-it automatically secures through a slide mechanism when 23 you retract the source, I don't think you need to lock it, 24 if you are just changing an exposure. I think the only time 25 you should have to lock it,'if there is another mechanism, ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
289 1 is if you move it. Now, until '96, if the -- there are 2 actually, in my opinion, two ways to secure the over-3 exposure devices -- lock it, or install a front-end safety 4 plug.
5 Now, if it is an older device that doesn't hcVe an 6 automatic secure mechanism, then lock it. But, if it is 7 one, and that's the only way to secure it, other than 8 install the plug is to lock it. And the other newer ones, 9 it can secure itself when you retract it, and I think that 10 is enough. If it has two mechanisms, one secure and one 11 locked, locked means you've got to do both of them. And if 12 the camera doesn't move from its position, I don't see why 13 you should have to do both.
14 MR. CABE: The newer cameras actually have three 15 operations that you can do. You can crank it back in and it 16 automatically jumps into a locked position. You can also 17 turn the ring to a locked position. You can push the 18 plunger down and lock it. It is called the policy lock 19 mechanism. It is locked. You have got locked and secured, t
20 You have got three ways to lock the new camera, if you want 21 to read it that way.
22 MR. FUNDERBURG: Which of these regulations refer l
23 to secured? Which one of those uses an inspector going out, 24 or use the radiographer? Which one of these are you going 25 to do to comply with this regulation which says the assembly ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
i Coud Repoders i 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. . .-. - _- ._ . - .=_
290 1 should be secured and the shield in this position each time 2 the source is returned to that position?
3 MR. CABE: Working as an inspector in the field 4 with the older cameras, and having to work with both types, 5 with the old 660's, we considered being secured, is you turn 6 the lock and you retract the source, make your surveys, and 7 put the locking ring to the locked positions between 8 exposures. If you are going to move your camera from this 9 location over to that wall, you push the plug back to lock 10 it. And then that requires you to -- when you get over.
11 there you have to unlock it with a key, and before you can 12 operate it you have to turn it to the operate position.
13 The way it is written into our procedures now is 14 we are not forgoing turning the locking ring to lock, even 15 after the possey lock jumps into the locked position, I am 16 still leaving the operation of turning the locking ring to 17 the locked position before you go and make the next set up.
18 There is a possibility -- it is far-fetched -- that that 19 possey lock mechanism malfunctions.
20 MS. ROUGHAN: On the manufacturers' instructions i 21 we don't require the user to turn the selector into lock, 22 because it has a possey locking mechanism. Once that stands 23 in position, the source is secured, as an option to their 24 operations manual. We did not include that in the i
25 manufacturer's manual.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders
-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
.. - - ~-
291 1 MR. FUNDERBURG: I think this is probably the 2 basis of the whole problem. Some inspectors are going to 3 interpret whichever way. It is best that they understand 4 it. You are not going to have the same -- to me, now, it 5 sounds like this is not really clear what this regulation 6 says.
7 MR. CABE: It seems as if you need_to specify the 8 difference between locked and secured.
9 MR. COOL: Are you agreeing then that the 10 regulations should be changed to talk about locking, versus 11 securing prior to moving?
12 MR. FUNDERBURG: Yes. I think so.
13 MR. PATTERSON: We now have the difficult 14 situation of having the words secure and lock. And secured 15 certainly doesn't mean locked. In_the past,_the NRC has 16 always honored a COR as a locked. But, when it says locked 17 there, you have to go back and remember the description of 18 the devices that you manufactured. When you say in the 19 locked and secured position, it means that the camera is 20 locked with all the safety plugs in it. So, in order to be 21 consistent, you need to spell out the conditions under which 22 you are saying secured, and the conditions under which you 23 are saying locked.
24 MS. CARDWELL: That's what we do. We have a 25 section that says the-sealed source shall'be secure _in its ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
292 1 shicided position by locking the radiographic exposure 2 device. So, that takes care of both terms we were using.
3 MR. COOL: Well, I have heard two different things 4 here, locking and secure. And I think I have heard that 5 each time the source is pulled in, it needs to be secured by 6 the locked mechanism or whatever, while you are going and 7 doing things, setting up to do film and what not. But, I 8 believe I don't here a sentiment that there needs to be the 9 further locked plunger or whatever, except in the 10 circumstance where we are then going to move the camera. If 11 that thing is going to move, other than just sit there, then 12 it would need to be locked. So, I hear two distinct things.
13 Is that the general sentiment around this table on those 14 conditions?
15 MS. TROTTIER: Okay.
16 MR. COOL: I think this has been very fruitful.
17 MS. TROTTIER: All right. The next item on this 18 list is checking the survey instrument with a check source 19 prior to use. It seems rational, but, for some reason, we 20 don't specify that in Part 34.
21 MR. FUNDERBURG: You've got a source. The 22 radiographer has got a source with him. Why doesn't he just 23 take it over -- and he should know what the storage level is 24 anyway -- why not require him to have a check source, an 25 additional source there, to just see if the equipment is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
t 293 1- running?
4 2 MS. CARDWELL: 'Ours doesn't-say that. -We-just say ,
3 with a radiation source, which we interpret.to mean you.can-4 use the camera-itself. The intent was just to make sure 5 that the survey meters is working and the batteries are:
6 working. ,
7 MS. TROTTIER: I guess we wouldn't object if 8 people were using the camera.
9 MR. BALIARD: You are required, by-regulation, to 10 survey that device prior to use, even if that device is >
11 empty, the depleted uranium exhibits some level of 12 radiation. To. require people to run around with check 13 sources is inherently dangerous, because they are relatively-14 small. So, what do you have them do,_ attach a chain.and tag 15 to this little-check source. Where are you going to keep 16 it?
17 VOICE: In your pocket.
18 MS. TROTTIER: Lots of time people take it.
19 -MR.'BALLARD: When your regulations say-surveyfthe 20 device, right then is when you know if it works. Because if-l 21 your meter reads zero, you have a malfunction, or possibly a-l 22 radiation level so high, you just: have to grade your meter.
. 23 But, you already have the mechanisms in place, if you simply 24 follow procedures to check your survey meter. And, I_just 25 think a requirement to carry around check sourcesLis begging ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-.
294 1 for trouble.
2 MR. CARRICO: Does the SSR specifically talk about 3 that?
4 MS. TROTTIER: Each radiation survey instrument -
5 -
6 MS. CARDWELL: You have to go back to -- the 7 camera can be a radiation source.
8 MR. CARRICO: It says checked while in use.
9 MS. TROTTIER: Apparently we do not say do that.
10 All right.
11 MR. COOL: Is your definition of radiation sources 12 include something about knowing what you should be getting 13 off of that source? Because, if he goes up and surveys the 14 camera, and doesn't pay any attention to his response, the 15 meter will go, what? And, if it didn't move the correct 16 way, you still don't have a functioning vehicle.
17 MR. McNEES: A shielded position at the time of 18 storage. That is in the rule. So, this morning he had the 19 same meter and the same-source, at the same place to put the
-20 test down.
21 MR. COOL: Well, I am making the assumption that 22 he knows what that is -- that he is thinking about that. He 23 looks and he sees, and he gets that. Is that a rational 24 assumption?
25 MS. CARDWELL: You don't need to go into accuracy-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
295 1 and calibration at this point.
2 MS. TROTTIER: No.
3 MS. CARDWELL: We are just wanting to make sure 4 that the survey meter is not dead.
5 MR. CARRICO: Yes. As long as it responds to 6 radiation is what we are looking at. We are not looking at 7 a calibration.
8 MS. CARDWELL: That is covered somewhere else.
9 MS. TROITIER: By precedent, under Part 35, we 10 allow teletherapy licensees to use a teletherapy pen as a 11 check source for the instrument in the regs.
12 MR. CARRICO: It's a good check source.
13 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Now, the next two' items.
14 Actually, the fourth item we have already addressed-15 sufficiently. The next is about removing the key.
16 MR. CABE: We have been asked through 17 organizations that we response-check our survey meters prior 18 to use, And we were strongly reprimanded because we-were 19 not. And the next thing that happened was, well, are you 20 checking it in all scales? Does one scale work? Does your 21 hundred scale work? Or did you just check it on the scale 22 that you are going to use down in the field? How did you decide not to check it on the hundred scale?
~
23 Some of these 24 sources -- you get into the' catch-22 of what is a known 25 response? Does that radiographer -- did he.use that source-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud - Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
296 1 yesterday, or did he use another? It is pleasing to hear 2 that Texas, as a state, is looking at it. We won't know if 3 the survey meter works. We are not concerned if it is 4 calibrated that day.
5 Gur response back to this group -- this 6 organization was why have the calibration program, if you 7 are going to calibrate every day on an all-field radiation?
8 They still didn't want to hear that. We had to write it in 9 our operating and emergency procedures that we would 10 response check it. Not only that, but you have got your 11 rate meters that you have got to response check to a known 12 amount of radiation each day.
13 MS. TROTTIER: There was no organization 14 associated with NRC?
15 MR. CABE: Well, in response to them, it was 16 because we are at an operating nuclear station, and we are 17 working under a state license, and the NRC license for the 18 operating station. The radiography program is under a state 19 license. The state people come in and say you have got the 20 capabilities of making all these checks, why not make them?
21 It is there.
22 MS. CARDWELL: Do you want to move to Texas?
23 MR. CABE: We maintain our own survey meter 24 program. And the question was asked, if you have people 25 that are issuing survey meters every day in the nuclear ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
297 1 station, why do you not use that facility to go get your 2 survey meters? And they are checked each day before they 3 are issued. So, that is a problem whenever you say, well 4 are the survey instruments checked for operation. And that 5 definition, if it works, fine, I agree with that.
6 MS. TROTTIER: Well, if we use this term, check 7 with a radiation source, in my mind, would eliminate this 8 problem of checking on all ranges.
9 MR. CARRICO: We would describe this statement for 10 consideration.
11 MR. COOL: There are two points here. One is 12 check. Check simply means that the meter responded, not 13 necessarily that it responded in some calibrated way.
14 MS. CARDWELL: That's what is really important. I 15 mean, they crank the source, and the meter goes like this, 16 and they crank it back in and it goes back down, what does 17 it matter? They need a response. If they crank it back 18 down and the meter is still out here, there is obviously 19 something wrong. A response is what you are looking for.
20 MR. MARYLAND: I think there is a difference 21 between check and accuracy check.
22 MR. COOL: That is what I am trying to make sure 23 that we are in agreement on here --
24 MS. TROTTIER: Response check. It is just a 25 response check. We will word this to death.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
298 1 MR. SPENARD: Radiation source. There is a rumor 2 going around that Texas cited Continental Airlines and 3 another airline for using survey meters on an x-ray job that 4 was calibrated with Cesium 137, which everyone does. When 5 you say radiation -- in our operation, we could go into an 6 exposure room and turn on an x-ray machine, and see if the 7 meter is working, and then go on out and look at the 8 isotope, and that would suffice.
9 MR. COOL: We have got calibration as another 10 issue. And I would sort of like to wait and address it at 11 that point, number one, and deal with Texas enforcement 12 maybe at the break a little.
13 MR. BALLARD: The gentleman from Duke Power 14 brought out a very very interesting point, which could be a 15 point of contention. It says the instrument shall be 16 checked. Well, generally, radiography surveying instruments 17 have three scales. And I have no problem with checking the J
18 one to 10, or even the 10 to 100 scale. But, I am very 19 hesitant to have our people check the 100 to 1,000 scale, 20 And, if you say check, well, check what? One scale, two 21 scales or three scales?
22 Now, I could check the 100 scale, because I could 23 manipulate the source just slightly out of the exposure 24 device, and keeping the back shielding, but I am an 25 experienced safety officer. I wouldn't want a radiographer ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
.299' 1 in the field to even attempt that, so you need to be 2 careful. Maybe just say checked in the range it will 3 operate in.
4 MS. TROTTIER: That's fine.
5 MS. ROUGHAN: Just to clarify a little bit. When 6 we do the radiation safety for radiographers what we require-7 is not specified in the regulation. But, in our training, 8 we require they do a reference survey -- that they take that 9 exposure device out into the field, which means it will 10 circumvent a survey. And I tell them, number one, that the 11 source is probably stored, if it is in there, and that the 12 survey meter is working. So, it actually satisfies two 13 criteria. We don't get into this thing about the scales and 14 things like that -- we just perform a reference survey, and 15 it gives you all of this appropriate information.
16 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Let's go to the next 17 item which is about removing the key from the device.
18 Currently NRC regulations require locking the device, but 19 not removing the key -- and let's see,'I have Texas here.
20- Locking of sources of radiation. It says the radiation 21 machine shall be kept locked and the key removed at all 22 times, except when under the direct visual surveillance of a 23_ radiographer. Actually, it says the same thing for both.
24 Radiographic exposure device shall have lock to prevent 25 blah, blah, blah. Each exposure device's source changer ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
300 1 shall be locked, and if a key lock, the key removed at all 4
2 times, except when under the direct visual surveillance of a 3 radiographer.
4 So, the question is is this a problem? Do devices 5 get locked and unlocked easily enough that the key should be 5 removed?
7 MR. PATTERSON: You would never deem that the 8 device was on if you left the key in. A two-year old could 9 open it. It is not locked if the key is in.
10 MS. TROTTIER: I suspect that we have this point 11 in here because we have had situations where the key has 12 been left in and, in fact, not really locked.
13 MR. MARYLAND: But the device would not be secure.
14 That would be a violation.
15 MS. TPOTTIER: Do you know of any cases, Bruce -
16 -
17 MR. CARRICO: No, I don't.
18 MS. TROTTIER: -- that prompted this comment?
l 19 MR. CARRICO: You said this came from Texas. Was
, 20 there a case which prompted you to put it in? It is a l
21 reasonable approach.
22 MR. COOL: Let me ask a related question. As I 23 listen to those words, it was -- the key had to be removed 24 unless it was under direct visual surveillance. Well, I can 25 pick up the device, and I can carry it around, and I can see ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-- - = -. - .-.
301 1 the Key. That is not the point either. If I drop it and it.
2 gets banged and twisted -- that would not be what'you would 3 want to do.
4 MS. TROTTIER: Our reg simply says shall be kept 5 locked when not under the direct surveillance of a 6 radiographer.
7 MR. BALLARD: I don't see any problem with leaving a a key in if you are in between exposures. But, going back 9 to the first issue, if you moved the device, I believe you 10 should be required to remove the key.
11 MS. TROTTIER: The only time we require the device 12 to be locked is when it is being -- it would be when it is 13 being moved, or when it is not under the --
14 MR. BALLARD: Under the direct supervision.
15 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
16 MR. BALLARD: But, if a person is just in between 17 exposures, changing cassettes --
18 MS. TROTTIER: Well, then we are only required to 19 bs secured anyway. So, maybe it should say locked and the 20 key removed.
21 All right. Now, I am going to skip collimators, 22 since we have been through them already.
23 Specify information which must be on inspection 24 and maintenance records. And this is something that was in 25 Part 39. So, it's -- let's see what the words are. I'll ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 302 1 see if I can remember what is different here.
2 MS. DIBBLEE: In accordance with manufacturers 3 specification?
4 MS. TROTTIER: It says in Part 39 probably the 5 same thing about inspection and':aaintenance. But, it says, 6 if the facts are found -- well, it says that a record must 7 be made listing the date of the check, the name of the 8 inspector, the equipment involved, the extent of repairs 9 made.
10 MR. CARRICO: I just think that was basically 11 similar difference between the two -- a little more 12 specific.
13 MS. DIBBLEE: The other thing would be to put it
'N 14 in the SSR. The device evaluation -- make sure the device 15 evaluation is updated. I would think that's part -- that is 16 something that ought to be in that. What do you have to say 17 about that?
18 MS, RoUGRAN: How much detail do we put in the 19 maintenance?
20 MR. RICH: It usually gives a maintenance manual.
21 Typically we don't put that in the SSD because a lot of 22 times the manufacturers use it at a marketing tool. This 23 has to be maintained. A lot of times it does not. It is 24 just that they can sell more parts. But we do evaluate the 25 design.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3850 )
303 ,
1 MS. ROUGHAN: That's not true.
2 MR. RICH: There are some manufacturers that do.
3 MS. ROUGHAN: One problem is that sometimes the 4 instructions may change. We reference certain cleaning 5 solvent over time, we may find that it is whatever we decide 6 to change it -- something like that may not get into the 7 sealed source advisor registration.
8 MS. DIBBLEE: But the general procedure.
9 MS. ROUGHAN: General procedure would be the same.
10 MS. TROTTIER: The general procedure would 11 basically be the same, as long as you don't change the 12 devices. Yes. Currently, in Part 34, we only really say 13 that they have to do the inspections and they have to 14- maintain records of them for three years. So, we don't 15 specify --
16 MR. CARRICO: What the problem was, what we have 17 done to correct a problem, things like that. That is what 18 we are talking about. Should we have those records on file?
19 MS. TROTTIER: More complete information.
20 MR. BALLARD: Didn't we cover that in the other 21 manual -- the licensing?
22- MR. CARRICO: I don't believe that it gets into 23 additional records that need to be maintained. The NRC I 24 don't believe requires to require additional records in 25 10.6.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
304 1 MS. TROTTIER: I don't know.
2 MS. ROUGHAN: Are you talking about records, if 3 something was broken on the device and we repaired it?
4 MS. TROTTIER: We're not required to. If we 5 really wanted those records, that would not be an 6 appropriate place to find them.
7 MR. COOL: I think perhaps at this point, let's 8 take a break. We will come back together at five after -
9 three.
10 MR. MYERS: Excuse me, Don. One administrative 11 announcement. The winner of find Jim Myer's mistake in the 12 telephone number list here is Mr. Ammon from Oklahoma, who 13 correctly identified his telephone number as being 14 incorrect. So, the correct number should be -- the area 15 code is the same, right? 271-5221. I'll say it again.
16 271-5223. And Gary, the price is that your room is again 17 paid this evening. So, you are good and you have a trip 18 home.
19 If anybody sees anything else, just let me know.
20 [ Recess.]
21 MS. TROTTIER: All right. I think we better get 22 started, or we are going to be here later than any of us 23 want to. All right. We made it up to issue nine.
24 Issue nine was one of the questions that was posed 25 to us. And now, for the life of me, I don't know why. But, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (2rR) 293-3950
I l 305 1 the question is: Should radiographers sign the utilization 4
2 log?
3 MS. DIBBLEE: Yes, if they want to get paid.
4 MR. CARRICO: I believe this came up as part of an 5 enforcement case that was taken to the Commission. And, 6 again, the regulations were not clear, and the conmission 7 asked that something be done.
8 MS. TROTTIER: Does anyone see an advantage? I 9 notice neither the suggested state regs, nor the Texas regs, 10 I didn't look at Canada, but do you require them to sign it?
11 Is there any advantage in having the radiographer sign the 12 utilization log?
13 MR. LOWMAN: In the Navy we require them to do it, 14 because it then gives us somebody that is responsible, that 15 is purely that we have somebody to hang out to try.
16 MS. TROTTIER: I suspect that is why the 17 Commission suggested it.
18 MR. CARRICO: I remember this case. This was a 19 situation where the RSO, in fact, was signing the 20 utilization log for their radiographers saying these sources 21 were assigned to this individual, and the individual had no 22 idea this was going on. And so it was kind of a -- I guess 23 they were trying to make sure that hey, everybody knows that 24 it is happening here. It is not some situation like that 25 occurring.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 {
(202) 293-3950 l
306 1 MR. FUNDERBURG: Is this a matter of the 2 radiographer signing, or just a matter of the radiographer 3 having his name on the utilization log?
4 MS. TROTTIER: My sense was his signature denoted 5 that he knew it, as opposed to somebody else writing his 6 name on it.
7 MR. FUNDERBURG: In the matter of certification, 8 if you certify a radiographer, I think that would be 9 justification for grounds of denying that individual 10 certification or something of an enforcement down the line.
11 MR. KASYK: It seems to me that if you. issue 12 somebody something, they can sign it as a receipt that they 13 have received a contrary -- and, again, on top of it, when 14 they bring the source back, the RSO should sign it that he 15 received it back in storage. That way, there is no question 16 about who the source was assigned to -- that the source was 17 properly received from storage after use, 18 MR. CABE: Are you saying, sir, that the RSO 19 received the source back on the job site, when he comes back 20 on temporary location?
21 MR. KASYK: Either the RSO or designated 22 responsible person at the installation. Somebody has to 23 remove it from the radiographer's hands to transfer. It is 24 a matter of receipt and receipt -- issuing something, he 25 receives it, he brings it back, and signs it as he received ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
307 1 it.
2 MR. CABE: In our situation, the radiographer goes 3 to the storage building, he signs the U log, he picks up the 4 camera, prepares it for shipment, puts it in the truck, goes 5 and does the job, and he comes back takes it off and puts it 6 back in tne storage building, does the surveys and puts on 7 the U log, in the bottom of it, when it was returned, the 8 date and time in, a.m./p.m. and signs it back in. The RSO 9 is not involved. So, I think we are talking apples and 10 oranges here. We are talking shipping and receiving. We 11 are talking about transporting to the job site. It doesn't 12 -- going to the job site does not constitute transferring 13 the source. If you go that route, then you are also going 14 to have to enter your source transfer and inventory log.
15 MR. MARYLAND: I guess I have got a question. Is 16 NRC, and I guess Texas, holding individuals more 17 responsible, instead of looking at the licensee itself?
18 And, if so, then I guess that would be a good reason for him 19 to sign something like that.
20 MS. TROTTIER: We are holding individuals 21 responsible, but only for willful violations, correct?
22 MS. ROTHCHILD: I believe so.
23 MR. MARYLAND: What about the state of Texas?
24 MR. DUNN: Everything falls from the licensee. In 25 Texas they will be cited for each and every violation. But, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
308 4
1 individual radiographers will also be cited if they, like 2 she said, commit a willful violation. But, will a 3 radiographer be cited?
4 MR. TUAZON: I believe that the utilization log 5 indicates the person's initials that he has the source.
6 Then that should be sufficient to meet the requirement. It 7 would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for someone 8 located in different places to return the source or to pick 9 up the source and put his initials in the main office. For 10 instance, if the main office is located 150 miles away from 11 the temporary field office, and the utilization log comes 12 from -- is being recorded on the main office, it is 13 physically impossible for that radiographer to put his 14 initials on that utilization log. In my opinion, as long as 15 it is recorded that that individual is assigned and 16 responsible, the initials showed on the utilization log that 17 that is sufficient to meet the criteria, 18 MR. KASYK: The reason for this is that we have 19 one company which has an installation or place of business l
l 20 in New York City. They also have a branch or a fully 21 operating installation in Pennsylvania. And what happens'is 22 we have found out lately that they have a job in New York 23 City. Times are tough. They don't have people on the 24 payroll. They call them up for a job, grab a source in 25 Pennsylvania, come to New York with one man, get another man ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Coud Reponers
! 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
309 1 from New York City, form an alliance and a crew and a source 2 and they go to a job, and something happens. We have no way 3 of ascertaining where the source came from, who were the 4 radiographers, the installation they belong to. It is 5 complete chaos. We have told them that if they want to 6 bring a source from New Jersey with one radiographer, they 7 have to transfer the radiographer from New York to New 8 Jersey to form a crew from one installation, otherwise, we 9 have chaos. We can't control that. So, somebody has to 10 keep records. Somebody has to be responsible for it in the 11 transfers. They have to transfer sources back and forth 12 from installation. It has to be done on the paperwork, 13 otherwise we have, as I said, chaos.
14 What you say might work in an installation, but 15 suppose you go to check the sources in the storage and you 16 find out a source is missing -- the radiographer forgot to 17 sign the check-out for it? Somebody issues it to them, they 18 make sure that they sign for it. It is much better control 19 than leaving it just to the radiographer.
20 MR. BALLARD: I think we are mixing a little bit.
21 The overhead says utilization log. And that, in our 22 operation, is separate from transport forms.
23 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
24 MR. BALLARD: On our utilization logs, they 25 initial daily their maintenance checks, and initial daily ANN RILEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_ _ _ -. _ - _ . _ - . _ . . - _ _~ _
310 1 tboir utilization. And then, at the end of the week, there 2 is'a full signature. On the front of this utilization log 3 is also our time sheet. So, there is the person's full 4 name, printed, and I don't see how having them sign it would 5 be a burden. And it is an acknowledgement that they did 6 what the sheet says they did. And I find that an officer 7 that would sign the names of radiographers to a form would 8 be extremely troublesome.
9 MS. TROTTIER: The only issue here is, you're 10 right, just simply whether the list of things that goes on 11 the utilization log, besides saying the identity of the 12 radiographer, it should say the signature of the 13 radiographer.
14 All right. I guess I don't hear a consensus one 15 way or the other, but I don't think this is a big enough 16 issue that it is going to create a problem.
17 All right. Let's go to the related issues here.
18 Now, these first two come from suggestions to make 19 this more compatible with Part 39. And I will pull out 20 these sheets. The first one deals with the inventory. And, 21 under Part 39, we include the name of the individual 22 conducting the inventory, and, under Part 34, that is not 23 currently required. The question is: Is there an advantage 24 in having the name of the individual who conducted the 25 inventory recorded?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
311 1 MR. FREE: Instead of what?
2 MS. TROTTIER: Not instead of, but in addition.
3- What's apparently there are quantities and kind of material, 4 location of the sources and the date of the inventory. I 5 suspect the main advantage in this is from the standpoint of 6 responsibility.
7 MR. McNEES: Some states have been making them 8 sign them.
9 MS. TROTTIER: Is there something we condition by 10 license? Do you know, Bruce?
11 MR. CARRICO: More than 10 people -- you don't 12 think so?
13 MS. TROTTIER: It may or may not be done, but 14 currently it is not in our regulations that it be done.
15 MS. CARDWELL: Is Part 34, when it talks about 16 inventory, does it say just sources of radiation? Does it 17 include depleted uranium?
18 MS. TROTTIER: It says for all sealed sources 19 received and possessed, not depleted uranium.
20 MS. DIBBLEE: When you say all radioactive 21 material --
22 MS. TROTTIER: This says for all sealed sources.
23 MS. CARDWELL: Well, we -- in our revision, we 24 said that all sources of radiation shall include 25 radiographic exposure devices containing depleted uranium.
l ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
__ _ . _ _~ __ .- _ _- - . - . . . - _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ .
T i
312 1 Do you want to bring up that point you made-earlier?
'2 MR. HENRY: We are very concerned.- In '96 when:
3 radiographers can no longer use the equipment that they now 4 have,_ we have some very shaky companies-who have large 5 numbers of worn-out devices. And we are afraid that they-6 will go out of business and abandon _all of this stuff.- As/a-7 matter of fact, we found one in a' scrap yard the-other day, 8 and could not -- and had some difficulty in-figuring out who 9 it belonged to.
10 And I do like this idea. We are going to 11 certainly consider adding that as a requirement to the 12 inventory. Be:ause, as it stands now, they only inventory 13 their sources. They have a couple of dozen cameras that are 14 -- don't have it -- there is no inventory. And if they 15 start throwing them out in the woods or something, at least 16 maybe we could find some inventories _and track them back 17 now. So, this may be a good idea. And if you'are faced 18 with that, you'might want to consider it.
l 19 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. I think weLhad considered-20 this an issue.
21 MR. CARRICO: This is the first time this has come 22 up.
23 MR. HENRY:- I think it is a distinct 1 possibility-24 that this-will happen. I-know a couple-of people I am 25 almost sure will do it.
i l
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L 'Coud Repoders l 1612 K. _ Street, N.W., Suite 300-o Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950
313 1 MR. PATTERSON: It is a known fact.
2 MR. HANNEY: Cheryl,'just as-a side' issue, this is 3 not the side of utilization record, but an inventory? I 1 4 mean, I was just looking at our requirement. We say to
-5 account for all sources of radiation. The reason we do that 6 is that we-are dealing with x-ray equipment too. _And'we-7 define source of radiation as material which emits radiation 8 spontaneously, or an apparatus which produces blah-bl.ah 9 radiation. So, that would also include uranium.
10 MS. TROTTIER: That's a good point.
11- MR. HENRY: May I ask.you, does that inventory 12 include x-ray tubes?
13 MR. NANNEY: Yes. They inventory each licensee, 14 or shall conduct a quarterly physical inventory to account 15 for all sources of radiation, which includes x-rays.
16 MS. CARDWELL: Ours says the same thing. We 17 specified and clarified for them that that includes the 18 depleted uranium. Under definition, ours is the same'as
-19 yours. We would iticlude it. We put-it in there'as a-20- specific. thing because we have never -- or,-in the past, we-21 haven't required that on inventory. And we want to start 22 doing-that, so that is why was specify it.
l l_ 23 MR. CARRICO: -Can we hear what language you are 24- _
going to be using? -
25- MS. CARDWELL: It says the-same thing, and-then it-l
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. - - - . . . _ _ . - _~ .. . - -
314 1 goes on to say sources of radiation include radiographic 2 exposure devices containing depleted uranium.
3 MS. TROTTIER: So, you made a specific reference.
4 Okay. That may not be a bad idea, because -- do they all 5 understand that there's depleted uranium in there?
6 MS. ROUGHAN: Not really, especially in some of 7 the older devices that they may have. They may not know 8 what the shielding-is --
9 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
10 MS. ROUGHAN: -- if it is lead or uranium. So, 11 they are at a loss to determine how to dispose -- scrap, or 12 does it come back to us -- potential disposal route. I 13 don't think they are all fully aware of how much uranium is 14 in some of these things.
15 MS. TROTTIER: It might be appropriate for us to 16 actually insert the phrase.
17 Okay. Now, then the next item is another one that 18 came from Part 39, and that has to do with serial number.
19 Let me see what is the reference. Each-licensee shall 20 maintain records for each use of licensed material showing 21 the make, model and serial number, a description of each 22 sealed source used.
23 Is this a problem with radiography? I mean, is j 24 this something that we need?
25 [No response.]
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l l
315 1 MS. TROTTIER: I guess I'm surprised. But, it was i
2 on the list, so I just e,dded it.
3 MS. DIBBLEE: It is helpfill when you ha"e a lot of 4 different equipment, and an inspector is trying to go around 5 figuring out what happens to be at the homo base and what la 6 out in the field, especially if you have a couple of dozen 7 660s or comothing like that. They all look the same.
8 MR. CARRICO: Tho serial number is the specific 9 identifier for each source assembly. Otherwise, they are 10 all the samo model, right? So, that serial number is 11 something that is assigned to each individual source 12 assembly, so it in the basic tracking mechanism for what 13 happens.
14 MS. TRoTTIER: Apparently what happens is just a 15 *pcription, and then ir parens are make and model number of 16 a exposure device or storage container in which the sealed 17 source is located.
18 MR. McNEES: They put the serial number.
19 MS. DIBBLEE: Most of them do have it by serial 20 number.
21 MR. KASYK: I think it is important to know it, 22 because it also tells you the history of the source and the 23 activity. You can find the activity from that number.
24 MR. RICil: If you are going to put the serial 25 number, also put the model number. That way we can track ANN RILEY & A5SOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
316 1 it.
2 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. That seems simple onough.
3 on the last one, dates removed and returned to 4 storage. I believe that that is actually already covered 5 under dates of use. Because the way the utilization 6 regulation is written it does include exposure devices or 7 storage containers.
8 MR. TUAZON: On that subject, I t. ink that 9 addresses the second item, which is identity of the 10 assistants on the utilization log.
11 MS. TROTTIER: I guess the issue is is that 12 important, and do we read to add it?
13 MR. TDAZON: Personally, it is not important.
14 MS. ChhDWELL: Just put the name of the person 15 doing it.
16 HR. BALLARD: On inspections we are asked to 17 verify -- they ask for utilization logs, so we show them 18 some logs, and some logs were of assistance, and they said 19 how can you verify that this assistant was being supervised?
20 So, what we had to do was go through out dispatching book 21 and look on that day and see what radiographer he was 22 assigned with, and then pull that utilization log to show 23 they were at the same placc. And what was suggested by the 24 auditor was that we put names of who worked with who on our 25 logs. So, whether you make it a regulation or not, it can ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-- - - ~ _ - _ . .- _- -.- - __ . _
t f
317 r 1 be asked for rather firmly.
4 2 MS. TROTTIER: Well, I would point in the 3 direction of 34.27. It could have been that the question 4 was asked because you djdn't have the radiographer on there, 5 in which case they have a valid question.
t, MR. BALIARD Each one of our persons fills out ;
7 their own utilization log. That could be why a 8 radiographer's name, up until that point in time, was not on 9 an assistant utilization log, because it was his own log.
10 MS. TROTTIER: In other words, showing two people 11 using the same device at the same time?
12 MR. BALLARD: At the same location?
13 MR. CARRICO I guess the question here though is 14 should there be records when persons are acting as 15 assistants or trainees, that we go in and inspect against 16 and say yes, this person acted as an assistant on whatever 17 day, was with radiographer X?
18 MS. TROTTIER: Well, apparently neither the 19 suggested regs nor the Texas rags, which are the ones in 20 front of me, do that. Do any other states require the 21 assistants to be named on the utilization log?
22 MR. LOWMAN: In the Navy we do it, but we do it 23 for a couple of other reasons too. One reason is to check ,
j 24 and see if anybody has worked in the last quarter. We have 25 found a couple of them=said no -- nobody worked, or they ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
~
Court Reporters 16'12 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 y
l . - . , - ,
318 1 didn't do the evaluation of this person until this 2 particular time. We went back and looked at the utilization 3 log and saw that that person hao actually done work. It had 4 been ater than 90 days, and yet, since they had done 5 their last evaluation, so we used it for that purpose. In 6 our utilization log we list all of the radiographers or 7 assistantu that are involved.
8 VOICE: We use it for checking training records, 9 personnel dosimetry, all those type of things too, back-10 track, full-circle type thing. Yes.
11 MS. TROTTIER: So, I guess, in answer to that 12 queetion -- do other states require the assistants?
13 VOICE: Yes.
14 MS. TROTTIER: Yes?
15 MR. HENRY: Not by regulation, but we certainly 16 ask for it during the inspection.
17 MS. TROTTIER: Okay.
18 MR. HENRY: They are going to have to como up with 19 everybody who was on the crew.
20 MS. TROTTIER: Well --
21 MR. HENRY: One way or the other.
22 MS. TROTTIER: Well, I guess if we are going to 23 ask for it, this is where we should ask for it.
24 MR. BALLARDt It just seems to be more important 25 for the assistant to list the radiographer he was working ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
319 1 with. ,
2 HS. TROTTIER That is only because -- thinking 3 like an inspector -- it is just verifying that the assistant 4 was not working alone.
5 MR. TUAZON: Except that the utilization log book 6 on other forms or records, a utilization log may indicato ,
7 that they went to the job, but very potentially there may be 8 some changes made on the job, however, when that group 9 finished the job, or went to the job, there is what you call !
10 a radiographic record that indicates the name of the 11 individual who was in charge, the assistant and everybody 12 olse involved with the project. They are proporly recorded, 13 so you have it right there -- not in the utilization log, 14 but on that particular record.
15 MR. CARRICO What other record would that be 16 besides the utilization log?
17 MR. TUAZON: Thoro is -- when the work is being ,
18 initiated, there is a form that that. individual must 19 complete to indicate the name of the person involved in the 20 project, the dosimeter used, and all this other information.
21 Now, this is in addition to the utilization log that was 22 completed prior to the job.
23 Now, two things could happen. It was reported, 24 but given to the job site, but the job is not ready. So, 25 that particular utilization log may indicate they are in
- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters ,
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 L Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
.-- - ~ . - . . _ , . . . _ _ _
320 1 there, but becauce the job was not completed, no job was 2 done. Also, at the time when they called, your radiographer 3 in charge is A and the assistant was B, however, D was used 4 on another project, so assistant C was used instead. Now, 5 if we check that because we needed the job -- finally 6 decided to do the job, and the job is ready, that name and 7 personnel dosimetry is reflected on the report. So, you 8 want to check who did what, where -- everything you want to 9 know about that project, person and overything is on that 10 particular record.
13 MS. TROTTIER: If there are no other commeni.s on 12 this slido, I am going to move forward.
13 MR. CARRICO: What are you going to do with that 14 last one?
15 MS. TROTTIER: I am convinced that that already is 16 in Part 34, about the storage.
17 MS. DIBBLEE: Yes, it is.
18 MS. TROTTIER: I don't really see that there is a 19 big problem here. Maybe I have missed something. But, the 20 difference I see between the suggested state regs and the 21 NRC reg is that we say a description of the exposure device 22 or storage container in which the source jo located. And, 23 under the suggested state regs, the storage issue is dealt 24 with at the end. So, I do believe it covers -- dates the 25 source as being stored.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
321 1 Okay. This is issue 10, and it has to do with are 2 additional requirements on survey instruments needed? And I 3 am going to go to 39, which I think is where this came from, 4 and run through what those requirements are.
5 Okay. This has got to do with the servicing of 6 the survey instruments. And I think that the main 7 difference, and Bruce correct me if I am wrong on here, is 8 to specify calibration points more specifically than Part 34 9 apparently does. Is that right?
10 MR. CARRICO: Yes.
11 MS. TROTTIER: There is a thing in here for linear 12 scale instruments at two points located at approximately 13 one-third ot ;wo-thirds of full scale on each scale, the 14 logarithmic scale instruments at mid-range at each decade, 15 and at two points of at least one decade, and for digital 16 instruments at appropriate points.
17 MR. CARP.ICO: Also, the similar requirements and 18 the suggested state regulations.
19 MS. TROTTIER: And apparently Part 34 does not 20 specify that.
21 HR. KASYK: What we use is the ANSI standard. The 22 number escapes me. Everything is specified in there, 23 including checking for a geographic deflection on the meter, 24 and all other kind of things. We demand our persons who 25 calibrate meters to-follow the ANSI standards, which has ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
t I
322 i
1 been enforced about 10 or 11 years.
l 2 MS. TROTTIER: Currently our section of Part 34 on '
I 3 radiation survey instruments is very brief, and it only-says 4 that each instrument shall be calibrated at intervals not to ,
5 exceed three months. And, after each instrument servicing, i 6 records shall be maintained of the results of each i 7 calibration, blah-blah-blah. It says~nothing about the !
O quality of that calibration, and Part 39 does that.
9 MS. DIBBLEE: You just referenced the standard i
10 ANSI standard that he talks about. It is in 40 or whatever :
11 that number is.
l
. 12 MR. COOL There has, in the past, been some '
13 concern. Maybe Marjorie is a better one to explain it than-14 I. If, in our regulations, we would reference an ANSI 15 standard, or something like that, which is just not directly 16 under our. control, and then ANSI in 13, on the next five-17 year cycle decides to change it, that-would constitute a ,
18- change of regulation without notice. .And so there has been-19 hesitancy, at least in some parts of the Commission-to 20 putting those into the regulations. To the guides it is a 21 very common practice.
22 MR.-KASYK: I think it depends.on-whether you 23 include the regulation-as an inclusion or by reference._ If 24 you include it, that means a certain date of issue is put in 25 the record. If you include it by reference,- that means that
- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612-- K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293 3950
'6e e ,,,,v. em.e-w-nv,--w ,,-,, ,,,1v-, , c+,c,, -,-,-.W..,,ymo ,---r..---w-e--r.-,4.,,,,,3-- 7y , - - ---me, ,,wy...,,-,[--.--.m,, ----..,v--4., -w e,
323 1 the latest issue of that particular regulation is included.
2 MR. COOL: So, then I have to go to rulemaking 3 overy time?
4 MR. KASYK: I think the Federal Government a 5 couple of years ago included, by reference, any part of any 6 particular regulation. The latest one is the one that is 7 included.
8 MS. TROTTIER: But we don't always approve the 9 latest.
10 MR. COOL: Yes. We have been known to not agree 11 with it.
12 MS. TROTTIER: I mean, we would be hesitant to 13 just give it a blanket approval.
14 MR. CARRICO: We included the ANSI standard and 15 the equipment rule for radiography equipment. It makes a 16 reference to the 19, whatever it is, standard. Of course, 17 it has just been revised. Now, a now standard is out there, 18 right, and recently issued?
19 My understanding when we did that was that we had 20 very specifically identified the year. We could not maka 21 just general references to things. And it was not that. My 22 impression was there was a reluctance on the Federal 23 Register's office generally to allow references to other 24 documents and things like that. You had to argue why it is 25 necessary in order to do that. So, we are kind of faced ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
324 1 with this right now. IIere is this new standard out. Now, 2 it is not a whole lot different, I don't believe, than what 3 we have in the regulations. It is something that we might 4 need to look into.
5 HR. KASYK: The problem with that is that after 6 they issue the new onn, you cannot get the old one. Okay.
7 They stop printing it, and they are printing the new 8 additions. So, how can you ask people to refer to an 9 addition which they cannot receive.
10 MR. CARRICO: I think copies have to be sont to 11 the TDR -- PDR.
12 MS, ROUGHAN: There is an NRC Reg Guide. If you 13 want to apply for a license-performed calibration as a 14 service. What the requirements are -- and it is basically 15 what you took out of Part 39, and the same requirement is 16 inside that Reg Guide.
17 MS. TROTTIER: I think that is the safest way to 18 go. That way it is clear to those then who are reviewing 19 the rule what are expectations are without having to go to 20 another document to make a decision on whether that is 21 something that is achievable.
22 MR -CARRICO: I was just going to say that it 23 seems to me that this issue is something that has come up 24 recently also. How accurate is that being done? I guess 25 there is some effort in looking into that. Is that right, ANN RlLEY _ & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
_. _. _-. __ .- - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . __ - . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ .~ .__
i 325 1 Don, or am I wrong about this?
2 MR. COOL: There has been some consideration, but 3 there is still actual work ongoing right now, mostly due to 4 the limitation of funds. We are still working on trying to 5 get the external dosimetry and some of those other programs 6 completed, before we can go in and re-look at instruments.
7 Instruments are one of the things on our long-range agenda.
8 As with most long-range agendas, it is going to be a couple 9 of years. And overy year it is going to be a couple of 10 years.
11 MS. TROTTIER: Right now, I believe, in fact, a 1;! NUREG is going to be published. But, just looking at what 1:1 the potential problem is, but that is as far as we have gone 14 now. It is not absolute.
15 MR. FREE: I don't know how good or how accurate a 16 calibration is necessary for radiography in the first place.
17 If the equipment is operating and can indicate the presence 18 of a radiation field, the radiographer needs to know. It's 19 the difference between the field that exists when the source 20 is out, and the field that exists when the source is 21 secured. I don't know that you need to go into a lot of 22 detail on what is required and how accurate the instrument 23 needs to read.
- !4 MR. KASYK
- If you have a controlled area, you 25 have to measure the radiation at the boundary, and that has ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.'N., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i 326 1 to be less than two MR per hour.
2 MS. DIBBLEE Except for unrestricted area.
3 MR. KASYK: In effect, to meet the calibration 4 specified in Part A, appendix A, it has to be capable of 5 measuring two MR per hour, up to equal or:e cam per hour.
6 MR. FREE: Okay.
7 MS. DIBBLEE: That should tell him that the source 8 is out.
9 MR. FREE: Don't repeat that comment to me, 10 please.
11 MR. VERELLEN I was wondering if you have a 12 problem of ticing in outside documents like an ANSI standard 13 to licensing conditions? A lot of times the licensee will 14 come in and say we will perform calibration in accordance 15 with this ANSI standard, and we say that is it. And '
16 sometime we will put in the license condition to calibrate 17 instruments in accordance with it.
18 MR. COOL: I don't believe there has been a 19 problem with that, nor has there been a problem with using 20 ANSI standards as part of our regulatory guides. That is 21 routinely done. Bruce has noted there'are some cases where 22 we have incorporated in the rules.
23 What I was in hopes we could look at here was 24 whether that was really something that was the optimal
! 25 approach, because it does have some down sides, in terms of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
327 1 arguing with the Federal Register, making sure that we are 2 up to date. So, I guess I go back and say is that level of 3 specificity something that there is a rationale for 4 including in the rule and, if so, what is the rationale for 5 having that level of specificity in the rulo?
6 MS. ROTHCHILD: What -- if you don't have that 7 level of specificity, what would you have in its place?
8 Would you have something calibrated in accordance with what?
9 MR. COOL: Right now the rule says they shall be 10 calibrated on such and such frequency, and that is all it 11 says. And the whole question would be, for instance, is 12 that sufficient with other details? la specificity open? I 13 am not sure I really heard the answer to that question.
14 Everybody has sort of latched on -- well, there's an ANSI 15 standard out there, but I haven't heard the answer to the 16 underlying question.
17 MS. CARDWELL: What was the underlying question?
18 I think we lost it. What is it?
19 MR. COOL: Well, my question is whether we need to 20 have an additional specificity in the regulation about how 21 to do the calibrations on any set points. What are the set 22 points? Are we looking at two on each scale, one on each 23 scale, threo on each scale, whatever it is, versus what 24 you've got in Part 34 now, which is this lovely, marvelous 25 one-liner, that thou shalt calibrate it overy three months?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
'Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
.. ._ ~ - . . - - . .- . - .
328 1 MS. CARDWELL: You need more than that. You just 2 specify something and agree on it. I don't think you need 3 to reference an ANSI standard.
4 MS. TROTTIER: In other words, the language that 5 is in Part 39 has the suggested state regs? ;
6 MS. CARDWELL: That is fine. It gives some ,
7 guidance.
8 MS. TROTTIER: That seems to be acceptable.
9 MR. COOL: We have got a couple of --
10 MR. PATTERSON: I think that your survey meter is 11 something that you simply depend on. Sometimes it becomes a 12 life or death instrument. You have paid a considerable 13 amount of attention in the last 10 years arguing the design 14 of the exposure device, and that survey meter is the thing 15 that is going to tell you whether the device works or not.
16 Go ahead like you are and have it back. God forbid say it 17 be a standard. But this is what you have now, and it should 18 be calibrated with the source tray. It is simple -- to NPS 19 standards. I think two points on each scale is sufficient.
20 It's accurate enough to give you the two MR level that is 21 necessary in order to make your boundary, and also tell you 22 whether your meter works or doesn't work. And, after all, 23 the main thing that we are talking about down here is does 24 it work or doesn't it? And if it has the capability, it is 25 giving you the two MR, that is another thing that you are ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
329 i
1 looking for. But, to got into very complicated calibrations ) 4 i
2 on the survey meter, I don't think is that necessary.
3 If you are going after very sophisticated motors, 4 it may be. But, if you are looking for the degree of 5 radiation, but in the radiography business, you are looking i 6 for something that tells you where the source is, not where :
7 it was five minutes ago. And a lot of the survey meters 8 that are being used out there are so slow that you don't 9 really know whether the source is in or whether it is out.
10 Things that you could do on the survey motor is to specify 11 what time and the rate of speed at which it works. That 12 might be beneficial.
13 MR, CCoL All right.
14 MR. JASH: Do wo need to specify the percentage of 15 accuracy on those when you calibrate?
16 MR. PATTERSON: That is specified already.
17 MR. FREE: I think another point is who is going 18 to check the two MR per hour boundary? And the answer is 19 generally the state, perhaps the radiation safety people, if 20 it is a sophisticated site, but I don't know. But, the 21 calibration that is required of the radiography company 22 needs to be any better than the calibration that is 23 performed by the state on their own instruments or the NRC.
24 Maybe we need to review that.
25 MS. CARDWELL: Is it a dead horse now? Can we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
! , 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
--v, , , - ---e - ~ . , , -,e
i 330 1 move on?
2 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. Let's lay it to rest.
3 All right. Now I am going to switch slides here.
4 These two are really the only real related slides on this 5 topic. The other slide I want to deal with next, but it is 6 a slightly different topic.
7 Okay. These are two additional points related to 8 survey instrument calibration. One is should we require 9 that they be calibrated by licensed individuals, which is 10 what I believe Texas does. And, let me see if I can find 11 that reference here.
12 Each radiation survey instrument shall be 13 calibrated by a person licensed or registered by the agency, 14 another Agreement State, or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission who performs such service, which is currently not 16 a requirement under Part 34. Should we make it so?
17 MR. YASYK: That does not preclude that the 18 radiography company will-be authorized to calibrate their 19 own meters?
20 MS. TROTTIER: That's right. It does not. They 21 could be -- could be based on it.
22 MS. CARDWELL: They could if they had submitted an 23 application for that, and it has been reviewed and they have 24 been properly authorized to do so.
25 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street. N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
331 1 MR. KASYK: But only their own meters, not for 2 calibration of all other meters.
3 MS. DIDBLEE: If they are authorized.
4 MS. CARDWELL: It depends on what they submit.
5 MR. KASYK: There are a myriad of other 6 calibrations.
7 MS. TROTTIER: But they could still be licensed to 8 calibrate survey meters.
9 MR. KASYK: There own?
10 MR. KLINGER: Did everybody have a standard 11 condition on their licenses that require this anyway? I 12 thought most people did. I mean, this is pretty standard.
13 MR. COOL: Iot's go around the roora and see.
14 Isn't this a standard condition? I thought it was lifted 15 from our standard conditions. And I think that's what Texas 16 did. And it doesn't preclude somebody from doing their own 17 instruments.
18 MS. CARDWELL: If they are so licensed.
19 MR. COOL: Is everyone's head nodding up and down 20 in agreement with it? Is everybody's head nodding at this 21 point?
22 MR. CARRICO: Put a survey instrument calibration 23 condition in its license. The NRC does not.
24 MR. FUNDERBURG: I have a question. Do you have 25 to have a specific license to do this? Can you issue that -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
. umlui i
I i
332 :
1 - the radiography license itself? l 4
2 MR. XLINGER It can be part of the radiography. i 3 MR. FUNDERBURG It's just another license to do f
i 4 this. That's included? ;
i 5 MR. XLINGER Yes.
i 6 MR. KASYK But only their own.
3 7 MR. KLINGER: In most cases it's their own, but if l 8 they came in without the other requirements, and they wanted 9 to do it as a service, we could authorize it on the license 10 for that. But we would specify that they are authorized to :
11 provide calibration of survey instruments as a customer- -
12 service.
13 MR. MARYLAND: We would probably require them to 14 have a different license, and we would not put it on a 15 radiography license. It would be a separate license, if 16 they wanted to do it more than their own survey instruments.
- 17 MR.-CARRICO: So, they were probably not mixed? >
18 MR. KLINGER: But, either way, whoever in doing it i
19 would have to be specifically-authorized on a license?
20 MR. MARYLAND:- Yes, to get the most source, most i 21: likely.
22 MR. XLINGERt So what is the problem? Just put it-23 in the reg.
24 MR. BALLARD 'I-can tell you_about our .
25 calibration.- It 1* authorized.
We just went through -- are ANN ' RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K.- Street, N.W., Suite ' 300 -
Washington, D.- C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
. . . - - - . .. .- . -.. . - - , a. = - . -
333 i
i still going through a license renewal amendment, and we have 2 two manuals, the operating emergency procedures and 3 administrative manual. And the administrative manual covers 4 the accuracy check of survey instruments and dosimeters. ;
5 And what the NRC requested is not by a proper name, but by a 6 title, who in our organization is authorized to calibrate 7 survey instruments and radiation safety officer, radiation 8 safety manager and a radiographer, if he is supervised by a 9 radiation safety officer. P ), it is incorporated by 10 reference who can do it, but not necessarily by proper name.
11 And because they accept our license, we know they accept our 12 calibration procedure.
13 MR. KLINGER: That gets back to the other issue 14 about this pIS and stuff -- the old stiffs. Because, if 15 everybody included that in it that was authorized to do 16 calibration service, then you would have that national 17 registry where overybody was looking up and saying they are 18 on the list. But I thought most people had that '
19 specifically listed on a license, and not do it. Apparently 20 it is being done. I think most people put it in the 21 condition.
22 MR. KASYK: But the_ point is that just being a 23 radiographer does not qualify somebody to calibrate meters, 24 which are a different design. Most radiography motors are 25 geiger counters. There are a lot of other counters or ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
334 1 meters which have iron chambers, they may be crystals. Each 2 one requires special attention and understanding of the 3 principal on which they work, otherwise, they can not be 4 properly calibrated. So, there is more than just being a 5 radiographer. If you want to do a service on meters, which 6 may come from other customers which you have never seen in 7 your life, you don't even know how they operate.
8 MR. BALLARD: I in no way inferred that I would be 9 able to calibrate survey instruments as a service. I simply 10 inferred that I am able to calibrate my own instruments 11 which are listed in my license application by model, so that 12 I can only calibrate instruments I told the NRC I used and 13 no other person's instruments.
14 MR. KLINGER: In Illinois we did an inspection.
15 We asked who did your calibration, and then we look at your 16 license, and we would see an authorization for calibration.
17 So, it would raise a question. Then there would be a 18 violation letter, and then you would have to respond. Yes.
19 It is part of our tio-down and all that.
20 MR. BALLARD: I don't object having it as a 21 specific license condition at all. I am just saying that 22 right now the NRC does it by reference, and we use an 23 Amersham calibrator, and it is a very good one.
24 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Now, is there any other 25 discussion needed on this item? Can we now move on?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 333 1 MR. SPENARD: Was it Texas contingent going to 2 talk about their calibration requirements -- X-rays versus 3 gamma ray? ,
4 MS. CARDWELL: Not in this setting.
5 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Now I want to go back 6 to the other related issues, which really are related 7 issues. But, when it is Friday afternoon, and you really 8 vant to leave, you are trying to get these slides prepared, 9 you stick all kinds of things on there. So, we will just 10 deal with these separately.
11 The last two points on that slide -- actually, the 12 first one is the repeat, so we don't need to deal with that 13 one. But, the last two points actually have to deal with 14 the device, and have nothing to do with the calibration of 15 the survey instrument. So, the question is related to --
16 the first one, on the quarterly maintenance.
17 one of the things that's in the suggested state 18 regs, which is not in NRC Part 34 now is that under 19 inspection and maintenance, the suggested state regs say 20 that all appropriate parts shall be maintained in accordance
-21 with manufacturer's specifications. That is not in Part 34 22 today. So, the question is is this an appropriate thing for 23 us to add, and is it needed to be added?
24 MS. ROUGHAN: Speaking from the manufacturer point 25 of view, I think it needs to be there. And we get a lot of ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
CcJd Repoders 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C 20006 (202) 293-3950-
)
336 1 equipment in that has been used in the field. People kind 2 of apply their own terms of maintenance that they have 3 worked on because they have worked on guns, aircraft, cars, 4 whatever it may be. They use the same type of methods on 5 those as they would their devices. A lot of those aren't 6 appropriate. They may be using the wrong solvents, they may 7 be checking the wrong spring tenuions that is improper for 8 that device. They should really be referring back to the 9 manufacturer. Deputy 40 is a good example -- a very good 10 example actually. But, a lot of people impose their own 11 repirements, because they figure that they're handy. If 12 they know how to fix it, they can fix it. And that is not 13 necessarily so with this equipment, because it needs 14 specific types of maintenance to be performed on it.
1$ MR. RICH: My question gets back to the inspector.
16 How is he Joing to know that this is the most recent 17 inspection manual? They change from time to time. When now 18 things come out, this guy has a old maintenance manual. Is 19 he now in violation, if an inspector comes out with a 20 different one? I am just curious.
21 MS. TROTTIER: How many states have adopted these 22 in their rego? Do you all have this clause about the 23 manufacturer's specs and how do you -- if you find that 24 they, in fact, have the current specs, has that ever been a 25 problem?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 161'2 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 )
(202) 293 3950 !
O 337 1 MR. KASYK: We don't have it, but it is a good 2 idea.
3 MR. Cool: Can we have answers on the record, 4 please? We are beginning to disintegrate because we are all 5 getting tired. But, we are starting to get into very small 6 side conversations, and losing track of who is doing what.
7 MR. KASYK: I think it is a very good idea -- the 8 argument that somebody who does not havo the latest -- I 9 don't think it is excusable. It is in their best interest 10 to co;1 tact the manufacturer. As a matter of fact, Amersham 11 does a very good job. They have a list of customers and 12 they send fliers. Don't you send fliers?
13 MS. ROUGilAN: We do. The manufacturers take a
- 14 little more responsibility. We do change things. It does 15 have to get out to the field. We try our best. There are 16 probably-some things we have missed; but, for the most part, 17 if something has changed, we try and got that out to the 18 users. We are on a mailing list.
19 MR. KASYK: It should not be an argument to just 20 throw it out -- throw the baby out with the water.
21 MR. RICII: However, it is also my experience that 22 the licensees -- the manufacturers do not always know who 23 their users are until it gets transferred. Most devices get 24 transferred. And I would assume --
25 MR. KASYK: That still does not justify neglect.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
338 1 MR. RICH: I think it should be there. I think we 2 need to define it somehow so that we don't put our licensees 3 in violation as soon as we pass this regulation.
4 MR. 110RNOR: As an inspector, how are you going to 5 know whether they have updated them, unless they are also 6 sending them to you? You have got a big paperwork thing 7 here that you haven't even considered.
8 MR. KASYK: There are not that many cameras around 9 nowadays. The new ones --
10 MR. HORNOR: Do you automatically send it to other 11 regulatory agencies?
12 MR. KASYK: They send fliers to us.
13 MS. ROUGHAN: We send some to states on a mailing 14 list, but not all of them.
15 MR. KASYK: Maybe they should be.
16 MS, ROUGHAN: Maybe we should take this list and ,
17 put it on our list.
18 MR. HANNEY: When do we stop talking survey meters 19 and start talking cameras?
20 MS. TROTTIER: See, you missed that whole 21 conversation on Friday afternoon. And I stuck this on here 22 because I was trying to get out of the office you know --
l 23 not even noticing that I had moved from survey instruments 24 into the camera. So, that's why I moved it to the back.
25 So, we are off the survey.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
i Court Reporters l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
339 1 MR. liANiiEY: I heard most of that conversation; I 2 just missed the input of it.
3 MS. TROTTIER: We are now onto a new topic.
4 MR. FREE: I guess I need to start with a 5 question. Are we talking about new equipment, now devices?
6 MS. TROTTIER: What do you mean by now?
7 MR. FREE: There are a lot of cameras in place 8 now. They were manufactured by companies that are no longer 9 in existence.
10 MS. TROTTIER: This is the section that deals with 11 inspection and maintenance, and it doesn't apply only to new 12 devices, it applies to all devices.
13 MR. FREE: Then does it eliminate the device?
14 MR. KASYK: It does in 1996. All the old devices 15 have to be retired.
16 MR. FREE: Right. Well, excuse me, but the last 17 time I checked my calendar, we were still in '92. Three 18 more years.
19 MR. CARRICO: This came from suggested state 20 regulations.
21 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
22 MR. CARRICO: Does anybody any comments?
23 MS. TROTTIER: I just pulled out Texas's 24 regulations, which say --
25 MS. CARDWELL: I wish somebody else would give it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 )
(202) 293-3950
340 1 to her.
2 MS. TROTTIER: -- all appropriate regulations 3 shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's 4 specifications.
5 MS. CARDWELL: We haven't had a problem with that, 6 have we? If they don't have the manufacturer's specs, if 7 they are not in business anymore we can't hold them to 8 those.
9 MS. TROTTIER: No. Right.
10 MR. KLINGER: It is the same situation in 11 Illinois. We have had the same requirement they've had for 12 many years, and I don't know that it has been a problem.
13 MS. TROTTIER: Washington?
14 MR. VERELLEN: I have got a copy of our rags, and 15 we do have the same statement in our regulations -- that the 16 maintenance will be performed in accordance with the 17 manufacturer's specifications. I don't have a clue as to 18 how we will do that.
19 MS. TROTTIERt So, that must fall into the 20 category of how can I justify doing this?
21 MR. COOL: Yes. It is beginning to sound more and 22 more like that all the time.
23 MR VERELLEN: Cite the manufacturer for not 24 giving us copies is what it sounds like.
- 25 MS. TROTTIER
- We do that in the power reactor ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L COud RepOders l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 L Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
. . _ _ . - . - -. - - _ - - . _ ~ - - . - - - . __- - -
341 1 world sometimes. ;
2 MR. BALLARD: Just one comment. Since you require 3 quarterly inventories, I think that that is the good time to 4 require a full maintenance, not just a maintenance check, 5 but a maintenance overhaul. You know, there are not too 6 many things you can do, and it was spoken in the room 7 before. You will get certain items that haven't been 8 checked for 10 months. I mean, they have been checked for 9 inventory. You haven't lost it. But its operating capacity 10 has been severely diminished because it has not been 11 cleaned. And a requirement to do a cleaning and maintenance 12 with the quarterly inventory I think is logical. And if you 13 don't tie it in with the manufacturer's specifications, can 14 you go back to the company's operating manual? What does 15 their manual say? And, if their manual doesn't say what you 16 vant it to, have the manual changed.
17 MS. TROTTIER: Well, unless we have further 18 conversation on this topic, I think this is one we just 19 ponder later.
20 MS. CARDWELL: It sounds like we all think it is a
- 21 good idea, we are just not sure how to enforce-it.
22 MR. NANNEY: The only thing I can think of is to l 23 make the licensee certified that he has done so.
24 MS. TROTTIER: I guess the side issue is that --
25 MR. COOL: So, you are back to another sheet of
- l l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. .
l Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Guite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 39f4 I
. . ~ , .- - w,r,-, ,- ,e
342 1 paper?
2 MR. NANNEY: Yes.
3 MS. TROTTIER: Then it goes back to the issue of 4 what does he do with that camera then, if the company has 5 gone out of business, that he doesn't have the specs on?
6 Does he stop using that camera?
7 MR. COOL: lie does maintenance on it immediately ,
8 when he receives it. Is this going to be a tag now on the 9 side of the camera, a little bit like the tape we put on the 10 survey, saying this thing was calibrated -- this thing was 11 maintained -- a maintenance check?
12 MS. ROUGilAN: Some of the people do that. I think 13 they have a little maintenance thing on their cameras -- a 14 little tag.
15 MR. PATTERSON: On all of the devices that I know 16 of in existence in manufacturers in the last 20 years --
17 Kate can probably correct me if I am wrong -- but, there
?4 were operating and maintenance procedures involved in the 19 approval of the device, and each regulatory agency which 20 approved those devices ought to have copies of those 21 maintenance procedures, and they should be available, if 22 your records are kept properly.
23 MS. ROUGilAN: They should be available. But, on 24 some of the others, there have been a lot of radiography 25 companies over the last 20 years, and a lot of them have ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
343.
1 gone out of business. We have some of the manuals for '
2 maintenance. In addition, there may have been slight 3 changes to the device which necessitated changes in the 4 maintenance, and that may not have been properly recorded.
5 So, I would say, for the majority of the devices being used 6 out there currently, on a daily basis, we would have an 7 updated manual for. For devices that are extremely old and 8 no one is providing uources for, there may not be a manual 9 for.
10 MR. MARYLAND: Have you guys gone to the Agreement 11 States and actually licensed cameras?
12 MS, ROUGHAN: The old cameras?
13 MR. MARYLAND: Yes. That are still out there?
14 MS, ROUGHAN: What we have done is given NRC a 15 list of what we considered to be inaccurate devices. We 16 have also given them a list of devices that we will not 17 provide sources or parts for, therefore, the person using 18 that device is going to have difficulty maintaining it and 19 using it, because we are not going to provide the parts or 20 the sources for it that should be on file. Tom can confirm 21 that.
l l 22 MR. VERELLEN: Has that information gotten out to 23 the states?
l 24 MR. RICH: I don't think it has come down 25 formally. We can send it down if you would like. I have a-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite. 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
344 1 question. This issue has como to our attention several 4
2 times in other deals. What happens if in the maintenance 3 manual they specify you must placo this part with Amersham's 4 part number such and such? New we are endorsing. You have 5 to use another licensee's part. Are we allowed to do that 6 as regulators?
7 MS. TROTTIER: I don't know. You will have to ask 8 these people here about the regulations.
9 MR. AMMON: I think you are going to find out 10 that, if you recommend a certain replacement part for a 11 certain manufacturer, and another manufacturer manufacturers 12 part too, you are opening yourself for liable.
13 MR. RICH: That is what we found with teletherapy 14 companies. The service companies should not have to replace 15 the parts, but yet the parts are made by the same people, 16 accept for the numbers on them. So, where do you draw tne 17 line, and who is responsible? If we endorse them, does that 18 make NRC the Agreement State responsible. The guy says I 19 follow their procedure. There was a problem with the 20 procedure the manufacturer gave us. Can they go tack to the 21 Agreement State or NRC? You told us to do this. We did 22 this, and look what happened.
23 MR. VERELLEN: What does your attorney say?
24 MS. TROTTIER: She is just sitting there.
25 MS. ROTHCHILD: I am pondering.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 }
(202) 293-3950
345 1 MR. COOL: Marjorie is pondering.
2 MS. ROTHCHILD: I am not sure. I mean, you have 3 lists of approved equipment, right? So, that doesn't make 4 you liable.
5 MR. RICH: We have a registry system, but we do I 6 not see in there parts, just general descriptions. l 7 MS. ROUGHAN: But the review is based on what the 8 manufacturer submitted to you?
9 MR. RICH: Right. We could go back and give you 10 details of where each part is made from. We could get 11 instructions and make sure it comes out the same. But, we 12 have had a problem with teletherapy, with the service 13 companies -- manufacturers about replacement parts -- who is 14 liable once they do that? And the question comes back to 15 the NRC, how do we approach that? We have not come up with 16 an answer. This issue is coming up again with radiography.
17 MS. ROTHCHILD: I think generally you have had a 18 health and safety reason to justify your position.
19 MR. RICH: That is all we have got before, until 20 we get a health and safety reason. The issue --
21 MS, ROTHCHILD: I am just looking at it 22 differently. As long as you do have health and safety --
23 MR. RICH: Who makes the determination that 24 certain parts are health and safety-related? Do you allow 25 the manufacturer to do that? If we do, what basis do we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
346 1 have to do that?
2 MS. TROTTIER: Under Part 21, now they make the 3 determination that it is health and safety-related.
4 MS. ROUGHAN: We have that.
5 MR. COOL: Important to safety or otherwise has 6 gotten a credible amount of discussions in other forums. I 7 am not sure we even have the right people here to address 8 that.
9 MR. HORNOR: If you said manufacturer's part or 10 equivalent, approved by our SS&D procedure, you have covered 11 the whole basis. Now, if they don't want to submit to you a 12 procedure to verify if that part is good, bad, or 13 indifferent, and pay the fee, then that part is not valid.
14 MR. RICH: The second part was raised in 15 management. If you do this then you are making Amersham or 16 whatever company, in this case, that sold tho' supplier 17 parts.
18 MR. HORNOR: I just gave you the option.
19 MR. RICH: How does another person come in -- you 20 have a service license -- saying they can-replace it when 21 you sit there and say the have a manufacturer's license?
22 Suppose someone else wants to get into the business? IX) 23 they have to go to Amersham, and say Amersham, modify what 24 you just submitted to NRC to include theirs?
25 MR. HORNOR: Well, if Amersham has a patent, they ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
t Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, -N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 1
I 347 1 can't go make that part, because they have got a patent on 2 it. But, if there is no patent on it, they are allowed to 3 make that part. And you evaluate that that part is 4 equivalent to the one that Amersham sold them, then it can 5 be and/or equipment.
6 MR. RICH: It's not in the manufacturer's 7 specifications as submitted.
8 MR. HORNOR: Okay.
9 KR. CARRICO: You cannot make the determination?
10 MR. RICH: On teletherapy we have the 11 manufacturers service companies -- some service companies 12 who are not, just go down to the machine shop just down the 13 road, and just look at it and measure it and say it is same 14 part, which it is not. We have no way of telling them they 15 can't do that. The same thing is going to happen here. If 16 you have Amersham or a manufacturer making the same kind of 17 part, it can make that part. Now, telling him he can't 18 because it is going to be in accordance with Amersham's, 19 their specifications.
20 We just don't know how to approach it I guess is 21 what it comes to.
22 MS. TROTTIER: Well, let's ponder another issue.
23 Maybe this will get us even more confused, I don't know.
24 This is the third item under inspection and 25 maintenance that is under the suggested state regs, and it ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 1 (202) 293-3950 l
348 1 not in Part 34 today, and that is, if any inspection 2 conducted, pursuant to these above paragraphs reveals damage 3 to components critical to radiation safety, the device shall 4 be removed from service and label as defective until repairs 5 have been made. Currently Part 34 does not tell you you 6 have to do this.
7 So, the question is should this be includad in 8 Part 34? That seems like a fairly rational idea.
9 MR. KASYK: I think it is a good idea, except you 10 can engage in mortal conflict or claim that the camera is 11 safe, and you will claim that it is not. And, you know, 12 lacking specific points about which you determine it, but 13 you cannot argue with, then it will be a big problem I 14 think. Because when he is on a job they are paying him, and 15 he wants to continue.
16 MS. TROTTIER: This, again, is tied to the issue 17 of Part 21. What components are critical to safety? And 18 reality, Part 21 is written that the onus is on the licensee 19 to make that determination, and then to make reports when he 20 finds defects, and that he assumes a responsibility for not 21 reporting those defects. It is not the regulatory agency's 22 responsibility for making that determination, it is the 23 licensee's responsibility.
24 Now, if it becomes a question where the licensee 25 is claiming something is not critical to safety and, in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
349 1 fact, it turns out to be critical to cafety, then certainly, 2 that is an enforcement action.
3 MS. ROUGHAN: Just for the inspectors to take a 4 conservative approach, most of the components used on the 5 exposure device are critical to safety.
6 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
7 MS. ROUGHAN: Almost anything broken or defective 8 in the camera that you can't properly use or can't properly 9 secure the source or put it in a safe position, so, for an 10 inspector to take a conservative approach and make that 11 stand, 99 percent of the time he is going right.
12 MR. PATTERSON: I am really astounded that, in the 13 last few years, neither the NRC nor any of the Agreement 14 states has recognized the fact that the associated 15 components of an exposure apparatus is not important because 16 the source tube certainly has more problems with lost 17 sources, damaged sources, uncontrollable sources then the 18 device ever did. The associated equipment has not been 19 regulated by any of the regulatory agencies. And there have 20 been no specifications on it. But, we simply manufactured 21 what we thought was the safest devices that we could put on.
22 MR. RICH: We do that.
23 MR. PATTERSON: I was just saying I was astounded
.24 that you hadn't done it 20 years ago or 30 years ago.
25 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Are there any other ANN RlLEY _& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I 350 1 points that anyone wants to make on this slido? _l
\
2 [No response.) i
,i 3 MS. TROTTIER: I am going to put it down now. We 1 4 have two options, We have now finished 10 primary issues l
5 and all the related issues. So, we are now ready to move i 1
6 into the space of other issues. Now, I have an idea of 7 something that we could do, which would use up some time so 8 that we would have more time tomorrow morning, without 9 actually engaging in a great deal of brain power at this 10 point. I would run through my proposed table of contents 11 for the new Part 34, so that you -- my point now is just to 12 explain to you my method. You can go back and look at it 13 and decide whether you like it. But, at least -- since I 14 have to explain my-method to my supervisor, I figured I 15 might have to explain it to others. It seemed perfectly 16 logical to me.
17 Here is the system. On the left it says existing 18 Part 34, on the right it says proposed Part 34. As you go 19 down the right-hand column, sporadically you will see things 20 that are in parens that say see 34.11. What I tried to do 21 is I took the left-hand column, which is existing Part 34, 22 and I made sure that there was either an entry or a 23 reference on the right-hand side for everything. Now, what 24 you will find is that there are more things on the right-25 hand siae than-there are on the left-hand side. But, l
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 - K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
351 1 hopefully, everything that used to be in Part 34 has a place.
2 in the new proposed order. And there are no words 3 associated with any of these things yet.
4 This is just a concept of would this structure 5 make more sense, and could we then make this modification on 6 the basis of this structure? Because, if we are going to 7 re-Vrite this rule, there is nothing that says it has to be 8 written in a certain way. And, to be honest, when I took 9 this list that I got from -- I don't even know who I got it 10 from, Don, or Bruce or whoever this summer -- and I said, 11 all right, well this is no problem, I'll just insert all 12 this stuff. And I started looking at Part 34, and I'm 13 trying to think, now, what section does this go in? And 14 none of the sections make sense, you know. The titles of 15 them don't even make sense. So, that is what you are going 16 to see when you look at this.
17 You will see an entry for everything on the right-18 hand side, but the parens mean go down a few spaces, and 19 then you will find -- for instance, on the first page you 20 will see under old 34.3 applications for specific licenses -
21 - it says see 34.11. So, you get to the right-hand side on 22 page two, and 34.11 is application for a specific license.
23 Now, I hope it makes sense.- Part of the-problem 24 is this is myself and Don Cool, who actually is very 25 computer-literate, playing around with the column format in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D, C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
352 1 Wordperfect. And, as we tried to produce these slides, 2 things got moved around. And so, I hope everything-is still ,
3 where it belongs. But, if it looks irrational, it is not 4 necessarily because our brains are not functioning, it is 5 because we got a little bit frustrated with the machine.
6 But, anyway, I thought I would just give you some 7 idea of what the thinking was -- why it was done the way it 8 was. And what I would like would be for everyone to take a 9 look at it, you know. You can call later, you can write 10 later, whatever, and just give me your points of view on 11 this concept. Because, if we are going to make this major 12 revision, we are going to have to come up with some 13 organization different from the existing rule, or it will 14 never make any sense. And this was just an idea that I came 15 up with.
16 Looking at Part 39, I said gee, a-lot of this 17 stuff is already in Part 39, and maybe since the format of 18 Part 39 is rational, we ought to go with that structure.
19 So, that is what you see.
l 20 MR. FUNDERBURG: May I' add a third column? In the l 21 third column add which of these items you'think will be a 22 compatibility item for the Agreement States.
23 MS. TROTTIER: Look at Vandy.
24 MS. CARDWELL: In division of compatibility?
25 MR. FUNDERBURG: And which division.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 353 1 MR. MILLER: Don't you all know there is a 2 compatibility paper before the Commission at this time?
3 Does everybody know that? Well, there is.
4 MS. CARDWELL: What does it say?
5 [ Laughter.)
6 MR. MILLER: That you shall comply. I hope we 7 will be able to tell you that very shortly. But, I don't-8 think we can deal with that today.
9 MR. FUNDERBURG: No, I just would like to make a 10 point that it will be interesting to see which of these 11 items will be items that the states will have to consider.
12 MS. TROTTIER: Now, I think we have one of two 13 options. I am willing to pursue either one. We can 14 continue until S:00 o' clock, we can break now and continue 15 tomorrow. It is up to the group.
16 MR. M1LLER: There are a couple of things I want 17 to say here. Have you finished talking-about your outline?
18 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. I am not going to go through 19 the whole outline.
20 MR. MILLER: Okay. Now,-one thing _for sure, when 21 we feel that we have gotten about everything we can get out 22 of one day -- you know, this is not easy, and I will admit 23 that this is not easy. But, the discussion has gone so well 24 up to now, and we do have one more morning that we can 25 tackle the other topics. I am certainly in agreement'that, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202). 293-3950 -
354 1 since you have worked very hard today, that we can just call 2 it quits now. It is about 4:30. This will give you a 3 chance to look at that outline for more discussion about 4 that tomorrow. And then we will cover these other related 5 issues.
6 MS. TROTTIER: All the other issues will be 7 covered.
8 MR. MILLER: Okay. And we will be very fresh 9 tomorrow morning again. Anybody have anything?
10 MR. KLINGER: I have a question. Tomorrow is 11 there going to be any time to talk about your proposed 12 certification, your Part 34 that's out for comment now? I 13 would be interested on some comments from other people.
14 Because Part 34 seems appropriate for this group of people 15 to at least talk about.
16 MR. MILLER: Just let me say this. The main 17 author of that document that you all have was Bruce Carrico.
18 And his boss is down at Region IV headquarters at the l 19 moment. It certainly would be a good idea if we could have 20 him come up. I'm not sure we can do that.
21 Bruce, how do you feel about that?
22 MS. TROTTIER: He doesn't even know the question.
23 MR. MILLER: Tkt knows it.
l 24 MR. CARRICO: I'm discussing this with counsel 25 right now.
L -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1812 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. -20006 (202) 293-3950
355
- 1. (Brief pause.]
4 2 (Discussion held off record.)
3 MS. TROTTIER: I don't think we can discuss it 4 really.
5 MR. KLINGER: Because it wasn't included in the 6 agenda.
7 MR. MILLER: Let me say this. We do have to be 8 careful about veering away from the public announcement.
9 And, just with a second thought, the question of discussing 10 the proposed certification rule would be out of order. I 11 will rule that right now out of order, so we can't discuss 12 it. But, certainly there are some other interesting and 13 related items here that are still in Cheryl's hand-out that' 14 are pertinent.
15 MS. TROTTIER: We have a substantial _ pile.
16 MR. MILLER: So, hearing no objection to what we 17 have just diccussed then, why don't we call this session 18 closed, to meet again tomorrow morning at 8:30.
19 [Whereupon, at 4:30 o' clock p.m., on Tuesday, 20 November 17th, 1992, the above-entitled workshop was.
21 recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 o' clock a.m., on Wednesday, 22 November 18th, 1992.]
23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 - K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission In the Matter of NAME OF PROCEEDING: 10 CFR Part 34 DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Irving, Texas were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me_or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the
,1 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
Y #4AL c v Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
_