ML20217K339
| ML20217K339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9804070201 | |
| Download: ML20217K339 (97) | |
Text
-_- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 ORIGINA_ @d &,\
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA kb NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING BY ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES AND STATUS OF IMPEP PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: Thursday, March 31,1998 i
Pages: 1 - 70 0f 0$04[oggj9e03a1 PR9.7 p
ppg i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.20005 (202) 842-0034 lc:ce t Rn,9-
f-f DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of l-the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on March 31, 1998, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and-observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and.it may contain I
inaccuracies.
1 The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
i i
i L .
I o 1 l
1
. 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
.3 ***
4 BRIEFING BY ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES 5 AND STATUS OF IMPEP PROGRAM 6 ***
l 7 PUBLIC MEETING l 8. ***
9 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 Commission Hearing Room 12 11555 Rockville Pike l' 13 Rockville, Maryland 14 15 Thursday, March 31, 1998 r .
l .
16 17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
- 18 notice, at 3
- 04 p.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 19 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
! 20 21 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
i 22 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 23 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission l
l 24 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission l
25 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: -
2 ROBERT QUILLIN, CO, OAS Past-Chair l
3 KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel ;
4 ROLAND FLETCHER, MD, OAS Chair 5 STANLEY MARSHALL, NV, OAS Chief-Elect 6 RICHARD RATLIFF, TX, OAS Secretary 7 HUGH THOMPSON, DEDR 8 CARL PAPERIELLO, Director, NMSS 9 DONALD COOL, Director, IMNS/NMSS 10 RICHARD BANGART, Director, OSP 11 PAUL LOHAUS, Deputy Director, OSP 12 13
, 14 l
15 16 17
. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
3 4 1 PROCEEDINGS
-2 [3 :04 p.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good afternoon, ladies and 4 gentlemen. This afternoon, I would like to welcome 5 representatives from the Executive Committee of the 6 Organization of Agreement States, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Marshall 7 and Mr. Ratliff and -- I'm told by telephone -- Mr.'Quillin.
8 Is Mr. Quillin on the line? Okay.
9 The OAS representatives will be briefing the 10 Commission on some of the more significant issues 11 confronting the Agreement States today As always, the 12 Commission looks forward to hearing your view on the. status 13 of the Agreement State program.
14 Following the briefing, the NRC staff -- briefing 15 by you -- the NRC staff will brief the Commission on the 16 status of the integrated materials performance evaluation 17 program, or IMPEP, and I thank all of you for the time and 18 for taking the time to address the Commission today, 19 So unless my colleagues have any comments they l ' 2 10 would like to make, Mr. Fletcher, you're going to be the 21 lead off. Thank you.
22 DR. FLETCHER: Chairman Jackson, Commissioners, 23 NRC staff members, and our. fellow radiation control 24 Agreement State directors who hopefully are connected by l
25 telephone in I understand about 20 states, I'm very pleased ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 this afternoon to have the opportunity once again to speak -
1 2 to the Commission about various areas and perspectives that 3 are of concern, issues with the Agreement States, and I must 4 say I come here at somewhat of a sacrifice, personal l 5 sacrifice. I mean, today is opening day and I am a native 6 Baltimorean.
i 7 [ Laughter.]
8 DR. FLETCHER: And it is three p.m., so Camden 9 Yards is filled.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, Mr. Fletcher, the only 11 thing I would say is that the magnitude of your sacrifice is 12 only outweighed by the magnitude of all of our sacrifices.
13 DR. FLETCHER: Right. Understood.
14 I would like to outline our agenda. I will be 15 speaking on improved cooperation and communication, 16 information sharing and professional courtesy between l
17 regulatory parties. Bob Quillin by telephone will be 18 speaking on regulation requirements of DOE contractors and 19 subcontractor activities. Stan Marshall, who is the 20 chair-elect, will be speaking on the role of states
! 21 generally and Agreement States specifically in the oversight 1
22 of DOE. Richard Ratliff, our secretary, will be speaking on 23 Agreement State responsibilities for potentially 24 contaminated sites formerly licensed by the NRC/AEC.
25 I will then come back with some additional brief ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
5
. 1 topics and we will close with some statements about our i
2 upcoming Agreement State meeting.
3 I begin by discussing a topic that has surfaced at l 4 our Agreement State meeting, the one in California. It has 5 been discussed off and on at various occasions, and it is an 6 area of concern to many states, and in reviewing a working l
7 draft that had been prepared responding to this issue, there 8 still seems to be some lack of a common ground between the 9 issues regarding the information sharing.
10 One of the things that we would like to emphasize 11 is that as Agreement States, we are operating within'a state 12 unit that involves political leaders, community leaders, our l 13 own staff management, and we are operating with individuals l 14 who have a wealth of understanding and a wealth of i
l 15 experience in dealing throughout that unit, and in
! 16 comparison, normally when information is either solicited or 17 given to the states, it is almost as though the state can't 18 be trusted with that information, and I think, on the other 19 side of the coin, it is in the best interest of all those 20 involved, particularly during investigations that might 21 involve licensees who have already established the history 22 in that state, that the state, the Agreement State be 23 involved as early as possible, and as frequently as l 24 possible.
25 We conduct investigations of our own. Our staffs j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
} Court Reporters f
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
6 1 are well versed in how to control information. We are -
2 trained in most cases and informed by our own legal bodies 3 on how to maintain a certain amount of investigatory 4 integrity, and I think that for both of us to be regulatory 5 partners, we need to operate on the same legal footing, on 6 the same trust footing, if you will, when dealing with 7 touchy issues.
8 We recognize that there are going to be occasions I
9 when certain bits of information might need to be withheld, 10 but that does not, to me, mean that a majority of times, 11 this needs to occur.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, are you aware of the fact 13 that when there are ongoing -- when investigations are 14 ongoing -- and general counsel can, you know, correct me 15 here -- that, in fact, even internal to NRC, that.the 16 information is closely held until~ that investigation is l 17 completed?
18 DR. FLETCHER: I realize that there is some 19 information that's closely held. I guess what I'm alluding 20 to is that sometimes we have information that would aid your
- 21 investigation, but unless we are made aware of the kinds of i
l 22 information you need or the perspective you're looking from, l
l 23 we're not at liberty or even prepared to give you that l
24 information.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think it may be -- I mean, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034'
7 1
. I have you had discussions with our Office of Investigations 2 at all about the process? ;
I 3 DR. FLETCHER: Not directly, no.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think I would recommend, you 5 know, that, in fact, that's something that you might want to j
6 do so you can understand, you know, better the parameters 7 within which we operate. l 8 Are you aware of any specific instances where a 9 lack of communication on investigative activities could have 10 or did, in fact, jeopardize public health and safety? ,
11 DR. FLETCHER: Not that it necessarily jeopardized 12 public health and safety, but I'm concerned there have been 13 instances where Agreement State staffs were not informed and 14 the information perhaps became -- you know, was shared with 15 the media, and therefore other members of the state became 16 aware of some information before the agreement staff. I was 17 going to speak of some specific -- there was a specific 1
18 incident in Washington that we followed the procedure of 19 reporting the incident of a stolen gauge to the NRC, and 20 while we were in the process -- while the state program 21 persons were in the process of following through, first of 22 all, various levels of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 itself, the regional and the national level, started 24 bombarding with questions, so that time had been taken to 25 address the questions as though the Radiation Control ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
8 1 Program was accually receiving the report rather than being -
2 the initiator of the report.
3 I guess what has happened is communications are 4 ofttimes disrupted in some way so that the Agreement State 5 staffs are not treated as though they are part of the 6 solution, and they can be. The point I'm emphasizing is 7 that we do have a great deal of experience on these staffs 8 that I think can be better utilized.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Again, I think, you know, 10 -without preempting the rest of your discussion, it seems to 11 me that a necessary step is for you to have a discussion 12 with our Office of Investigation, because they're not 13 general employees in the sense that you mean. They are our 14 employees. But, you know, they are actual special agents.
15 So I think you need to have a talk with them.
16 DR. FLETCHER: If I may, by the same' token, we are 17 often involved at the state level in investigations where 18 our own attorney general's office --
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand.
20 DR. FLETCHER: --
controls --
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But in order for us to -- you 22 need to understand a little more about what happens here in 23 terms of investigative activities, and our own Office of 24 Investigations needs to understand, you know, who gets 25 involved at the state level, and I think therein lies the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t Court Reporters
{-
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 m
d 9
, 1 beginning of trying to come around to better communications 2 in this regard. Does that sound --
3 DR. FLETCHER: We can pursue that. Thank you.
4 In another related area, we are very concerned in 5 many instances -- I alluded to it in part on investigations, 6 but there's actually more in the area of inspections. When l 7 we notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I know that l 8 procedurally, the information becomes a part of a PN and is 9 made available to anyone who would choose to review it.
10 Many states, depending upon their own way of doing things, 1
l 11 don't automatically and initially provide information on an i
12 Ongoing inspection, investigation, enforcement activity 13 immediately to the media until the information is fully 14 investigated and so that there is full understanding, t
15 because confusion is a very difficult thing to correct and I 16
, we try to preclude confusion by having as many of the facts 17 as possible before we make any presentation. And there have 18 been instances where the information has almost gotten a 19 life of its own and it's very difficult to bring it back and 20 to control it.
21 I would like to address in some way a way that we 22 can keep the NRC informed about what's going on without the j 23 risk of having our own procedures inside a state disrupted 24 or having someone in our own either governmental community 25 or chain of command get only part of the information because r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
10 1 it's not all contained in those reports. -
2 The other area is the area where whether or not 3 communications have a significant impact on public health 4 and safety, and once again, we have a vested interest in 5 maintaining the public health and safety in our communities.
6 I mean, these are -- each state is a community in and of 7 itself, each state is a political unit, each state has 8 certain characteristics and nuances, et cetera, that the 9 state radiation control people in those organizations are
- 10. very familiar with. We deal with all kinds of public health 11 and safety issues.
12 All we ask is that when instances of public health 13 and safety are concerned, that we do deal with this jointly, 14 we deal with it as a unit, as a partnership. It really 15 hurts us when it appears as though the federal agency had to 16 come in and tell us how to do it, and sometimes that 17 impression is given and we would just ask that to the extent 18 possible, that we work together in dealing with instances 19 where this occurs.
20 We have experienced staffs in all of these states.
21 You know, even those who have just become Agreement States, 22 they have still had years of experience in dealing with NARM 23 issues and radiation machines issues and all kinds of issues 24 dealing with public health and safety, and I think they 25 should be used.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
11 c- 'l COMMISSIONER DICUS: Could you s've us a 2 for-instance in this last situation?
3 DR. FLETCHER: A for instance? Well, the only for 4 instance I can think of is one that occurred in Maryland 5 several years ago, and that involved some misadministration 6 that occurred at a local hospital. The way the reporting 7 and the information was done, it appeared as though the 8 state didn't have a handle on the proble'.n.
9 The reason it becomes a public health and safety 10 issue is if confidence in the state body that maintains 11 radiation health is reduced, then we are not as able to 12 protect the citizenry in the very things that we do on a 13 day-to-day basis.
14 I know there are more examples; that's just the 15 one that comes to mind right away.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Ratliff, did you want to --
17 DR. FLETCHER: Go ahead.
18 MR. RATLIFF: Just this past month, we had two i
19 incidents going simultaneously. One was a several hundred 20 millicurie cesium source that was in a coke plant -- not l 21 Coca-Cola, but a plant that makes industrial coke -- that l
22 they couldn't account, and so we had team survey and we 23 notified NRC.
24 Our incident people were continually barraged by 25 people almost wanting half-hour to hour updates. Well, at ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
12 1 the same time, we had a 60-milligram radium nasal ferrongeal .
2 applicator that a lady found in her house that her deceased 3 physician husband had left, which was a much greater hazard, 4 yet we had to leave one person to keep answering NRC's 5 questions and dilute our response team to the second 6- incident.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Please.
8 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Back up to the issue just 9 before this where you had the health and safety where you 10 were talking about providing information of an instant to 11 the NRC, but it's still an ongoing incident or situation, 12 whatever the case may be, and you are not necessarily going 13 public with it in the state or haven't necessarily taken it 14 to the full course that you plan to do, but we preempt and 15 put out a press release or a notice before others have maybe 16 been notified in the chain of command in the state.
17 If that characterized the problem that you were 18 trying to get across, have you thought of a solution, and 19 has the LAS kind of come together, gone to the states and 20 looked at this and come up with what you think would be an 21 effective way to deal with it? Because what I see as a down 22 side of this is the states not reporting incidents until you 23 are ready to take whatever other action, which you wouldn't 24 want to happen.
25 DR. FLETCHER: Well, as I suggested, perhaps ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
13
, 1 that's something that we can work together on, because I 2 know that as the requirements are now, once you get this 3 information, you are virtually obligated to put it in some l
i 4 kind of an information -- a public information arena. But 5 perhaps the way it's put in that arena can be jointly
, 6 developed, so that our -- I mean,'it's not that we're not ,
( 7- going to make a press release, but our press releases, you
)
l 8 know, normally have our -- we have our own chain of command 9 to go through in order to make sure that that press release 10 says what the situation is and all of the officials are on l
11 board with it, and if there were a way that we could put out 12 a press release that virtually says the same thing, I think 13 the states would be very pleased with that.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand the point you 15 make.
l 16 We have to be careful from a public point of view 1 l
17 that we're not seen as suppressing information -- l 18 DR. FLETCHER: And we don't want to be -- !
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- you know, that has potential l.
l 20 implications for public health and safety. But again, I 1
21 think that Commissioner Dicus' comment about sitting down 22 and trying to come up with solutions -- we also have the 7
23 public communications initiative that's ongoing and there is 24 a task force. So I would recommend that, in fact, you meet 25 with our director of public affairs -- his name is Bill ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
14 1 Beecher -- and try.to talk about some of this within that
- 2 context.
3 DR. FLETCHER: At this time, I'll be followed by 4 hopefully Bob Quillin by telephone.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Quillin, are you'there?
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Technology fails.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is someone prepared to do his 8 presentation?
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: We could go out of order 10 and see if they can get him.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. Why don't we do that 12- and see if we can get him reconnected. Why don't we go on 13 to the next. topic.
14 DR. FLETCHER: Stan Marshall, then, will proceed.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
16 MR. MARSHALL: We had initially set up our 17 presentations so that Bob offered part one and I offered
~18 part two, but I will proceed.
19 Chairperson Jackson, Commission members, I am 20 honored to participate today in this briefing. I appreciate 21 the time from your busy schedules to hear the concerns and 22 interests of the organization of NRC Agreement States.
23 Bob Quillin would have mentioned the ongoing 24 Department of Energy transition. Some may describe that DOE 25 process as an aggressive struggling transition toward ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 a ,
15
, 1 privatization of the DOE complex and other considerations 2 for alternative uses of the complex beyond the more than 3 40-year-old traditional missions of the DOE.
4 This transition, however it is described, is 5 complicated by the appearance of legal interpretations 6 changing related to longstanding concepts such as contractor !
l 7 exemptions and evolving national objectives for that federal 8 agency.
9 One expression of changing objectives of the 10 agency might be characterized by Mr. Carl Gertz, acting 11 assistant manager for environmental management, Department 12 of Energy, Nevada Operations. When he recently presented an 13 overview of the activities of the Nevada DOE office at a 1
14 meeting in Las Vegas in January, he informed the audience 1 15 that the three current missions of the DOE Nevada office are 16 to assist in providing for the safe management of 17 radioactive materials within the DOE complex, to provide a 18 secure and environmentally suitable interim storage for 19 low-level waste, and to transition the Nevada test site 20 facility into an information center for research and 21 development.
22 His remarks suggest a very different picture than 23 the ingrained images of past DOE activities in Nevada. A 24 number of Agreement State program representatives were in 25 that audience to hear his remarks. I believe those present ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters r 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
16
]
1 and others aware of ongoing DOE transition may feel that .
2 state radiation control program involvement can facilitate 3 the DOE objectives however they are described to protect 4 public health and safety, but we have some obstacles in the 5 way.
6 It ils commonly understood and not a simple 7 statement to say that NRC decisions and policies have a 8 tremendous impact on 30 Agreement State programs and 20 NRC 9 state programs, and so a tremendous impact on the general 10 public and regulated communities impacted by those 11 requirements.
12 Radiation control programs in 13 DOE states 13 basically _ defined as states with DOE facilities, of which 14 twelve are Agreement States, have many years of experience 15 with various levels of relationships with DOE.
16 In the case of the State of Nevada, the Agreement 17 State program is_ located in the Nevada State Health 18 Division, the state radiation control agency.
i 19 The division has had many levels of working 20 technical relationships with DOE Nevada staff since at least 21 1972. I personally have had professional relationships with 22 many DOE Nevada staffs since 1980, including radiological 23 emergency response planning concerning DOE's shipments and 24 for other Nevada DOE activities, unclassified technical 25 information exchange about DOE activities on the test site ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
17
, 1 and other DOE properties in the state, and interaction with 2 many public relations scenario that have offered experiences
! 3 not available in other relationships with with the private 4 sector regulated communities.
5 Some of the experiences indicate the appearance of 6 a double standard for perspective and incentives about 7 protection of health and safety from hazards. State 8 radiation control programs, Agreement State or not, 9 implement state laws and regulations, incorporating commonly 10 accepted radiation control criteria and continue to be I
11 challenged to implement appropriate programs within state 12 and local constraints and support of our state governments, 13 and we desire to participate with DOE and NRC to ensure 14 state public health mandates are consistently met.
15 Terms such as oversight, pilot programs external 16 regulations, and other new terms have come to fill our 17 vocabulary where issues and opportunities associated with 18 these terms did not exist less than five years ago. The 19 thirty Agreement States, the 13 DOE states specifically, and 20 the NRC have a tremendous opportunity at hand. I 21 Some concerns about inconsistent application of 22 commonly accepted radiation control criteria have been 23 expressed and many more could be elaborated, but at this 24 time, I will step forward to encourage dialogue towards 25 solutions.
1 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
18 i Solutions, yes. We the organization of Agreement -
2 States encourage the Commission to invite state radiation 3 control program directors to work more closely with NRC 4 staff to provide states' perspectives about DOE oversight 5 and regulatory matters. We believe we can offer productive 6 equitable solutions and participate with NRC to resolve DOE 7 longstanding issues and newer evolving radiation control 8 issues.
9 I believe that it is the experience of state 10 radiation control programs on behalf of the general public 11 that may provide significant perspective, and I encourage 12 widening the circle to share those ideas.
13 I also offer a reminder of the example of the 14 conference of radiation control program directors E20 15 committee on federal facilities. The committee is in place, 16 functioning with a charge from the DOE to provide input to 17 the agency about states' concerns to protect health, safety 18 and environment.
19 At a first meeting of the committee in 1996, Mr.
20 Al Alm from the Department of Energy met with a group in 21 Washington, D.C. to hear our concerns and successes about 22 the various agreements in principle between DOE and the 13 23 states. Following that meeting, Mr. Alm issued a memorandum 24 to all DOE regional offices encouraging contact with and 25 inclusion of the state radiation control programs as the DOE ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
19
, 1 continues to negotiate agreement in principle program 4 i
2 activities in each state, sometimes not involving those )
3 programs.
{
l 4 Mr. Mike Mobley, Agreement State program director i 5 in the great state of Tennessee, is the current committee {
6 chairperson. I'm sure that Mike would respond to any 7 invitation from you to share committee member perspectives.
8 On behalf of the other OAS officers and all 9 Agreement States, I support the suggested ideas and other 10 ways to resolve issues of the appearance of inconsistent 11 applicability of commonly accepted radiation control 12 criteria, and I encourage long-term objective -- the 13 long-term objective of constructive p'rogress towards 14 seamless radiation control mechanisms.
15 Whether non-regulatory oversight programs, 16 regulatory programs as we know them, or a combination of 17 mechanisms, even options unnamed at this time, it is 18 important that the commonly accepted radiation control 19 criteria be applied to all users of radioactive materials, 20 including those previously exempted.
l 21 I believe a comprehensive program applying these l 22 standards to all users of materials can be done with 23 minimization, even elimination of the problems which 24 confound public perceptions of inconsistent levels of 25 protection of public health and safety. I believe the L
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
20 1 answers are out there. I believe that with diligent -
2 persistence to embrace our roles as radiation control 3 agencies, the NRC and Agreement State programs can lay claim 4 to those answers and the successes that come with them.
5 I appreciate this opportunity to appear today and 6 I welcome comments or questions.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
9 I actually do have one question and it concerns 10 the issue of sovereign immunity. Do you believe or do you 11 have a view on the regulation of DOE facilities and the 12 extent to which you feel they constitute a unique situation 13 compared with other fcderal entities such as the Department 14 of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of 15 Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture?
16 MR. MARSHALL: I believe it's within today's 17 environment of the changing priorities for DOE that special 18 treatment or different treatment begins to fade. I think 19 .there are examples of activities on properties within the 20 DOE complex that don't fall into the old traditional 21 national security issues which --
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's specifically, though, 23 why I brought up Veterans Affairs, Agriculture and Health 24 and Human Services, because they also don't fall under the 25 umbrella of national security in that sense.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
21
. 1 MR. MARSHALL: It's my limited experience in the 2 state of Nevada that some of these agencies are at least 3 willing to hear us, at least willing to participate and take 4 our input, whether it's regulatory or a less aggressive 5 oversight program, and I think they are becoming willing to 6 participate as the rest of the regulated community does.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
8 Commissioner?
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The only comment I would 10 make is that these words that are getting into the 11 vocabulary about these various pilot activities, there's 12 relatively modest activity, and I believe in both states 13 where there is something going on, California and Tennessee, 14 that the sente is involved in the pilot activities, and I 15 think it's going to be a long, slow process. There may well 16 be opportunities for both us and the states, but it's -- I 17 don't think we're hiding the ball from you. We are very j 18 early in a process -- I don't know whether we have the third 19 pilot --
it is a candidate facility in South Carolina --
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: South Carolina.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Again, it's an Agreement 22 State, and again, I suspect that they will be invited to 23 participate in whatever way they want to, and legislation is 24 still a gleam in our eye or somebody's eye.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Somebody's eye.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
22 1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But it's not before the -
2 next Congress. So we're not hiding the ball. If the staff 3 wants to say anything later on this --
,4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes. I think we can let Mr.
.5 Austin or-someone speak to it.
6* Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Thank you.
8 MR. RATLIFF: I think one difference we see in the 9 radiation versus our sister agencies that are doing EPA RCRA 10 is.that they, under their programs, were delegated programs,.
11 and they have authority. When we want to look at something 12 that's radioactive waste related or Pantex, we just go with 13 them because it's mixed waste and we can get in; whereas if 14 we went on our own, we wouldn't have the authority. The DOE 15 people would let us on, but just as an example, if we really 16 had to get on, they have the authority.
17 It may be that it's a change and, like you said, 18 legislation will have to be passed to really make it so that 19 all the environmental programs are on the same footing.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No , I understand the point you 21 are making, but my issue had to do with the sovereign 22 immunity and oversight of federal facilities at the state 23 level in a real regulation sense. But I think it's an issue 24 that we are, you know, going to be fleshing out within the 25 context of the pilots, and I would agree with my colleague, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
23
. 1 Commissioner McGaffigan, that, you know, we haven't hidden 2 any marbles here. You know, we're just getting started.
3 And I think these things are going to have to be fleshed 4 out, but I think the issue is on the table, because from a 5 legislative point of view, one is looking at what the 6 precedent is relative to other federal facilities in any 7 number of states, not just DOE.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The last thought for the 9 member from Texas is that we have a briefing later this week 10 from DOE about Mox and Mox fuel and plutonium disposition in 11 general, mobilization as well. But the NRC role in that 12 will have to be legislated if it is going to exist, and this 13 issue again will come up in that context.
14 If there is going to be legislation moving through 15 the process, that may well be the first piece of legislation 16 that you all have to take a --
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: He's inviting you to take a 18 look at that.
19 MR. RATLIFF: Yes. And in fact, we've been 20 working with --
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Come back Friday. Is it 22 Friday?
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's right.
I 24 MR. RATLIFF: You know, through our office, DOE 25 has sponsored two training sessions for all state involved ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
Court Reporters j 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 )
(202) 842-0034 l i
l L 24 l
1 agencies on Mox fuel. So we have been really anticipating -
l 2 that we might have a facility that's taking the plutonium 3 and doing the conversion.
l 4 DR. FLETCHER: At this time, I would like to find 5 out if Bob Quillin is available.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes.
7 MR. LORAUS: Paul Lohaus with state programs. We 8 have confirmed through the commercial operator that Bob is 9 on the line, he's able to hear us fine. He does have a line 10 which should enable him to also speak, and he did indicate 11 that at the end of this presentation, he would interject and 12 begin his presentation. So let's maybe just see if Bob can 13 hear us and see if he can maybe interject.
14 Bob? .
15 I also confirmed that the lines here are working 16 and we've also called back out independently to him. So I 17 guess given that we're not able to hear him, Roland, maybe 18 you or one of the other members can cover Bob's material, 19 but apparently we're just not able to hear him. But the 20 operator did confirm that he does have a both listen and 21 speak capability.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
23 MR. LOHAUS: 'He should have.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't we continue.
25 DR. FLETCHER: Well, rather than preempt Bob -- he
?
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 t
25
. 1 may get on later -- let's move to Richard and let Richard 2 give his presentation and hopefully Bob can come back in and 3 we'll be out of order.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Step out for a second.
5 MR. RATLIFF: What I'm going to do is give you 6 some copies that are not in your packet. I didn't want to 4
7 cut down a whole lot of trees, being from West Texas where 8 there's very few trees, but in our Texas law, we're required 9 to keep all radiation records forever. That says we can 10 never destroy them. So we have an active microfiche 11 program, active CD-ROM program. But I was able to retrieve I 12 the correspondence -- if I could get someone to pass this, 13 please -- the initial correspondence that Texas had when we 14 were becoming an Agreement State.
15 What I think you'll notice is interesting is that 16 back in the '60s, we were one of the first group of 17 Agreement States -- number five -- and so there was a lot of 18 coordination back and forth. It was a new process to the 19 Atomic Energy Commission. And as I went through looking at 20 this data, they talked a whole lot about the stages. They 21 were transferring licenses to us, initially transferring 22 licenses, that there was definitely only a Texas use, and 23 then looking at licenses where they may have use in Texas 24 and other states, and looking at a third group of licenses 25 that were really being retained by the AEC at the time.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
26 1 As I looked through this a.nd I called my mentor .
2 and my former boss, David Lacker, and he says -- I asked 3 him, did they ever discuss terminated files? And he said, 4- no. I asked, well, did we ever receive terminated files 5 because we didn't have them in our files and we have all 6 kinds of other miscellaneous stuff that I don't see any 7 value of, that this would have been better to have, and he 8 said, no.
9 So I think when you look at this, if you look at 10 the second to the last -- they're stapled together -- what I 11 think you will see is that the Atomic Energy Commission did 12 set up groupings of licensees, and in this 1965 memorandum, 13 which was an internal one, which was distributed to the 14 Agreement States, I assume, from the regions, the Atomic 15 Energy Commission did set up the three divisions, the group 16 one, group two and group three, and went into real detail on 17 what these groups included, and you'll see here again that 18 they never included terminated licenses.
19 So I think the states, as they became Agreement 20 States, they received files, they started doing their 21 inspections, started doing their licensing, but they 22 assumed, as we did in Texas, that the terminated files were 23 terminated, that they had been decontaminated successfully, 24 or else we would have been transferred those files.
25 When I went back -- this was kind of a difficult ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
27
, 1 one because I looked at the law, and I think the law 2
specifically and very directly -- we received the authority 3 to regulate byproduct materials. So in many cases, we have 4 sites in some states that they don't even have a file on, 5 and yet they have byproduct materials; they are trying to 6 track it back.
7 I think the whole thing we're going to have to do 8 here is try to find solutions. I know the same issue that 9 came up with my colleagues in the Agreement States has come 10 up with you all many times, is we can't use our licensee's 11 fee resources to do something other than regulate their 4 12 facilities, and that's what we're having to do here. In 13 fact, we've done this by spending time already going back to 14 old sites. We're taking their money and using it to do 15 these inspections.
l 16 As we've talked among the Agreement States, there 17 are several things we could do. The Atomic Energy Act, when 18 you get down to -- let me find my place here -- 274 (j) (2) 19 would allow the governor of each of the states to tell NRC 20 that these licenses that were terminated before we became an 21 Agreement State we relinquish back to you. Then there would 22 be no question that the NRC has legal authority to take care 23 of these sites.
24 I'm not sure that will work in all states, and I 25 really think a more positive approach would be to, as we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
28 1 work together with Congress, to look if there's an area -
2 where there are sites that were trant,ferred to states. We 3 had the same issue very similar with the uranium tailing 4 sites, where -- I know in Texas, we had one Title 1 site 5 where the state paid for ten percent of the cleanup and the 6 federal government paid for 90 percent, and the outcome was 7 we took care of a problem that was started because of the 8 early Atomic Energy' regulatory programs, and I think that's 9 what I would hope we would work towards here.
10 I would be willing to answer any questions.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner.
12 COMMISSIONER DICUS: I think we have the same 13 questions.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Oh. Well, then, I'll let you 1
15 go.
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS: You know, one of the things 17 we're dealing with is -- two or three questions about this, 18 but one, just what are the resource implications for a state 19 to go out, assess these sites and to handle them? And do 20 you have speakers on that?
21 MR. RATLIFF: Well, I think it varies so much from 22 state to state. In our case in Texas, all but three of the 23 sites that we're looking at now are current licensees of 24 ours. So we're working through them. It's not going to 25 cost us anything additional.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
29
. 1 Two of them we have, we know that they had a 2 certain material and a name, but there's no address, no --
3 nothing'else to fcllow through on. So we have no leads at l 4 all on those.
5 Some states, California in particular, New York, 6 may have a few, have sites that have a lot of contamination l 7 that may cost millions of dollars with the cost of low level 8 waste -- to decontaminate and dispose of the material. So I 9 think each of the states will really need to coordinate with 10 you all to let you know what they have, and I think we have 11 been working towards this; it's just the bottom line, when 12 you get to the point of the state would be responsible to 13 clean up the site, have it decommissioned properly, is where 14 we run into the fact that we don't have the funds to do it, 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan? Oh, 1 16 I'm sorry, were you done, Commissioner?
17 COMMISSIONER DICUS: No, but --
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm sorry. No, please.
19 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Well, one of the issues 20 dealing with this is that of all the states that have some 21 of these sites, there's really only a few that seem to be 22 heavily impacted or for whom it seems to be a problem. Many 23 states have already taken care of the issue one way or the 24 other. .
25 I guess I'm trying to characterize just how -- is i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIIsTES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
30 1 this really localized to a few states and all the states are -
2 sympathetic to it, but it's really only a few states, and 3 leading to the solution that we've looked at or suggested is 4 possibly getting some relief from Congress to get some 5 funding for the states to be able to do this. But we've got 6 to have the information, we've got to have the help from the 7 states to go forward to do this, and I'm trying to get a ,
8 feel just how willing the states are to do this and whether 9 or not it's really as widespread a problem or is it highly 10 localized.
11 MR. RATLIFF: I think it's going to be more highly 12 localized from the comments I've received from states. You 13 know, New York and California obviously have a lot of the 14 sites. Like I say, many of the states that had contaminated u
15 sites, there was a sister licensee or something, and over 16 the years, we cleaned them up, especially when waste 17 disposal was real inexpensive.
18 I think the polling of the states, though, to make 19 sure, because there's some uncertainty in some of the new 20 Agreement States, I would think, Illinois, Massachusetts, 21 just to see what they have. But I know for sure that 22 California and New York have problems. Other states --
23 Arizona -- Audrey Godwin had written me and had shown that 24 they have I think a medium problem, but they just feel it's 25 not a problem that should be theirs.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
f l
31
!. 1 I think the states would be more than willing,
! 2 though, and I think it would be a good discussion when we l
l 3 come back for the Agreement States meeting to look at what's 4 there, what's it going to cost, and sometimes even getting 5 permission to get on the sites I think may be a problem, but 6 each state is going to have to work through those issues.
7 But I think when you < "
to the impasse of no funds from 8 their legislatures even to do their basic programs, you have 9 to really work hard. To do this additional I think will be 10 real burdensome on the staff.
11 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Well, this is the sort of 12 case you're going to have to make if we are to get relief 13 from Congress.
14 MR. RATLIFF: I agree, Commissioner, 15 COMMISSIONER DICUS: It's going to have to be a 16 strong case.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. And piggy-backing on 18 that, I mean, you mentioned, you know, discussing this at 19 your next meeting. Leading up to that meeting, is it, in 20 fact, possible for you to do some kind of a survey so that 21 you would know what the situation is, and then have a basis 22 for having the discussion? It strikes me that some of this 23 information is information that people, unless they were 24 given a heads up, wouldn't be prepared to discuss on the 25 spot --
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
32 1 MR. RATLIFF: Oh, I agree. .
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- at a meeting.
3 MR. RATLIFF: I think from each of the different 4 states, we've gotten a list from NRC, we've -- some of them 5 looked at all of them; some of them have looked at parts of
'6 them. I think it would be beneficial to get the current 7 status. We know a lot'of them have gone away. They were 8 sealed sources only, there's no contamination, but-then to 9 get you an estimate so -- Congress is not going to 10 appropriate unlimited money -- I agree, we'll-have to come 11 .up with a good argument on the amount of money and then go 12 forward, and I think we are more than willing to coordinate 13 that.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
15 Go ahead.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think, again, you've 17 seen the SRMs on this matter -- the Commission is willing to 18 work with you, but we need the information.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. Okay. Thank you.
20 DR. FLETCHER: Once again, I would like to 21 petition the gods of communication to see if Bob Quillin is 22 on the line.
23 MR. QUILLIN: Hello. Can you hear me?
24 DR. FLETCHER: Yes. Welcome.
25- MR. QUILLIN: I've heard everything you said.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
33 1 , 1 DR. FLETCHER: Have you heard everything?
2 MR. QUILLIN: I have heard everything, yes. I 3 haven't been able to speak, that's all.
4 DR. FLETCHER: Okay. Well, the floor is yours.
i 5 Bob Quillin, who is our past chairman from 6 Colorado.
7 MR. QUILLIN: I appreciate the opportunity to 8 speak to you by telephone, and I have some slides and 9 transparencies, which -- the first one is entitled 10 Regulatory Issues Related to DOE Contractors and 11 Subcontractors.
12 The next transparency or slide refers to the fact 13 that DOE has undergone organizational changes in the past 14 year. As an example, one of the DOE sites, the Rocky Flats 15 site, is no longer a production facility; it's now called 16 the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site with different 17 activities. There are changes going on throughout the DOE 18 system.
19 For example, I have a nice shiny brochure here 20 from Sandia National Laboratories which highlights their 21 robotics activities at Sandia National Laboratories which I 22 don't think is what they were initially conceived of when 23 DOE was formed. These items highlight changes going on at 24 DOE facilities.
25 One other perspective on this is the issue of l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
34 1 what's going on on-site at a DOE facility versus what's -
2 going on off-site at a DOE facility and how these activities 3 confuse the traditional functions of DOE.
4 DOE is still in a state of transition in slide 5 number three, and we expect, from what we see, that the 6 transition will continue into the future. We'll receive 7 different missions and different responsibilities.
8 On slide number 4, the concept of the DOE prime 9 contractor is no longer universally valid. Rocky Flats, as 10 an example, has what we call a coordinating contractor, and 11 under the coordinating contractor, they have a secondary 12 contractor who performs the bulk of the functions that you 13 would normally expect the prime contractor to perform in
- 14. past years.
15 Another issue is that as the functions and 16 missions change, DOE has encouraged the use of -- private 17 sector use of DOE facilities. These production facilities 18 such as Rocky Flats have a unique capability, and DOE has 19 encouraged -- Rocky Flats, for example, has hired a group to 20 explore options in the re-use of the facility and optimize 21 the capability of Rocky Flats as a commercial venture.
22 Can you hear me?
23 DR. FLETCHER: Yes.
24 MR. QUILLIN: Okay.
25 One main project they had at Rocky Flats is a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
35
. 1 project involving re-use of the facility. They went to the 2 first and second phases of a feasibility study, a clean-up ;
3 study, a clean-up-phase, and when they got to the third l 4 phase, they decided they didn't want to go any further. DOE i
5 made the determination that the activities as proposed were '
. 6 not essential to the DOE mission, activities which should i
1 7 fall under the regulatory oversight of the Nuclear
.8 Regulatory Commission.
9- On slide number 6, one of the things that we have 10 observed is that DOE's sub and sub-sub contractors are 11 looking to the day when there will no longer be DOE 12 contracts and they will have to work independently of DOE 13 facilities. So they are looking for activities outside the 14 DOE world, and particularly business opportunities outside 15 the DOE world.
16 States, in my slide number 7, are receiving what I 17 would call inconsistent messages from Washington and from 18 the DOE sites as to the role of the states in these 19 activities. So one problem we have is we don't know 20 basically what our role is, and states have become 21 frustrated and, as Stan expressed earlier, they're looking 22 for a solution, and I think there are potential solutions 23 out there to these questions, I think.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have any solutions you 25 care to share with us? .
1 I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 36 1 MR. QUILLIN: There has to be a determination as .
2 to activities, specifically DOE activities, which occur 3 outside of the DOE real estate as to who is responsible, who 4 is going to take responsibility to ensure public health and 5 safety when these occur, and that determination I think has 6 not been made. I think the question is still up for 7 discussion right now. There needs to be a decision whether 8 the NRC is going to be responsible for such activities.
9 So it's a question. I don't have the answer.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. I think Commissioner 11 McGaffigan has a question.
12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I have more of a 13 statement. You should again understand that NRC receives 14 inconsistent messages as well and occasionally is frustrated 15 as well. And so if there is a policy coming out of 16 Washington, it's an all azimuths policy that includes sister 17 federal agencies.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: All right. Okay. Thank you 19 very much.
20 MR. QUILLIN: I'm glad I got on eventually.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, we're glad you got on at 22 all.
23 MR. QUILLIN: Okay. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
25 DR. FLETCHER: As we continue, Chairman Jackson, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 l 37 l
i
, 1 let me bring up one item that I overlooked earlier as a part i l
I 2 of our discussion, and the whole area of allegations is one 1
3 area that the states would like to at least have a dialogue J
4 with the Commission on. We are very eager to resolve any 4 5 matter that someone in the public may or a licensee may 6 bring up, but ofttimes, the information we receive is 7 extremely limited, to the point where we are given 8 information about an incident or a situation and with so 9 little information to go on that it's very difficult to 10 follow up. i 11 We ask only that, once again, I think we need to 12 have a meeting of minds on how to better address these 13 issues. I've personally received telephone calls from our 14 regional office that an allegation has been made and have 15 had a difficult time just getting some additional 16 information to resolve the matter, and I think that's both 17 of our goals, so we would just ask for the opportunity to 18 develop a. procedure whereby we can fulfill the ultimate goal l 19 of resolving allegations.
20 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have formal processes
'21 for dealing with and following up on, investigating and 22 protecting allegers' identity? Each of your members has 23 those programs?
24 DR. FLETCHER: To the best of my knowledge, I ;
25 believe so. I believe that's one of the requirements for --
f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
38 1 I mean the legislative requirements in establishing the -
2 state --
3 MS. CYR: That's one of the things that's looked 4 at in the IMPEP process, tuo, specifically.
5 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
6 DR. FLETCHER: At this point in time, I would like 7 to provide the Commission with a letter from the Agreement 8 States, from the majority of the radiation staffs of the 9 Agreement States. It is a position statement supporting the 10 clean-up standard that has recently been published. We did, 11 as you spoke of earlier, we have done a survey of states and 12 the majority, a very strong majority, do support the 13 clean-up standard, and we have itemized in this statement 14 some of the reasons why, and also we emphasize the need for 15 consistency that we see across the board.
16 We are dealing primarily with a public that 17 sometimes we all send confusing messages to, and it's very 18 difficult for that public to assess what should be 19 considered safe and what's not safe and why this agency says 20 this and why this agency says that.
21 The states have to deal with these same kinds of 22 questions and, you know, by this support, hopefully we would 23 have voiced at least our position on the direction that this 24 should go.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I might suggest you might ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39
.. 1 want to consider sending it also directly to the Congress.
2 Commission McGaffigan can tell you where to send it.
l 3 (Laughter.]
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I thank them for doing l
.5 that.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And we do appreciate this.
7 DR. FLETCHER: The final item that I have on my
.8 agenda is to extend to you, Chairman Jackson -- this is -- I 9 wanted to have it written but didn't quite get around to it 10 -- to you, Chairman Jackson, the members of the Commission, 11 NRC staff, we want to extend an invitation to our annual 12 Agreement States meeting which will take place in 13 Manchester, New Hampshire October the 29th through the 31st.
14 Our radiation program manager there, Diane Teft, 15 has already been doing some extensive preparatory work and I 16 have a pamphlet -- unfortunately, I only have one, so you'll 17 have to share -- but that talks about the location that she 18 has found there. So I --
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
20 DR. FLETCHER: I invite you all. I hope that you 21- will be able to attend and participate actively in this 22 activity.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much.
l 24 I'm going to ask the NRC staff, in making its 25 presentation, to follow up in each of these areas that you l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
40 1 have presented and to speak to them. -
3 2 I do think communication and expectations are --
3 having them clear are very important issues. It strikes me 4 that, with some of what you've said, that, as I indicated 5 earlier, a key to some resolution or at least understanding 6 is to have the right people talk with the right people, and 7 I think we need to begin that way so that you understand our 8 processes, understand the legal constraints, et cetera, and 9 I think -- and then that puts everyone on a footing to be 10 able to then to discuss how to address the issues in a 11 rational way.
12 But I appreciate your taking the time to come, and 13 this has been very helpful, and again, I echo my colleague, 14 Commissioner McGaffigan, in thanking you on behalf of the 15 Commission for the support that you have provided in a 16 written form relative to our clean-up standard.
17 Thank you.
18 DR. FLETCHER: Well, we appreciate you taking the
- 19. time to listen to us.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Great. Thank you.
21 We'll now hear from the NRC staff. And thank you, 22 Mr. Quillin.
23 The Commissioners wanted me to announce the 24 results of the SES bake-off.
25 [ Laughter.]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i l
~
41 l
1 MS. CYR: I'm still smarting from the loss.
2 [ Laughter.]
3 MR. THOMPSON: I don't like the title of 4 half-baked. That's what I got.
5 [ Laughter.]
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Thompson, good to see you.
7 MR. THOMPSON: Thanks. Thank you, Chairman, 8 Commissioners.
9 Today, obviously we are here to address one of the 10 most important parts of our regulatory program; it's the-11 materials area, both for NRC and Agreement States. We are 12 focused primarily on the results of the IMPEP program for FY 13 '97, but as you may recall, we have used that program now to 14 evaluate all of the NRC regions and over half of the 15 Agreement State programs, and we haven't gone all the way 16 through the process and we are going to give you kind of 17 some lessons learned and where we are today.
18 Before I would -- I'm sure you are well aware that 19 we have -- the IMPEP board includes myself as the head and 20 Dick Bangart and Carl Paperiello, Tim Martin is the head of 21 AEOD, and Karen Cyr, but also, we have advisors, and the 22 gentlemen that were up here just before you presenting the 23 Organization of Agreement States participate in the IMPEP 24 boards and really add a significant contribution to the I 25 discussion and dialogues, and in some, we've had some real l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
42 1 tough cases and they were very helpful in doing that, and -
2 each of these individuals have done that with the exception 3 of Stan, and we will welcome him the future, but that has 4 been a real advantage of having the Agreement State 5 directors as well as the team members from the individual 6 teams, and I think they have valued their participation in 7 it and we certainly had outstanding support from that.
8 I would just like to publicly thank them, and I 9 know that there are those that are on the telephone bridge 10 as well as the regions, so I think that has been very good.
11 We have some prepared remarks. I don't know 12 whether you would like for us to kind of go through those 13 first and then we'll try to address the questions afterwards 14 and hopefully we'll move fairly quickly.
15 With me today is Don Cool, who is kind of 16 overseeing the regional materials program, and Dick Bangart 17 and Paul Lohaus from the Office of State Programs, and Dick 18 will lead the briefing today.
19_ CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
20 MR. BANGART: Thank you, Hugh.
21 Chairman Jackson, Commissioners Dicus, Diaz and 22 McGaffigan, good afternoon.
23 During the briefing, I will discuss in general the 24 major IMPEP program accomplishments achieved in Fiscal Year 25 '97. I'll discuss in more detail the results of IMPEP ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD-Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i
'l I
l 43
, 1 reviews of regional and Agreement State programs completed 2 that year, and I will also discuss the staff's successes in 3 improving the timeliness of IMPEP reporting and close by 4 discussing what we have learned to date from the IMPEP 5 program experience.
6 The second slide lists the major IMPEP program
.7 accomplishments that were achieved in '97. The first 8 accomplishment was the significant revision to management 9 directive 5.6 and its associated handbook which provides 10 IMPEP program direction.
-11 Procedural guidance for evaluating the six 12 non-common performance indicators was added to complement 13 the guidance for the five common performance indicators.
14 The revision now also reflects the final Commission policy 15 statement on adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State 16 programs. The management directive and handbook are now 17 comprehensive and contain final procedural guidance for all 18 performance indicators that are evaluated during an IMPEP 19 review.
i 20 Second, in December of each year, training of NRC )
21 and Agreement State staff that serve on IMPEP teams is 22 conducted by NMSS and OSP. Last December, over 45 students !
23 received either initial or refresher training during the 24 one-day session.
25 Additionally, with the help of the Office of Human l
l t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I i
44 1 Resources, a second day of training for team leaders was -
2 conducted for the first time. That team leader training was 3 particularly effective in addressing the importance of group 4 dynamics during team evaluations.
5 Third, the timeliness of IMPEP reporting, as I 6 indicated,.has improved as directed by the Commission, and I' 7 will address this in more detail on a later slide.
8 Fourth, as planned, two regional and eleven 9 Agreement State IMPEP reviews were completed in '97, and I 10 would like to address the results of the 13 reviews in more 11 detail before I return to the subject of report timeliness.
12 The primary objective of the reviews of both-13 region and Agreement State reviews is to assess program 14 adequacy,'which indicates the reasonable assurance of 15 protection of public health and safety is being provided.
16 An adequate finding means that there are no significant 17 weaknesses in the program being assessed that could impact 18 the ability to protect public health and safety.
19 A finding of adequate but needs improvement means 20 that the program also adequately protects public health and 21 safety, but that important weaknesses exist in one or more 22 areas that are reviewed that need to be addressed.
23 For example, an unsatisfactory rating in any 24 single performance indicator could result in an overall 25 finding of adequate but needs improvement.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
! 45
- 1 For an adequate but needs improvement finding, the 2 management review board could direct that a follow-up review 3- be conducted in one year. It could direct that a full IMPEP 4 review be conducted earlier than the nominal two- or 5 four-year period that is normally applicable for regions and-6 Agreement States.
7 The MRB could also call for heightened oversight 8 'through periodic progress reports and meetings or, in the 9 extreme, for an Agreement State only, the MRB could 10 recommend for Commission approval that a program be placed 11 on formal probation.
12 An inadequate finding for an Agreement State would l 1
13 mean that protection of public health and safety is not 14 reasonably assured and the NRC then would have the 15 responsibility to reassert authority, at'least on a limited 16 basis,-until the program weaknesses were strengthened. j i
17 NMSS has stated an oversight and management 18 coordination of regional programs would likely identify l 19 program weaknesses, and that would result in the initiation i 20 of corrective actions for regional program approach and in 21 inadequate condition.
I 22 For Agreement States, a compatibility
'23 determination is also made. An Agreement State is 24 compatible'with the Commission's program when it does not 25 create conflicts, duplications, gaps or other conditions i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
46 1 that would jeopardize an orderly pattern of regulation on a -
2 nationwide basis.
3 The next slide lists the IMPEP reviews that were 4 completed during the first half of Fiscal Year '97. Region 5 IV was adequate. Louisiana, California, Tennessee, 6 Mississippi, Colorado and Illinois were all both adequate 7 and compatible.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you this question, 9 Is this the timeliness question or is it a separate one?
10 MR. BANGART: The furthest-most column on the 11 right, hopefully you'll be able to see a trend toward 12 improved timeliness, but I have the more graphic display and 13 some additional information later.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But in general, you're saying 15 it takes upwards of a quarter to a half a year?
16 MR. THOMPSON: For the entire process to work, 17 that's what happened early on. There were a few cases where 18 we are, I think, very timely in our initial feedback to the 19 states in getting our draft reports, and then we go through 20 a more formal process in which we actually engage the 21 management review board, and depending on particular issues, 22 we invite the states to respond back and participate at the 23 meeting. That's one of the valuable elements in being able 24 to provide what I called the real-time decisions that we 25 make.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
47
.. 1 It has the input from the state, and in fact, the 2 states'in a couple of very important instances have 3 responded that a program that the-team found and did an 4 inspection and had some real problems with, by the time the 5 MRB met, they had put in place processes, procedures, even 6 actions, to address some deficiencies, and therefore, we 7
make a call at the time we meet as to how we find the 8 program, not what necessarily was done at the day of the 9 final inspection.
10 So that constitutes some of the additional time 11 that's in there, although there's very quick feedback to the 12 states on what the finding of the team is.
i 13 MR. BANGART: There weren't any significant 14 weaknesses identified in any of the programs listed here, 15 although there were suggestions and recommendations made as 16 a result'of each review.
17 You'll note that each of these programs are 18 scheduled for next review at the maximum interval permitted 19 by-program guidance.
20 For Agreement States in the years between the 21 years when there's a formal IMPEP review, a one-day meeting i
22 is conducted to discuss both NRC and Agreement State l 23 programs and changes to those programs, and this discussion 24 l will either confirm the schedule for the next IMPEP review I L 25 or result in a change based on current conditions. I
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l l Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
48 1 The next slide shows the IMPEP reviews that were -
2 completed during the second half of '97. Region III was 3 adequate, and Texas, New Hampshire and Nevada were adequate 4 and compatible, with all of those programs having their 5 reviews scheduled at the maximum interval.
6 New Mexico was initially scheduled for or 7 considered for probation, but commitments to dispatch 8 inspectors into the field to evaluate significant incidents 9 and other programmatic commitments that Hugh Thompson 10 received during a meeting with the New Mexico Secretary of 11 Environment resulted in a management review board decision 12 to apply heightened oversight and to conduct a follow-up 13 review in one year.
14 Heightened oversight is exercised through monthly 15 conference calls and written progress reports that are 16 submitted by the state of New Mexico every other month. New 17 Mexico is currently implementing actions to strengthen their 18 program in accordance with the plan and milestones that they 19 developed.
20 The Nebraska review last August was actually a 21 follow-up to the full IMPEP review that was conducted in 22 July of 1996. Since the July '96 review report was issued, 23 NRC has also been applying heightened oversight to the 24 Nebraska program after it too was initially considered for 25 probation.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __ _ __ - ___ _ _ ___ - __ - ___ - -____________ _ - __-_-_--- - ______ A
I 49
. 1 The follow-up review team recommended that the l~
2 adequate but needs improvement finding remain in place for 3 Nebraska since all the program improvements were not i
l 4 scheduled for completion until the end of this year.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you're saying that if you 6 initially decide that an Agreement State program should be 7 placed on probation, that based on promises and commitments, l 8 you typically say they're adequate but needs improvement?
9 MR. BANGART: It's the process that Hugh just l
10 summarized where the team in both of these cases recommended 11 probation, but there were commitments and actions taken by l 12 the state between the last day of their review and when they 13 were meeting --
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I'm interested --
15 MR. THOMPSON: It's more than just promises.
16 Actually --
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm interested in promises 18 versus actions.
19 MR. THOMPSON: Right. It's really a combination 20 of both, that often when -- there are things that are 21 required by legislation sometimes that -- or promises, they j 2 2. _ -make commitments at the political leadership level in the 23 state for those programs as to their commitment to the 24 program, their willingness to go froward for funding, their 25 willingness to support the staffing, as well as in the --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters ,
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
50 1 for example, in the New Mexico process, one of the key -
2 elements in their difficulties was their response to 3 incidents. At the time that we -- they did not have a 4 process and procedure in place. By the time we met with the 5 Secretary of the Department of Health, they actually had 6 demonstrated their capabilities to respond to instances, and 7 that was before the board when we made our decision.
8 Prior to that, there had not been an instance 9 between the team's inspection and evaluation report and the 10 initial MRB meeting for us to be able to make a decision 11 that the program was effective in responding to incidents 12 and events. Subsequently, we were.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Ms. Cyr?
14 MS. CYR: I would agree with you. Those instances 15 where there was a change made from what the recommendation 16 was by the team, by the MRB, that there were demonstrable 17 improvements in the programs during the time period before 18 the MRB met and reached its decision in both the cases of 19 New Mexico and Nebraska.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
21 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Do you have any thoughts on 22 how long you would be comfortable with a state being in a 23 situation where they have been found adequate but needs 24 improvement? For example, you go back to Nebraska in 25 September of this year and find the same situation, so it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
r 51
. 1 goes for another year. I mean, is there a point in time 4
2 when you say enough is enough?
3 MR. BANGART: What we have done in each of these 4 cases to date is to follow what I'll call a probation like 5 process, and as part of that process, we request from the 6 state a what I'll call get well plan, a plan of action with 7 accomplishments that they plan to achieve as well as 8 milestones.
9 In these letters that are sent to us bi-monthly 10 and in these monthly discussions that we have, that's what 11 we track, is we've agreed this is what needs to be done, and l 12 then we follow that through these monthly discussions and 13 through progress reports, and they, of course, get modified 14 slightly as events change around, but we're all basically 15 singing from the same song sheet about what needs to be done 16 and whether or not they're making progress toward that.
l 17 So if there are no good extenuating circumstances, 18 we say if they are unable to follow that plan, then we need 19 to revisit the finding with the state and management review l
l 20 board.
l 21 MR. THOMPSON: In my sense, it's like -- in my own 22 view, we haven't got there, but it's'three to four years.
23 You know, after the third year, I think we would elevate it 24 up to the Commission and this is what we would find, but I 25 don't think there's an automatic on-off switch along that l'
ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters !
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 842-0034
a 52
'l line. . -
2 But obviously, if a program is struggling, you 3 know, we need to -- and I have elevated it as best I can and 4 the infrastructure within the state is not able to either 5 support a program'or maintain the staffing levels that are 6 needed to maintain a program, we would need to elevate that 7 up to the Commission for information and address those on a 8 case-by-case basis. I don't think as an MRB, we've come up 9 'and said, well, you know, three years is okay and four years 10 is not. That's just one member of the MRB. But it's a very 11 legitimate question and we will certainly -- we can discuss 12 it on our next MRB meeting time-frame, if we need to.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think it's an important 14 question.
'15 MR. THOMPSON: It is. It's very important.
16' COMMISSIONER DICUS: It's sort of like~a plant 17 being on the watchlist.
18- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'was going to say that, but I 19 didn't.
20 MR. THOMPSON: I wasn't going to say that either.
.21. COMMISSIONER DICUS: It's very similar to.that.
22' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How long? Not long.
23 MR. THOMPSON: Not 1ctu.
24 MR. BANGART: Also in the Nebraska case, the team 25- did recommend a full IMPEP review within a year, and that's ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.4 53
. 1 currently scheduled.
2 Also for the Commission's information, especially 3 'because of this heightened oversight that the staff is 4
exercising, we have recently learned in a very timely 5 fashion that the director of the Nebraska program has 6 resigned and upper management in that state is assessing the i
7 impacts of that loss and how to manage those impacts, and we 8
expect to see that report in the next bi-monthly progress 9 report, which is actually due April the 1st. Rita Ford and 10 the Office of State Programs continue to work closely with 11 the State of Nebraska at this point in time.
12 Now on the next slide, if we roll out the results-t 13 of all of the reviews, we'll see the current status of all 1
14 regional and Agreement State programs. All regions are 15 currently' rated adequate. The field work for the Fiscal 16 Year '98 reviews of Region I and II has been completed and 17 the teams will be recommending that the adequate finding l 18 continue for those regional programs.
19 For the Agreement States,_21 are currently both i
20 adequate and compatible. Eight Agreement States have 21 programs where improvement was needed either in the adequacy 22 or compatibility areas or both. Six of those eight
- 23 Agreement States will be reviewed this year, and in fact, i
24 the on-site portion.of the review has already been completed 25 for three of the six Agreement States that were planned to r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
54 1 be reviewed this year, and the teams will be recommending -
2 for those three on-site reviews that are already completed 3 that the state be found adequate and compatible.
4 The two states that are not fully adequate and 5 compatible and not scheduled for a review this year are 6 scheduled for a review in Fiscal Year '99.
7 Now, to report timeliness, following the January 8 '97 Commission briefing on the IMPEP program, staff was 9 directed to improve the reporting of the IMPEP process.
l 10 Staff then initiated a number of actions that have led to 11 the improved timeliness of reporting. One action was to 12 more realistically assess the report timeliness goal.
13 Now the performance plan, the OSP operating plan 14 and the NMSS plan by reference to our plan now contain 15 performance measures shown on this slide.
16 Our goal is to issue 80 percent of all reports 17 within 104 days from the last day of the on-site review and 18 to assure that no report takes longer than 180 days to 19 issue.
20 Other actions that have led to improvement --
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, I would ask you this 22 question. If I go back to the charts that I was looking at, 23 and Mr. Thompson told me to be on the lookout for an 24 improving trend, and you have a goal that, you know, no 25 report should take longer.than 180 days, but you didn't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
55
. 1 start out being much above that in the first place; 2 nonetheless, the Commission asked you to improve the 3 timeliness. It strikes me that one could ask whether the 4 180 days is sufficiently responsive to the Commission's 5 timeliness desires.
6 MR. BANGART: We originally started with a goal of 7 90 days with no exceptions, no allowance for any report to 8 be issued beyond that, and that was just, we found, 9 unworkable. There are program reviews that experience has 10 shown us where there is legitimate debate between ourselves 11 and the state in one case that we've had experience with or 12 in another, such as New Mexico, where we purposely chose to 13 have a meeting with department level managers within the 14 state program, and that process, that additional step, is 15 one that isn't normal, and that added to the period of time 16 in that particular --
17 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: I think you need to make a 18 decision about what issuing the report means and what the 19 separation is between writing the report based on what you 20 find when you do the IMPEP review and any follow on steps, 21 okay, that you might take, that rather than having a report, 22 that remains arbitrarily open until you take whatever steps 23 you decide, you know, you want to take additionally. You 24 have to decide what is the report, what goes into it, and 25 then you have a timeliness goal associated with that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters '
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
56 1 If there are additional follow-up steps or some .
2 supplementary thing you might issue, you can talk about 3 that, but I think you need to go away and think about, you 4 know, that kind of an issue. -
5 MR. BANGART: The state actually gets three 6 versions of the report. They get a draft report from the 7 team within 30 days. We get their comments back after 8 another 30 days. Those comments are incorporated into the 9 report and a proposed final then goes to Hugh and the 10 management review board for consideration, and then two 11 weeks after that, the report is up to Hugh for his signature 12 to go out.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -Right. But then I've counted 14 60 plus two' weeks.
15 MR. BANGART: It adds up to --
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's not 180 days.
17 MR. THOMPSON: One of the issues that we have is 18 the ability to schedule time for the boards to meet as well 19 as to have the Agreement State participation and to be able 20 to meet, and some of those have taken a good bit longer than 21 any of us would have desired --
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand.
23 MR. THOMPSON: -- to be able to do. It's not --
24 but the thing that I think that is very valuable and the 25 ones I think that have been a significant improvement in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
57
. 1 program is the ability to let the state see the report, 2 respond back to it, and then participate at the meeting.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes. I understand exactly what 4 you're saying, but again, you know, justice delayed is 5 justice denied, and the issue becomes, you have information 6 that becomes outdated before you ever write a report, and it 7 strikes me that there are some opportunities, and all I'm 8 asking you to do is to think about those opportunities --
9 MR. THOMPSON: We'll do that.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- relative to how much time a 11 state is given to review the report, you know, as well as 12 any internal reviews that we might do, and then this 13 question of what is the report, okay? And is it something 14 that i.s some evolving form or is it a report that has to do 15 with what you see at a given point in time. I mean, we do 16 inspections in other parts of our program and everyone i
17 understands that there is a cut-off date as of, you know, i
18 what period that report covers. There are things that may 19 happen after that cut-off date. But the report that deals 20 with what you found at that point is the report that you 21 have based on what you found at that point.
22 MR. THOMPSON: And we'll look at that. The 23 process that we have right now lets the report not be the 24 report until -- it's not soup until the MRB says it's soup.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, all I'm saying is you can ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
58 1 look at opportunities along the way to tighten up. That's -
2 number one.
3 MR. THOMPSON: That's right.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And number two, being clear 5 about what the report is, okay? And in terms of how much 6 remains open and what the cut-off point is. And I'm 7 understanding due process, et cetera, with the states, which 8 is a very important part of it, and I understand, you know, 9 management review, which is also an important part of it.
10 MR. THOMPSON: Right.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But the point still remains at 12 point A, and point B is that your 180 days is not so 13 different than the number of days that the Commission was 14 looking at when it issued the SRM about timeliness.
15 MR. THOMPSON: That's right. And we will continue 16 to work on timeliness. My expectation is, after we have 17 gone through the states and they reall.y understand -- one of 18 the real lessons learned, and I don't know whether Dick is 19 going to cover this one or not, but some of the states have 20 not gone through the process. The process is much more 21 rigorous', although it -- and focused in certain areas than 22 it had been in the past, and we identified things that, in 23 the programs in the past, had been acceptable, and I think 24 once people understand it, our process is going to be 25 easier, they're going to understand what the process is for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
l 1
59
.. 1 responding, and the initial process, some of those bugs will 2- be. worked out and I think we'll have states -- a much more 3 timely response"in most of the reports. That's my 4 expectation.
, S CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
6 MR. BANGART: I would agree. I think if you look 7 at this chart, that at least we see an improving trend.
8 This chart does display the time to issue the final report 9 for each review beginning with the inception of the program, 10 which was a North Carolina review in December of '95. The 11 ordinate from top to bottom lists each of the programs 12 reviewed in chronological order. The vertical line through 13 .the approximate middle of the chart identifies our current 14 104-day goal. The arrow on the right is located at a point 15 that represents.about January 1997. That's when the staff .
16 discussed with the Commission the need to improve 17 timeliness.
18 The Commission and the staff concern about 19 timeliness is shown by the generally increasing trend from 20 North Carolina in Fiscal Year '96 through Tennessee in '97.
l 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have you dtne some kind of j 22 regression analysis?
23 MR. BANGART: No.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
25 COMMISSIONER DICUS: What was different with the l
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
60 1 Texas program? Why did it take so long. .
2 MR. BANGART: I've got a statement in just a 3 second about that.
4 Of the ten reviews that have been completed since 5 the beginning of calendar year '97, seven were issued before 6 the 104-day goal. Of those three that were not, two did not 7 exceed the 180-day goal.
8 Based on -- and now I'll get to the Texas comment 9 -- based on the concerne expressed by the State of Texas 10 about the wording in the proposed final report, that middle 11 step that I mentioned, and because of direction from the MRB 12 itself, there was one section of the Texas report that was 13 rewritten, and we were asked to and we agreed to allow Texas 14 a second comment period on that revised text. So when that
. 15 additional step was added into the process, it ended up 16 causing us the 212 days to issue the report.
17 MR. THOMPSON: That's a complicating factor that 18 dealt with reviewing a program that was in the middle of a 19 licensing review on the low-level waste area and whether or 20 not the NRC comments could be clearly distinguished between 21 comments on the application and the comments on the program, 22 it was very important for us to be very clear that we were 23 discussing on the program and not on the license application 24 itself.
25 MR. BANGART: There are currently two regional ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
c 61 1
review reports and three Agreement State review reports that 2 are in the process of-being prepared right now, and I think
-3 both NMSS' expectation and our expectation for the Agreement 4 States reports is that each of those will be issued well 5 within the 104-day goal that we have.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
7 MR. BANGART: The last slide summarizes some of 9 the important lessons learned about the IMPEP program as a 9 result of the two-plus years of experience. First and most 10 importantly, it's effectiveness in assessing regional and 11 Agreement State programs has been proven. Feedback from NRC 12 regions, from Agreement States, from NMSS and my office all 13 attest to. its effectiveness. This feedback comes from both 14 those conducting the reviews and those organizations that 15 are being reviewed.
R16 The effectiveness is also confirmed by the fact 17 that program weaknesses, when present, have been identified ;
18 by this IMPEP process. This was demonstrated by the 19 Nebraska and New Mexico reviews. j 20 Importantly, the credibility of the review process 21 has resulted in immediate initiatives in each of those 22 states to address the weaknesses that were identified.
23 Secondly, the -- !
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Can you say, is there hard data 25 to say whether IMPEP has actually improved the performance ;
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
62 1 of the regions in the Agreement States versus just - '
2 heightening our awareness of the problem area?
3 MR. BANGART: I believe the former because --
4 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Can you prove it?
5 MR. BANGART: I can convey to you the fact that in 6 some limited number of cases, the feedback that we have 7 received is that -- and it's actually made in a later point 8 here -- is that the way the program has been implemented or 9 the way we found it was being implemented was actually the 10 way it had been implemented for a number of years. So 11 really thea criteria that we're using to judge each of the 12 performance indicators in some cases are different than the 13 criteria or criterion that have been used in previous 14 reviews. Well, we didn't have this more centralized 15 approach with definitive criteria or as definitive criteria 16 established in terms of performance, more prescriptive.
17 MR. THOMPSON: I think I would say for really 18 strong Agreement State programs, this probably was just a 19 confirmation those programs were really strong. It's for 20 the weaker programs where I think we have not only been able 21 to identify better the weakness, identify it, but also 22 identify the process by which the program can be improved 23 and by having identified either good practices at other 24 states which are available for them to adopt and utilize in 25 their programs or just being able to have the dialogue with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
63
. 1 an individual at headquarters or in the regions who would be 2 able to provide input to strengthen those programs I think 3 has been helpful.
4 With respect to the regional programs, I think our 5 backlog has better identified and worked down and the 6 programs have been effective in being able to let us do )
7 that. I don't know -- do you have any other things on the 8 NRC programs?
9 MR. COOL: With respect to the regional programs, 10 if you look at performance measures, the number of old 11 cases, the timeliness of issuing actions, the number of 12 overdue inspections, all of those indicators have improved 13 over the last three years. We have had a focused effort.
14 Can I attribute that to the IMPEP review or to 15 some of the other specific focuses because we were focusing !
1 16 on these areas? I cannot give you a separation. You can 17 see an improvement in the key indicator areas over that time 18 period.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you track them 20 systematically?
l 21 MR. COOL: I track those performance indicators. .
22 They are part of my operating plan, they're part of the EDO 23 level operating plan.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
25 MR. COOL: Yes, they are.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
64 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thanks. -
2 MR. BANGART: Second, the intent at the outset of 3 the program'was to conduct IMPEP reviews and spend no more 4 direct FTE than was required to review regions and Agreement 5 States.
6 MR. THOMPSON: Two minutes to go, 7 MR. BANGART: Okay. Let me just quickly 8 summarize, then. We are spending exactly what we budgeted 9 to complete the IMPEP reviews. We have already talked some 10 about higher standards perhaps being applied to some 11 programs. But I will say that everybody agrees-that it's 12 important that all regulatory organizations be reviewed 13 against the same criteria if we're going to achieve this,
- 14. what we're --
15 ' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So when you say higher 16 standards, you mean what the standards are had not been 17 uniformly applied.
18 MR. BANGART: Yes. Yes.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
20 MR. BANGART: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I wanted to make sure I 22 understood you.
23 MR. BANGART: In some cases, the Agreement States, 24 for example, are continuing to conduct inspections more 25 frequently.
e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
65
. 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand.
2 MR. BANGART: So the program may be above or --
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand.
4 MR. BANGART: -- below what our current standard 5 is.
6 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: You've put a standard --
7 MR. BANGART: But in some cases, and relatively 8 few, relatively isolated, it does mean a strengthening.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I got your point. Okay.
10 MR. BANGARTc But everybody, like you say, agrees 11 that the same criteria should be used for all programs if 12 we're going to achieve this consistent, coherent nationwide 13 kind of approach to regulation of materials.
14 I mentioned that heightened oversight appears to 15 be pretty effective.
16 MR. THOMPSON: I would say on heightened 17 oversight, one of the lessons learned is that we need to be 18- very crisp on what heightened oversight means for our l 19 interaction with the programs. The initial one, that we 20 weren't crisp on that and we had a program that didn't get 21 as much attention probably as it should have early on.
l 22 MR. BANGART: Hugh mentioned that at least in one l
23 case, we did encounter a very controversial regulatory 24 action that was underway in one state, and the lesson we 25 learned there was we need to very carefully write the report ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
66 1 so that it's just factual and conveys only the message that -
2 we intend.
3 We do each year send out a letter, again as Hugh 4 mentioned, that identifies good practices. One of the 5 Agreement State practices that we shared with everybody was 6 that North Dakota uses photographs during inspections and 7 they photograph facilities and operations that are ongoing, 8 and they then put those photographs in the file so that 9 they're there for a future reference for the next inspector.
10- The last point on ongoing improvements is just to 11 say that we do view the program as a dynamic one. We're 12 always looking for ways to improve it. At the end of each 13 review, we ask the region or Agreement State if they have 14 any thoughts about how it can be improved. At the annual 15 Agreement States meeting, we had a session on IMPEP and ways 16 that it might be improved.
17 One of those recommendations was that NRC consider 18 having the Agreement States conduct an IMPEP-like review of 19 headquarters' sealed source and device evaluation process, 20 and that's being actively worked between Don and his people 21 and the organization of Agreement States at this point in 22 time.
23 So with that, I'll close.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
25 Would you care to comment on any of the issues ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
-(202) 842-0034
l.
67 f 1 that were brought up by the Agreement State representatives 2 in their briefing?
3 MR. THOMPSON: We'll probably address those. I l 4 will start, I think, quite frankly, with the DOE one. I l
5 think that's one that the Commission is well aware of, that 6 we do intend to include the Agreement State associated with 7 each of the pilot programs and incorporate that. There are 8 very important issues to the states, very important issues 9 to NRC, and we certainly intend to address those with the 10 Commission and put the states' positions forward on that, 11 and we'll certainly work with the Organization of Agreement 1 l
12 States on various issues in addressing their views in a 13 general context and in meetings so that the Commission has 14 the full -- as well as DOE and the Congress, because I think l
15 this will be an issue that will obviously go before the 16 Congress, and those issues are ones which will be addressed.
17 If you need some more, we'll ask --
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And on the communications 19 issues?
20 MR. THOMPSON: I'll let -- 4 21 MR. BANGART: This is a subject that there's been 22 ongoing discussions between ourselves and OAS. As a matter 23 of fact, it was a topic at the last annual meeting in Los 24 Angeles. We did commit to try to reach some middle ground 25 on sharing information. Our office and Roland Fletcher and l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
68 1 OAS were working together on providing written guidance to -
2 all Agreement States on where these lines should or 3 shouldn't be drawn in terms of sharing information, and I 4 think your suggestions tc 4 e further discussions with OI 5 and Office of Public Affairs will be a valuable contribution 6 to this ongoing dialogu_.
7 MR. THOMPSON: In both of those, obviously we're 8 looking right now with our public information approach on 9 what the right time to put in information, and I think 10 that's a very valuable comment that we received.
11 With respect to the investigation activities, 12 those, as you are certainly well aware of, it's a process.
13 This agency had some difficulty getting the right balance 14 between not interfering in an investigative matter as well 15 as being part of it. I have talked with Guy Caputo, and I 16 think he will certainly be prepared to discuss with the 17 states.
18 I think, though, the fundamental issue is an 19 investigator's call, and it's consistent with all of our 20 federal investigative aspects. It's not to say that we n
21 don't trust the states, it's not to say that OI doesn't 22 trust the NRC staff, or like the grand jury, you know, and 23 those things have a process of their own.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think the important point is 25 just to have, as Mr. Bangart has already indicated, to have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
69
2 MR. THOMPSON: And we'll certainly do that.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- and have these discussions 14 so that there is clarity.
5 MR. THOMPSON: I'm not sure everybody will be 6 happy, but I mean, we need to understand --
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No. Well, happiness is what we 8 all strive for, --
9 MR. THOMPSON: Right.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- clarity is what we must 11 achieve.
12 MR. THOMPSON: Right.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner? That was good, 14 huh?
15 [ Laughter.)
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS: That was good. I won't say 17 anything. .
1 18 MR. THOMPSON: And the winner of the bake-off 19 contest is --
20 (Laughter.]
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I would like to thank 22 each of you for the information that you provided in today's 23 briefing. Mr. Fletcher, the Commission would like to thank 24 'you and your colleagues from the executive committee of the 25 Organization of Agreement States for your excellent summary ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)' 842-0034
70 1 of the views. Additionally, let me thank the NRC staff for -
2 your presentation. Very useful; always interesting.
3 We're adjourned.
4 (Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the public meeting was 5 concluded.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting of the'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING BY ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES AND STATUS OF IMPEP PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, March 31, 1998 was held as herein appears, is-a true and accurate record of the meeting,-and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court.
reporting company Transcriber: bk (AM/_Igl, g\ r- y Reporter: Mark Mahonev
(
4 S
t c
E t i
y v
e
V i
t l c E" A ihr-a*"' I E C,"*' T O Dtyi l
ha' l
"" g C + il ni s b
r" s
a n E i t
o n a o p M '*'
n*
a '*
i f P l u s gR e
s t
S" e S e R te t
e i
r8 R t r i o S c de e e
t S
a B9 9 E t a t r
n n a t t t n
s n1 P o i C ma E tn i
m e m
~
(
S t
e u
a, i
o h E O DC o
b y
m o
Cer e e _
T 4C m
S
,m s c d e ehg A A s
s r gR t n v tA O
f o
n i Ai hnN r /
e s if tu ofo ma i
io aC r Le g T S EA P c
e n o
C mM S i n4 o
t a hg t E x
e i
t a
z o1 T mi r s h i n
C3 N o r fv e InO T a g
r C E :
O hh CC rr i i aa
,t R
N Mi E
s p
c o
rs ea T hP t
c en E y r
l i Fl GQ l
i u R a m
dt n r Gi Pr A
e l ab oo RR
R land G. Fletcher, Ch fr Stan Marshril, Cheir-Elect
, Robert Quillin, Past Chair Richard Ratliff, Secretary OA S omorAgr som
+ AGREEMENT STATE PERSPECTIVES +
Presented by: The OAS Executive Committee i
I 1
OAS/NRC COMMISSION BRIEFING 31 M rch 1998 CREETINGS AND INTRODUCTION: R. FLETCHER DISCUSSION TOPICS
+ IMPROVING COOPERATION, COMMUNICATION, INFORMATION SHARING AND PROFESSIONAL COURTESY BETWEEN REGULATORY PARTNERS R. FLETCHER
+ REGULATION REQUIREMENTS OF DOE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR ACTIVITIES (via telephone bridge) R. QUILLIN l
+ ROLE OF STATES, GENERALLY, AND AGREEMENT STATES SPECIFICALLY IN THE OVERSIGHT OF DOE S. MARSHALL
]
+ AGREEMENT STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED SITES FORMERLY LICENSED BY NRC/AEC R. RATLIFF
+ POTENTIAL FUTURE DISCUSSION TOPICS R. FLETCHER
+ CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION AND STAFF INVITATION TO ANNUAL MEETING R. FLETCHER
Roland G. Fletcher, Chair Stan Marshrll, Canir-Elect Robert Quillin, Past Chair Richard Ratliff., Secretary .
OA 3
% o
% sm.,
INFORMATION~ SHARING BETWEEN THE USNRC & AGREEMENT STATES Presented by:
Roland G. Fletcher - Maryland COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES Early Agreement State Notification Strict Information Control Justified (?) Need for Investigation Integrity Allegations COMMUNICATIONS ON INSPECTION / ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES Agreement State Guidelines from State Officials Pre-Decision Media Involvement l
l . COMMUNICATIONS ON SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH Et SAFETY State Input Vital Information Control, A Must Wait for State to Lead
i.
o a_
c a _
s s
s o
S H )
YI R C ROO A OTT R T) C T AKA N.
I TRT O C
I UANB GT n
H HOU RRCS i
l l
i u
Qod r a t
e ro bl oo RC
S 2- .
Q R-C R
N
/
S A
O
)
I H
N N A O S GTA E R G HN
) O N I
I A NTI I UAC S Z I
A NO N I
I AIS EG S ORI
)
I OM
9 d-T M
a l u !
O i
- A N O Z
-rO H
M M
- H Z -
H Z -
Z H C/3 y O
4 n Z-
- ~m l
l i
4-Q R
C R
N
/
S A
O
)
R I J
O T nTC A .
O V
) A I
R R Y.
FT E T.
ON GT TONA PCOS H E T R
E C
E
. 5 Q
R C
R N
) /
S A
I O E
E G S A US R H E I U RTO
. I. C T I AI N I CE CA N RF E E H E MOB M )I S OFA I COI
6-Q R
C R
N
/
S A
O S
)
I R LST N OEI T I
RTEN E T GI L O
O N N TC
) O CK NE I
I T EO NBOI I
)
1 EUOWO R ST RBEYN UURAE C S A )1 B y
7-Q R
- C R
N
/
S A
S O E D GGN NAA I
S V S N I
H EO CMT H G S E
TNT R N I I I
H HI S RTS E ASA O SSWD HN I
e 5
i W
s
'E O
m 5 L
%rW m
1 W H f)3 4D
+ M w4
8 h
e i
W a
E O
p O
co H
&O k-
=4
@QS .
,il
! 1 l
s a m h e g a s g S v e r g
p u E i t
l g o i
h o r
T a n r s h A m P n t o
i e g T t n e i t
t e
S l aE a t a a m e
l TE rO h
c S t
r e NO fo D r .
f d d C o a ED s e n
n a R s s n a
MF ot h s N l e t e h EO i t f ao e 0 v e d a t a
E T r v 2 l n y es i t
RH dn i
o c
e d
n s
u a
m t
i n
G AIG o si ns j
b a i t
u m.
S os o s r a
h l
t r
o ci DR r m l
a m a
v a e
p NE el n o
r h t h p
o AV h t na g _
i o c i
oo t w s _
Y,O di t i
a n P r
e i
l b u o
LE c u L H nd aar g e n p d n
A T i n t a e e e xt v t i
r R ee l o S e t a m EN I l
ph t v
e t
n p
x t
S e r
N ,
md y e e e t
a EY on m f o
r GLL co b s e s u
s e v
Ey e n Obe e S,A r r a e a !
i c g h S EC Dxe n A e o E .
I e
y t n
C Y TF el t s
0 y dei o R AI h p 3 n N --
TC t f
ooc m
i s
ns
. n o
a gi n s t
e S PE on m e n h
?
S F S n co t c e l a r
t N
oe ni t a v l
at d O
ih t
at ia p aE hc E n O gt hO a I S iozf n er m sD sO s T U
wrp I
m E t as i
C e eD e L L iev oe t at h t
as t a
O r s rt R t i t i
t O R Pu Gi n N Sw St h S S l ,l?l
~
R O S F
E C Y T R T
I I
S N I
L I
B F DC F X TA I
S T N AY F O NB I F P MD I
L S A F T s
e E T S A u R N N R i s
s F O F D g n
T A C C I R i d
T YI A s n u
S LI Y H t n F s C e e n T
N AR o
I t
I m a i I
R e r
t t u
F T E i S l N M u q
t n o M F e e S F R y R m S F TO r o l a e e
A OF I
R P t s g r C i e g R G .H L A N A 1 2
3 4
a-E C
N A )P R ME O RP T S OM CM EA FI RR R(
EM I
G 8
AE _
AO I
1 3
GT RR H NA EP C AT TN R S B.F AO A MIT M LO DA DE EU RCI TL AA AF HF RV CO GE I R
E T
N I
1 N
O I
a T s A g U i n
L d A n V i F
E m E a r
C g N o r
A P M l s
R a O
i r e F e c t
a n R e
_ E s M i r
e P t n t e p S e a x L m S t
E A
I h
s t
n m a
R i l
p e s r
- E m s e
g o
T)P m o
e e n r AE P c r i l
g MP A c
A e
m P
E DM P d i
T P E(I E n a t M TM A
P M n o
r o
p I
/
s RA I i g e n o
GR W 7 e R i s
E TOG E 9
9 R s P u Cu E l c
NR IP I
V 1
Y Ra t P n o
R F NS t
M C E I s,,}/. V _
~
O e e e
- _
fi % _
N O
I T d A e U l v
o L a n r A
V o p
d i
g m e E e I
s t
e E R t r
l p
C C o p m N R e o A y N R C M c S t
e s R sl r o i
S t a w e
O oP M S i v
F t a y t e
R i ct N n e R E ndl i
P s m e P
i iIonb i S e e t a
S s e L
i vc epa t Ot a t r
g S t
A I
S e n Ramo m mS A t
n T d ot r n e R N 6 rC tef e l
a m E
T) E 5 ofd l e s t m i n e e
P er pne F AE M H iP ve na mpr a e P r
g
.M P S t
c nc y oig E A DM I e r oa ciac t P 1 L u M E(I grd 1 P imq D n Pa an I d TM A M t nod me i i
n 5 ,
f o a n
RA O s GR EG C
C mA eC e nw goe a4 r
Tef r c i e s s
e n
l a
n o
a vf l
TO A ANN uOO i
l e
i g
NR IP 7
9 n
a n n m R e
9 1 M- - A -
i T 2 s,,}/. Y
~ .
F e e e e
[
L
N O
I T
A m a
U r g
L o A
V P r
E y '
s E
t C
fe R C a N S N A d n
ht M a i
w R ht y O l t F a e
t n
i l
i R H e b E c m i
t a
P i l
e v p S b u o m L P r
p o A
I t m C R c I s e
E T)P t
o r d s
'ma e r P e AE N g
MP t o
y t
P r
o l b
e DM u i E( I i l
t B,e t e e a t
talbp i
TM A
b e et At a at uuq u a Si amo t
RA s qqe t
n pC GR e ed e mt E
TO G S 'ma dd a n moo G rAAI g eCN e
N.
IPR N o r g
I r D P - - - A - -
}/ .
N I
~
F e e
- p { '%
L N OAT O TNR I I
T SFO 9 9
6 3
6 6
2 1 4 9
1 9
2 0
A YE P 1 2 1 1 1 U 7 AU DSR E _
L 9 S 9
A 1 I _
V E Y W F T E s r s r s r
s r
s r s r s r
E F XI a e
a e
a e
a e
a e
a e e a
C L EV y y y y y y y N A NE 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 A H R M T S e e e e e e R S T l l l l l l O R L b i
b i
b i
b i
b i
b i
F I F U t
a p
t a
t a
t a
t a
t a
R S S p p p p e
p E D E G m o
m o
m o
m o
m o
t a
m o
P E R N C C C C C u C S T I D
q e
L C N e e
e e
e d e A U I t
a t
a t
a t
a t
a A t a
I D F u u u u u u R N q
e q
e q
e q
e q
e q
e E O d d d d d d T)P C A A A A A A AE S MP W W E DM E E T 6
9 6
9 6
9 7 7 7 7 E(I I 9 9 9 9
/ /
I V VA 0 0
/
2 / /
3
/
3
/
3 TM 1
TOG E P
T A a a e i V
NR IP M I S T n a
i n
r e
s s i p
p d o
a I
i s
/ i s o e s s r n o
o N i u
f n i s o i n
}/ i i -
., O l n s l
o g l
~ o a e i e l I
L C T M C R I
~
G p{% E R
l lll tl l l ll
L N OA T O
I TN RI T SFO 2 0
3 1
5 6 5 5 2 A 7 YE P 1 2 1 9 9 8 _
U 9 AU DSR E _
9 L 1 S
I A Y V F E F W s s E T E r r r a
s r r s r a
L XI a a e a a e C A EV e y
e y y e y
e y y N H NE R
2 4 1 4 4 1 A D M N R O S
T e e e O C L l
b s l b
l b s F E U i
t a
d e -
i t
i t
d e
R S S S p e Nnleb t e
a p
a p e Ntnl e
E E R G t e m m m eb D
t P N a u o u mi t o o t
umi E I q C Be a C C Be vp a t
S T D e e vp L N d e t
a u rpo om e e
t e
a om A C I A t a t a
t a u rpo I U F' u q
qmC eI u
q u
q qmC eI R D e d e e d E
T)P N d
A A d A
d A
A O
AE C MP S W DM W EE T 7 7 7 7 7 7 E (I E I
VA 9
/
4 9
/
6
/
9 7
9
/
8 9
/
8 9
/
9 TM A
I V
ED R
RA E R
GR E EG TO P E T e r
A o i NR IP P T I
I I
s i
c x
h s
p a a M S
/ n o
a x
e m
d a
k s
a
,1 I
N i g e M a v r O H e b
/ I e T w N e G R e w N
~
E N e N
- {% R
N O
I T
A U d L n A d a V n a t e
E e a
u E t a q e
C u q d N e A A S d h9 8
M e E A t R
t a T ht oY O u A o B F F
q e 7 T B dei n S d6 9 S R N T d t
aw E O A9Y N e Re P I dYF E t
a yv i S G t eFd R l t e L E ad e Re we M y nR e
A R E l t r r I ywi E n r o R C l e v R e r uF E R t nvie G r C d N e eR u e T )P r A t
AE F rR uI V F C
s ol Nud MP O CI I
d O t e s e eh DM S sd n n na S t a t a c E(I U T
oa I U S t S S 6 TM A A iIg I e s I T
A t
n e e t
n ;e RA T S
Rnn oo T mlb el GR Cgg ii S ei et mib E G T r et 1 O N Re e T gp a e r pa NR E N RR N E Amo gm IP R l
l R 1 Ao R A - -
R 2C 8C s }/ U U
. C e C e e s,i ,**+
N -
O I
T A
U L w A
V i e d e
v w d E e e e e
E E R i v N C R e e -
N U t
R y s
i S- e t A A S n
t i r ,
M A O i
S- o t r
o R E n i
r p m
f P O M o O e R e
F E s f z R C y a o S i
s t f
E N D s y S a a r
P A 4 a E h
p D S D N m
M 0 m g .
L 1 I E n R
0 L A
I O n 8 E a i
i t
m i 1 d r _
R E
F R
ht i i n M I
n a Wr ht T r T )P E W o o t .
AE P h s
i E m F g _
MP S t
r W V e n i s
S o p d O M o r DM E e R i e E(I e u v t
N P a R s P S r O TM A
I L
E f
o I
s s
M I
O t
s e
t n
RA M %
t r O d
n u
q e
GR 0 o T a e m E
TO G I T 8 p
e S S S e g
T e R S a NR IP R u s l l
N O M m
a e
n a
s O
P I A I T N T M ss,}/. E C R e e A e e e f,i \~
0
, 4 2
+
0
+ I 2 2
q '
=.
~ u <
0
. i 0
S -
E'
< - ~
2 D "
O I
~
jI s 0 8
1 R -
- E P
i md g j 0 6
n 1 E " u s
u M
I -
g '
- - l u
m 0
u 4 T
~
~ 1 sy
" ~ -
E' u s .
a E ~
8' ]
l
~ " u n ~ D C97 -
f
" a m ~" 0 o
>9 l - " .
2 r NYF "I u 1 e
" b s
l A &
l m u
U6
+
0 N Y' g g S9Y 0
. l " ,
"' " 1 l -
SF "'
+
m l
I >
e
^"
T 0
x T ^ .
' L. " "g1 I 8
R
+
~
O '
v P
~
T E 0 I 6 E
I .* -
R x .
~ - -
P ~ -
d 1 "
,I 0 4
E .
~
m" s.
P
- 4
~ - .
M N
e.
-r'
' ,' ,. " 1
,,I 0 I
- +
4 -
J 2
~ + - .
v -
4 1 -
Y v .
s f L. " L sI 0
~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ -
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 C D A l A l i
Y E D A A N S O V L l l
X MH V E N N G GE I G K N M L C T M C I G
I i G T N N N N E
R R E E R R e9.5a'i3)u " - B
N O
I T
A U
L A
V-E E
C E N C A N M E R I R t y
O E i
l F P i
b R X i x
E E e _
P l F
S M t A
L t d h s -
A R n e g a e
I e t i s r R G n i n r O o c e e A E
i f
m v R
i f
T )P t
a u e O m s P a AE l
m S p d r t n
P r g MP E i f
n s
e c I m e n
e o
r e
m DM P r s P e o t E (I M I C u o
dr a
h g
/
s e s o v
TM A
/
S s s
e R s
e d n
i H
e u s
e c
r p
RA N i
s t m
n a / I c GR O e v
d e S t
n o e a r
I g
EG 1 O I
S i t
t e r e
i t i v P n U c g a t i o
NR d i
e d h b s o g IP L f u g o n o C f i r e n N E B H P S G O
~ ,, }I. O
~
~
. C e e e e e e e p{%