ML22041A455

M220208: Transcript - Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program

ML22041A455
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/08/2022
From:	NRC/SECY/CRS, NRC/SECY/OPS, NRC/SECY/RAS
To:
References
Download: ML22041A455 (55)

Text

1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+++++

MEETING WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES (OAS)

AND THE CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS (CRCPD)

+++++

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022

+++++

The Commission met via Videoconference, Christopher T.

Hanson, Chairman, presiding.

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chairman JEFF BARAN, Commissioner DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:

ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, Secretary of the Commission MARIAN ZOBLER, General Counsel

2 CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS (CRCPD):

ANGELA LEEK, Chairperson (IA)

KIM STEVES, Past Chair (KS)

PATRICK MULLIGAN, Chair Elect (NJ)

ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES (OAS):

AUGUSTINUS (AUGGIE) ONG, Chairperson (NH)

DAVID CROWLEY, Past Chair (NC)

STEVE SEEGER, Chair Elect (TN)

3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 10:01 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Good morning, everyone. I 4 convene the Commission's public meeting with the Organization of Agreement 5 States, or OAS, and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, 6 also known as CRCPD.

7 In this meeting we'll hear from these two organizations on 8 their views on the materials policy and regulatory issues that are of interest to 9 them and to the states.

10 We always welcome an opportunity to meet publicly with our 11 state partners. As my colleagues have noted again and again in recent 12 Commission meetings, nuclear safety is a team sport and certainly our 13 partners in OAS and CRCPD are an integral part of the team particularly when 14 it comes to the Nuclear Materials Program. We'll cover those and a lot of 15 other issues this morning.

16 And I'd like to just note what a pleasure it was to join my 17 colleague Commissioner Wright at the OAS meeting in Philadelphia this past 18 August and I saw firsthand the important relationship that exists between the 19 NRC and the states. And even in these trying times coping with the pandemic 20 close coordination, collaboration, and communication among our regulatory 21 partners to assure safe and secure issues of radioactive materials nationwide 22 as we'll hear about today has been exceedingly evident and I look forward to 23 our discussion.

24 Before we start I'll ask my colleagues if they have any 25 remarks they'd like to make.

26 (No audible response.)

4 1 CHAIRMAN HANSON: No? Okay. With that we'll 2 proceed in the order that's listed on the public meeting announcement, and 3 we'll begin with Ms. Angela Leek from the Iowa Department of Public Health.

4 Ms. Leek?

5 MS. LEEK: Great. Thank you so much, Chairman 6 Hanson, and thank you, Commissioners, for inviting us today. On behalf of 7 both the CRCPD and the OAS I just want to open our presentation here and 8 thank you for the opportunity to speak with you on behalf of all of our interests 9 shared across the National Materials Program.

10 The states' partnership with the NRC and the National 11 Materials Program is a critical piece to the effectiveness of our shared 12 missions of protecting the public, workers, and the environment across the 13 many aspects of radioactive material in the nation.

14 Next slide, please? Oh, we are on the correct slide.

15 Please stay there.

16 The CRCPD and the OAS share common priorities in 17 radiation protection and we work collaboratively to promote coordinated 18 messages and we try to reflect each organization's perspective in a shared 19 platform. And you will see that today. Our coordinated discussion of topics 20 is an example of these efforts, and so as they share the discussions of these 21 topics from both the CRCPD and OAS it will be presented by board members 22 and board leadership from each organization, but as a combined presentation 23 style.

24 Today you're going to hear from the chair, the past chair, 25 and the chair-elect from each organization, and so as you introduced, I am 26 Angela Leek, the chairperson for CRCPD. And I'm joined by Kim Steves,

5 1 who's our past chair from Kansas, and Pat Mulligan from New Jersey, who is 2 our chair-elect. And from OAS we have Auggie Ong, who is their current 3 chairperson from New Hampshire; David Crowley, who is their past chair from 4 North Carolina; and Steve Seeger, who's the chair-elect from Tennessee.

5 Each of us will introduce ourselves as we transition through the slides as well.

6 Next slide, please? I'm going to start our first discussion 7 with the priority area that we have regarding our health physics workforce.

8 Again I'm Angela Leek. I serve as the Radiation Control Program director for 9 the State of Iowa and I'm the current chairperson for CRCPD, and I want to 10 talk about our HP resources and the technical resources that are critical to our 11 ability to protect our public and to maintain our program in each of our states 12 as well as across the National Materials Program.

13 Across the radiation protection community all of the 14 organizations in the federal entities as well as the health physics society and 15 other professional organizations are recognizing acutely that there's going to 16 be a significant percentage of our technical personnel assets that are eligible 17 to retire, and this is currently outpacing the number of individuals that are 18 entering the profession. This is in part caused from a smaller number of 19 available nuclear engineering and health physics programs, but also coupled 20 with reduced student enrollment.

21 And this contributes to a trend toward a smaller and less 22 experienced cadré of radiation protection personnel that will be available to fill 23 critical roles across the entire radiation protection community and undeniably 24 the work that the National Materials Program does to ensure protection of use 25 of the material is one of those critical areas that will be impacted.

26 The NRC for many years has supported efforts to foster

6 1 educational opportunities and early career placement through the University 2 Grant and Student Fellowship Program. More recently the NRC has worked 3 to expand eligibility in this program to include health physics in addition to 4 nuclear engineering and also allowing students to meet their service 5 commitment either through state or NRC employment. We appreciate the 6 efforts of the NRC to work on this and we are partnering with the NRC to try 7 to manage some of the interim issues while we work to increase the HP 8 workforce through this important work.

9 Next slide, please? Recognizing the fact that we'll be 10 competing for and recruiting from the same and increasingly limited pool of 11 technical resources, the NRC and the CRCPD in conjunction with the OAS, 12 and hopefully the Health Physic Society as well, are collaborating through 13 organizing a work group under CRCPD's jurisdiction and this newly 14 established work group will be called the Health Physics Workforce 15 Development and Coordination Committee.

16 This is going to be chaired by a CRCPD member, but also 17 co-chaired by an NRC staff person. And we hope to recruit members to help 18 us work through these issues with two major priorities: We want to identify 19 opportunities for mentoring and training staff across the states and the NRC 20 and try to document pathways to more easily integrate and utilize resources 21 from other states, from the NRC, and across all of our jurisdictional 22 boundaries, both to help grow the expertise of our staff, leverage specific 23 centers of expertise, and also to help us out if we find ourselves in a position 24 where staffing of critical assets is reduced.

25 Next slide, please? These priorities are outlined in 26 charges, and so our work groups come together with charges. And we've

7 1 started with these four to try to develop a process for sharing experienced staff 2 in a resource-deficient environment, try to work through some of the legal 3 connectivity agreements, and set up some streamlined -- maybe kind of in the 4 same vein as a reciprocity type of a condition.

5 We also want to facilitate growth opportunities for health 6 physics skills and identify educational opportunities where maybe staff can go 7 and visit another radiological program or the NRC to learn some of the skills 8 that might be needed for some of the specialized type of licensing and 9 inspections that we do.

10 We also want to identify any issues that might arise from 11 credentialing or reciprocity and try to identify mechanisms that might be used 12 to advertise for opportunities and really outline where those resources can be 13 most effectively shared. And we want to maintain an awareness of these 14 resources across the state, local, and federal programs that are available to 15 leverage this.

16 For example, a group will work to identify ways to catalog 17 where there are centers of excellence, and that's one of the programs that the 18 OAS is working on identifying across the National Materials Program. And if 19 we can catalog and provide a road map for where these exist and how others 20 who might be outside of that jurisdiction can tap into those resources we hope 21 that will help to foster a larger community of shared assets as well as provide 22 information for newer radiation control program directors or individuals 23 entering the workforce here in our National Materials Program who might not 24 be as connected with the existing resources or individuals who might know 25 how to tap into these resources.

26 It should be recognized though that the National Materials

8 1 Program is already really good at leveraging our assets and sharing across 2 our partnership, but really it is important that as we bring new people in to the 3 positions that we're sharing this knowledge and making it easy for them to 4 integrate in with our existing community.

5 We are appreciative of the NRC's ongoing commitment to 6 support training in an inclusive national materials approach as has been done 7 for the decades and we appreciate that moving forward. And we also look 8 forward to exploring how these new initiatives and these work group activities 9 can help to proactively address the looming shift in the technical radiation 10 world.

11 As this workforce committee kicks of I look forward to 12 sharing some successes with you next time we meet and appreciate the 13 ongoing commitment and support and coordination from the NRC.

14 Next slide? Next up is going to be Auggie Ong from the 15 OAS.

16 So I'll turn this over to you, Auggie.

17 MR. ONG: Thank you very much, Angela.

18 And good morning, Commissioners, and thank you for the 19 opportunity that you have provided our organization, and especially the 20 Organization of Agreement States, too, to have this opportunity to provide you 21 with the updates that -- the ongoing coordination between the NRC working 22 groups and our own organization, the OAS.

23 So that being said, just to remind everybody that the 24 progress report that I'm going to provide the update to the Commissioners and 25 to the attendees is that this is now Phase 3 of a multi-year project. And we 26 already completed Phase 1 under Aaron McGraw and also partially Phase 2.

9 1 So at the completion of the Phase 2 we have moved onto more critical 2 changes under the Phase 3 project. That being said, this project is now 3 headed by Leira Cuadrado, who is senior project manager from the Materials 4 Safety and Tribal Liaison Branch within the NRC organization.

5 So the whole purpose of the Phase 3 is concentrating on 6 revising and taking a look at all the inspection reports, inspection protocols 7 that are used by both NRC inspectors and also by our own OAS materials 8 programs where we have commonality in terms of inspecting the various types 9 of license and license activities. So that being said, under Phase 3 then we 10 are now concentrating on what are those critical activities that would give rise 11 to a greater risk of use of radioactive material and the security of those 12 radioactive materials and sources.

13 So that being said, then that's the whole purpose of revising 14 the inspection protocols and that is to really concentrate on the riskiest 15 activities and take a look at how well the licensees are managing the use of 16 that -- the radioactive materials and how risky it is for both the users and the 17 general public and also the security of sources whereby it's more paramount 18 now than ever before. So that being said, all the IPs that we have now -- are 19 revising is concentrating on those riskiest elements, riskiest activities. And 20 any of these lesser risky activities would be delegated to the appendix which 21 I will describe a little bit more later.

22 So the purpose is really finding out whether in fact 23 inspections are doing what it's need to be done; that is, to ensure the safety 24 and the safe use of radioactive materials, safety for both users and also the 25 general public, and also the security of the materials. And we are now using 26 our past experiences with the inspections that are being collated between the

10 1 NRC inspection groups and also the OAS materials inspection groups 2 whereby can we learn from what we have done in the past? Can we do 3 anything better moving forward? And finally, then some of the issues dealing 4 with the safety will certainly be much more relevant now going forward under 5 the National Materials Program.

6 Next slide, please? So as I mentioned before, the whole 7 purpose of the inspection program, inspection protocols that are now being 8 revised is to identify those elements that are of risk, risky activities, and making 9 sure that these risky activities would be correctly identified thereby to help 10 inspectors to concentrate on areas that are more important and spend less 11 time that are of activities that are somewhat insignificant, but not having any 12 greater impact in terms of protecting the users, protecting the general public, 13 and security of the materials.

14 So it is important then to have that -- of those activities are 15 correctly identified that are now be able to provide the necessary inspection 16 protocols to both the NRC inspectors and to the Agreement State inspectors 17 so that then there will be a commonality in terms of -- regardless of various 18 states doing the inspections or NRC doing inspections. There will be a 19 commonality in terms of performance and expectations of the results of the 20 inspections and thereby having the same kind of ability to evaluate are we 21 working together effectively?

22 Are we able to have the commonality between both NRC 23 inspectors and the Agreement State inspectors thereby providing that 24 confidence that is needed to the NRC management and also to the Agreement 25 State management that in fact yes, we are able to capture the riskiest 26 activities, we're able to identify those activities that would be the most critical

11 1 aspects of the inspection and those are covered so that then that provides us 2 enough confidence that moving forward inspections are done correctly and 3 any of the issues are correctly identified thereby providing the necessary 4 evaluation that yes, the National Materials Program does provide enough of 5 the inspection protocols, the commonality between the NRC groups and the 6 agreement groups thereby everybody's working together as a team?

7 Next slide, please? So as an example, on this slide some 8 of the inspection protocols that have now been revised. All right. As you 9 can see they're dealing with the various types of uses of radioactive materials 10 and sources. And of course this is only partial, but this is the completion of 11 part of the Phase 3 whereby these inspection protocols have now been 12 revised and the riskiest activities have been correctly identified. The less 13 risky activity have been delegated to the appendix whereby that would help 14 the inspectors, both NRC inspectors and the Agreement State inspectors, that 15 the activities that inspector ought to be able to spend more time in order to 16 make sure those riskiest activities are correctly identified and correctly 17 inspected.

18 And any of the lesser activities would then still be visit if 19 there is -- somewhere there is a question as to whether in fact there are any 20 issues dealing with the management of the activities or somehow the failure 21 of one critical issue thereby leading to -- leading the inspector to -- well, if 22 there's a safety issue involved, let's take a look at the other activities that may 23 then have some relevance or some significance to the overall inspection of 24 the entire licensee.

25 So that being said, these inspection program have been, like 26 I said, revised and now have been submitted to the Agreement State folks to

12 1 make comments, make any additional changes or recommendations whereby 2 those comments and recommendation would be brought back to the working 3 group to revisit, to consider seriously, and to revisit if any change is necessary 4 to finalize the inspection program and the inspection procedures.

5 Next slide, please? So the whole purpose of the updates 6 is to provide the NRC Commissioners and the management that we are 7 working together as a team, both NRC partners with OAS working groups.

8 We are working together. In fact, to demonstrate in fact there is coordination, 9 there's communication, there's back and forth that we -- that NRC is 10 considering the OAS comments seriously and the same thing with the OAS 11 whereby OAS is still relying on the NRC to provide the necessary leadership 12 so that then we could work as partners together. So that is important.

13 And finally, of course then the -- we are under the discussion 14 how -- well, if the comments have been considered seriously and changes are 15 made to the draft of the inspection protocols, what would be the time frame 16 whereby these IPs would now be finalized, then promulgated to both NRC 17 program and also to the OAS Materials Program whereby now the inspectors, 18 both newer inspectors with less experience and the more seasoned 19 inspectors, both within the NRC and also the Agreement States, where they 20 will be able to find true value to the revisions that are made to the inspection 21 protocols. So that is under discussion right now. And there is some time 22 frame that's already been considered.

23 Next slide, please? So under the National Materials 24 Program, as you know then we are now -- have completed the charter -- not 25 completed -- finalized yet, but certainly the charter that to visit the future of the 26 National Materials Program. Because obviously the NRC's sphere of control

13 1 is getting smaller, and that's obvious. And also the OAS still has the bulk of 2 the licenses that are various types, same as NRC, but now with the greater 3 control overseeing the activities of radioactive materials in this country we are 4 now approaching something like more 40, if not more, in the near future 5 whereby the sphere of NRC is getting smaller and OAS is getting larger.

6 So that being said, then what the National Materials 7 Program would look like 5, 10, 20 years from now? So that being said, then 8 with the formation of this working group, both with the active participation of 9 NRC partners and also Agreement State representatives on the same working 10 group to visit this issue, what are we going to -- what do we want from the 11 National Materials Program? How are we going to visit the -- in terms of 12 leadership, training, the various types of, how should I say, the coordination 13 that's necessary in order to makes sure it's still a cohesive program for the 14 next 5, 10, 20 years from now?

15 So that being said, again I'm glad very much that NRC has 16 reached out to OAS and OAS is very, very appreciative that in fact that kind 17 of coordination now exists whereby now we have a working team, a very 18 effective team under the leadership of Huda Akhavannik, if I may pronounce 19 your name correctly, have enact with the NRC intergovernmental liaison 20 person and also project manager under NMSS and NIST Programs.

21 So that being said, there are more than 20 folks that are now working on the 22 National Materials Program to visit what the future of NMP is going to look like.

23 So next slide, please? Well, thank you very much, 24 Commissioners, for your attention and for the other attendees attending this 25 portion of the presentation. And may I introduce Kim Steves, who is from 26 Kansas, and she will provide you with the latest updates and also the

14 1 discussion on waste monitoring, source recovery, and disposal. Thank you 2 very much for your attention.

3 MS. STEVES: Okay. Thank you, Auggie. As he said, 4 my name is Kim Steves and I am the director of the Radiation Control Program 5 for the State of Kansas. Proud to say we have been an Agreement State 6 since 1965. And I'm also the past chair of the CRCPD board of directors.

7 I'm talking today about unwanted radioactive materials, 8 which is an ongoing challenge for our states. There are many varied waste 9 issues with which our states are dealing on a routine basis. Some examples 10 of this are unwanted and abandoned sources, medical waste where patients 11 go home after nuclear medicine treatments, naturally-occurring radioactive 12 material or technologically-enhanced naturally-occurring radioactive material, 13 NORM or TENORM, and foreign-origin radioactive material.

14 Our states deal with many varied issues associated with 15 disposal of unwanted radioactive material including these materials showing 16 up in landfills or at scrap yards and challenges finding places where it can be 17 disposed and money to pay for the disposal. Disposal of this radioactive 18 material is sometimes addressed inconsistently across our states.

19 So my purpose in discussing this topic is not anticipation 20 that we can solve the challenges today, but rather to raise awareness as it an 21 issue that the state radiation control programs are dealing with on a daily basis 22 and to inform you of the activities being accomplished by the CRCPD in this 23 area.

24 Next slide? So one challenge is landfills and recycling 25 facilities. States find that NORM and TENORM, medical waste, and 26 sometimes licensed material, which could be lost or stolen, is showing up at

15 1 landfills and recycling facilities. With regards to NORM and TENORM and 2 medical waste different states have different laws with regards to disposal of 3 radioactive material at waste -- in waste at landfills and states are often not 4 consistent in how waste issues are addressed or who the regulatory authority 5 within the state is. For landfills it's typically not the National Materials 6 Program which has oversight. Landfills also have differing capabilities 7 to detect and identify radioactive material. Some can detect, as in yes or no 8 there is radioactive material, and fewer can identify a specific radio isotope 9 such as iodine-131. Our states are regularly receiving phone calls and 10 requests for assistance from landfills and recycling facilities about unwanted 11 radioactive material and what to do with it.

12 Naturally-occurring radioactive material and especially 13 TENORM are often the culprit found at landfills and recycling facilities.

14 Transportation of NORM and TENORM waste occurs between states, but 15 states may handle it differently. Though we understand that TENORM is not 16 a focus of concern for the NRC, it is an issue of significant interest across the 17 states and especially those with oil and gas industries.

18 Some of the issues our states are dealing with pertaining to 19 TENORM waste are the same that we address for other types of regulated 20 radioactive materials: Harmonizing regulations to the extent possible, 21 communications with members of the public, ownership and financial 22 assurance, clean up of legacy sites, and disposal.

23 Next slide, please? The CRCPD has been working to 24 assist states with issues associated with the disposal of sealed sources that 25 can be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste. In the 2007-2008 time 26 frame we did a pilot project in Florida which was very successful.

16 1 Approximately 2,500 sources were disposed.

2 One important lesson learned from that was that the state 3 financial services were very cumbersome and each state would do contracts 4 differently. That is why we contract disposal with licensed waste brokers 5 through the CRCPD specifically now.

6 And issue in 2008 was the closure of the Barnwell to out of 7 compact low-level radioactive waste. This shut down disposal pathways for 8 more than four years until the opening of the Waste Control Specialists low-9 level radioactive waste facility in 2012. This opened up a new pathway for 10 disposal to all states and territories.

11 Another item which helps in our success on this issue is the 12 revision of NRC's Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and 13 Encapsulation from 2015. This allows the low-level radioactive waste sites 14 to be able to accept higher activity packages for disposal up to the Class C 15 limits with acceptable justification, which helped us to manage the process.

16 All these activities evolved into the SCATR Program with 17 CRCPD, which I will discuss further in an upcoming slide.

18 Next slide? The disposal of higher levels of radioactive 19 material is an ongoing challenge because of the limited places that will accept 20 it and the high cost. In the next slides I'm going to briefly mention the two 21 programs in which the CRCPD participates to provide support to states:

22 SCATR and the Orphan State Recovery Project, OSRP.

23 In addition it's important to mention a white paper by the 24 CRCPD E-34 Committee for Unwanted Radioactive Material which was 25 recently published on our CRCPD website. This white paper covers 26 disposition of foreign-origin radioactive material. The purpose of this paper

17 1 was to analyze the impact and possible solution for foreign-origin radioactive 2 material in the United States which require final disposition.

3 Sources manufactured in the U.S. are able to have final 4 disposition at the DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, WIPP facility, however 5 those sources with foreign-origin material are not accepted for disposal at this 6 facility. It is challenging to estimate the size of the foreign-origin rad material 7 problem in the U.S. because the majority of these sources which were brought 8 into the United States were below the NRC Category 2 limits and not tracked 9 in the National Source Tracking System. Reasonable estimates based on 10 the data which was collected by our committee show this to be a significant 11 issue.

12 The white paper provides possible solutions to secure this 13 at-risk radioactive material in the United States including congressional action 14 which is needed to allow the use of WIPP to dispose of all transuranic 15 materials containing foreign-origin material.

16 Next slide, please? As I mentioned previously, I do want to 17 discuss the Source Collection and Threat Reduction, or SCATR Program.

18 The Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, 19 and the CRCPD maintain a cooperative agreement to support sealed source 20 consolidation and commercial disposal at the state level. NNSA funds 21 disposal activities through a cost sharing which is 30 percent and possibly up 22 to 50 percent for higher activity sources. The licensee is still responsible for 23 some of the cost of disposal of this material.

24 CRCPD administers this program through coordination and 25 contracting with waste brokers for packaging, transportation, and disposal.

26 The goal is to collect and commercially dispose of sealed sources no longer

18 1 in use which could individually or in aggregate be used maliciously.

2 This program is very successful. To date under the SCATR 3 Program we have collected and disposed of more than 32,000 sources, almost 4 1,500 curies, plus an additional over 34,000 industrial radiography sources.

5 It's very successful over the years to ensure the safe disposal of these 6 materials, but we know there's a lot more out there. Currently one of our 7 areas of focus is working with Cesium Irradiator Disposal Group at DOE, 8 Department of Energy, on that project.

9 Next slide? With regards to the CRCPD Orphan Source 10 Recovery Project, as you know an orphan source generally refers to unwanted 11 or uncontrolled radioactive materials, often a sealed source of radioactive 12 material contained in a small volume. Some of the possible characteristics 13 of an orphan source are that it's in an uncontrolled situation or where the 14 responsible party cannot be identified, or where the licensee is incapable of 15 providing for the safe disposal of this material, or in possession of a person 16 not licensed to possess the material, or possibly where the state radiation 17 control program took possession to mitigate a radiation threat.

18 An example of orphan sources are measuring and 19 controlling devices containing radioactive materials that were improperly 20 disposed of as scrap metal. Many of our states have had this occur, and I 21 can vouch that Kansas had this occur very recently.

22 The work the state radiation control programs have done 23 with their scrap recycling facilities to help them prepare to identify and deal 24 with radioactive materials, even though it's typically NORM or TENORM but 25 can also be these licensed lost or stolen sources, also benefits this program 26 when the materials do fall under the Orphan Source Recovery Project.

19 1 CRCPD has had an agreement and funding from the NRC for several years 2 to assist state programs in disposing of orphan sources, and we continue to 3 provide support for that program.

4 Next slide? So waste and the disposal of unwanted 5 radioactive materials is an ongoing issue for our states. As I stated in the 6 beginning of my presentation, my purpose by discussing this topic is not 7 anticipation that we can solve the challenges today, but rather to raise 8 awareness as it is an issue that the state radiation control programs are 9 dealing with on an almost daily basis and to inform you of the activities being 10 accomplished by CRCPD in this area.

11 Thank you for your time and I believe the next slide will turn 12 it over to David Crowley.

13 MR. CROWLEY: All right. Thank you, Kim.

14 Good morning, Chairman Hanson, Commissioner Baran, 15 and Commissioner Wright. Thank you for meeting with us today to honor the 16 partnership that exists between our organizations and to ensure alignment on 17 the future of the National Materials Program, or NMP.

18 For those who do not know me, I am David Crowley, past 19 chair of the Organization of Agreement States, and interim chief to the North 20 Carolina Radiation Protection Section. In my portion I will be reviewing 21 recent NMP activities.

22 Next slide, please? To start Agreement State programs 23 continue to grow. It seems like only yesterday that Vermont and Wyoming 24 entered into agreements making 39 Agreement States. Now both 25 Connecticut and Indiana are working to become the 40 and 41st Agreement 26 States. Currently Agreement State programs are responsible for nearly 90

20 1 percent of materials licensees nationwide. This will only become more 2 skewed toward the states.

3 Is the NMP prepared to support further shifts in regulatory 4 responsibilities? The idea of the NMP is not a new one. In fact, it has 5 existed for a couple of decades now. Challenges to the state space in early 6 the 2000s continue to be a challenge today, namely the dedication of state 7 resources to support national activities.

8 That said, the NMP has made small incremental progress 9 over the years. The NRC provides more opportunities for state members to 10 collaborate through working groups, rulemaking, establishing priorities, and 11 supporting frequent communications. The creation of the co-champions has 12 really brought the NMP into focus for our members.

13 I want to extend a special thanks to Duncan White and Terry 14 Durston. These individuals have been critical to the ongoing engagement 15 and information sharing between co-regulators. They're evolving the NMP 16 from a mere whisper of old pilot projects into an identity that we can all relate 17 to. There was even a new emblem created this past year, pictured on the 18 slide there, to symbolize the NMP.

19 We must continue to build on this progress to further 20 strengthen the National Materials Program and our co-regulatory 21 partnerships. Each of us brings unique expertise and lessons learned that 22 can be shared for more effective regulation of our country's radioactive 23 materials.

24 Next slide, please? Every year NMP leadership meets to 25 review our goals and priorities. Members from the NRC, OAS, and CRCPD 26 discuss objectives, measure progress on past priorities, and ensure future

21 1 tasks align with our overall mission. This past year we settled on five 2 categories. These include innovation and developing more risk-informed 3 approaches. For IMPEP this could be updating SA-100 program 4 implementation to better leverage technology and streamline our reviews.

5 Auggie has already discussed some of the changes and 6 ways that we're risk-informing our inspection programs. And we are looking 7 at using a similar approach to evaluate adoption of certain program elements 8 such as regulatory or compatibility changes for states.

9 Next is risk, or rather minimizing it by addressing timely and 10 relevant topics. Steve will discuss some of our efforts to share lessons 11 learned throughout the COVID-19 public health emergency. Other topics we 12 continue to evaluate include fusion energy, extravasations, general licensing, 13 and any other emerging issues.

14 Technology and using it maximize our regulatory 15 effectiveness. Enhancements to technology can impact the entire NMP.

16 For instance, changes to the state communication portal. Web-based 17 licensing also continues to evolve for those that are utilizing it expanding the 18 NMP's licensing and inspection capabilities.

19 Next people. A little of what Angela has spoken to. But 20 we need to focus on recruiting, training, and retention of our NMP staff. The 21 NMP relies almost exclusively on the training provided by the NRC to grant 22 the foundational knowledge necessary to our members. Thank you for that 23 ongoing commitment to that critical mission.

24 Additionally, we can take advantage of our strengths across 25 the NMP by creating centers of excellence. So far the NMP has formalized 26 a center for emerging medical technology and is in the process of establishing

22 1 one for the Sealed Source and Device Program. We will create more of these 2 as we identify additional needs throughout the NMP.

3 Finally, we want to develop metrics on a broad scale that 4 can demonstrate the NMP's capability in meeting its mission.

5 Next slide? As I hinted at in the technology bullet above, I 6 would like to draw your attention to the NMP's website. Pictured here is the 7 current navigation page. NRC staff, contractors, and especially the co-8 champions are working towards revising this page to deploy an interactive 9 platform for communication across the NMP. The page will be a resource for 10 historic information, guidance, upcoming events, records of past events, and 11 any other useful information for NMP members.

12 In the past there were forums hosted to allow discussion by 13 co-regulators, but those have not been available in many years. This NMP 14 website will include an area for state and NRC staff to log in and discuss time-15 relevant issues in a safe and non-judgmental space. By including the entire 16 community we can see who else out there may have pervious experiences 17 and lessons learned leading to better future results when facing similar 18 scenarios. For example, if a new technology is deployed in one jurisdiction, 19 sharing it through this platform might reveal that others are currently working 20 through the same technical challenges.

21 Together we can accomplish more and better meet our 22 safety missions, however this relies on reliable and trusted communication 23 between partners. We hope that the enhanced website will provide the 24 conduit to make that happen.

25 Next slide? As I began my presentation, the NMP is made 26 up of 40 different regulatory partners and we are still expanding. Though

23 1 each of our programs have unique strengths and weaknesses, through 2 collaboration we will improve in our roles as regulators. This slide provides a 3 few examples of how NMP members come together to support one another.

4 First, communication sharing. This is necessary to discuss 5 industry trends, new technologies, incidents, or lessons learned, and to 6 request assistance.

7 With regard to IMPEP we work together to improve the 8 NMP's overall performance. With NRC and state members serving on 9 IMPEP reviews we increase regulatory knowledge and consistency across our 10 programs.

11 Finally, by being contributors. The NMP is vast and diverse 12 and we thrive when every one can contribute. We achieve this in ways 13 already mentioned, but specifically through working groups, centers of 14 excellence, commenting on regulation and guidance documents, and by 15 participation in meetings.

16 Next slide? I'd like to end by highlighting a few of our past 17 and upcoming activities. For CRCPD they held their first virtual conference 18 this last May, 2021, and they will hosting an in-person meeting this coming 19 year in Tucson, Arizona. And that is May 16 to 19.

20 For OAS we met last August in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

21 For the first time we held a hybrid conference and as a result we almost 22 doubled our average attendance. We will be holding our next meeting in 23 Forth Worth, Texas August 15th through 18th. Your own Region IV staff are 24 helping to host this year and we very much look forward to it.

25 Our intention is to stick with the hybrid offering to retain the increased 26 engagement that we saw this past year.

24 1 The co-champions have hosted a number of virtual 2 meetings for NMP members. These are called Champions' Chats and the 3 participation levels have been great thus far. These covered topics such as 4 IMPEP, the public health emergency, remote inspections, information sharing 5 during incidents, communicating of enforcement actions, and most recently 6 misplaced sources during shipments.

7 The chats provide an opportunity to engage on topics of 8 interest between the NMP partners and to allow participation from staff at any 9 of our organizational levels.

10 The NMP also meets more formally through government to 11 government meetings usually to discuss a particular policy or regulatory 12 matter. This has included new medical technologies, developing fusion 13 regulatory frameworks, and also more standard rulemaking activities. They 14 have proven an effective means to disseminate information and to engage 15 with our NMP partners.

16 Finally to bring things full circle from the beginning, quite a 17 lot has changed in the last two decades for the NMP, thus we have established 18 a working group to evaluate and make recommendations to the future 19 structure of the NMP, and Auggie spoke a little bit this as well in his part. This 20 is just in the beginning stages, but we very much look forward to the group's 21 final report which should be available in a little over a year from now.

22 That is all for my part and I look forward to any questions.

23 Thank you again for this opportunity. Next up we have Patrick Mulligan, 24 CRCPD's chair-elect from New Jersey, and he will be speaking on rulemaking 25 and policy efforts.

26 Patrick?

25 1 MR. MULLIGAN: Thank you, David.

2 Good morning, Commissioners. I am Pat Mulligan and I 3 work for the State of New Jersey and serve CRCPD as chair-elect. I do want 4 to thank you for meeting with us today and am grateful for the time you set 5 aside out of your busy schedules to discuss radiation protection issues that 6 are so important to each of our organizations. I am going to discuss 7 rulemaking and policy efforts this morning.

8 The CRCPD and OAS recognize and appreciate the efforts 9 of the NRC over the past several years to improve the rulemaking process, 10 especially the work it has done by the Rulemaking Center of Expertise. The 11 continued work on innovative approaches to rulemaking have produced 12 numerous enhancements that provide opportunities to streamline the process 13 while maintaining the quality and effectiveness of the rules. As the NRC 14 continues to work on enhancements to key areas of the rulemaking process 15 we encourage the continued focus on the importance of stakeholder input and 16 involvement.

17 Both CRCPD and OAS recognize that there are many 18 opportunities for collaboration on rulemaking throughout the process and both 19 organizations strive to make the most out of those opportunities. We also 20 recognize and appreciate the efforts that the NRC has made to be inclusive of 21 the state perspective and the many opportunities to provide feedback through 22 participation on working groups, task forces, and other rulemaking teams. As 23 the NRC continues to work toward rulemaking enhancement in the coming 24 years we encourage you to continue to look for opportunities to engage state 25 stakeholders in the process to ensure the development of the timely and 26 effective rules.

26 1 Next slide, please? The CRCPD is working to become 2 more agile and responsive to NRC rule changes through the work of the 3 Suggested State Regulation Council. The SSR Council develops draft rule 4 language for states to use as templates for the implementation of radiation 5 protection rules and regulations. The process is collaborative and we strive 6 to ensure consistency across state programs. The Suggested 7 State Regulation Council created a Compatibility Tracking Working Group to 8 create a more agile process for evaluating and addressing NRC regulatory 9 amendments. The goal is to ensure prompt evaluation of rule compatibility and 10 make suggested edits and recommendations for suggested state regulation 11 updates within 60 days.

12 The NRC's interpretive rulemaking process can be an 13 effective and agile mechanism to provide a timely and effective response to 14 critical needs regarding applicability of a rule. There are a number of 15 variables that influence how state programs can operate in various regions of 16 the country that can raise questions regarding the applicability and 17 implementation of rules and regulations.

18 The NRC interpretive rulemaking process provides a 19 mechanism to clarify the language in a rule or offer advice on implementation 20 when these discrepancies arise. This process is a valuable way to provide 21 additional guidance to state stakeholders without the need to go through the 22 cumbersome rulemaking process. The interpretive rule allows for clarification 23 of language and compatibility options for effective application of regulatory 24 requirements and can be quite effective.

25 Next slide, please? To illustrate the implementation and 26 outcomes of the interpretive rulemaking process I will briefly discuss two

27 1 examples. Last year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission withdrew a 2 proposed interpretation of its very low-level radioactive waste regulations that 3 would have permitted licensees to dispose of waste by transferring it to entities 4 who hold specific NRC exemptions.

5 The proposed interpretation was withdrawn based on the 6 NRC staff's assessment that the proposed changes may not benefit the 7 regulatory framework. That assessment was certainly influenced by the 8 public comment including feedback from OAS. And this is a good example 9 of how the interpretive rulemaking process can work quite efficiently and 10 effectively and in the best interests of the stakeholders.

11 In the case of the two-person rule related to industrial 12 radiography we believe that there are opportunities for improvement.

13 Because of the length of time between the initial petition for rulemaking and 14 the time the interpretive rule was issued the outcome was perhaps not ideal.

15 From the time the petition was filed to the day the public notice was issued 16 there were multiple changes in leadership, both at OAS and CRCPD, and the 17 original basis for the rulemaking petition may have been lost.

18 Over time, experience, and lessons learned regarding the 19 interpretation and applicability of the two-person rule changed of perspective 20 of state regulatory agencies. In the end by the time the petition was acted 21 upon the state regulatory perspective had evolved and the original basis for 22 the rulemaking petition no longer existed.

23 Collectively I think we need to explore innovative ways to 24 reevaluate and reassess rulemaking petitions that do not get a high priority for 25 action and may be dormant for extended periods of time so that when 26 resources are applied for rulemaking that the need is still applicable.

28 1 And I'm going to go on and I'm going to briefly mention two 2 additional rulemaking topics that are actively receiving attention from the NRC.

3 First, the Commission recently issued their decision on the reevaluation of 4 Category 3 source security and accountability. The original paper that served 5 as the genesis for this decision was the result of an NRC and OAS Working 6 Group established in 2016 to address general licensing topics. The paper 7 also served as the basis for continued work on a holistic review of a general 8 licensing program by NRC, OAS, and CRCPD.

9 Last year the OAS board asked CRCPD to create a working 10 group to look at the recommendations the General Licensing Working Group 11 pulled together since 2016. CRCPD was asked to identify best practices and 12 compile ideas that Agreement States could implement to address some of the 13 issues identified in the General Licensing Program structure. They also 14 tasked us with looking at important areas where regulatory changes may be 15 considered.

16 Now that the Commission has provided direction on the 17 issue to staff, both OAS and CRCPD encourage continued close collaboration 18 to evaluate the impacts of the Commission decision on the recommendations 19 developed by the General Licensing Working Group and whether to 20 reconsider regulatory changes. The CRCPD working group will work in 21 conjunction with OAS and NRC on how to best proceed with the decision 22 framework provided.

23 And finally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed 24 rule on emergency preparedness for small modular reactors and other new 25 technologies originally published in the Federal Register in May of 2020.

26 Both OAS and CRCPD provided comments to the NRC on the proposed rule

29 1 during the public comment period. We understand that NRC staff 2 recommendations do not require the establishment of emergency planning 3 zones for these technologies, therefore no requirement for coordination with 4 off-site response organizations.

5 We recognize that the level of risk for small modular reactors 6 and other new technologies will be less than that for current generation light 7 water reactors. We agree that a graded approach to off-site emergency 8 preparedness is appropriate for these technologies and we do support the 9 concept that the EPZs sites may be determined based on the level of risk and 10 consequences of the range of postulated accidents. However, we do have 11 serious concerns for those approaches that result in EPZs that are limited to 12 the site boundary and have no off-site emergency response involvement.

13 EPZs and emergency plans are provided to provide 14 defense-in-depth for low-probability, high-consequence events and are meant 15 to provide a well-defined methodology to reduce potential public exposures to 16 unnecessary radiation. While the probability for significant releases of 17 radiation for these technologies may be low, it's not zero. And we believe 18 that the establishment of emergency plans that include off-site participation is 19 warranted.

20 The processes and knowledge required to assess fission 21 product releases are complex and we cannot overemphasize the critical need 22 for experienced off-site response agencies to be ready if there would ever be 23 a need for independent assessment of an accident at a nuclear power plant 24 regardless of whether it will exceed a PAG.

25 State and local agencies are responsible to communicate 26 impacts and risks of emergency events to their citizens and communication is

30 1 the key to effective public messaging. There should be a requirement for 2 these facilities to support maintenance of these key minimum aspects of 3 nuclear power plant response and we would be happy to discuss our position 4 in more detail with the Commission should you like to do that.

5 I would also like to thank you for your time. We welcome 6 any questions at the end. And I will now turn it over to Steve Seeger from 7 Tennessee. Thank you.

8 MR. SEEGER: Thank you, Pat.

9 Good morning, Commissioners and thank you for the 10 opportunity to share these important topics here today. My name is Steve 11 Seeger. I'm from Tennessee and I'm the OAS chair-elect. I will wrap up the 12 last of our topics here today and I will be discussing the COVID-19 pandemic 13 and success through disruption.

14 Next slide, please? At the beginning of the COVID-19 15 pandemic the NRC used its existing authority to consider granting relief from 16 specific regulatory commitments through exemptions from regulatory 17 requirements, amendments to license conditions or technical specifications, 18 and enforcement discretion under certain circumstances.

19 Next slide, please? The NRC issued the following 20 guidance documents outlining the regulatory options to seek regulatory relief 21 that might be necessary during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

22 On May 21st, 2020 guidance issued where a licensee could suspend 23 the use of licensed material and place material into safe storage.

24 On May 27th of 2020 guidance was issued pertaining to 25 radiological emergency response plans during COVID-19.

26 On July 1st, 2020 inspection guidance during transition from

31 1 COVID-19 mandatory telework for the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 2 Programs.

3 Next slide, please? OAS knew that many states had 4 questions and were wanting to make sure that they were handling inspections 5 correctly during the COVID-19 public health emergency, so OAS provided the 6 following guidance for consideration by state programs while formulating their 7 policies, but also to aid licensees in identifying how things are addressed in 8 the various state programs. The Champions' Chats have also been a big 9 help for states during the COVID-19 pandemic.

10 Next slide, please? So radioactive material inspections 11 have been impacted by the COVID pandemic is several ways: In many cases 12 the licensee has imposed limitations on entering their facility.

13 Some health care facilities at times are so overwhelmed with COVID 14 that they have requested inspections be postponed due to the prevalence of 15 COVID in the facility and the lack of sufficient staff to handle the patient load.

16 Some licensees are requiring everyone entering their facility 17 to show proof of vaccination prior to entry and the states don't -- and some 18 states don't have the ability to require inspection staff to be vaccinated.

19 Some licensees require everyone to wear masks while 20 inside their facility and some inspectors claim to be unable to wear masks due 21 to certain health conditions.

22 It has been common to announce inspections since there 23 are so many possible limitations to entering these facilities due to COVID.

24 We have seen the emergence of both completely virtual radioactive material 25 inspections as well as what some are calling hybrid inspections, virtual being 26 entirely by remote means using whatever platform works; examples are Zoom,

32 1 FaceTime, GoTo Meeting, Teams, Webex, etcetera, and hybrid being a 2 combination of remote combined with an abbreviated on-site physical 3 inspection.

4 Hybrid inspections generally involve initiating the inspection 5 by phone and/or video-conference. Interviews can often be conducted by 6 phone or video-conference and many of the records can be provided and 7 reviewed remotely. This approach seems to be working in most cases and 8 reduces the impact on the licensee. It can also reduce the risk to the 9 inspector. The platforms being used still allow the inspectors to see the 10 facility and how they are doing their process and procedures.

11 Virtual inspections generally require more than one phone 12 call and more than one virtual meeting to complete the inspection. Although 13 hybrid inspections are sometimes awkward inspectors have provided a lot of 14 positive feedback now that they are getting used to the process. Licensees 15 have also expressed appreciation due to reduced time impacted.

16 Next slide, please? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to go to this 17 slide. Sorry.

18 And so some IMPEPs are also being affected by COVID-19 19 and some of them are being done virtually. This has helped IMPEPs to 20 continue in those states that might have high COVID cases and where most 21 staff are working remotely. Virtual IMPEPs do lack the in-person aspect of 22 getting to know the team and the state program staff which might help a team 23 to get a better idea how everything is going and being in person does make it 24 easier to talk with each other.

25 In-person and virtual IMPEPs have been successful during COVID-19.

26 Next slide, please? Thank you to the NRC, CRCPD, and

33 1 OAS for the continued coordination across the National Materials Program.

2 This coordination has helped the National Materials Program to move forward 3 in a positive direction.

4 Next slide, please? So this completes our presentation of 5 topics and on behalf of the OAS and CRCPD we would like to thank the 6 Commission for the opportunity to have this discussion and we look forward 7 to addressing any of your questions.

8 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you very much, Steve, as 9 well as Angela and Auggie, Pat, and David and Kim for all of your 10 presentations. We'll begin questions this morning with Commissioner Wright.

11 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you so much, Mr.

12 Chairman, and good morning to each of you. Thank you for your 13 presentations as well.

14 I really look forward to this meeting each year, maybe not 15 as much as I look forward to attending your meetings each year and I look 16 forward to seeing you again at those meetings this year as well.

17 When I joined the Commission back in 2018, much of the 18 discussion focused on the development of the Nuclear Materials Program and 19 the desire to form a more meaningful partnership as co-regulators, because it 20 hasn't always been in a great way.

21 I'm really excited to see how much progress that's been 22 made since 2018 when I started. And I really value the partnership and I know 23 the NRC Staff has been working very hard and very closely with you and I just 24 think that's great.

25 So, Steven and Patrick, I want to congratulate you on your 26 selections as Chairs Elect and I look forward to working with you as you go

34 1 through your journey to obtain the most prized positions in your organization, 2 which is that of past Chair.

3 So, we have a lot of work to do between now and then and 4 I look forward to walking besides you as you go down that road. Angela, good 5 morning to you, I'm going to start with you but I'm going to allow people to 6 chime in if they feel the need.

7 The shortage health physicists is an ongoing issue and just 8 so you know, we heard about the Staff's activities to address this shortage at 9 the Nuclear Materials Users Business Line meeting last month here at the 10 NRC.

11 We've also spoken about it several times at previous 12 meetings with OAS and CRCPD and I've heard the same feedback as well 13 from the Health Physics Society.

14 So, the NRC and states have put some programs in place 15 to maybe try to help address the shortage.

16 For example, the NRC has a grants program that offers 17 cross-training to the NRC's technical training center and we've started 18 discussions with you all on shared resources.

19 So, the question is have we started to see any relief based 20 on those programs and is there anything more we could be doing to address 21 this issue?

22 MS. LEEK: Thank you, Commissioner Wright, for that 23 question and I'm happy to take the lead on this to try to address that question.

24 I think honestly we haven't even seen the bubble of the 25 impending change in our workforce availability yet.

26 I don't have the data in front of me but I know the Health

35 1 Physics Society is working on where are all the radiation professionals, and 2 they have some data they've been compiling about projected timelines and 3 the track of the amount of health physicists and other technical resources that 4 would be available at various times throughout our future.

5 So, I do really believe we're being proactive right now.

6 We're feeling some of the exodus at the moment, we're seeing a lot of 7 retirements coming but I honestly think we're going to see even more coming 8 through.

9 And even if we have the volume of bodies available, even if 10 we get the pipeline going and we're enticing people to join our very fun 11 profession, from my perspective, I think the level of expertise we'll have or the 12 experience that people have had will be different in our workforce.

13 And they're going to need more support, they're going to 14 need opportunities for experiences that don't exist as readily as they did back 15 in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and we're going to need to figure out how to help 16 those individuals reach the level of excellence that many of our more 17 seasoned and retiring personnel will be taking with them.

18 So, I think we'll be seeing it coming.

19 I think the reason that our Workforce Development 20 Committee is being formed at CRCPD is to try to come up with some interim 21 solutions if we do find ourselves in the position where we have limited 22 resources or even limited expertise, that we make it easier to tap into and 23 share those resources as we work through maybe the dip that's coming and 24 get ourselves back on track with the efforts that are happening with the grant 25 program and the university program.

26 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Does anybody else want to

36 1 comment?

2 MR. ONG: Yes, Commissioner Wright. This is Auggie 3 Ong representing the OES and I'm the current Chair.

4 In any case, OES has now reached out to the Health 5 Physics Society whereby any of the notification from CRCPD that the 6 vacancies are available in the various agencies and programs, I channel those 7 vacancies and the possibilities of those jobs to the HP Society, the Health 8 Physics Society, whereby those jobs would be made available for any of the 9 members at the HPS that are interested in working in the state programs in 10 their respective states.

11 Here are the jobs that are available, so that then I'm trying 12 to help as much as I can to channel the possible candidates that are certainly 13 well qualified, because they are HPs, to those state programs.

14 So, in addition, in the near future OES and I will certainly 15 reach out to the American Respiratory Radiological technologists and again, 16 those professionals who already have the necessary training that some may 17 be interested in switching their careers to instead of simply operating X-ray 18 equipment, they would be interested in doing field work and doing inspections, 19 doing any of the regulatory requirements that would be in their respective state 20 radiation control programs.

21 MR. CROWLEY: And if I may real quick, Commissioner, 22 just an example of how we're using our current resources, I spoke to the 23 Centers of Excellence and the sealed source and device one hasn't I believe 24 been completely formalized yet.

25 My own state has taken advantage of sharing other state 26 resources, NRC resources, and using our reviewers to help assist other

37 1 programs and vice versa.

2 And so when we've had shortages of trained staff within our 3 own internal programs, we can lean on other states and partners in a way to 4 continue moving forward with the work that's at hand.

5 So, I think that's a really good way to highlight some of the 6 partnerships across the programs as well.

7 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you for that, because 8 one of the things is there are existing people out there that maybe we can 9 exchange, do trades and those kinds of things.

10 Because we have a lot of people leaving, they're still being 11 trained, I know that, which raises a lot of questions in my mind.

12 How do you get more people in the pipeline and is there 13 more outreach that we can do, or funding opportunities available to get more 14 people interested to get into atract to school and other incentives out there to 15 keep people in government positions really.

16 So, I look forward to working with you on this issue going 17 forward. Patrick, in the time I've got left I want to go quickly to you. Pat, 18 thank you for sharing your views on the rulemaking process.

19 Some of the comments you made are on point, so thank you 20 for that. It sounds like we've made some progress in increasing state 21 participation and we're doing some of the earlier stages in the rulemaking 22 process.

23 To me, obviously early engagement is the key on anything, 24 right, and consistent communication as well. So, I'm glad we both recognize 25 that as being key to success. One area I think we can do better is in the 26 notice of interpretation, or the NOI process.

38 1 This is relatively a new process for us. You mentioned two 2 NOIs related to the low-level waste and the two-person rule, both of which 3 would have impacted the agreement states.

4 And my understanding is the NRC was not aware of the 5 extent of the concerns from the agreement states before the publishing of the 6 NOIs.

7 What can we do at the NRC to improve communication and 8 coordination in the process there to ensure that agreement states' positions 9 and circumstances are considered before we issue interpretations?

10 MR. MULLIGAN: I think we have a lot of the processes in 11 place right now. I believe there are a lot of Work Groups and compatibility 12 taskforces put together for various issues as they become relevant or maybe 13 resources are applied.

14 So, I think there are some of those mechanisms in place and 15 there are rulemaking teams that collaborate between NRC, OES, and 16 CRCPD.

17 But I think that early on in the process, once the notice is 18 developed, before it's issued we need to touch base.

19 Is this relevant? Is this applicable? Is this something that 20 we need to do today?

21 I think particularly for the case of the two-man rule, what 22 happened was so much time had passed between the time that the petition 23 was picked up and the time that the notice went out.

24 And like I said, we have so much turnover in our 25 organizations I don't know there was anybody left that understood what the 26 original basis was for that rulemaking.

39 1 And so I think went to go back when we pick these things 2 up and before we proceed to a notice, we need to make sure they're relevant, 3 they're applicable and that we're essentially on the same page as far as where 4 we need to be for making the rules.

5 I'm not sure exactly when that happens, I know internally 6 there's processes in place that once you start the ball rolling they're hard to 7 stop. And you're kind of focused in your lane about what you need to 8 accomplish to get that notice out.

9 And sometimes you forget to look at who is in the other lane.

10 So, we don't want to make the process more difficult by stretching it out 11 because you need so much collaboration before you even get to something 12 that's put out there.

13 But I think there needs to be that sanity check, like is this 14 something we're ready to go with, are there big issues, do we have to have 15 discussions?

16 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: One, I appreciate your 17 comments there and one of those things that we are striving for at the NRC, 18 and I know Staff is really trying to do this as well, constant improvement.

19 Anything that we can do to make it more effective, more 20 efficient, but that doesn't happen in a vacuum so we really need your input 21 and we need it to be timely input too.

22 If you see something going awry you've got to speak up and 23 let us know. So, thank you for that and, Mr. Chairman, with that, I'll turn it 24 back over to you.

25 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.

26 Pat Mulligan, I appreciated your opening the door on the

40 1 emergency planning zone rule, and if I could I'd like to walk through it and dive 2 down not just with you but other members of the group this morning.

3 As you mentioned, the final rule is before the Commission 4 for consideration and I went back and looked at the comments in some detail 5 that CRCPD as well as individual state agencies provided on the rule.

6 And I found them really helpful. And as I was doing that, I 7 became really interested in teasing out the technical aspects as well, on the 8 one hand, and the policy aspects on the other.

9 And of course, in emergency planning this is really an area 10 where these two things kind of come together. I do want to focus on one 11 thing. CRCPD as well as the State of Iowa provided comments and in their 12 comments they mentioned of course the emergency planning zone itself, but 13 also the ingestion pathway zone.

14 And of course, as you know, the rule suggests that when the 15 emergency planning zone is the site boundary, that is at zero, there wouldn't 16 be an IPZ either.

17 And I'm interested in getting feedback from a technical 18 standpoint, your thoughts about the determination of an ingestion pathway 19 zone.

20 And that's open for anybody, that isn't necessarily...

21 MS. LEEK: Sure, I can jump in since you said Iowa, so I 22 will try to take the first stab at this and the perspective that we were coming 23 from that comment.

24 So, with the ingestion pathway zone, obviously that is a level 25 of contamination that would require us to assess the food products and the 26 other things that could be ingested as a result of a radiation release.

41 1 And I think the basis of the comments that we're making 2 even with an emergency planning zone that is within the site boundary, there 3 will be contamination offsite.

4 So, the basis that's being used for determining that is the 5 EPA PAG manual levels of where a PAG would be exceeded.

6 And so while that is the current standard for making 7 protected action recommendations and it would drive a lot of the actions that 8 we would take, it doesn't mean there wouldn't be a lot of contamination pretty 9 significantly offsite.

10 And our population and their perception of radiation are 11 going to be asking questions about this reading they can now get in their 12 neighborhood. Even though it's below PAGs, they're going to have lots of 13 questions.

14 And we're afraid that without support to ensure the offsite 15 agencies, both in the emergency phase, even though it's not going to need 16 protected actions, but on the converse, proving zeros or assuring our public 17 that it is a relatively manageable amount of radiation that doesn't require an 18 action offsite is just as important as it is to say that a protected action is 19 necessary.

20 And so we may find ourselves with offsite response 21 agencies that have never had a nuclear power-plant in their jurisdiction, never 22 dealt with a fission release before, and not have those networks and those 23 coordinations for those assessments for other types of field monitoring in place 24 as effectively as we've built up and have seen very strong emergency 25 preparedness communities around our existing nuclear power-plant.

26 So, I think that's the basis. We recognize the risk is low but

42 1 that doesn't mean the public isn't going to be just as interested in the 2 contamination that's in their community.

3 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Angela. Pat or Kim or 4 others?

5 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, I can offer just a few additional 6 thoughts. Right now, and the thing that I've been struggling with the most 7 from a technical perspective is that number one, as far as I know, there are no 8 approved reactor designs yet.

9 None of them are operable. The assessment for what is a 10 credible emergency or event at one of these plants has been left up to the 11 applicant to determine.

12 And so everything that we've looked at from this 13 perspective, where it's going to be below the PAG, is I'm not going to say a 14 whole part but it's somewhat theoretical and I think it's premature to decide 15 that there's no EPZ that's required prior to the technology actually being 16 developed, implemented, tested, and the credible accidents looked at.

17 So, beyond that, I do think that I agree with Angela, if you're 18 looking at a decision point and you're limiting it to the EPA PAGs, I think from 19 a state perspective it's a little short-sighted because there are things we would 20 be concerned about and things we might be able to do at, say, half of the PAG, 21 at 500 millirem, or 100 millirem.

22 You can certainly still save dose to the public at those levels 23 by taking some action but you need to have the offsite response agencies with 24 the ability to assess that through modeling and through experience and 25 expertise that we have for those types of sites and reactors in place to make 26 that determination.

43 1 So, while I believe that, again, the risk is low, consequences 2 may be high and certainly public interest is going to be high and concern.

3 And I believe there are some things we should probably do 4 and we've proven to pipeline regardless of whether or not a PAG could be 5 exceeded offsite.

6 MR. CROWLEY: And I'll add real quick for you, Chairman, 7 my thoughts on this are it's a twofold problem. One is the technical aspects 8 and I think we can all appreciate and understand that piece of it.

9 The second comes in a little bit to what Angela spoke about 10 to the communities and the communication and will they have trust that what 11 we say is in fact the case?

12 Is it safe to have those reactors operating in their 13 communities?

14 So, I think the utilities, as we move forward and as we look 15 at this rule and approval of it, one way or another, are we setting ourselves up 16 to succeed in actually building and operating one of these plants with the rule?

17 Will they grant us that social license where it's accepted by 18 the people and actually it can be brought into a community.

19 I think right now especially is a trying to time, a lot of people 20 are hesitant to trust facts and science and things. And even though we as 21 the technical experts know one thing, we will have that barrier to get over.

22 So, I think being very transparent too and communicating 23 these things and if that means following similar action to what we've done with 24 larger-scale fission plants, perhaps we carry that because that's what's 25 worked and has been trusted.

26 So, just a few other thoughts.

44 1 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Dave. I want to touch 2 on a couple of points here. All of your comments have been very, very 3 helpful.

4 To your point, Pat Mulligan, I think it's incumbent on 5 applicants to actually prove to us in their application that site boundaries is 6 actually technically justified. It's not a default for advanced reactors.

7 So, to your point, the emergency planning zone is going to 8 be maybe different by each design and I do agree that, at least at this point, 9 the conversation is kind of hypothetical.

10 I guess my follow-up question then to each of you is 11 historically, licensees have paid for that offsite emergency response planning.

12 And I certainly understand and I'm very sympathetic to the need for ongoing 13 state and local engagement in this.

14 But I guess my question is then are you as state agencies 15 open to other kinds of funding mechanisms that the Federal Government 16 might come up with?

17 So, if a licensee, again, hypothetically, has a reactor design 18 where it's technically justified that they have a site boundary then if that 19 funding doesn't necessarily come from the licensee but comes from some 20 other program through FEMA or the Department of Energy or some other 21 mechanism, would that be acceptable as long as it supported the offsite 22 response capability that we've been discussing?

23 MS. LEEK: Thank you, Chairman, I'll jump back in here 24 again with a comment on that. I think that fundamentally the states are 25 positioned to work within and accept any funding stream that would help to 26 support this.

45 1 I think the focus of this and the desire of the community and 2 the Federal Government is to move and treat capabilities across all hazard 3 spectrums.

4 And so we've been looking at other funding resources and 5 opportunities.

6 Obviously we've had a form of funding that has come 7 through the utilities that states have become very used to. And it's difficult to 8 make a shift and actually put the risk assessment into the current THYRA 9 process.

10 Many times radiation incidents, because they are of such 11 low probability, they are not designated very high in certain jurisdictions so 12 they may not get designated to tap into those funds.

13 There are other restrictions as far as resources through 14 some of the Homeland Security Funds and have very specific direction as far 15 as securing the cities and designations of those entities.

16 So, we can end up with a disparate ability to utilize some of 17 those resources and funds in the current structure that's in place.

18 So, I do think the states would be open to having access to 19 other funds, I just think we need to either look at the existing funds and find 20 ways to maybe make a stronger checkmark in some of those funding streams.

21 Because if you have one of these reactors, you 22 automatically get higher on the list of prioritization of these assets or these 23 funds, if they're not directly funds that cover for this type of reactor.

24 So, I do think there are options and there are many 25 possibilities we could look at but we definitely have to look at them. We can't 26 assume they exist now because states have struggled with tapping into those

46 1 right now.

2 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you. If my colleagues will 3 just bear with me here, I just want to sneak in with one more question. I'm 4 hoping both Commissioner Wright and Commissioner Baran will find it useful.

5 Right now under the framework, because we have for large 6 light-water reactors we have a ten-mile emergency planning zone, etcetera, 7 FEMA reviews the emergency plans for those plants and I guess I'm interested 8 in your views on even, again hypothetically, to Pat Mulligan's point, for a site 9 boundary EPZ, whether FEMA --

10 Even in the site boundary, those reactors will have some 11 kind of emergency response plan presumably. Whether FEMA should still be 12 in the role of reviewing that plan even when the EPZ is zero.

13 Anyone?

14 MR. CROWLEY: It's kind of like our position on the funding 15 as well. As long as it's being done or can be guarantee one way or the other, 16 I think we could end up being satisfied, at least our position as stated 17 regulators.

18 It doesn't need to be FEMA, it doesn't need to be NRC.

19 Everyone is comfortable if you continue with the same but I think we would of 20 course be open to either way that would work.

21 We could look further into that if need be.

22 MR. ONG: If I could just make a side note, Commissioner 23 Hanson, and that is in terms of licensing of these reactors, be it more 24 advanced nuclear reactor or even the fusion reactor becoming aligned within 25 the next 20 years.

26 That being said, it's part of the licensing process whereby in

47 1 order for an applicant to get the license approved, the applicant still has to 2 provide where are the boundary zones, where are the emergency planning 3 zones whereby that would then be able to reassure both the stated agencies 4 and the general population within the area whereby the plant would be located.

5 In order to get everybody to have a buy-in in terms of 6 allowing the application to be approved. So, that being said, the negotiation 7 will always be taken place.

8 What would the licensee be applicated in order to provide 9 that kind of assurance to cover any small, albeit low probability of that failure, 10 to continue the material whereby it's now released beyond the site boundary.

11 So, that being said, there's still going to be ongoing issues 12 and the state certainly will be very reluctant, if I may add, in this kind of 13 environment to tap into the state general fund in order to buy that assurance 14 to the communities that in fact there will be emergency planning zones, there 15 will be substantial personnel to be able to respond to the possibility of the 16 low-probability events.

17 That being said, then certainly if the Federal Government is 18 able to provide some funding source so to speak to help out the states, thereby 19 then everybody will have a stake in terms of getting the technology 20 implemented.

21 And for the state government this country's future.

22 So, everybody will have a stake in this eventuality. Thank 23 you.

24 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thanks, Auggie, I really, really 25 appreciate it. I've run way, way over my time at this moment and I really want 26 to thank Commissioner Baran for his patience on this.

48 1 And I know we'll have an opportunity potentially to follow up 2 this afternoon with some more discussion on this point. And with that, again, 3 thank you Commissioner Baran and I'll hand it over to you.

4 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks, Chairman, it's been a 5 great discussion. I don't mind waiting an extra few minutes, it's been very 6 good.

7 I really appreciate all of the insights you all have shared and, 8 really, we value the partnership we have with all of you.

9 My sense is it's really as good as it's ever been, maybe 10 better, in recent times and I think we're all benefitting from that. Pat, thanks 11 for your comments on the two-person rule discussion there.

12 As I try to think through what can we do better next time, in 13 this case the reinterpretation was issued on June 1st and it took us back right 14 away. And NRC asked us to have the public comment period follow the 15 notice of reinterpretation rather than precede it.

16 And this meant the Agency couldn't consider the comments 17 before making a final decision. I think that did not really work well. I think the 18 lesson I would draw is agreements made comment, the public comments 19 should be considered before the decision is made and not after.

20 I think that's really going to significantly reduce our risk of 21 doing something that ends up not making a lot of sense.

22 I don't know if you have thoughts about that or if your 23 colleagues have any thoughts about that but to me, that from a process point 24 of view is the thing that could be easily changed that would have probably 25 made all the difference in this case.

26 MR. MULLIGAN: I certainly agree with you,

49 1 Commissioner.

2 Public comment prior to implementation is always the best 3 practice I believe and we've seen it work in other rulemaking, not just with 4 NRC but other organizations as well.

5 Everybody benefits from getting that input prior to taking an 6 action.

7 That's first, and I think second too, beyond that, when things 8 are put on hold for a while because the priority is low, I think when we pick 9 them back up again they should be filed on the back-burner with a little bit of 10 history so that when we pick them up again, we make sure we take the time 11 to ensure they are still relevant topics and that the condition still exists, that 12 whatever petition or rulemaking effort was based on.

13 So, I think that's first, make sure it's still relevant. Then we 14 get the public information and then we take an action to make a decision.

15 COMMISSIONER BARAN: That's a great point.

16 I'd like to ask about something that Kim touched on with her 17 discussion, which is financial assurance for the disposal of CAT1 and 2 18 byproduct material sealed sources.

19 Under NRC's current regulations, many CAT1 and 2 sealed 20 sources are not required to provide financial assurance for decommissioning.

21 That means no decommissioning funding plan and no 22 financial instrument in place to cover the eventual transportation and disposal 23 costs.

24 This is because the current regulatory threshold for the 25 financial assurance requirement is very high. For example, one of the most 26 commonly used radionuclides is large-sealed sources of Cesium-137 as we

50 1 all know.

2 27 curies of Caesium-137 qualifies as a Category 2 quantity, 3 which subjects the source to physical security and source tracking 4 requirements. But a licensee isn't required to meet financial assurance 5 requirements unless it's 100,000 curies of Cesium-137, which is quite a bit 6 more.

7 The Commission recently decided to proceed with the rule 8 to extend the current financial assurance requirements to all CAT1 and 2 9 byproduct materials sealed sources tracked in the national source tracking 10 system.

11 I don't know, Kim, if you want to talk about it, or Auggie, can 12 you talk a little bit about the level of support among the agreement states for 13 this rulemaking? I know that's been a long-time coming to get rolling on this.

14 Let's do that check-in now. How are you all feeling be this?

15 Is this something you think is a good idea?

16 MS. STEVES: I'll let someone from OES take that.

17 MS. LEEK: This is Angela Leek, I'm going to jump in here 18 real quickly.

19 From the CRCPD's suggested state regulations 20 perspective, we have a little bit of history in this topic and have been working 21 on this over the last few years.

22 There has been an interest across the states to figure out 23 ways to better support. Because as Kim did mention, often times states are 24 left with those open sources or the disposal of a source that hasn't otherwise 25 been required to be financially assured by their licensee.

26 So, we have been working on suggested state regulations

51 1 and have had Committees working on this, very much in line with what has 2 been coming out of in the idea of the sealed sources and the higher-category 3 activity sources.

4 However, there was some interest by states to go a little bit 5 lower into almost a generally licensed device arena, not quite, and there's a 6 little bit of discrepancy there on the states.

7 So, I would say from the feedback we've gotten through that 8 process, which is not yet finalized, and now this new initiative is out we're 9 going to work to make sure we align our SSR efforts with what the NRC is 10 working through in discussions, so they align and we're ready for compatibility 11 at some point in the future.

12 However, I think from the comments we've received from all 13 of our states, there is a general support for doing some effort to require 14 financial assurance, whether that's a full decommissioning plan or not I think 15 can be varied on the level of actual risk from a sealed source versus lower 16 activity sources.

17 However, the higher activity sources I think you'll find a 18 consensus that we agree.

19 As you get down into lower activities or less risk, it gets 20 grayer so finding that level of where to draw the line might be the difficult part 21 but I do think you'll find some consensus across the states in agreement for 22 extending some of those financial assurance requirements.

23 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Auggie, do you want to add 24 anything?

25 MR. ONG: Definitely, thank you for the opportunity to do 26 so. I can only use New Hampshire as an example.

52 1 We do understand that the mom and pop businesses that 2 somehow are no longer able to have enough financial assurance so to speak 3 for eventual disposal of those sources.

4 And that being said, what we have done in the past and still 5 are doing so is that for any of the material licensees who ship out low-level 6 radioactive waste, New Hampshire charges a certain percentage of that 7 volume.

8 And the whole purpose of that is to provide a standard loan 9 fund thereby that could be used and tapped if necessary to properly dispose 10 of those abandoned sources.

11 So, what it means is that certain licensees will become, so 12 to speak, have a stake in ensuring that, eventually, the state does not get 13 stuck, sort of speak, funding the entire disposal cost of those abandoned 14 sources, where now the state will certainly contribute certain parts to that fund.

15 But the licensees that do ship out low-level waste will also 16 be partners in terms of helping the state to securely dispose of those 17 abandoned sources.

18 So, that is one mechanism and I don't know of other states 19 doing similar things without having to tap into scattered programs or looking 20 for referral government to provide the necessary funding or to dispose of these 21 abandoned sources.

22 We're going to be at the start of this rulemaking and that's 23 going to give us a lot of time to interact with all of you and get your ideas and 24 feedback. We're really looking forward to making progress on this with all of 25 your help.

26 Briefly, another topic on fusion that got brought up a little bit

53 1 today, we're seeing more interest in fusion technologies and the development 2 of a regulatory framework for fusion.

3 I know that our partners from Wisconsin and California are 4 on the fusion Work Group with the NRC Staff. I realize we're still early in the 5 process of thinking through options for the regulatory framework.

6 Angela, at this point, does CRCPD have thoughts about the 7 appropriate role of states in regulating fusion reactor technologies?

8 MS. LEEK: Thank you for the question, Commissioner 9 Baran.

10 I think we have a Work Group, Jeff Samansick is the Chair 11 of the Work Group that's doing a lot of the efforts to stay on par with what 12 discussions are happening as this is evolving.

13 As far as the role of agreement states and the licensing, I 14 think I would defer to the agreement states and hopefully David will bail me 15 out on this to give a little bit of that feedback on what the OES would believe 16 as far as the agreement states rule in this type of regulatory structure.

17 CRCPD is continuing to keep focus and make sure that we 18 are compiling all of the relevant information so that as this proceeds we can 19 help to support comments as they come through.

20 MR. CROWLEY: I'll jump in there. Thank you, Angela, for 21 that point of view from CRCPD in their effort.

22 So, as far as fusion goes, we see a lot of different 23 stakeholders with respect to this and I think a lot of the things that we hear 24 from the state perspective is to not lose sight that fusion could mean more 25 than just power reactors, right?

26 So, we have potentially isotope production or different

54 1 industrial and research uses of fusion technology. And sometimes those get 2 attributed more closely to, say, an accelerator facility but it is in fact a fusion 3 process that's going under or taking place.

4 So, if the NRC passes either regulatory language or a 5 framework that goes forward in such a way, a lot of states might have issue 6 with all those other technologies being broadly swept up.

7 So, I think where we draw the line and how we delineate 8 between things is important. Additionally, I think the industry and some 9 states make a case that fusion can be regulated.

10 It's not a fission process, it's not going to have necessarily 11 the same risks, it's not zero risk potential but it'll have different risks such that 12 the state could regulate those reactors, even if they were on the power scale.

13 But the appetite from one state to the next to be able to take 14 that on is going to be much different. Some states have very robust nuclear 15 programs and other ones much more limited.

16 So, my opinion way before we get down the road here, is 17 maybe we would see this as something that could be brought into our 274 18 type agreement. With the agreement state itself, does that state choose to 19 take on regulating fusion activities or not?

20 So, just early on but I do really appreciate the coordination.

21 We've had several meetings, both public and government to government, that 22 have really helped bring some of these issues out for conversation.

23 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks, Dave, I appreciate it.

24 I have one last question related to greater than Class C low-level waste.

25 There's a paper pending before the Commission about a potential GTCC 26 rulemaking.

55 1 Aside from the site in Texas that is potentially interested in 2 disposing of GTCC, has anyone heard interest from any other sites or states 3 in accepting GTCC disposal?

4 I'm seeing a lot of shaking heads.

5 (Simultaneous Speaking.)

6 MR. ONG: Commissioner Baran, not that I'm aware of, so, 7 certainly, if that question is posed to agreement states then we will certainly 8 send out a survey to determine the interest of that disposal.

9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you, I appreciate it, and 10 good to talk with you all, I think it's been a really good discussion, thank you.

11 Thanks, Chairman.

12 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Baran, 13 and thanks again to all the participants. As I said at the beginning, nuclear 14 safety and security is a team sport and we're grateful for the incredible 15 collaborative relationship we have with both OAS and CRCPD.

16 So, thank you all for being here and your thoughtful 17 responses to all of our questions. Thanks to my colleagues. The great thing 18 about having such good colleagues is a lot of their questions are some of the 19 same questions I had.

20 We touched on I think really important topics today, 21 workforce development and program sustainability. Fusion is certainly the 22 issue of the day. Sealed sources security among a lot of other issues.

23 So, I want to thank everyone again this morning and with 24 that, we're adjourned.

25 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 26 at 11:43 a.m.)