ML23065A215

Sept 8th Transcript from the 1999 Agreement State Meeting (Sept 8, Sept 9, Sept 10)

ML23065A215
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/08/1999
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Huda Akhavannik, NMSS/MSST
Shared Package
ML23065A213	List: ML23065A215 ML23065A216
References
Download: ML23065A215 (1)

Text

1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 ***

5 6 1999 ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT 7 STATES MEETING 8

9 Renaissance Hotel 10 Wedgewood Room 11 9721 Arboretum Boulevard 12 Austin, Texas 13 14 Wednesday, September 8, 1999 15 16 The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, at 17 8:15 a.m.

18 PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:

19 FRANCIS X. CAMERON, Facilitator 20 ERIC WEINSTEIN 21 RUTH McBURNEY 22 HAMPTON NEWSOME 23 GEORE BROZOWSKI 24 DWIGHT CHAMBERLAIN 25 KATHY ALLEN

2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (8:15 a.m.)

3 MR. RATLIFF: I just want to welcome you to 4 Texas. Thank you for coming to this meeting. And, as 5 I've noticed over the years, the Agreement States Meeting 6 has gotten bigger each year since we no longer get 7 federal money, which is an interesting twist in 8 everything.

9 (Laughter.)

10 MR. RATLIFF: The hotel here has been really 11 good at working with us. But if you have any 12 compliments, give them to my staff; they did all the 13 work. And I'll take all the complaints and gripes.

14 I especially want to recognize Marilyn Kelso of 15 my staff -- she has done so much work -- Cindy Cardwell 16 and her whole staff, Doris McCormick outside there, and 17 Margaret Henderson, who coordinated getting this meeting 18 set up, and everybody else that I have forgotten.

19 If all of the TDH staff could just stand up so 20 we can just see who you all are?

21 (Applause.)

22 MR. RATLIFF: There you go. And even though Ed 23 Bailey is still standing up, he does remember that he's 24 from California now.

25 (Laughter.)

3 1 MR. RATLIFF: We're going to get started.

2 Quickly, I want Alice Rogers to say a few words, and then 3 we're going to start off with Stan's fun-and-games day.

4 MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Richard.

5 Richard told me last night that I got to give a 6 welcome to you all, so I was trying to figure out how I 7 could use, "Y'all," as many times as possible so you 8 would know that you really are in Texas. But then, 9 walking in from the parking lot this morning, I 10 remembered that one of the main ways you can tell that 11 you're in Texas is when shade is more important than 12 distance to the front door.

13 (Laughter) 14 MS. ROGERS: But we're really happy that you 15 all are here and hope that you have a good time and that 16 we get a lot of good business done. Thank you.

17 MR. MARSHALL: Good morning, and welcome. I am 18 excited -- very excited for this robust attendance. I 19 think we have the block of rooms at the hotel filled, and 20 I think we have maybe in excess of a hundred at this 21 year's meeting. I'm grateful for the attention to this, 22 and I'm glad to be here in Texas. Some of you know that 23 I married a Texas 12 years ago, which adds a little 24 different meaning to the song "All My In-laws Live in 25 Texas", because they truly do.

4 1 (Laughter) 2 MR. MARSHALL: At this time, I'd like to go 3 around the room quickly to have each person at the table 4 and in the audience introduce themselves. I'd like to 5 acknowledge old friends and old faces and new friends and 6 new faces that are here.

7 We'll start down at the end here with Mike.

8 Please identify yourself and your state.

9 MR. BRODERICK: I'm Mike Broderick of Oklahoma.

10 Hopefully, our last OAS meeting as a Non-agreement state.

11 MS. McCLANAHAN: I'm Sue McClanahan from 12 Minnesota. And I don't know if I want that.

13 MR. WHATLEY: I'm Kirk Whatley from the state 14 of Alabama.

15 MS. TEFFT: Diane Tefft from New Hampshire.

16 MR. PASSETTI: Bill Passetti from Florida.

17 MR. SNELLINGS: David Snellings, Arkansas.

18 MR. WANGLER: Ken Wangler from North Dakota.

19 MR. HILL: Tom Hill from Georgia.

20 MR. FLETCHER: Roland Fletcher from Maryland.

21 MR. FRY: Mel Fry from North Carolina.

22 MS. ROGERS: Cheryl Rogers, Nebraska.

23 MR. FITCH: Stan Fitch from New Mexico.

24 MR. PARIS: Ray Paris, Oregon.

25 MR. BAKER: Gary Baker, New York.

5 1 MR. DUNDULIS: Bill Dundulis, Rhode Island.

2 MR. O'KELLEY: Pearce O'Kelley, South Carolina.

3 MR. RATLIFF: Richard Ratliff, Texas.

4 MS. JONES: Cindy Jones, the NRC.

5 MR. LOHAUS: Paul Lohaus, Office of State 6 Programs at NRC.

7 MR. HOWARD: John Howard, Governor Bush's 8 Office here in Texas.

9 MS. DICUS: Greta Dicus, NRC.

10 MR. MARSHALL: Stan Marshall, Nevada.

11 MR. BAILEY: Ed Bailey, California.

12 MR. CAMERON: Chip Cameron, NRC.

13 MR. SUPPES: Roger Suppes, Ohio.

14 MR. GOFF: Bob Goff, Mississippi.

15 MR. SINCLAIR: Bill Sinclair, Utah.

16 MR. FRAZEE: Terry Frazee, the state of 17 Washington.

18 MS. SHULTS: Debra Shults, Tennessee.

19 MS. ROGERS: Alice Rogers, Texas.

20 MR. HALLISEY: Bob Hallisey, Massachusetts.

21 MR. KLINGER: Joe Klinger, Illinois.

22 MR. SEELEY: Shawn Seeley from Maine.

23 MR. WASCOM: Ronnie Wascom, Louisiana.

24 MS. JEFFS: Vicki Jeffs, Kentucky.

25 MR. GODWIN: Aubrey Godwin, Arizona.

6 1 MR. SCHMIDT: Paul Schmidt, Wisconsin.

2 MR. MARSHALL: I agree, Ed: No one dropped the 3 mic. That's great.

4 I'd like, I think, to introduce the audience, 5 as well. I don't know how we'll do this with a standing 6 mic, but we might run the microphone down here at the end 7 in front of Shawn to the audience.

8 MR. GREEN: Bob Green, Compliance and 9 Inspection, Texas.

10 MR. WEAVER: Ken Weaver, Colorado.

11 MS. YOUNGBERG: Barbara Youngberg, New York.

12 MR. COLLINS: Steven Collins, Illinois.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: George Fitzgerald, Texas.

14 MR. DUNN: John Dunn, California.

15 MS. LARKINS: Pat Larkins, NRC.

16 MR. RAO: C. D. Rao from Texas Natural Resource 17 Conservation Commission.

18 MS. HENDERSON: Margaret Henderson from Texas.

19 MR. PETERSON: Jim Peterson, South Carolina.

20 MR. PORTER: Henry Porter, South Carolina.

21 MR. MULDER: Roger Mulder, Texas.

22 MR. OWEN: Bob Owen, Ohio.

23 MS. ALLEN: Kathy Allen, Illinois.

24 MS. WHITE: Susan White of Texas.

25 MR. WHITE: Duncan White, NRC Region One.

7 1 MR. McNEES: Jim McNees, Alabama.

2 MR. WHADFORD: Vic Whadford, Texas.

3 MR. THOMPSON: Jered Thompson, Arkansas.

4 MR. FLATER: Don Flater, Iowa.

5 MR. BUNGE: Mark Bunge, Wisconsin.

6 MS. [indiscernible]: [indiscernible], Texas.

7 MR. DEERING: John Deering, Texas.

8 MR. [indiscernible]: [indiscernible], Texas.

9 MR. [indiscernible]: Rick [indiscernible],

10 Texas.

11 MR. FOGLE: David Fogle, Texas.

12 MR. WOODRUFF: Richard Woodruff, NRC Region 13 Two.

14 MR. SMITH: David Smith, Texas.

15 MS. CARDWELL: Cindy Cardwell, Texas.

16 MR. SMITH: Gary Smith, Texas.

17 MR. HACKNEY: Charles Hackney, Region Four, 18 NRC.

19 MR. [indiscernible]: [indiscernible], Region 20 Four, NRC.

21 MR. [indiscernible]: [indiscernible].

22 MR. COMBS: Fred Combs, NRC.

23 MR. [indiscernible]: [indiscernible], NRC.

24 MR. COOL: Don Cool, NRC.

25 MR. SOLLENBERGER: Dennis Sollenberger

8 1 [phonetic], NRC.

2 MR. McLENDON: Chuck McLendon, Texas.

3 MS. CAMPBELL: Vivian Campbell, Region Four, 4 NRC.

5 MR. CAIN: Chuck Cain, NRC.

6 MS. McLEAN: Linda McLean, NRC.

7 MR. COLLINS: Doug Collins, NRC Region Two.

8 MR. SHAFFER: Mark Shaffer, Region Four, NRC.

9 MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Dwight Chamberlain, NRC 10 Region Four.

11 MR. WALTER: David Walter, Alabama.

12 MR. BOLLING: Lloyd Bolling, NRC.

13 MR. KEMPER: Murray Kemper, NRC.

14 MS. BACA: Bernadette Baca, Texas.

15 MR. SHAVER: Phillip Shaver, Texas.

16 MS. SCHNEIDER: Kathy Schneider, NRC.

17 MR. SHROFF: Jim Shroff, Texas.

18 MR. LYNCH: Jim Lynch, NRC Region Three.

19 MS. HOWARD: Marcia Howard, Ohio.

20 MR. [indiscernible]: [indiscernible], NRC 21 Region One.

22 MR. KLINE: Dale Kline, Texas Radiation 23 Advisory Board.

24 MR. JOHNSON: Ray Johnson. I'm from Maryland, 25 and I'm here representing the Health Physics Society.

9 1 MR. JACOBI: And Jake Jacobi, Colorado. I'm 2 too -- I had too many margaritas last night to fit 3 between Alabama and Nebraska there.

4 MR. MARSHALL: That's -- we know way too much, 5 Jake.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. CAMERON: Bill?

8 MR. STONE: Bill Stone with Texas.

9 MR. MARSHALL: Is there anyone else?

10 MS. KELSO: Marilyn Kelso, also from Texas.

11 MR. MARSHALL: Great.

12 At this time, I want to turn this over to 13 Richard.

14 MR. RATLIFF: It's my pleasure this morning to 15 introduce John Howard. He's with Governor Bush's staff, 16 and he's the Director of the Natural Resources and 17 Environmental Program.

18 John?

19 He's going to welcome you really to Texas.

20 MR. HOWARD: Thank you.

21 On behalf of Governor Bush and the great State 22 of Texas, welcome to this conference and to Austin.

23 Austin is our capital city, and we're very proud of it.

24 And while I hope that you get a lot out of this 25 conference, I also hope that you will get out and see

10 1 Austin.

2 Since 1964, agreement states have been meeting 3 with their federal counterparts to discuss and resolve 4 the often complex and technical regulatory issues 5 concerning radiation. And even though the federal 6 funding, as we have noted several times and will probably 7 hear a few more times, has been cut three years ago, I'm 8 very proud that the states have taken it upon themselves 9 and made the significant commitment to continue meeting.

10 I hope that through this year's conference, 11 you'll learn more about what the other states are doing 12 and what the other federal agencies are doing so that you 13 can take home improved tools and, just as importantly, 14 improved relationships to resolve these technical and 15 complex issues. Since congress first adopted the whole 16 concept in 1959, we now have 30 agreement states.

17 Texans like to brag a lot, so I will just for a 18 minute. We grow the most cattle -- we raise the most 19 cattle and we generate more oil and gas than any other 20 state. We produce and use more electricity than any 21 other state.

22 We are the second-largest state, both in terms 23 of population and land mass. If we were a country, we 24 would be the world's 11th largest economy, but, 25 unfortunately, we were only the fifth agreement state.

11 1 So agreement states have taken on the 2 significant job of accepting the primary responsibility 3 for regulating radioactive materials within their borders 4 with the objective, of course, of protecting workers, the 5 public and the environment from unhealthy radiation 6 exposure.

7 The theme for this year's conference is very 8 appropriate not only to the last three years of your 9 commitment of coming forward and funding this event, but, 10 also, to something that our office has worked very hard 11 on, and that is: Nation-wide challenges with state-wide 12 solutions. You have shown through your commitment that 13 the states can run a very complex and often controversial 14 program at the state level.

15 Governor Bush is fond of saying, "Let Texans 16 run Texas." And while your states may not have the same 17 exact phrasing, the sentiment probably holds true in most 18 of your states, and that is: That government works best 19 when it is closest to a particular concern given adequate 20 resources and support.

21 You have shown and your states have shown in 22 most cases that you have that support and that you are 23 willing to dedicate those resources. And because of 24 that, the program is, by and large, a big success.

25 The agreement states have many issues in

12 1 common; hopefully, you'll talk about some of those. And 2 you also have a lot of unique issues. Here in Texas, 3 just a handful of things that we are working on -- some 4 of you, including Chairman Dicus, have had the chance to 5 visit the federal Pantex Weapons Disassembly Plant 6 outside of Amarillo, Texas.

7 We're concerned about transportation issues for 8 the WIP site just across our western border in New 9 Mexico. We're working on addressing the commercial 10 irradiation of food. And, as many of you are wrestling, 11 we're trying to decide whether assured isolation really 12 is the most practical way to long-term manage low-level 13 radioactive waste.

14 Whether you share these same concerns or have 15 different concerns and different approaches, we share the 16 same goals. And we can benefit from each other's 17 participation and experience.

18 I believe the key to the future success of this 19 and any other similar enterprise is cooperation, from the 20 training and emergency response exercises that you hold 21 to the incident investigations you participate in to 22 addressing such issues as the use of lasers to forming a 23 host of other policies and regulations.

24 I encourage each of you to use this conference 25 as an opportunity to learn more about your area of

13 1 expertise, as well as to continue to develop the 2 relationships around this table. Together, we'll be 3 better equipped to solve these difficult issues.

4 Now I'll turn it back to Richard.

5 (Applause.)

6 MR. RATLIFF: Thank you, very much, John. In 7 fact, I think you're going to stay for part of the 8 conference today, which is real good.

9 And I think John hit so many of the points, 10 that we have so many complex issues that, sometimes, we 11 don't know which one to deal with first. And, like Dr.

12 Patterson, my Executive Deputy Commissioner, always says, 13 radiation, though, is third on her list because oysters 14 and ephedrine ate up more of their time than radiation, 15 which is real surprising.

16 But I think we have some real complicated 17 issues, but I think we've got the means and the people to 18 solve them. So I think it's going to be a good 19 conference. And we're going to start with Stan and with 20 Greta Dicus. And I think it's going to work real well.

21 Thank you, much.

22 MR. MARSHALL: I want to try to sit here and 23 relax. I want you to know that this has been -- that I'm 24 nervous this morning, but I'm glad to be here.

25 As we start the new millennium, I want to

14 1 briefly characterize this last year as one of changes and 2 transitions for the Organization of Agreement States. I 3 want to acknowledge the retirement of Dick Bangart from 4 the Office of State Programs. We will all miss and we're 5 sorry for the passing of Wayne Kerr, our friend to this 6 program, of the Office of State Programs, as well as the 7 great State of Illinois.

8 We are in the first year or so of OSP 9 leadership by Paul Lohaus at the helm of OSP. We have 10 recently seen the signing of the 31st agreement state, 11 the great State of Ohio.

12 In this last year, I believe, there has been 13 more participation by the Office of -- excuse me -- the 14 Organization of Agreement States with the NRC working 15 groups. And I also want to recognize the recent 16 retirement of Joel Lubenau, a friend of the Pennsylvania 17 program, long-time NRC staff and technical assistant to 18 Greta.

19 With all the changes and transitions, in some 20 ways, the agreement states are in a more difficult times 21 than ever, but I believe the programs are also stronger 22 than ever before. And a great share of that success has 23 been the result of learning from each other at meetings 24 like this.

25 When I solicited your input for agenda topics

15 1 for this meeting, I was humbly impressed by your 2 responses. Your agenda for this three-day meeting is 3 comprised of your interests and needs, not contrived 4 guessing by me or anyone else. I thank you for your 5 support to me as Chairman, and I encourage your continued 6 timely response and input to Ed Bailey in the new year.

7 Without further ado, I want to touch on one 8 last transition as we come to this meeting. Once upon a 9 time not so long ago, Greta Dicus sat around this table 10 and she helped lead this group. And she returns today as 11 a confirmed NRC Commissioner and recently confirmed 12 Chairman. I welcome our friend, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Chairman, Greta Dicus.

14 (Applause) 15 MS. DICUS: Okay. Well, thank you, very much, 16 and good morning, everyone. And it's really good to be 17 back and see so many of you.

18 Not totally out or I can't read this.

19 (Laughter) 20 MS. DICUS: Okay. This should be a challenge.

21 Oh, thank you. I need a little light -- a little 22 flash-light.

23 (Pause.)

24 MS. DICUS: No. This is fine. I can do this.

25 At any rate, I'm really pleased and very proud

16 1 to be here today as both the Chairman of the Nuclear 2 Regulatory Commission and as a former agreement state 3 radiation control program director. And today, I would 4 like to share with you my vision for the future of the 5 agreement state program.

6 As all of you are aware, both the NRC and 7 agreement state programs have undergone significant 8 changes over the past ten years, resulting in a number of 9 improvements in our programs. In response to 10 stake-holder concerns, the NRC has engaged in one of the 11 most aggressive regulatory reform efforts ever undertaken 12 in the history of the Commission; as a result, we have a 13 greater understanding and confidence in the program today 14 as it is carried out across the nation.

15 I note that states have increased opportunity 16 for early involvement and regulations, guidance and other 17 regulatory development activities and now play a much 18 more significant role in helping direct, shape and 19 administer the program. I see further increased need and 20 opportunity for state involvement, what I still and will 21 refer to as empowerment of the states.

22 Not only do I believe that the NRC is a more 23 effective and efficient regulator today than it ever has 24 been, but I would like to recognize several significant 25 areas of improvement in communication and effectiveness

17 1 that have taken place between our organizations that 2 continue to make major contributions to the program.

3 Although the agreement state program and NRC 4 have always had a unique perspective on how to give and 5 exchange information, the concept of stake-holders was a 6 relatively new concept for the NRC and, in many cases, 7 did not quite have the same meaning for everyone.

8 Of course, if we looked at the individual 9 meanings of the words "stake" and "holder", we find from 10 the American Heritage Dictionary that a "stake-holder" 11 may be a person who has a right or legal share in 12 something. It is, of course, the latter viewpoint for 13 which we are all striving to seek.

14 Both the agreement states and the NRC have many 15 mechanisms for engaging people in an effective manner, 16 and I'd like to point out what some of those are:

17 Involvement in Commission briefings, staff workshops and 18 conferences, inter-agency working groups, involvement 19 through various state and federal web sites, public and 20 congressional hearings and petitions for rule-making, 21 just to name a few.

22 In reviewing our respective programs over the 23 past four years since becoming a commissioner, I have 24 noted a significant increase in agreement state 25 involvement in NRC policy and regulation development

18 1 since the initiation of the first NRC agreement state 2 working group that was created for the development of 3 implementing procedures for agreement state adequacy and 4 compatibility policy statement, in October of 1995.

5 Since then, there have been more than 25 6 working groups, including Radioactive Sources and 7 Devices, Agreement State Training, Generally Licensed 8 Devices, Nuclear By-product Material Risk Review, Part 35 9 of the Medical Use Regulations, and Incident Response 10 Self-assessment.

11 Some other examples of where states have 12 participated in NRC processes? Commission Stake-holder 13 Meetings, for example; New Jersey and Illinois 14 participated in those. NRC's Regulatory Information 15 Conference held each spring: Illinois has been a 16 participant in those. NRC Reactor Inspection and 17 Oversight Pilot Program and Assessment: Again, New 18 Jersey and Illinois. Development of guidance on the use 19 of potassium iodide: Arizona, Tennessee, Alabama, as 20 well as the CRCPD. Development of guidance for 21 de-commissioning: Many states are involved with us in 22 that process. Development of the issues paper for 23 clearance, with Illinois involvement. And the Integrated 24 Material Performance Assessment Program which -- I think 25 most of you are involved in assisting us.

19 1 So what is the current status of the agreement 2 state program? In looking to the future, the current 3 status of the program and projected growth in the number 4 of new agreement states raises issues for consideration 5 where states may need to exercise an increased role in 6 administration of the agreement state program.

7 As you know, I've very pleased to report that 8 the 31st Agreement State, Ohio, entered into that 9 agreement, which was signed by me on August 11 of this 10 year and because effective on August 31. Also, effective 11 September 1, 1999, NRC regulates about 5,200 materials 12 licensees in 19 states, Puerto Rico and the District of 13 Columbia.

14 Thirty-one agreement states regulate about 15 16,275 licensees. NRC will continue to maintain an 16 oversight role through impact for both agreement states 17 and NRC's materials programs. State involvement in 18 impact and guidance development has strengthened the 19 process and has helped share in the resource 20 requirements.

21 With the increase in new agreement states, the 22 NRC materials program, which currently provides the 23 majority of the national infrastructure for regulations, 24 guidance, procedures, training, incident response and 25 databases, will become increasingly difficult to

20 1 maintain. So let us look at just what some of these 2 facts are.

3 These states are currently pursuing agreement 4 state status: Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and 5 Wisconsin. And the second column shows the number of 6 licensees those states would have, and the last column 7 shows the anticipated year that they will become 8 agreement states.

9 Other states are expressing interest in or 10 exploring agreement state status. Connecticut, Virginia 11 and Utah are considering uranium-recovery activities.

12 As can be seen from these slides, by Fiscal 13 Year 2003, the number of NRC licensees could be reduced 14 from approximately 5,200 to just over 4,000, which would 15 result in a reduced fee base to maintain the national 16 infrastructure and provide support to NRC's materials 17 program.

18 This not only provides us with an opportunity 19 to consider new approaches to the agreement state program 20 within the scheme of the national materials program, but 21 a chance to review policy, legal, fiscal and 22 implementation issues associated with future changes to 23 further define the program.

24 Now I'm going to shift gears a little bit and 25 talk about some of the activities that are ongoing at NRC

21 1 that are of particular interest to agreement states. And 2 I know that many of these issues are on the agenda for 3 further discussion by the agreement states and the NRC 4 staff, and I hope that the rest of the meeting will be as 5 productive as the agenda has planned it to be.

6 Let's talk first about the release of solid 7 materials at licensed facilities. The issues paper was 8 released on June 30 of this year for public comment. The 9 NRC initiated the consideration of a rule-making to 10 establish criteria for the release of solid materials 11 with low levels of radioactive contamination in order to 12 establish a regulatory framework more consistent with 13 existing requirements for air and liquid releases.

14 Facilitated public meetings will be held to 15 obtain early stake-holder input on major issues, 16 including conducting a scoping process related to the 17 scope of environmental impacts. The first public meeting 18 will be held next week, September 16 and 17, in San 19 Francisco. Meetings in Chicago, Atlanta and Rockville, 20 Maryland, will follow.

21 Another issue on our plate is the general 22 license rule. On July 26, 1999, the Commission proposed 23 changes to its regulations to establish additional 24 requirements for users and distributors of by-product 25 material in certain measuring, gauging and controlling

22 1 devices. The comment period ends October 12 of this 2 year.

3 The proposed amendments to our rule would 4 include requiring a registration process, adding a 5 registration fee, and would clarify which regulations 6 apply to all general licensees. These revisions are 7 aimed at providing greater assurance that users of these 8 devices will properly handle and dispose of them, thus 9 reducing the potential for un-necessary radiation 10 exposure to the public or contamination of property.

11 In addition, the Commission published a final 12 rule in August of this year which allows NRC to request 13 information from a general licensee and provides a legal 14 basis for our registration program.

15 Risk-informing performance-basing materials 16 regulations: The Commission recently approved a staff 17 proposal to implement a framework for using risk 18 assessment in regulating nuclear material uses and 19 disposal.

20 The Commission directed the staff in SEC E 21 99,100 to develop appropriate material safety goals, 22 analogous to the NRC reactor safety goal, to guide the 23 NRC and to define what "safety" means for a materials 24 program. The staff was directed to develop these goals 25 through an enhanced participatory process, including

23 1 broad stake-holder participation.

2 The Commission further requested that the 3 national materials program include an agreement states 4 component that must be factored into the decision-making 5 process to avoid duplication, gaps or conflicts with the 6 national program.

7 One of my favorite topics: Offering sources.

8 NRC has worked over the past two years with the CRCPD's 9 E-34 Committee on unwanted radioactive materials to 10 develop a national offering source program. The project 11 includes providing aid in the management of unwanted and 12 uncontrolled radioactive material by identifying sources 13 of assistance with the handling of the material and by 14 finding suitable outlets for the material.

15 NRC recently signed a memorandum of 16 understanding with the Department of Energy that defines 17 the agreed-upon roles and responsibilities of the NRC and 18 DOE in situations involving offering sources where NRC is 19 responsible for leading the federal response, immediately 20 health and safety hazards have been addressed and 21 assistance with the transfer of the material is 22 determined to be necessary for continued protection of 23 public health and safety and the environment.

24 10 CFR, Part 40: The Commission directed the 25 staff to provide recommendations to the Commission for

24 1 developing a more risk-informed and coherent set of 2 requirements for licensing source material under Part 40, 3 including options for Commission consideration on how to 4 proceed to address the jurisdictional and technical 5 issues associated with regulating source material.

6 NRC staff is evaluating options relating to the 7 exemption in 10 CFR, Part 40.13(a) for materials less 8 than 0.05 percent by weight-source material.

9 Cost estimates for completion of the formally 10 terminated NRC-licensed sites programs: The staff has 11 recommended that the Commission approve the submittal of 12 a general fund appropriation request to the Office of 13 Management and Budget for $1.65 million to provide 14 financial assistance to the states for the purposes of 15 reviewing files, conducting surveys, characterizing and 16 remediating sites formerly licensed by the Commission.

17 And that paper is in SEC E 99,193, as a matter 18 of reference. And we are relatively optimistic that we 19 will be able to get some, if not all, of the budget 20 request that we have put in.

21 So, in summarizing, let me say that significant 22 changes will continue to occur in both of our programs as 23 we move on to the next century. We must strive ahead to 24 continue the success that we have been able to achieve 25 thus far. Empowering the states to assist the NRC in its

25 1 development of future materials regulations and guidance 2 will further our working relationship, as well as enable 3 both of our programs to be more effective and efficient.

4 The importance of communicating with the 5 public, licensees and various regulatory agencies is 6 paramount; our continued success in dealing with complex 7 situations will depend upon obtaining full and open 8 communication with all of our stake-holders.

9 Again, let me tell you how much I really thank 10 you for your very kind invitation for me to come down 11 this morning and be your keynote speaker. I wish you all 12 the best and continued success at this conference.

13 And I think, with that, we probably have time 14 for some questions if you would like to have an exchange, 15 a conversation, rather than just listening to me. Again, 16 thank you, very much.

17 (Applause.)

18 MR. MARSHALL: Questions for Chairman Greta?

19 Steve?

20 MR. COLLINS: Steve Collins from Illinois. You 21 mentioned that you -- in the performance-based --

22 risk-informed performance-based comments that the NRC 23 might try to define what is meant by "safety." And I 24 would like you to describe that a little bit more, 25 because the last federal agency that got involved in

26 1 doing that -- we don't all like where they ended up.

2 And we think that, in the radiation area, maybe 3 NRC would be better from a purely scientific basis to 4 define what "safety" is. And what -- please explain a 5 little more.

6 MS. DICUS: I think the important point is 7 going back to -- we may or may not be able to define 8 exactly what "safety" is for materials uses, but I think 9 we have to approach that and we have to attempt to, and 10 we shouldn't be afraid to take a stab at it. But I agree 11 with you: It's not going to be just one agency really 12 necessarily that can do that explanation.

13 We're going to have to reach out to all of our 14 stake-holders, which is the whole point of having the 15 communication, putting the issue out on the table and 16 discussing it. And I think we do have to do that.

17 MR. McNEES: Jim McNees from Alabama. For the 18 question about providing the infrastructure for national 19 materials program: For the past decade or so, the 20 majority of the infrastructure provided by NRC has been 21 funded by NRC's licensees.

22 Now that we're making the shift to where many 23 more licensees are no longer NRC licensees, I don't see 24 any progress in having a basis for funding the 25 infrastructure and keeping up this necessary

27 1 infrastructure of a national materials program with so 2 few materials licensees being left in NRC.

3 MS. DICUS: Yes. That's -- kind of at the 4 heart of what we're concerned about is -- you know, I'm 5 very pleased and want more states to become agreement 6 states. I'd be happy if all of the states became 7 agreement states, but, clearly, since we are right now 8 essentially 100-percent fee-supported does get at the 9 heart of the infrastructure of having the necessary 10 funding for the program.

11 And I think, as we consider what our options 12 are going to be in the out years, as more and more states 13 are becoming agreement states, we're going to have -- you 14 know, congress is going to have to address this issue in 15 some way or the other. That's going to be the ultimate 16 resolution of it.

17 IN our budget request for the next fiscal year, 18 we have -- for several years, actually, for OMB, Office 19 of Management and Budget, we've asked that up to 10 20 percent of our budget come off the fee base and be funded 21 out of general revenues. OMB has declined to allow us to 22 do that. And, of course, we have to submit, you know, 23 the President's budget, so we have to do what OMB says 24 even though we are an independent agency.

25 However, I've taken my cause to individual

28 1 senators and congressmen, and they are sympathetic to it.

2 And at this point, while the budget is still under 3 consideration by congress, at least one of the bills does 4 have up to 10 percent of our budget off the fee base.

5 It may be, as we continue down the road, that 6 this is going to have to be addressed and there's going 7 to have to be a general funding at least of the basic 8 infrastructure of the program.

9 Jake?

10 MR. JACOBI: Jake Jacobi, Colorado. I read 11 recently that the NRC is saying that it is capable and 12 probably should regulate DOE facilities; however, I also 13 noticed in that statement that it said the agreement 14 states should not be involved in that regulation.

15 I guess, two questions. One: Would you 16 explain why the agreement states should be involved?

17 And, secondly: Do you think there would be an 18 opportunity to contract with agreement states to have 19 some involvement?

20 MS. DICUS: Okay. It -- that is a sensitive 21 question. And being from -- a state person, I looked at 22 that kind of closely. But it does relate to the fact 23 that agreement states for the most part do not regulate 24 any kind of federal facility. And these are federal 25 facilities. So it keys in on that, for consistency, we,

29 1 the NRC, will maintain the regulatory authority over 2 federal facilities.

3 Nevertheless, that does not necessarily rule 4 out some potential of contracting with the state agency 5 in some manner or the other. So I still think that can 6 be on the table for discussion.

7 Dale?

8 MR. KLINE: Dale Kline, Texas Radiation 9 Advisory Board. As the NRC moves towards risk-informed 10 performance-based regulation, could you talk a little bit 11 about your training program that you have in house and 12 how that training program might assist the agreement 13 states as they also look at a risk-informed 14 performance-based regulatory structure?

15 MS. DICUS: Well, I'm probably going to -- may 16 have to turn to staff to get it if you want to get into 17 very many of the details. What we are trying to do with 18 our program now, it's -- really, as far as that part of 19 it's concerned, it's in its infancy.

20 We are still adding some new programs and 21 trying to get the training up so that we can get all the 22 way through the staff and really understand what 23 risk-informed performance-based means and then open up 24 those courses to -- and I might have to ask Paul to what 25 extent they are opened up now to agreement state

30 1 personnel.

2 Do you want to take that?

3 MR. LOHAUS: Paul Lohaus. As for any of the 4 NRC courses in this area -- in the materials area, those 5 courses would be available for attendance by agreement 6 states staff.

7 For those courses for which there is no tuition 8 cost, there would be no tuition expense. For any of the 9 courses which are contracted, there would be a tuition 10 cost, and the states, per our current policy, would be 11 responsible for any tuition costs for those courses. But 12 they would be open and available for attendance by 13 agreement states staff.

14 MR. GODWIN: Aubrey Godwin, Arizona. Actually, 15 two questions. The first one: Is the budget -- for 16 these formerly licensed sites, is that in the current 17 budget, or is that in the next budget?

18 MS. DICUS: It's in our next budget.

19 MR. GODWIN: Then, in that case, if you could, 20 keep some of the states advised. Perhaps it would be 21 appropriate for the states to support that, either by 22 letters to our own congressmen or to our senators, or to 23 testify if appropriate.

24 MS. DICUS: That would be very helpful.

25 MR. GODWIN: We would also -- at least some of

31 1 us would be willing to testify relative to the 2 infrastructure program you've got.

3 MS. DICUS: Thank you.

4 MR. GODWIN: The second question has to do with 5 the DOE regulatory program. If the NRC regulates it, are 6 you going to expand your regulatory program to include 7 things other than the AEA materials, for example, 8 particle accelerators and, you know, radium, that's not 9 part of the normal program --

10 MS. DICUS: If --

11 MR. GODWIN: -- which I think -- in your pilot 12 program, I think, the state of California helped you 13 with?

14 MS. DICUS: They did. If congress gives us the 15 regulatory responsibility for DOE facilities, it's our 16 intent at the same time to ask for the regulatory 17 authority for NORM as well as accelerators.

18 MR. BAILEY: Greta?

19 MS. DICUS: Uh-huh? You're too close, Ed.

20 MR. BAILEY: We used to sit closer.

21 MS. DICUS: That's right. You used to sit 22 beside me.

23 MR. BAILEY: Yes.

24 MS. DICUS: I remember.

25 MR. BAILEY: I cannot let an opportunity go by

32 1 to -- without saying that, having participated in the two 2 pilot programs at Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab, we 3 felt -- and when I say, "We," I think I pretty much can 4 speak for both the State of California regulatory program 5 and for the DOE regional office, and for the lab 6 management itself -- in saying that they -- we basically 7 all agreed that the state could do the regulation.

8 And, in fact, there were comments made to the 9 effect of -- that the lab people really weren't 10 interested in trading one regulator in Washington for 11 another regulator in Washington. And that's sort of how 12 they viewed it.

13 The other thing is that I think there are 14 precedents certainly in the EPA programs for states to 15 regulate federal agencies. And if that still is a 16 sticking point, I don't know of any of the national labs 17 that are operated by a federal agency; they're all 18 operated by a private contractor.

19 And we go into military facilities now that are 20 manufacturing weapons and so forth, and we regulate those 21 even though, in some cases, there may be security 22 clearances required, or whatever. I just don't see why 23 there needs to be any impediments put in the way of 24 agreement states regulating these labs.

25 In our case, out of the five national labs in

33 1 California, two of them are primarily accelerator 2 laboratories. And we would be happy to regulate those 3 facilities, and we'll let you continue to regulate more 4 than 4 million quantities of S and M.

5 MS. DICUS: Thank you, Ed.

6 MR. KLINGER: Greta?

7 MS. DICUS: Yes?

8 MR. KLINGER: Joel Klinger, Illinois. The 9 $1.65 million that you mentioned for -- is -- are there 10 funds allocated for reimbursement to states that took the 11 initiative to take action on sites in their states?

12 MS. DICUS: That -- it won't be retroactive, 13 unfortunately.

14 MR. KLINGER: Really?

15 MS. DICUS: It's going --

16 MR. KLINGER: You're supposed to reward --

17 MS. DICUS: -- to be going --

18 MR. KLINGER: -- initiative and enthusiasm.

19 MS. DICUS: It's going to be going forward 20 money.

21 MR. KLINGER: Really?

22 MS. DICUS: Unfortunately, unless congress will 23 give us some more money. And we'll see what we can do.

24 MR. KLINGER: Well, thank you.

25 MR. MARSHALL: I see a hand.

34 1 MS. DICUS: Yes.

2 (Pause.)

3 MS. DICUS: Well, he took it down.

4 MR. MARSHALL: Are there any more questions for 5 Greta?

6 (No response.)

7 MR. MARSHALL: I'd like to keep her here for a 8 minute with a special presentation.

9 MS. DICUS: Okay. Would all the people from 10 Ohio please come up here -- everyone that's here with the 11 Ohio program?

12 (Pause.)

13 MS. DICUS: Everyone else is leaving.

14 (Laughter) 15 MS. DICUS: Okay. I have a little presentation 16 for you. We had hoped to have a joint-signing over. Of 17 course, it was just an absolute joy for me, having been 18 the director of a state program, to be able to actually 19 sign an agreement with a state becoming an agreement 20 state program.

21 But the governor's schedule and my schedule 22 would not match. And you guys were so anxious to be an 23 agreement state that I had to go at it -- I signed it 24 separately. And we sent it to the governor, and the 25 governor signed it. But we do have a picture of me

35 1 signing the agreement with the state of Ohio, and I'd 2 like to present it to you.

3 (Applause) 4 MR. SUPPES: Greta, this is really something 5 that Ohio has been seeking for a long time. In April of 6 1991, Governor Wernovich sent out a letter wishing to 7 become an agreement state. And we had hoped to get that 8 done during his administration, but we didn't quite make 9 that. The Governor did sign the agreement.

10 I mentioned to Jim Lynch that we were only two 11 days old when we had our first incident.

12 (Laughter) 13 MR. SUPPES: But it's -- and we had a nice 14 phone call from the president of the medical systems, 15 indicating -- wanting to know what we were going to about 16 the license that he had renewed. And so it's -- it 17 hasn't taken long at all for Ohio to get involved and be 18 a part of the agreement states program.

19 So we do look forward to it. I said to staff 20 on the 31st that, "It's here. We've all sought this.

21 And the thing is: We asked for it." So --

22 (Laughter) 23 MR. SUPPES: -- it isn't something that we can 24 blame on anybody else. It's our responsibility, and 25 we're looking forward to it. Thank you, very much.

36 1 (Applause) 2 MR. RATLIFF: Greta, on behalf of Texas, we 3 wanted to leave you with -- we thought this was real 4 appropriate. It's about team work. Together, we 5 achieve. And I think that's what we see happening. We 6 have a Year 2000 calendar in here. I didn't see any to 7 Moscow or Chernobyl. I think that will help.

8 MS. DICUS: Thank you.

9 MR. RATLIFF: But we know you travel a lot.

10 And we're getting to the millennium's eve. And I thought 11 you'd like a good Christian fiction novel on the coming 12 of the millennium.

13 (Applause) 14 MS. DICUS: You realize, of course, that we're 15 flying back today, not tomorrow.

16 MR. RATLIFF: Unless you're kidnapped.

17 MS. DICUS: Oh, that's right.

18 MR. MARSHALL: Okay. I don't know where we're 19 at time-wise, but the schedule indicates it's time for a 20 break. So let's take a 15-minute break.

21 (Recess.)

22 MR. MARSHALL: I want to introduce Chip Cameron 23 from NRC, who has graciously agreed to facilitate our 24 meeting again. I also want to acknowledge and thank the 25 NRC for transcription services for the meeting.

37 1 And I think, by -- if I start -- maybe we'll 2 start the meeting a couple of minutes late and make up 3 for it by quitting early. Can you do that?

4 (Laughter) 5 MR. CAMERON: Well, I'll have some things to 6 say on that in a couple of minutes that should prove 7 humorous to everybody, probably at my expense. But it's 8 nice to see all of you again, and I really do appreciate 9 the opportunity to facilitate the meeting. This is a 10 great group of people and a great meeting, and I really 11 enjoy doing it.

12 And, hopefully, I can help in a number of ways 13 to contribute to a good meeting by, one, trying to keep 14 the discussion relevant and focused on whatever 15 particular agenda topic we're on and, also, in trying to 16 get some discussion threads going on a particular issue, 17 rather than the unrelated monologues that we're all 18 familiar with that don't really connect to anything, and 19 maybe help to do some problem solving and to, also, 20 identify action items for either the NRC or the states to 21 take out of the meeting so that we provide some closure 22 on some issues and, also, so that we document who's going 23 to do what.

24 I want to make sure that everybody has a chance 25 to talk. And I know that we don't have any really

38 1 blushing violets out there, so I know that we're going to 2 have a good discussion on a lot of issues. And we're not 3 going to, obviously, exclude all of you out there in the 4 audience from this discussion, either. And we'll be 5 going out there.

6 And the last thing is to, hopefully, keep us on 7 schedule, and I guess there are two things in that 8 regard. As you'll notice, before I got involved at all 9 in this meeting, Stan had us 45 minutes early. So I 10 don't know what that says about my skills about 11 facilitating, because I think I'll probably find a way to 12 delay this.

13 (Laughter) 14 MR. CAMERON: And the second thing is: We 15 still have -- in that regard, we still have a half-day of 16 the meeting from last year that we have to finish. So --

17 (Laughter) 18 MR. CAMERON: -- I thought, "Well, maybe -- we 19 may want to start with that.

20 But the planning committee for the meeting put 21 together a great agenda, and, as Stan mentioned, an 22 agenda based on things that you guys wanted to discuss.

23 And it's a spare agenda, I think, in terms of giving us 24 enough time to talk about everything.

25 So the ground rules again are fairly simple,

39 1 and I think they'll help us keep the discussion organized 2 and make sure that Pat, our stenographer, gets a good 3 transcript back there.

4 If you want to talk, put your name tents --

5 these are great name tents -- put them up on edge. And 6 they do stand up. And I'll keep track of who wants to 7 talk. I may not take your cards in sequence if we're 8 trying to follow one of these famous discussion threads 9 that I mentioned.

10 Pat, the stenographer, does have everybody's 11 name and where you're sitting so that you don't have to 12 say your name every time you want to say something.

13 She'll just follow that, and she's saying something to me 14 now that probably is --

15 THE REPORTER: It would help -- I can't see the 16 people's cards on this side. I'm sorry.

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

18 THE REPORTER: If you'll say the name of your 19 state, that will be fine.

20 MR. CAMERON: Yes. If you on this side could, 21 identify yourself then. And that way, she'll be able to 22 get who it is that's speaking.

23 When we go out to the audience, if you could, 24 give your name and affiliation if that's appropriate.

25 The microphone genie appeared during the break and

40 1 brought us some more microphones.

2 I'll be going around when people want to talk 3 on these sides to let you use this mic, rather than 4 shifting the microphones around a lot. But these 5 microphones are picking up pretty well even without 6 moving. So if you could, just turn it toward you -- or 7 I'll give you this mic -- and we can take it from there, 8 and I think everybody will be able to hear.

9 And we will keep track of issues that pop up 10 that may not be appropriate for the particular topic that 11 we're discussing. We'll list them up here, and we'll 12 come back to them later on.

13 And I think, with that, we can get started.

14 And before we get into our first discussion, I think --

15 Ruth, are you out there?

16 MS. McBURNEY: Yes.

17 MR. CAMERON: Ruth has an announcement about 18 the most important activity of the day.

19 MS. McBURNEY: For those of you who are 20 planning to come out to my house tonight for the 21 barbecue -- and we're glad that you are -- if you need a 22 ride, we will -- we're going to designate the drivers by 23 placing a red ribbon on their name tags so you can find 24 them and latch onto them.

25 Meet in the lobby -- the front lobby at about

41 1 six o'clock, and we'll get started out at the house at 2 about 6:30 then. It's about a 15-minute ride from here 3 to there. You can actually see this hotel from our 4 upstairs.

5 So for those of you who have cars and are 6 willing to take riders, please stand. And Monica is 7 going to staple a red ribbon on your name tag, not on 8 your chest.

9 (Laughter) 10 MS. McBURNEY: So I know there are some TNRCC 11 folks that are willing to take riders.

12 MR. CAMERON: See? I knew that I could get us 13 off schedule here.

14 MS. McBURNEY: That's all right.

15 (Pause.)

16 MS. McBURNEY: Stubbs' Barbecue from downtown 17 Austin, one of the old stand-bys, is going to be catering 18 tonight. If you have -- if you've signed up but not 19 paid, stop by the registration desk and do so. There's 20 still room, if you haven't heard about it or have decided 21 to go. So there will be plenty.

22 Any questions about that?

23 MR. BAILEY: Hey, Ruth?

24 MS. McBUR2AllenNEY: Yes?

25 MR. BAILEY: Will there be any libations at

42 1 this thing?

2 MS. McBURNEY: Yes. We will have beer, 3 soft-drinks and water. If you want anything else, bring 4 it.

5 MR. CAMERON: You could have stopped after the 6 beer for Ed.

7 MS. McBURNEY: Yes.

8 (Laughter) 9 MS. McBURNEY: I mean what else goes with 10 barbecue?

11 MR. CAMERON: He got the information he needed.

12 MS. McBURNEY: I didn't know what kind of wine 13 went with barbecue, so I didn't get any.

14 MR. CAMERON: Tequila.

15 (Laughter) 16 MR. CAMERON: Now, Ruth, we don't need to blue 17 ribbons for all the people who need rides, do we?

18 MS. McBURNEY: No, we don't need to do that.

19 MR. BAILEY: It would help us as drivers to 20 know who the riders were. So maybe blue ribbons would be 21 appropriate.

22 (Laughter) 23 MS. McBURNEY: Just gather in the lobby.

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

25 And, Alice, you're driving?

43 1 MS. ROGERS: Yes.

2 MR. CAMERON: All right.

3 MS. McBURNEY: And come as comfortable and 4 casual as you can.

5 (Pause.)

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think we're all set 7 then.

8 And the topic that we're going to start with --

9 and it will take us up to lunch -- is issues of mutual 10 concern between the Health Physics Society and the 11 Organization of Agreement States. And we have Ray 12 Johnson with us, who's President of the Health Physics 13 Society, and he and Ed Bailey are going to sort of set 14 this discussion up for us. And I believe Ray is going to 15 start with a presentation.

16 Is that correct, Ray?

17 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

18 MR. CAMERON: All right. We'll turn it over to 19 you, how ever you want to do it.

20 MR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you, very much. I 21 appreciate the opportunity to share a few moments here 22 with you this morning as a representative of the Health 23 Physics Society.

24 Many of you may know that President Keith 25 Dinger attended this meeting a year ago. And it's our

44 1 intention now to make this a part of our tradition to 2 stay connected with you folks by having someone from the 3 Health Physics Society plan to join you for each of your 4 annual meetings.

5 The -- I was mindful as I flew down from 6 Maryland yesterday afternoon and stepped off the airplane 7 and quickly discovered that I was in Texas as the blanket 8 of warm air just enveloped me.

9 And I was thinking of the business man from 10 Wisconsin who went on a business trip to Texas and, when 11 he got to his hotel, he immediately connected his lap-top 12 and sent off an E-mail message to his wife back home, 13 whose name was Jennifer Jones. And so he typed out her 14 address on the E-mail, and he made a mistake, though.

15 And he mis-spelled and -- he wrote, "Jean Jones at 16 World.Net."

17 Well, there was a Jean Jones who lived in 18 Minnesota who was the wife of a minister who had just 19 passed away and just that day had been buried. And she 20 opened the E-mail message and gave one look to the 21 message and immediately fainted. And the message said, 22 "Arrived safely, but it sure is hot down here."

23 (Laughter) 24 MR. JOHNSON: Now, as -- one other thing that I 25 thought I'd share with you, also: I've now been

45 1 President of the Health Physics Society for two months.

2 And even though as President-elect -- many of you know 3 the tradition is to visit as many chapters as possible.

4 And I was able to visit 39 chapters during my 5 President-elect year, and gave a presentation, the same 6 one, at each chapter -- about 35 times altogether.

7 However, I've not given any presentations for 8 the last couple of months, as I've started my term. And 9 so I was a little bit anxious about what do I say to you 10 good folks today, recognizing all of you as very 11 important persons and, you know, wanting to have some 12 assurance that I would be able to have a good message for 13 you?

14 So I called up Keith Dinger, who's just now 15 past-president, and asked, "Well, what did you tell these 16 folks last year?" So Keith sent me his notes. And I 17 looked at his notes and I thought, "Gee, they look pretty 18 good." And I thought, "Gee, you know, I wonder if I 19 could use those same notes over again. And would anyone 20 notice?"

21 And then I thought of the pastor -- senior 22 pastor at a church, who was called out of town suddenly 23 one weekend. And he called in the junior pastor and he 24 says, "Can you cover the service for me this weekend?"

25 And the junior pastor said, "Well, okay. I'll do the

46 1 best I can."

2 So the senior pastor went off. He came back 3 the following week, though. And he sees a member of the 4 congregation, and he says, "Well, how did the service go 5 last weekend?" And the person said, "Well, the service 6 went pretty good, but the sermon was pretty dry." And 7 the pastor said, "Okay."

8 And he went and saw another member and he said, 9 "Well, how did the service go last weekend?" And the 10 other member says, "Well, not too bad, but the sermon was 11 really pretty boring."

12 Well, the pastor asked several members, and he 13 got the same answer from all of them. And then he sees 14 the junior pastor and he asks him, "Well, how did the 15 service go last weekend?" And the junior pastor said, 16 "Well, it went pretty good, considering. But, you know, 17 you didn't give me much lead time to prepare a sermon, 18 and I hope you won't mind, but I preached one of yours."

19 (Laughter) 20 MR. JOHNSON: Now, the title of what I wanted 21 to talk with you about today is the role of the Health 22 Physics Society as we come into the 21st century.

23 Now, you might anticipate from this title that 24 perhaps I'm here to tell you what the role of the society 25 had ought to be. In fact, what I'm here for is to invite

47 1 your feedback on what you think the society should be or 2 could be in terms of how we might be able to serve some 3 of the needs that you deal with every day.

4 And so most of my presentation is not really 5 telling you anything; it will be in the form of questions 6 for which I'll be inviting your feedback. In fact, what 7 I'd like to do to conclude -- each of you should have 8 gotten a small, yellow index card like this. And at the 9 end of my presentation, I'm going to put up a slide with 10 five or six questions on it, and I would invite you to 11 offer, if you would be willing, your written feedback.

12 Now, this is something that I've been doing at 13 the chapter visits -- and some of you have attended those 14 and know this -- and have found it just an incredibly 15 valuable source of insight to be asking for feedback from 16 members or potential members as a way of understanding 17 better where we are as a society, what we could be doing 18 better and where we should direct our efforts for the 19 future. So that's really my invitation for all of you 20 now this morning.

21 I'd like to start off by just asking if you 22 would be willing to raise your hand if you're a member --

23 currently a member of the Health Physics Society. How 24 many?

25 (Pause.)

48 1 MR. JOHNSON: Whoa. Okay. Incredible. Great.

2 Thank you, very much.

3 You know, partly, that was to raise my comfort 4 level a little bit so I could sort of feel like, "Well, 5 I'm in a group of friends here." I did have the idea 6 when coming down here yesterday -- wondering, "Well, gee, 7 I wonder if there will be anyone here that I know." You 8 know, you always feel more comfortable if you know 9 people.

10 And as I've gotten to talk with a number of you 11 this morning, I realized there are many of you here that 12 I've probably known 25 or 30 years or longer. And so 13 that's helpful.

14 Now, what I'd like to look at with you now for 15 a few moments would be what I might call the changing 16 roles since the 1950s: The changing role of radiation 17 safety, the changing role of the Health Physics Society 18 and the changing roles of the states. Now, at this 19 point, I'm going to generalize a little bit, and I hope 20 you'll allow me some lee-way, mainly trying to identify 21 broad, perhaps, differences over those 40 or 50 years.

22 In the early years of the Health Physics 23 Society, I believe, most of the people who joined the 24 society in those years were probably mainly concerned 25 with academic, teaching or people in radiation safety or

49 1 research related to biological effects of radiation.

2 Now, of course, we're still interested in those same 3 interests today.

4 Others who were not engaged in education or 5 research were engaged in the implementation of radiation 6 safety programs. And the significant difference that I 7 might identify, again generalizing: In those early 8 years, there were substantially fewer rules or regulatory 9 requirements compared to today.

10 Now, what's the significance of that? Well, in 11 the early years, those people who called themselves 12 health physicists would have had training in the science 13 of radiation safety and, in implementing radiation safety 14 programs, would have had to draw upon their technical 15 knowledge of radiation and radiation effects to make 16 judgments about implementing their programs.

17 Now, how does that compare with where we may 18 find ourselves in the '90s and as we come into the new 19 century? Today, many more of the members of the Health 20 Physics Society are engaged in actually implementing 21 radiation safety programs, as opposed to engaged in 22 education or research, and there are a lot more rules to 23 follow.

24 And so, today, what I would observe -- and I 25 invite feedback on any of these observations -- is that,

50 1 in some ways, there's less requirement for technical 2 judgment today than there might have been 40 or 50 years 3 ago, the difference being that, today, a person with 4 responsibilities for a radiation safety program has laid 5 out for him or her a large number of requirements as 6 rules or guidelines or regulations, either through, you 7 know, regulatory requirements or through what they say 8 they will do in their radioactive materials license.

9 And so the requirements are much more 10 prescriptive, which means that the primary challenge in 11 many cases today for radiation safety is, "How well do 12 you know the rules, and how well do you implement them,"

13 which isn't the same as saying, "How well do you 14 understand the science of radiation safety and apply 15 judgment in the practice of that profession." Now, 16 again, this is generalizing, and I invite your comments 17 on that.

18 Now, what has happened with states' programs?

19 In the 1950s, the regulations were largely those of the 20 federal agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, now the 21 NRC, compared to today, where much more of the regulatory 22 responsibilities are taken up by agreement states, which 23 is what all you folks are here for. Now, I know there's 24 lots of other differences, but that's one that I wanted 25 to highlight.

51 1 Now, here's something I'd like you to think 2 about for a few moments with me. Most of you here are 3 engaged in, you know, regulating, the safe uses of 4 radioactive materials. What I'd like to ask or have you 5 think about, though, is who's actually responsible for 6 implementing programs for radiation safety and would 7 suggest that, by and large, this falls to a category of 8 people who are known as radiation safety officers or 9 radiation protection officers or radiation protection 10 managers.

11 And I had estimated that there were about 12 30,000 such people in the U. S. And in looking at the 13 numbers that Greta Dicus shared with us this morning, 14 though, about the number of licensees, I realize this 15 number is probably high and that the actual number may be 16 closer to 20,000.

17 Anyway, there is a large number of people in 18 the U. S. with the responsibilities for radiation safety 19 programs, identified as an RSO, and they're the ones out 20 on the front line day to day implementing the 21 requirements for radiation safety.

22 Now, here's the thing that I'd like to invite 23 your thought on: What are the qualifications for these 24 people with the front-line responsibilities for radiation 25 safety? You know, what kind of experience requirements

52 1 do they have? What kind of education or training have 2 they had?

3 One of the questions that I've talked with a 4 number of you about individually is this matter of 5 training: How much training is needed or required or 6 recommended? When you all review a license application, 7 one of the things you look for is to determine that the 8 RSO in fact is properly prepared to take on the 9 responsibilities. And one of the preparations is 10 training.

11 Well, how much training is needed? This 12 question comes up for me probably several times a week.

13 Why? Because, for about 15 years now, I've been 14 providing training to qualified persons to serve as 15 radiation safety officers and the training that I have 16 developed and provide is a 40-hour class.

17 Now, people call me up, though, and they say, 18 "Why 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />? Where did that 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> come from?" And 19 it turns out it's not easy to show in any type of 20 regulatory document the basis for the 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> and, yet, 21 it has come to be generally adopted as a rule of thumb as 22 kind of like a minimum requirement.

23 But, now, is 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> enough? Or it may be 24 it's too much. Maybe it's more than is needed.

25 And what I would notice -- generally, people

53 1 who come to my class quite often have had no previous 2 radiation transaction at all. What happens, I'm seeing 3 now, in companies that have radioactive materials 4 licenses -- they know, for example, that their current 5 RSO is leaving and they need to find someone to fill that 6 position. So they look around their staff and they find 7 someone who, in their resume or job title, the word, 8 "Safety," comes up.

9 And so perhaps it's environmental safety or 10 occupational safety or engineering safety or industrial 11 hygiene, and on and on and on, all kinds of titles where 12 safety may be directly indicated or, at least, implied.

13 And then that person gets to be appointed to become the 14 RSO.

15 In fact, one of the questions I like to start 16 with when I begin my 40-hour class on a Monday morning is 17 just to ask of those who have assembled for this class, 18 "How many of you are here because you drew the short 19 straw?"

20 (Laughter) 21 MR. JOHNSON: And how -- what percentage of 22 classes do you think will raise their hands at that 23 point? It's -- typically a good third of the group will 24 say -- admit that they're there because they drew the 25 short straw. Now, that's -- I find it kind of disturbing

54 1 because what it says to me is that the management of the 2 facility where these people are working hasn't any clear 3 concept of what's required for radiation safety.

4 And so I usually tell my students, you know, 5 that the 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> is to prepare them as best we can in 6 that very short time to take on the responsibilities of 7 RSOs and that those responsibilities are very substantial 8 and, as a minimum -- when they find out what they are and 9 they get back to their jobs in the following week, as a 10 minimum, they should ask for a pay raise.

11 (Laughter) 12 MR. JOHNSON: And then I tell them, "You know, 13 have your facility call me, and I'll be glad to justify 14 to them why you ought to get more money, because they're 15 asking of you very substantial responsibilities and they 16 may not realize that."

17 So what's magic about 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />? You know, 18 Truxor Gauge users can get a six- or eight-hour course 19 from the Truxor Company. Is that enough for that person 20 to then be listed as the RSO? Well, maybe it is. How 21 about on a broad scope license with a hospital, however?

22 Is 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> really enough for the person serving in that 23 capacity? And I would question whether it really is 24 enough.

25 But I get asked that all the time by people who

55 1 say, "Well, do really need 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />?" And, of course, in 2 our fast-paced society today, what everyone is looking 3 for is, you know, "Can I do it in one day or two days or 4 three days? Do I really need to devote a whole week?"

5 You know, the interesting thing? On Friday, 6 when we close our training session, we always pass around 7 a survey form asking for feedback, and one of the 8 comments that comes up virtually 100 percent of the time 9 is, after people have gone through the 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />, what 10 they conclude is, "Could have used more time. Needed 11 more time."

12 Now, that's partly because we're trying to pack 13 an 80-hour class into a 40-hour class, but, you know, we 14 have 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />, and it's like this is my window of 15 opportunity to try to prepare these people for the real 16 world of dealing with radiation safety.

17 And in some ways, it's scary. Why? Because I 18 know, even after the 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> and hard as we worked to 19 prepare the people for, you know, dealing with radiation 20 safety issues, at the end of the week, I know there are 21 some who haven't really gotten that. They just quite 22 haven't gotten that, you know.

23 And how do I get indications of that? Well, 24 you know, we always invite people to call after: "If you 25 have a question, call me up." So, you know, two or three

56 1 months later, a guy calls me up and he asks, "Well, what 2 kind of a Geiger-counter do I need to use now to measure 3 tritium?"

4 (Laughter) 5 MR. JOHNSON: And I go, "Oh, boy," you know, 6 because we go over and over that a Geiger-counter won't 7 measure tritium and, you know, a few weeks or a few 8 months later, they've lost it.

9 Now, the other thing we've noticed -- and I'm 10 sure you're all aware of it -- is that people who serve 11 as RSOs today currently have multiple duties of which --

12 radiation safety may be a relatively small part of a much 13 bigger job dealing with workers' safety issues in 14 general. And I've already mentioned that they come from 15 a whole variety of different disciplines in terms of 16 other training.

17 You know, I've had people come for RSO training 18 whose backgrounds are in electronics, or electronics 19 repair persons, and they've been assigned to be the RSO.

20 There may also be a Ph.D. biologist who's assigned to be 21 the RSO in a radio-pharmaceutical company. And so they 22 may be very highly trained in another field; they just 23 aren't trained in the area of radiation safety.

24 Now, what programs are available to support 25 RSOs in implementing their responsibilities as -- for

57 1 radiation safety programs? And there are a couple of 2 programs in particular.

3 The Campus Radiation Safety Officer group has 4 programs specifically oriented toward RSOs. However, 5 when I talked with Bill Shaft, who's currently president 6 of that group, awhile back, he told me that the group 7 consists of around -- a mailing list of around 800 8 people. Now, I probably shouldn't have put the word, 9 "Members," up there, because they really don't have 10 members; they have a mailing list.

11 They really don't have an organization in the 12 sense that there's no real officers. There's a person 13 elected as president who serves, as I understand it, from 14 one meeting to the next, primarily for organizing their 15 bi-annual conference. Every two years, they have a 16 gathering which I understand is a very good program.

17 However, if I understood what Bill told me, the 18 attendance at that is usually only on the order of 100 to 19 125 people. Anyway, if you compare those numbers with 20 the 20- to 30,000 RSOs in the U. S., they represent a 21 pretty small proportion of all of those folks who share 22 similar responsibilities.

23 Now, the National Registry of Radiation 24 Protection Technologists has an actual paid membership of 25 4,000 -- or maybe it's higher than that now -- and many

58 1 of those are RSOs, although the organization isn't 2 necessarily oriented toward RSOs. So the question is:

3 Where do these folks get technical support for 4 implementing their programs?

5 And, by the way, as I raise that question, one 6 of the things that I hear quite often from students who 7 call and ask about issues regarding their license is many 8 of them are reluctant to call you folks as the 9 regulators. All kinds of things come up for them, but 10 one of the concerns is, "Oh, my gosh, I don't want to ask 11 about this because, then, they'll know that I've got a 12 problem with my program," and that, somehow, this will 13 cause them difficulties.

14 So all of you, in theory, could be supporters 15 of these folks as far as helping with technical issues, 16 but, quite often, they're nervous about giving you a 17 call.

18 What is the current role of the Health Physics 19 Society? Since many of you indicated that you're 20 members, you could probably state this even better than I 21 could, but what I would suggest for you, again 22 generalizing, is that most of the current members of the 23 Health Physics Society are full-time practicing 24 professionals in radiation safety, full-time practicing 25 health physicists.

59 1 Now, what about RSOs, however? RSOs typically 2 would not identify themselves as a health physicist. Who 3 do they identify themselves as? Well, industrial 4 hygienists, safety engineers, and on and on.

5 Why don't they identify themselves as health 6 physicists? Because, primarily, they would not consider 7 themselves as specialists in radiation safety when 8 radiation safety is just one of many duties that they may 9 have. In fact, most RSOs have not even heard of the 10 Health Physics Society.

11 For example, about a year ago, I opened a new 12 training center, and the first class had 22 students. So 13 the first morning, I asked the question that I usually 14 ask, and that is: "How many of you know a health 15 physicist or know of the Health Physics Society?" Out of 16 a class of 22, how many people do you think raised their 17 hands? The answer is: One. One person, and it turned 18 out that person called themselves a health physicist.

19 And so out of that class of more than 20, only 20 one person, which would represent five percent, even knew 21 the words or had heard the words "health physics" or 22 "Health Physics Society." And for the others, they had 23 no idea what those words even meant; they had never heard 24 them before.

25 So here's the question that I'm going to ask

60 1 you to help me consider this morning, and that is:

2 Should the Health Physics Society be providing services 3 to RSOs, services as members, membership services?

4 Should we as a professional society be providing these 5 folks with opportunities for professional development, 6 for education and technical support and for networking?

7 Now, this is recognizing what I suggested earlier, that 8 there is no such program available for these people 9 currently.

10 Now, in terms of what services we offer, I am 11 kind of identifying my one-year term as president to 12 address the question of, "Who are we?" And I think it's 13 appropriate for any organization to ask themselves that 14 question from time to time, but, now, it's -- we kind of 15 have the incentive of a new century coming up on us, and 16 so it's a good time to look at those questions.

17 Membership of the Health Physics Society right 18 now is about 6,000 persons, made up, of course, of health 19 physicists, and many of them are regulators like 20 yourselves. Most of the people in the society now I 21 would call practitioners. And, by the way, the word, 22 "Practitioner," is mis-spelled. I apologize, but I don't 23 feel to bad since it's the first mistake I ever made.

24 (Laughter) 25 MR. JOHNSON: This is just to check to see if

61 1 you all are listening. Thank you.

2 Now, why -- the reason I say that? If you look 3 in the front of the Health Physics membership book, it 4 shows the demographic breakdown of membership in terms of 5 the category of their employment, and, right now, out of 6 the 6,000 members, about 3,000 are indicating their 7 employment in two job categories. One is radiation 8 safety surveys, and the other one is operational and 9 applied health physics. Now, in my mind, those are 10 essentially synonymous, but they make up a full half of 11 the current membership of the society.

12 Now, here's a question I -- again, notice these 13 are questions that I invite your consideration of. Who 14 would we like to represent as a society? For example, 15 would we like to represent all full-time professional 16 health physicists, of which the number may be on the 17 order of 10,000 in the United States? And, of course, 18 there are -- we have international members, as well.

19 Should we represent part-time radiation safety 20 officers, as opposed to full-time practicing health 21 physicists? Should we be opening our doors to people who 22 are not full time, for whom radiation safety is just a 23 part-time concern? And the number there could be on the 24 order of 20,000 or more.

25 Should we be providing services to regulators?

62 1 Now, again, I put down the number of a thousand, and that 2 number's probably quite a bit bigger. If we include RSOs 3 as members of the Health Physics Society, will this 4 somehow change the tenor of our society? Will this 5 change the nature of who we are?

6 For example, if we include people that are only 7 part-time practicing radiation safety people, as compared 8 to full-time professionals, will this somehow give the 9 society the appearance of being a trade organization, 10 rather than a professional organization?

11 And if we're seen as a trade organization, the 12 question I'd raise is, "Okay. What's so bad about that?

13 Is that necessarily bad?" You could also ask, "Is it 14 necessarily good?" But, again, I'm inviting you to think 15 about these.

16 So this brings us to the mission of the Health 17 Physics Society. Should the society be striving to 18 become the primary resource for information on radiation 19 safety and support services for all persons engaged in 20 radiation safety? Do we as a professional society have a 21 responsibility for addressing issues of quality in 22 radiation safety programs in the United States? In other 23 words: Should we have as a mission, as a professional 24 society, a goal of doing whatever we can and that would 25 be appropriate for improving the quality of radiation

63 1 safety programs, which we would do by providing 2 membership services?

3 Now, part of the context of this question is to 4 address the issue of what happens when an RSO makes a 5 mistake. Now, what I mean by that is: What are the 6 ramifications of that mistake, especially if they get 7 picked up by the news media?

8 And what I would suggest for you is that an RSO 9 who may have limited training and limited experience 10 perhaps would be the -- you know, involved with a program 11 where some type of a mistake was made, potentially 12 involving exposures of people, and this gets into the 13 news media. And does it not then potentially reflect 14 badly on all of us and all of our programs?

15 So that's really part of the issue. If RSOs 16 make a mistake, what are the consequences of that, not 17 just for them, but in terms of how it affects public 18 perception of all of our applications of radioactive 19 materials?

20 Now, here's a question that maybe is closer to 21 home for many of you, and that is: Should the Health 22 Physics Society be representing you, as regulators?

23 Should we be striving to include services that would be 24 helpful for your particular needs, either a state's or as 25 federal regulators, the NRC, DOE, EPA?

64 1 In other words: Should the Health Physics 2 Society be striving specifically to provide services that 3 would be meaningful for your programs, and, if so, what 4 services then would be most useful? Publications -- for 5 example, you know about our journal that comes out every 6 month, containing largely research-oriented information 7 on radiation safety.

8 We have training programs as part of each of 9 our mid-year and annual meetings, where we provide what 10 are called PEP sessions, Professional Enrichment 11 Programs, and, also, continuing education lectures. And, 12 of course, every year, we have a week-long summer school 13 which is devoted to a specific topic.

14 We have meetings twice a year, where 15 presentations are made of interest in the area of 16 radiation safety. Through the membership handbook and 17 through the meetings, we offer opportunities for 18 networking.

19 The society also has become active in 20 legislative and regulatory activities over the last two 21 or three years. And then a big focus for the society now 22 is liaison, which is one of the reasons why I'm happy to 23 have the opportunity to be here with you today.

24 Now, what have we done to begin to address some 25 of the areas of need that I've proposed for you over the

65 1 last few minutes? All of the things I'll share with you 2 in the next few minutes are new initiatives, meaning 3 things that have been established by the society over the 4 last year or year-and-a-half.

5 One is: About a year-and-a-half ago, we 6 established a new category of membership called Section 7 Member. Many of you know, currently, we have Plenary 8 Member category, Associate Member, Student Member, 9 Emeritus Member and Affiliate Member. But we now have a 10 new category called Section Member.

11 Now, a Section Member, to become a member in 12 that category, only needs to meet the requirements for 13 membership established by individual sections. And a new 14 section that was established to take advantage of this 15 category was the RSO section, which stands for Radiation 16 Safety Operations.

17 So if someone wished to become a member of that 18 section, it turns out that section has no membership 19 requirements other than paying your dues, which are $50.

20 And so it's basically open to anyone with an interest in 21 radiation safety programs.

22 We've also begun, a year ago, a recruiting 23 initiative. We mailed out about 20,000 brochures, which 24 you all have a copy of, I believe. These were passed out 25 earlier. If you see this little tri-fold brochure, this

66 1 is to provide you with an actual copy of the information 2 that we have been sending out to RSOs, many of which are 3 underneath your state jurisdictions. We mailed out about 4 18,000 of those.

5 Now, what kind of response did we get? Well, 6 as of the annual meeting in June, we had received back 7 about 140, I believe, paid membership applications. Now, 8 out of 18,000, that may not sound like a very big 9 response; however, in terms of our status of our 10 membership, in fact, that was quite a dramatic influx of 11 membership applications. Now, out of those, about a 12 hundred were applying for plenary membership and about 50 13 were applying for the RSO Section membership.

14 Many of you, as members, also know that, going 15 back to November of last year, you should now notice that 16 you're getting a supplement to the journal, which is 17 called "Operational Radiation Safety." This will be 18 included with the journal, and the intention is to 19 publish that four times a year.

20 We also have been negotiating and are 21 continuing to talk with Radiation Safety Associates, the 22 publishers of the RSO Magazine and the RPM Magazine. 23 Part of our goal as we come into the new century in 24 thinking about the Health Physics Society being a primary 25 provider of information on radiation safety would be to

67 1 also have the ownership of the primary publications that 2 are available in this field.

3 We also initiated, about three years ago, a new 4 focus on liaison with other organizations where we share 5 mutual interest. And, of course, one of those is the 6 Organization of Agreement States. Some of the other 7 acronyms I'm sure you'll recognize are CRCPD, American 8 Nuclear Society, American Industrial Hygiene Association, 9 et cetera.

10 We've been hosting a luncheon for 11 representatives from about 15 to 20 organizations to join 12 with us at our annual meeting each year for the purpose 13 of identifying areas where we can be mutually supportive, 14 for example, listing each other on our web sites for 15 links, and things like that.

16 Probably one of the more exciting new 17 initiatives we just approved in Philadelphia in June was 18 the naming of our annual meeting. From henceforth, it 19 will not be called The Annual Meeting of the Health 20 Physics Society, which, for the world, would imply that 21 this is only for health physicists, but, rather, the 22 meetings will now be called the American Radiation Safety 23 Conference and Exposition. And this is intended to be an 24 umbrella for a variety of organizations with interest in 25 radiation safety to come together at the same time.

68 1 Another new initiative -- and this goes back, 2 also, about a year-and-a-half -- was the adoption of a 3 byline. How many times, for those of you who call 4 yourselves health physicists, over the years have you 5 said to someone that you're a health physicist or you're 6 a member of the Health Physics Society and realized they 7 didn't have a clue of what you were talking about?

8 You know, this happened to me just this last 9 weekend. I was talking to some people where I have a 10 summer camp up in Vermont. And one of the neighbor 11 camps -- I was talking with them about my wife and I 12 having traveled all around the U. S. over the last year.

13 And he said, "Well how come?" And I said, "Well, because 14 I'm -- that's the tradition for the President-elect of 15 the Health Physics Society."

16 And then I realized he totally went blank at 17 that point because I had just said something in another 18 language, and he had no idea what I was talking about.

19 So I said, "Specialists in radiation safety," and he 20 goes, "Ah. Okay." And all of a sudden, those words had 21 meaning for him.

22 The society, of course, has published a number 23 of position statements, and, working with Keith Dinger 24 this year, we plan to produce several more. We just 25 completed one on low-level waste that will be published

69 1 on our web site shortly if it's not there already. We're 2 also working on one right now on clearance criteria for 3 contaminated items.

4 Some that are already on the books -- and you 5 can look these up on our web site. They're also in the 6 back of the membership book if you wanted to look at 7 them. Our web site is HPS.ORG, and you're welcome to 8 check that out any time.

9 We also have a number of new initiatives at the 10 international level, largely encouraged by former 11 president Marvin Goldman. And he has been to Russia many 12 times, attempting to help them set up something 13 equivalent to our Health Physics Society. He has been to 14 China, also.

15 And we currently have kind of an informal 16 agreement to -- for example, we invited the president of 17 the Chinese radiation protection association, Dr. Pan, to 18 come to our annual meeting in Philadelphia. And we've 19 been invited to attend their annual meeting. And, of 20 course, we have several of our members who are delegates 21 on the scientific council for IRPA and involved with IAEA 22 programs.

23 Now, for those of you that may be looking at 24 your watches and wondering, "How long is Ray going to go 25 along," do you ever look at the speaker's slides and try

70 1 to guess, you know, how many more there are to go? Well, 2 a bunch of these are dummy slides, so I actually only 3 have one more to go.

4 One of the initiatives that many of you may 5 know of and have been involved with are science teacher 6 workshops. This has been a program really initiated by 7 Ellie Casecas in the North Carolina chapter about seven 8 or eight years ago and since has spread across the 9 country, and many chapters have now provided such 10 workshops.

11 One of the opportunities in these workshops 12 besides providing information -- in fact, I helped with 13 our Baltimore/Washington chapter workshop, where I'm a 14 local member. We did a workshop in March, and we had 15 about 40 -- I guess there were 40 or 45 teachers who 16 attended.

17 And at the end of the two-Saturday program, a 18 16-hour program, again, we asked for their feedback. And 19 it was almost unanimous among -- the teachers who 20 attended gave a very similar comment, almost like they 21 had rehearsed it. But the comment was of the essence of, 22 for the first time, how great it is to get good 23 information on radiation. And that -- wow, that just 24 made it all worthwhile at that point.

25 They were also extremely thrilled that we were

71 1 providing each of the teachers with a working radiation 2 meter. Now, most of you know these are surplus FEMA 3 meters, civil defense meters. Some are not in great 4 shape, and some are -- look like they've never been used.

5 But we provided each teacher with a working meter and, of 6 course, some sources so they could demonstrate properties 7 of radiation.

8 Now, these meters are heavy side-walled GM, so 9 they won't measure alpha particles or beta; essentially, 10 they're really only capable of measuring 11 medium-high-energy gamma. But they can at least 12 demonstrate the principle of distance as a matter of 13 radiation protection.

14 One of the things you'll notice, it says, 15 "States could help with letters about check sources." We 16 have begun to get some questions from teachers about this 17 little, "Check source," on the side of the meters, and, 18 "Is this safe? Is this okay, to have these meters in the 19 classroom with this radiation source on the side?"

20 Now, all of you would know that they're exempt 21 quantities, but, of course, teachers don't know about 22 exempt quantities. They don't necessarily know what that 23 means.

24 So one of the things that I was encouraged to 25 ask of all of you is whether you, as you represent your

72 1 stage agency, would be willing to supply for these 2 workshops a letter -- a short letter or note basically to 3 tell teachers that these sources are okay. And I'd like 4 you to think about that. I think a couple of states --

5 Virginia, I think, has already written a letter like 6 that.

7 Who's here from Virginia?

8 MR. RATLIFF: They're not an agreement state 9 yet.

10 MR. JOHNSON: They're not an agreement state?

11 Okay.

12 Well, that's something I'd invite your support 13 of as a way of helping teachers, you know, understand 14 what it means to have access to this source and the 15 usefulness of the meter and perhaps even, you know, 16 encouraging their support of the teacher workshop 17 program.

18 Another program that we've initiated and have 19 not had a lot of activity in yet but I hope -- would 20 invite all of you to take note of, and that is: To look 21 at textbooks and see, "What do they say about radiation,"

22 because if you have people in school at any age level, 23 even through college, and you have access to the 24 textbooks, look at them and see what they say about 25 radiation.

73 1 And I know, in some instances, you're going to 2 be shocked at what you see. The editors of textbooks 3 quite often are inclined to present radiation from a very 4 definite perspective, and, as you might guess, it's 5 typically anti-nuclear.

6 The Health Physics Society has also engaged the 7 services of a public relations firm. We work with a lady 8 who publishes a column in our monthly news letter. You 9 can read her column. That's Liz Jemski. And what she 10 does is track legislation for us that would be of 11 pertinent interest. She also sets up meetings for us 12 with congressional members and their staffs.

13 We've also hired former president Billy Mills 14 to work with us as a legislative liaison, or 15 representative, and he has worked with us. For example, 16 he set up meetings in the last year, had the opportunity 17 to meet with all of the commissioners at the NRC, 18 including Chairman Jackson. And, of course, we met with 19 Greta Dicus several times. And we'll be continuing to do 20 that this year.

21 Okay. Down to the last slide. This is the one 22 where I would invite your specific response. If you 23 would, find the little yellow card and give me the 24 benefit of a few comments. Your name is not required on 25 this card; that's optional. But it would be helpful if

74 1 you would date them. That way, I can keep all of the 2 cards together for this group.

3 It's also not necessary to write down all of 4 the questions if you just put down, "1", "2", "3", "4",

5 and then whatever your answer might be. Again, I --

6 anything at all you feel led to share by response to 7 these questions would be exceedingly well appreciated.

8 This information will be summarized and will go to the 9 Health Physics executive committee and the board of 10 directors as a source of exceedingly valuable data on 11 your responses to these questions.

12 So the first one is -- I'd like you to offer as 13 to why you either are or are not a member of the Health 14 Physics Society. The next question is: "What are your 15 concerns for the Health Physics Society," and, related to 16 that, "What might be keeping people from joining the 17 Health Physics Society," and then, also related, "What 18 services would you like to see the Health Physics Society 19 providing?"

20 As you can see, there's some overlap among 21 these questions, but, again, whatever you'd feel led to 22 share in that area would be exceedingly well appreciated.

23 And then a broader question, Number Five:

24 "What are your concerns for the future of radiation 25 safety?" And this is not about the Health Physics

75 1 Society and may not be about state or federal programs, 2 but, rather, what are your concerns for the future of 3 radiation safety? And then Item Six is simply to invite 4 you to add anything else at all that you'd like to offer.

5 So that's all I had to share with you. I'd 6 like to allow you a few moments, if you could, to give me 7 the benefit of your written comments. And then, 8 hopefully, we may have a little time for some discussion 9 and dialogue here as we continue our session up until 10 noon-time.

11 So that's -- I might just conclude with a 12 closing story, however, and that is that -- I hope the 13 Health Physics Society, as it endeavors to carry out its 14 role and mission, that we might be doing better than the 15 preacher who, after the Sunday service, is standing at 16 the door greeting people as they leave the church, and a 17 boy comes up to him and says, "When I get older, I'm 18 going to give you some money." And the preacher says, 19 "Well, gee, that's very nice. Well, why would you do 20 that?" And the boy says, "Well, because my father tells 21 me you're the poorest preacher we ever had."

22 (Laughter) 23 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, very much, Ray. With 24 your permission, I would like to perhaps kick off our 25 discussion with some remarks from Ed Bailey. And we can

76 1 address some of the issues that you brought up in your 2 presentation, particularly the one about the relationship 3 between the society and regulators.

4 Ed, do you want to kick this off for us?

5 MR. BAILEY: Yes, if I could.

6 I thought the yellow card was to prepare my 7 talk on, so I had to borrow a second one.

8 (Laughter) 9 MR. BAILEY: I have to compliment the 10 Organization of Agreement States; I think that they have 11 found a far better use of lawyers than their normal thing 12 in having Chip facilitate these meetings.

13 (Laughter) 14 MR. BAILEY: But, you know, after all the years 15 of legal training and so forth, Chip still -- you know, 16 he can't just divorce himself totally from it. He did 17 mention that we would probably be running late. And, as 18 you know, lawyers typically get paid by billing hours.

19 Now, I don't know if that's the way they work at NRC, but 20 it must be something that's just innate in lawyers.

21 MR. CAMERON: I think we should just stick to 22 the preacher.

23 (Laughter) 24 MR. BAILEY: I have to say thanks to all the 25 Texas staff for putting this meeting together. And I

77 1 think, as usual, they've done a tremendous job. And I'm 2 saying that now in case I forget to mention it later, but 3 I don't think we expected any less than what we're seeing 4 here from them in their fine tradition.

5 I am a little disappointed, though, that -- at 6 the dress at this meeting. When I lived in Texas, the 7 legislature one year introduced a bill -- and I 8 understand it passed both houses -- to make blue jeans 9 the official uniform of Texas, and to have a public 10 meeting or refuse service to anyone not wearing blue 11 jeans was a misdemeanor, except in Travis County, which 12 is where we are now, and, in Travis County, it would be a 13 felony.

14 (Laughter) 15 MR. BAILEY: So I hope that for some of these 16 future meetings, we can get out of these. I walked out, 17 and I'm reminded of why I like California weather so 18 much. You go to a steam-room to get this there. You 19 don't get a free sauna.

20 This past year, I was asked to be the 21 Organization of Agreement States liaison to HPS, and had 22 the pleasure of attending the liaison luncheon. Now, 23 there's many good things about the liaison luncheon, 24 the -- not the least of which is it's a free meal.

25 So that's one thing about the HPS meetings --

78 1 if you haven't been to the annual meetings -- if you're 2 on committees and so forth, there are all kinds of 3 opportunities for you to save your money for the bar, 4 because they keep stuffing food at you. I mean every 5 committee has luncheon meetings. The liaison committee 6 had -- our group had a luncheon, and it was a very fine 7 luncheon.

8 The luncheon, I think, was very important --

9 and it was the first one I had attended -- in that we 10 had -- I believe we showed 15 or so organizations that 11 were there. And one of the things that happens there is 12 that each one of these representatives gets up and tells 13 what their organization is and what it does and why it 14 has chosen to designate a liaison to HPS.

15 One of the things that struck me at this first 16 meeting is that, I would say, probably only two or three 17 people in the room knew that there was such a thing as 18 the Organization of Agreement States and were very 19 interested in the fact that we have an annual meeting and 20 was it open to the public and did we advertise it, and 21 all of these things.

22 There is a lot of interest in being able to 23 meet with and talk to regulators. I don't know why, but 24 there seemed to be interest.

25 One of the things that has disturbed me a

79 1 little bit over the years -- and I think I've expressed 2 it to many of you -- is that I, fortunately, in the last 3 few years have been able to go to the HPS meetings, both 4 the annual meeting and the mid-year, and I'm a little 5 surprised at how few state regulatory people there are --

6 and I'll extend that to the federal government, too -- at 7 these meetings. And it leads me to wonder where we're 8 getting our science.

9 It's a very important meeting, I think, from 10 the standpoint of giving out scientific information and 11 hearing discussions of things like the linear 12 no-threshold hypothesis, and so forth. I would encourage 13 each of you, when you go back to your states, to try to 14 foster support for the HPS, including the local chapters 15 and, maybe, primarily the local chapters.

16 I don't know how many of you are members, and 17 I -- of a local chapter. I thought about having you 18 raise your hand if you're a member of a local chapter.

19 But I think it gives you -- if you are a member 20 and you go to the meetings, it gives you a unique 21 opportunity to meet some of the people you regulate, and 22 on what you might consider an informal basis, and get to 23 know them and understand them a little better. And, 24 likewise, they get the opportunity to know you.

25 We, I think, have tried to encourage

80 1 participation in HPS. One of the things that I would 2 encourage all of your program directors to do is seek out 3 an opportunity to be a speaker at one of the local 4 meetings if you haven't been in the last decade or five 5 years or three years, or whatever.

6 Usually, those -- I've been doing one in 7 southern California now for several years. And, usually, 8 we have a pretty good turn out for it. And it's usually 9 a fairly spirited meeting because, even though we're 10 almost perfect, our licensees sometimes can point out 11 some things we're not quite doing correctly.

12 I don't know how you'd handle it in your 13 states, and one of the things I'd like to get from you 14 all is some idea on how to encourage participation in 15 Health Physics activities. One of the things, of course, 16 that probably we all can do is fund travel and per diem 17 for local meetings.

18 In California, we're fortunate that each 19 employee can get up to a certain amount of money 20 reimbursed for membership dues. And if you haven't 21 looked at that, that's a good way to get people involved.

22 The other thing that I would certainly 23 encourage all of you to do is to attend the national 24 meetings. I know that that's sometimes difficult. We --

25 as I said, I have been able to go to most of the last few

81 1 meetings. This year, however, when we submitted our 2 out-of-state travel package, the HPS meetings were cut 3 out of the approved package. Now, we still anticipate 4 that we'll be able to attend the meeting, but it will 5 have to be worked around a little bit.

6 This year, the summer school -- we were able to 7 send a bunch of people using our training dollars. And 8 if you had people at the summer school, I think you'll 9 find that, by all the reports I've gotten back, it was a 10 very well-attended summer school, and very informative.

11 The -- one of the questions up there was -- and 12 some of the discussion was on training. And I think, 13 from my standpoint, that's one of the biggest issues that 14 we face as regulators and that the Health Physics Society 15 in general faces.

16 We are beginning to see many more people come 17 into radiation protection, by whatever name you call it, 18 that do not have the same kinds of backgrounds that most 19 of us in this room have gone through. We see fewer and 20 fewer people, I think, in our industries who have even 21 had a physics course in college. So we really start in 22 many cases at ground-zero, and I think we need to do some 23 work to improve the training.

24 Now, I know the Texas program, for several 25 years, has had an annual licensee registrant conference,

82 1 and they've jointly sponsored that with HPS. I haven't 2 heard of this year's, but, any way, in the past, they've 3 been highly successful at bringing in --

4 What, 400 or 500 people to the meetings? Is 5 that --

6 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, about 500.

7 MR. BAILEY: Yes. And that -- the ones of 8 those that I have attended were very well received, I 9 thought. And they were -- they also offered the 10 opportunity for this interchange between the regulators, 11 the people we regulate and the other professionals in the 12 field.

13 In California, of course, we have a lot of 14 federal laboratories. And so, to some extent, our Health 15 Physics chapters -- I don't want to say are dominated, 16 but are highly populated with DOE employees or DOE prime 17 contractor employees. And they bring a different 18 perspective to health physics than we are used to dealing 19 with perhaps in a regulated community.

20 And I would suggest that that different 21 perspective isn't wrong; it's just that it is just 22 different and, hopefully, broadens my understanding of 23 what people are doing in health physics and what is of 24 interest.

25 Ray touched on the new title for the Health

83 1 Physics annual meeting. And they do want to include 2 organizations -- and we talked about this at the liaison 3 dinner, of having some of these other organizations 4 jointly hold their meetings with HPS.

5 I think all of industry and government and so 6 forth are cutting back somewhat on the number of meetings 7 that people attend, but this would be -- is viewed as an 8 excellent opportunity to get people together across 9 disciplinary ventures.

10 I think that CRCPD has been approached on 11 having their annual meeting in connection with the HPS 12 meeting. There are certainly lots of questions that 13 would come up about how you -- how one would structure 14 such a meeting. Whereas we usually get together at CRCPD 15 and this meeting and rant and rave and fuss and carry on 16 with each other and the federal agencies that we work 17 with, that's not the general tenor of the HPS meetings.

18 And I don't know exactly what would happen if 19 we had our sessions in connection with HPS. There is a 20 possibility, I think, for us to have at least a section 21 meeting or -- I don't want to call it a section, because 22 it wouldn't really be a section of HPS, but to have a 23 rump meeting during the HPS meeting each year of all the 24 people from agreement states that are there or from any 25 of the states and NRC, and so forth.

84 1 There is a governmental section of HPS. I 2 almost forgot that. And I would encourage all of you to 3 get involved in the governmental section. Frank Bradley 4 is the chair or president. I've forgotten the exact 5 terminology. And many of you know Frank, who formerly 6 worked for New York. He's trying to revitalize the 7 governmental section.

8 And in the past, the governmental section 9 meetings have been some of the most energetic and 10 enthusiastic sessions of the annual HPS meeting. So if 11 you haven't participated in that, I would encourage you 12 to do it. And I think it costs you $5 a year more to --

13 Is that right?

14 MR. JOHNSON: Right.

15 MR. BAILEY: Yes. $5 a year more to be a 16 member of that section.

17 So I think you can tell by what I said that I 18 think it's important that we, as regulators in the 19 radiation protection business, participate in what is 20 basically the radiation protection organization in the 21 United States. And with that, I will hush up. And if 22 you have any questions or comments, I'll be happy to 23 address them.

24 I would like to add one thing that I forgot 25 that's on my notes here. We want to encourage people to

85 1 join the Health Physics Society. We also want to 2 encourage people to become certified. And I -- shortly 3 after I got certified, there was a whole flock of people 4 in Texas that got certified. And the assumption was that 5 if I could pass the exam, anyone could.

6 (Laughter) 7 MR. BAILEY: And so I would encourage you to 8 try to get your people into the certification program.

9 We are trying in California now to get a pay differential 10 if you have the CHP. And I'm pretty optimistic that we 11 will be able to get a sizeable monthly pay differential 12 for someone simply for having their certification.

13 And I would encourage you all to look into 14 that, too. There's usually more than one way to reward 15 people and more than one way to provide incentive for 16 people to do things like that.

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks a lot, Ed.

18 Dr. Johnson has raised a number of issues for 19 us about the relationship between the Health Physics 20 Society and regulators, and Ed has given us a couple of 21 ideas about the value of that and, also, how that might 22 be done. And I would just open it up to people around 23 the table, using your tents, to ask questions or to add 24 to some of these ideas.

25 Let's go to Pearce first, and then we'll go to

86 1 Bill.

2 MR. O'KELLEY: Pearce O'Kelley, South Carolina.

3 I just want to make a couple of comments. I also am a 4 member of the HPS and am on one of their committees and 5 also support the organization and highly recommend it.

6 I would urge you, Ray, not to lower your 7 estimate of RSOs too much, because what you were looking 8 at was radioactive materials RSOs. There's a lot of 9 people out there in accelerators and X-ray programs that 10 also could use a lot of fine information on radiation 11 safety.

12 Also, I would like to encourage the HPS when 13 they're looking at providing training opportunities for 14 RSOs to also look at what opportunities you can provide 15 training to state radiation control programs; with the 16 decrease in federal funding and opportunities available 17 there, I think, if you could provide some training that 18 was geared specifically to state regulators that we can 19 use, it would not only be very beneficial to us, but may 20 also increase the membership from state programs, as 21 well.

22 MR. CAMERON: Ray, do you have any question or 23 comment to Pearce's?

24 MR. JOHNSON: Well, what kind of training might 25 you have in mind?

87 1 MR. O'KELLEY: Well, there's a whole list of 2 what the NRC requires of us, but, I think, if we could 3 get together and maybe talk about it, there's a lot of 4 other issues, as well, specifically in areas where 5 training may be missing in X-rays, accelerators and so 6 forth.

7 But I'd be happy to meet with you folks at the 8 mid-year meeting or before and provide some discussion, 9 as well as -- I'm sure Ed and some of the other members 10 also have some areas where they see that they are 11 deficient and need some help.

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go to Bill. And I 13 would ask you while Bill is talking to, also, think about 14 any follow-ups to Pearce's suggestion about HPS training 15 geared specifically to state regulators.

16 Bill?

17 MR. DUNDULIS: Two issues, the easy one 18 first -- or maybe not so easy. One of the biggest 19 obstacles among those of us in state programs who are 20 members of the Health Physics Society: Perhaps some of 21 the larger states can put it in their budgets, but coming 22 from a very small state, like Rhode Island, our travel 23 monies are extremely limited.

24 And many of us would like to be involved with 25 HPS committees, but it's my understanding that they kind

88 1 of expect your employer to foot the tab. And, certainly, 2 for the smaller states, at least speaking for Rhode 3 Island, there's absolutely zero chance of that happening.

4 And if there's any way that -- HPS, you know, might be 5 looking at partially subsidizing, particularly on areas 6 where states might have meaningful input on some of the 7 sub-committees, particularly your government affairs and 8 some of those other things.

9 My other issue: Having been involved, you 10 know, in state radiation programs for about 20 years and, 11 also, having been involved in local chapters -- and I've 12 actually been a local chapter president -- fortunately, 13 it's an attitude less prevalent, but I still see it among 14 a lot of the "Old guard" in the Health Physics Society, 15 and the people with the state radiation programs aren't 16 real health physicists and aren't particularly bright, 17 because, if they were, they would be out in industry and, 18 you know, they wouldn't be working for state 19 government --

20 (Laughter) 21 MR. DUNDULIS: And despite Ed's success -- I 22 tried going the certification route, and I felt there 23 were an awful lot of obstacles placed in my way, things 24 about, well, unwritten rules and procedures. And when I 25 started questioning, people started clamming up.

89 1 And I think that a lot of things have 2 changed -- and some of this goes back probably 15 years, 3 but, I think, among the "Old guard", there's still quite 4 a bit of feeling that, you know, people in the state 5 program really shouldn't be part of it and, you know, if 6 you weren't back there in the '50s and you don't work for 7 National Lab and -- on the plus-side, I will say I 8 think -- certainly, Keith and the last few presidents, I 9 think, have tried to bring the olive branch out to the 10 states, but, unfortunately, you can only do so much as an 11 organization.

12 But I think there's lingering -- I don't know 13 if resentment is the right word, but a lot of the "Old 14 guard," I still get the feeling, don't think that, you 15 know, state regulators are, "Qualified," quote/unquote, 16 you know, to be part of the Health Physics Society.

17 And anything, certainly, that you as president 18 and, you know, the society can do to remove that 19 perception among the "Old guard," other than waiting for 20 them to die off, I think is certainly going to help.

21 (Laughter) 22 MR. CAMERON: Yes. I think that the --

23 Ray, could you address the issue of subsidy 24 scholarships, as well as the "Old guard" issue that I 25 think we need to address?

90 1 MR. JOHNSON: I will. I want to address the 2 "Old guard" issue first because I'm one.

3 MR. DUNDULIS: I won't hold that against you.

4 (Laughter) 5 MR. JOHNSON: No. That -- there is -- some of 6 the sentiments that I've gotten from inviting chapter 7 members to give response to these same questions -- one 8 chapter member pointed out something which I think 9 reflects the sentiment of many others, and that is that 10 the society is an elitist group.

11 And I struggle with that because I don't 12 somehow see myself in an elitist way. I'm not sure if I 13 even know what it means. But it does have to do with 14 like, "What are the requirements?" And if you look at 15 the membership application for the society, you'll see 16 it's five or six pages long and requires, you know, 17 sponsorship by two current members. This is a big 18 barrier that I'm concerned with as far as this whole 19 issue of, "Who is the society," who do we represent, and 20 whom do we want to represent.

21 And my concern is that we -- and Ed has said, 22 you know, that the society is the premier radiation 23 safety organization in the United States. Well, that may 24 be true, and I don't want to, you know, minimize that; 25 however, who is it that we're representing? How many

91 1 people who are responsible for radiation safety programs 2 are we representing? And it's a relatively small 3 fraction, you know, of all the RSOs in the U. S.

4 Well, why aren't we representing them? Well, 5 most of them wouldn't call themselves health physicists.

6 So why would they join the Health Physics Society? And 7 so even our name in some ways might be considered elitist 8 because it identifies this relatively narrow category of 9 specialty which, in fact, may not be in tune with the 10 real world. And that's really what I was inviting all of 11 you to offer as feedback.

12 Now, are we in touch with the real world? Are 13 we representing the actual folks who have 14 responsibilities for radiation safety, which, first of 15 all, includes all of you here in the state programs, then 16 all the people that you issue licenses to who are 17 radiation safety officers.

18 And I'm really concerned about this, you know, 19 the idea of the "Old guard." Well, who is the "Old 20 guard," and are they still around, even? I mean a lot of 21 the people that are "Old guard" are passing along. And 22 so the -- you know. And, again, maybe I'm getting close 23 to that, too. I --

24 (Laughter) 25 MR. JOHNSON: None of us knows. But that's why

92 1 I say that we're coming into a new century, and let's 2 take that as an opportunity to take a look at, "Who is it 3 we're representing?"

4 Are we arbitrarily, you know, putting up 5 barriers to offering helpful services for folks who could 6 use technical support in radiation programs by our name, 7 for example? As the Health Physics Society, is the name 8 really getting in our way of providing a service to folks 9 who deal with radiation safety?

10 So these are some of the kinds of issues. And 11 I really thank you a lot because that's -- touches right 12 to the heart of one of my main concerns.

13 Now, support. One of the other 14 possibilities -- the electronic age is now becoming more 15 convenient for all of us. There are a couple of our 16 committees that meet entirely by conference calls. The 17 Public Education Committee, for example has a conference 18 call of all the committee members on the first Wednesday 19 of each month.

20 So it's now becoming possible to be an active 21 member of a committee without having to commit travel 22 resources. So that may be a possibility that would be 23 helpful.

24 The society does have some funds that could be 25 used for helping with travel support. It's a matter then

93 1 of each committee identifying those needs and making 2 their request through the normal budget process. So 3 there are some possibilities.

4 I feel really badly when there are helpful, 5 willing volunteers who aren't able to be a part because 6 of limitations on things like travel support. I mean we 7 depend on volunteers, and, without volunteers, there 8 would be no national organization. And, you know, what 9 can we do to encourage and support willing volunteers 10 such that we're able to incorporate the best that 11 everyone has to offer?

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Ray.

13 Let's continue this discussion with Roger, and 14 then we'll go down to David and then back up to Ed.

15 Roger?

16 MR. SUPPES: Ohio. I just --

17 MR. CAMERON: Our newest Agreement State.

18 MR. SUPPES: A similar question. That -- I was 19 wondering what kind of feedback you've gotten from your 20 existing members about your changing mission, the areas 21 of outreach that you're -- the questions you're asking of 22 us. What kind of feedback are you getting from your 23 existing membership about those issues?

24 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Ray.

25 MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

94 1 Well, again, the most helpful feedback has been 2 the responses to the questions that I put up here on the 3 slide. Some of those responses are still being 4 tabulated. I've had about 1,300 of these cards filled 5 out over the last year. So it's an incredibly valuable 6 database which I'm hoping all of you will add to today.

7 But, for example, in the area of why a person 8 might either be or not be a member of the society, the 9 most common response on why people would choose to be a 10 member is identifying themselves as a professional in 11 radiation safety and the Health Physics Society being the 12 organization that represents those interests. So that's 13 the most common response.

14 In terms of why people are not members, which 15 I'm very concerned with, about that, there's a variety of 16 responses, but cost is probably the biggest factor. The 17 current dues for the society are $75.

18 Now, when ever I see concerns raised about 19 cost, however, what comes to my mind is not necessarily, 20 "Well, gee, $75 is too much," but, rather, "Too much for 21 what's being offered." And so then the concern I have 22 is, "What are we providing as meaningful service that 23 would warrant the expenditure of the $75?

24 Now, one of the things that has come up, 25 though -- and I'm afraid this is somewhat more related to

95 1 state programs and, hopefully, you won't hear this in too 2 negative a way. But if there's one person in the office 3 who's a member and they get the publications, then others 4 in the office share those publications; therefore they 5 don't need to be a member.

6 And, you know, it's like, "Well, okay." And, 7 you know, that's true. And that's a way of saving the --

8 you know, the dues as an individual member. But then 9 that kind of gets back to what I would consider, really, 10 a broader concern, and that is one of what does it mean 11 to be a professional?

12 In other words: If I'm an expert or a 13 professional in radiation safety, what does that really 14 mean? I mean is it, for example, like an automatic 15 extension of professionalism to be a part of the related 16 profession society? And, you know, is it a matter of 17 money, really? So I think that kind of opens to other 18 issues or questions that I don't really have the answers 19 for.

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Ray.

21 David?

22 MR. SNELLINGS: I've been a member of the 23 society since, well, a long, long, long time ago. And I 24 think that I agree with the, "Elitist," comments. And I 25 think it goes forth into program agenda, agenda in the

96 1 journal, and I think there needs to be more, as you 2 said -- and I've got it in my book here -- "Real-world 3 applications."

4 You know, there's -- it is so research-oriented 5 into the basic science -- we need that. Definitely we 6 need that, but there also has to be some practicality to 7 it. If you start getting the RSOs of the world to come 8 to your meetings, they'll be there for one meeting, and 9 that's it, you know.

10 And I see some true HPs along that line, also.

11 They go to a meeting, and, you know, there's nothing 12 there for them except the real-world or -- the basic 13 science research from the national labs. And there's a 14 preponderance of national lab participants, and no 15 real-world application.

16 Now, I see us getting a little better with you 17 know, with the publication, with the Operational 18 Radiation Safety, but I think we really need to devote 19 more effort to making it more real-world.

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, David.

21 Let's go to Ed and then over to Ray.

22 MR. BAILEY: There was some comedian or 23 something that said, "Any organization that would have me 24 as a member of it, I wouldn't join." The elitism 25 thing -- I think it can very easily be perceived when you

97 1 go to certain meetings. The flip-side of that, I think, 2 is that, unless the real-world people get involved in it, 3 it will continue that way.

4 MR. JOHNSON: True, yes.

5 MR. BAILEY: It's interesting how few papers 6 there are presented by state radiation control program 7 people and how many papers a leaking source at a national 8 lab can generate -- one leaking source -- or one lost 9 source at a national lab, how many papers that can 10 generate.

11 And I doubt that there's a single one of you 12 that didn't have a lost source last year that you -- if I 13 would take the time and you would take the time to submit 14 those abstracts, I can't guarantee it, but I imagine the 15 program committee would accept every one of your 16 abstracts because there are a lot of people that want 17 some very practical information.

18 So the, "Elitist," thing -- you know, I believe 19 those who feel that there's an elitist attitude have to 20 get in and change it into an organization that -- then 21 they can become the elite.

22 (Laughter) 23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Ed.

24 Let's hear from Ray Paris and then Roland. And 25 Pearce wants to say something. And I don't want to

98 1 neglect the audience. We are coming up towards our lunch 2 time.

3 Ray?

4 MR. PARIS: Ray Paris, Oregon. There are three 5 things I think we ought to look at, perhaps. From -- do 6 a little research on what back-to-back meetings might 7 entail with this meeting.

8 I know that, traditionally, the Health Physics 9 meetings are in the summer time. It might take some type 10 of logistics, but I think it's -- for us, at least, in 11 Oregon to go out of state, it would be better to go -- to 12 get the approval to go to a meeting, versus to -- go to 13 one meeting, versus go to two. And the -- cost-wise is 14 mainly the travel, not when you're there.

15 So a few more extended days for a meeting is 16 probably do-able. So look at that.

17 There are -- I belong to three -- you know, the 18 CRCPD talks about training. Health Physics Society talks 19 about training. The Organization of Agreement States 20 talks about training. So there's, in the new technology, 21 video-conferencing and tele-conferencing, I think, needs 22 to be looked at.

23 The states need -- I know this is 24 materials-oriented, but Health Physics Society could 25 perhaps be involved in X-ray. I agree with Pearce.

99 1 There's no really formal training for basic X-ray techs.

2 So those are some comments.

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And one thing to -- before 4 we go to Roland, one thing to be thinking about is:

5 There's a lot of good ideas coming out here, some that 6 could be pursued by the Health Physics Society and, 7 perhaps, some pursued by individual states, and some by 8 the Organization of Agreement States. You might want to 9 give some thought in terms of whether there's any sort of 10 institutional initiatives that you want to pursue on all 11 of these things.

12 Roland?

13 MR. FLETCHER: I have to admit that I'm one of 14 those guilty states that allows the members of my staff 15 to review the news letter and the journal, but I do that 16 for a lot of reasons. And one of the reasons is: A lot 17 of people on staff are not aware, familiar or otherwise 18 with the Health Physics Society, period. And there's a 19 lot of good information in those journals and news 20 letters that could get them interested.

21 Now, I know I have three bona fide -- well, one 22 retired -- two bona fide members of my staff who are 23 full-fledged members of the society, but I think it acts 24 as a way of keeping things that are happening in the 25 society in front of staff. Staff is not going to -- I

100 1 mean look around. We've got state employees here. State 2 salaries do not say, "Go pay $75 to be a member of an 3 organization."

4 So in order to encourage that kind of 5 participation, we need to at least begin showing the 6 kinds of things that could benefit. And I think -- I 7 believe it's helpful to educate my staff, at least, on 8 what the society is doing by making these items 9 available.

10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Roland.

11 Let's go to Pearce and then to the audience.

12 Steve is standing there. And we'll see if we can break 13 at the point in time for lunch here.

14 Pearce?

15 MR. O'KELLEY: I just want to comment on the, 16 "Elitist." I'm not so sure if the elitist attitude is 17 there or not or whether it's a perception on some of our 18 parts that may be intimidated and overwhelmed by some of 19 the science we see coming in the journals and in the 20 presentations and the papers.

21 As -- and as a person who has, I guess, 22 recently been attending the annual meetings, I want to 23 say that I haven't felt the least bit intimidated or felt 24 like I was treated as a second-class citizen by any 25 member or anybody at those meetings. I think I've been

101 1 welcomed with open arms.

2 I had been at the first meeting asked to help 3 participate in one of the committees with the HPS and, 4 basically, was asked to, "Please come help us. Please 5 join us. Please contribute." And I think, if we quit 6 looking at something -- everything looks different when 7 you're looking at it from outside the fence. And I 8 think, if you'd get inside the fence, you might find out 9 that that attitude might not be as prevalent as you 10 think.

11 And I encourage you, at least, to give it a 12 shot before you assume that there's some sort of looking 13 down their noses at you, or so forth. And, you know, 14 I -- and, also, don't be intimidated if you're not 15 certified, because there are a lot of people that aren't 16 certified that play a major role in the organization and 17 have a lot of input on what goes on.

18 And as Ed said, you know, until you get more 19 people in there, you're not going to be able to maybe 20 make some of the changes that you want to see the 21 organization make. It's much easier from inside than 22 outside.

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Pearce.

24 Let's go to the audience for comments now, and 25 start with Steve.

102 1 MR. COLLINS: Steve Collins from Illinois. Ray 2 asked if there would be -- well, what I heard him say was 3 maybe could he get a letter from each one of the 4 agreement states about these check sources on the sides 5 of the CDB 700s. And it's a little bit difficult to find 6 enough information for some states to feel comfortable 7 with sending out such a letter.

8 The source is usually natural uranium, 9 apparently, about a-tenth micro-Curie, or it's radium 10 D&E, about a 20-year half-life with a five-day 11 [indiscernible] beta emitter, one or the other -- again, 12 about a-tenth of a micro-Curie, except they were 13 manufactured so many years ago, it's less than half of 14 that left probably.

15 And that's about all we can find: The details 16 on chemical form and how it's bound and fixed to make 17 sure it won't come off and wouldn't be easily ingested 18 or, if it did, it would be excreted instead of absorbed.

19 But a little bit of information like that, some of the 20 regulators would like to see.

21 If it's natural uranium, it's probably under 22 the general license, as opposed to exempt quantity. If 23 it's radium D&E, then, depending on how your state 24 regulations are written, it may be an exempt quantity.

25 Under that last little footnote at the bottom of the

103 1 table that -- beta emitters less than a certain amount 2 are exempt.

3 But that's about all the information I've had.

4 Surely, one of the states has maybe collected more 5 information that has the details. If that state could 6 share it with the others and, maybe, one state volunteer 7 to draft up a letter, we could get that resolved for Ray 8 in a short order.

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

10 Joe, you have a quick clarification?

11 MR. KLINGER: Yes. I spent quite a bit of time 12 on this, working with Dave Miller. And there was a 13 letter that went out from the State of Virginia. And I 14 contacted the person and said, "Did you have some 15 information that these sources were exempt?" And he 16 said, "Oh, yes. Everybody knows they're exempt." And I 17 says, "Oh, really? Well, what are they?" And he says, 18 "Well, I'm not sure."

19 And so -- and then people thought that they 20 were cesium, and they thought they were radium. So I put 21 a lot of work into it and looked through the RMRM and all 22 of these sources, and it has been a real problem.

23 So because of the difficulty of coming up with 24 the information, I think what the HPS is going to do 25 is -- when they send this information out with these

104 1 survey meters -- they have the thing about the DOT 2 exemption and all of this -- there's going to be an item 3 in there that says, "Contact your state radiation control 4 agency if you have any questions about licensing."

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Good. Thank you.

6 Ruth?

7 MS. McBURNEY: Ruth McBurney, Texas. I just 8 want to echo what some of the people that do participate 9 in the Health Physics Society were saying -- Ed and Ray 10 and Pearce. I certainly don't find it intimidating to be 11 among all those theoretical folks, and I don't consider 12 myself a theoretical health physicist.

13 And participating both on the American Board of 14 Health Physics -- and then I was encouraged to run for 15 office in the Health Physics Society and then, also -- I 16 mean for the board and then, now, for office. So there 17 are people who are in state regulatory programs 18 participating at those levels. And I think it's really 19 important that we get our slant on things and our voice 20 in there.

21 So -- at one time this year, there were 22 actually three state regulators on the board of directors 23 of the Health Physics Society: Dave Allard, who is the 24 new director in Pennsylvania; Nancy Dougherty, who was 25 with the Colorado program -- I think she has gone to

105 1 something else now; and myself.

2 So I think it's really good to have that aspect 3 of health physics talked about and the participation in 4 the Health Physics Society.

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Ruth.

6 Will the society accept lawyers?

7 (Laughter) 8 MR. CAMERON: That's a test of some sort, I 9 guess. But --

10 MR. JOHNSON: In what capacity?

11 (Laughter) 12 MR. CAMERON: All right. Let's go to Ken for a 13 final comment. And then I think we'll break for lunch, 14 and then we'll be on time.

15 Ken?

16 MR. WEAVER: Ken Weaver, Colorado. The Central 17 Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Health Physics Society 18 would love to see you in Denver in June 2000. And if you 19 do have something that you think of that you want to see 20 or do in conjunction with that meeting, let me know here 21 now, because we're still doing some of the planning 22 things. And so just let us know.

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.

24 I'd like to thank Ray for his presentation and 25 initiatives that he's trying to explore.

106 1 Thank you, very much.

2 (Applause) 3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's be back at 1:15.

4 And don't forget to get your yellow cards up here to Ray.

5 MR. JOHNSON: Right here.

6 MR. CAMERON: Right there.

7 (Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., this meeting was 8 recessed, to reconvene at 1:15 p.m. this same day, 9 Wednesday, September 8, 1999.)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

107 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 (1:20 p.m.)

3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Everyone, welcome back 4 from lunch. We're going to get started now, as soon as 5 the din dies down a little bit.

6 (Pause.)

7 MR. CAMERON: For all of you who are presenting 8 tomorrow, if you have a computer -- if you have your 9 presentation in electronic form, if you could, give that 10 to Marilyn, who's right up here. And Marilyn can load it 11 onto the computer, and it will be all ready to go for 12 you.

13 And for those of you who know people who are 14 making presentations, you might want to tell them that.

15 I know that Don Cool, for example, is on the phone back 16 to the NRC headquarters. So if you could, just spread 17 that word around to give those -- and here's an example.

18 We should take a picture of that, I guess, this -- David 19 handing a disk up here.

20 All right. Now, we're going to go to, I think, 21 a provocative presentation by Dr. Bob Emery and, also, 22 Mike Charlton from the University of Texas Health Science 23 Center. Now, they're going to start their presentation, 24 but there's an interesting quiz that they've given you a 25 copy of. And if you could, sort of fill this out while

108 1 they're beginning their introduction.

2 And there's going to be a prize for the person 3 who gets the most points. And I think it's pretty 4 self-explanatory, and since -- I won't take a shot at 5 Bailey and the rest of you by saying, "Even for agreement 6 state regulators," since he has been so nasty about 7 attorneys.

8 (Laughter) 9 MR. CAMERON: But I think it's pretty 10 self-explanatory. But if you could go through and 11 speculate on what the most frequent violation issued by 12 each of the following agencies -- and then there's some 13 tie-breakers down here -- then there will be -- the 14 prize, I think, is a membership in the Health Physics 15 Society.

16 (Laughter) 17 MR. CAMERON: All right. But, at any rate, I'm 18 going to turn it over to Bob and Mike.

19 DR. EMERY: Do I need the microphone, or can 20 you hear me?

21 MR. CAMERON: Pat, is that -- can you hear?

22 DR. EMERY: I'll burst into song later.

23 Well, thank you, very much, for the opportunity 24 to be here. Mike Charlton and I have been working on 25 this project for several years, and I'll explain in a

109 1 little more detail on where it all came from in a second.

2 But I hope that, by the end of this talk, you 3 will leave here at least carrying your head a little 4 higher once you realize that the radiation safety 5 business has perhaps the best routine surveillance and 6 compliance program in the country and there are some real 7 opportunities that rest there. And our objective in 8 being here today is to make you aware of that and, also, 9 to make -- point out some opportunities with regard to 10 preventive education.

11 At the University of Texas Houston Health 12 Science Center, we are fortunate in that we have the only 13 school of public health in the state of Texas. And so we 14 have some involvement in academic activities, and we also 15 do continuing education training.

16 And we do a 40-hour radiation safety officers' 17 class, as well. And, in fact, those are the most 18 enjoyable courses because that's where the rubber meets 19 the road; that's with the real people who are dealing 20 with the issues day to day. Usually, when they're 21 teaching students, it's more of a forced march; they come 22 in, and they're trying to get their credit and get out of 23 there.

24 But the people that are going through the CE 25 courses are quite interested because their jobs depend on

110 1 it. And one of the things that they were interested in 2 at the end of the course was to say, "Okay. Well, what 3 are the common violations that are out there?"

4 And so that seemed like a pretty simple 5 question, and I think all of us could intuitively create 6 that list, but this peaked our interest. And so we 7 started soliciting information from the Texas Department 8 of Health Bureau of Radiation Control. And they collect 9 a lot of data, but it turns out for a number of reasons 10 that the data's collected but it's not presented in a way 11 that might be more useful to the regulated community.

12 So we worked on this project. And the Bureau 13 is to be congratulated for their cooperation. It has 14 really been a mutually supportive operation. To be quite 15 frank, it's because we got publications out of it, but, 16 also, that -- I think it has been an educational 17 experience, both for us and for the Bureau, as well.

18 So we welcome the opportunity to be here. We 19 have books -- we've made up some summary books. And I'm 20 going to ask for your help at the end here. We had 21 enough books to give to everybody around the table, and 22 there are six or eight extras setting there right on the 23 end of that table there.

24 My boss almost had apoplexy when we requested 25 to use the color printer for a number of days to print

111 1 this stuff out, so I'll ask for your help later on 2 keeping my job with that. But we'll talk about that 3 later. So --

4 (Laughter) 5 DR. EMERY: Okay. Let me see if I can run 6 this.

7 Okay. So your -- the title of our talk is 8 really fancy, and it says, "Institutional Health and 9 Safety Program Outcomes as Assessed by the Compliance 10 Activities of Principal Regulatory Authorities." And you 11 may be asking, "Why in the world do we have these guys 12 from Houston coming up here to talk about principal 13 authorities for a radiation audience?"

14 And our objective here is to compare and 15 contrast the different methods that are used to ensure or 16 to measure compliance and to look at the advantages and 17 disadvantages of these. And I think that we'll be able 18 to demonstrate that the radiation safety profession 19 really holds a leadership position in this arena.

20 I think we'll be able to reveal the tremendous 21 potential for preventive education. And, in fact, we'll 22 have a little fun as we go along, because I encourage you 23 to fill out your form there and to just guess what you 24 think the most common violations are, because that's a 25 real operational question that people have day to day,

112 1 and, I think, is something that is useful for you to 2 think about for a second, to say, "What do you think the 3 most common violation is from various regulatory 4 authorities that might impact us?"

5 If we take kind of a step back and look at it 6 philosophically, if one wants to look at a health and 7 safety program, how is it that they measure its 8 effectiveness? How do we know if the health and safety 9 program is doing its job?

10 One way is something called a systemic measure, 11 and those are measures which are the ultimate program 12 outcomes commonly referred to as the body count: How 13 many people died, how many arms were lost, how many 14 fingers were lost, or something like this. And in the 15 official terms, that would be the number of illnesses, 16 injuries and fatalities.

17 There's also a whole other set of measures that 18 one can use which are called organic indicators. And 19 these are indicators of program design and 20 implementation, and they may take the form of the number 21 of observed unsafe conditions or practices or behaviors 22 or, maybe, regulatory compliance inspection outcomes. Or 23 there's a lot of work now being done in the area of 24 attitudes, measuring the attitudes that individuals have 25 towards safety.

113 1 Now, if we go back to one of those systemic 2 measures, the classic one that's used in the health and 3 safety business is what's called the OSHA 200 Log, which 4 is that form that you're required to maintain as just the 5 count of the number of specified occupational injuries, 6 illnesses and fatalities and the like -- it's specified 7 occupational trauma. And that log has to be maintained, 8 and, if you have over so many employees, you have to 9 submit it, and on and on and on.

10 For those of you who may not know, you'll often 11 see that it will say, "OSHA 200 Log, or equivalent." And 12 the reason it says, "Or equivalent," is because, in fact, 13 you can keep the information on a first report of injury 14 form, and that is considered to be the equivalent.

15 But what good is that measure if the rates are 16 low? As a matter of fact, one of the things we do when 17 we give this talk sometimes is ask people to record the 18 number of OSHA 200 Log-related radiation events that 19 they've had in the past year or decade -- or millennium.

20 (Laughter) 21 DR. EMERY: And it's usually not too high 22 there. I mean there are some events that have occurred, 23 but the point is that, on that systemic outcome measure 24 that's traditionally used for other health and safety 25 situations, this is not the effective gauge to use on

114 1 your dashboard. Just think about that for a second.

2 Management has a lot of things they have to 3 deal with. So they're driving this car, and they have 4 these gauges they're looking at to decide how things are 5 performing. And if they're using the OSHA 200 Log as a 6 measure of how their radiation safety program is going, 7 maybe that's inappropriate. So we have to look at some 8 other measures instead.

9 So we switched -- then management switches to 10 these organic performance measures, and these are 11 possible precursors or indicators of systemic outcomes.

12 And the radiation safety business relies on these all the 13 time in the forms of surveys or audits or some other 14 measures that may be made.

15 Also, we can use regulatory citations of 16 violations as one measure. And in the absence of these 17 systemic measures, we have to rely on these organic 18 measures, and they're commonly used as performance 19 barometers.

20 Now, the data that I'm going to share with you 21 in a million different ways, because we sorted it because 22 we were concerned about the measures for institutions, 23 colleges and universities. So for those of you who are 24 familiar with SIC Code, we sorted on SIC Code 8221, but 25 we could have sorted on anything. And I encourage you to

115 1 do this when you go back if you're interested. Some of 2 this data's readily available, and you can sort it any 3 way you want it.

4 But let's go back to performance barometers for 5 a second. i was in Madison, Wisconsin, which is a 6 beautiful city, and I was giving this talk. And prior to 7 my talk, there was a woman who got up and was speaking 8 about benchmarking and how it was important to have all 9 this data.

10 So she said, "Envision this scenario: That 11 you're waiting in the lobby, and you get on the elevator 12 and in walks the president. And the president's on the 13 elevator with you. And now you're going to ride ten 14 floors, and the president turns to you and says, `So 15 how's safety going?' And, typically, you would wait a few 16 floors and you would probably respond, `Well, fine.' And 17 then that would be the end of it.

18 "So that was a real missed opportunity. You 19 should be able to blurt out some peppy little bromide 20 about the safety of cost-reduction per square foot," or 21 some kind of thing. I don't know what it was.

22 Well, when I got up to talk, I said, "Well, 23 lady, that's fine and dandy. But usually what happens 24 when I get on the elevator is the boss turns around and 25 kicks me in the shins and says, `Gee, Emery, you just got

116 1 two NOVs. What the heck do we pay you for?'"

2 (Laughter) 3 DR. EMERY: So I think that we kind of need to 4 take a step back sometimes and realize that this is 5 in-the-trenches measure that's used for a lot of 6 practicing professionals and some people's careers are 7 sometimes affected by the issuance of these things. For 8 what it's worth, they may be very well deserved.

9 So if we look at institutions, those things --

10 we're just going to use colleges and universities, we are 11 evaluated in this manner by a number of major 12 authorities. And those take the form of the fire 13 marshall, the food inspector, EPA, OSHA and the BRC. And 14 I put those in order for a reason: Because we're going 15 to go from what we consider the poorest measurement of 16 outcomes to the best. Okay?

17 So this gets us to our first slide here, and 18 each one of these will be in the same format. The first 19 slide is going to tell you a little bit about how their 20 inspection process works, what some of the biases are.

21 And then you can guess what you think the most frequent 22 violation is.

23 Now, the Texas State Fire Marshall has a rank 24 system. That means that, if there's a reported event --

25 there's a fire or something like that -- they have to

117 1 inspect. And then it goes down this tier all the way 2 down to routine inspections. But because they don't have 3 a lot of resources, they rarely are able to perform 4 routine inspections.

5 So with these limited resources, that means 6 that their inspections are essentially limited to 7 complaints. Now, that has some bias inherent to it 8 because, essentially, what they're doing is inspecting 9 the places that always have complaints tied to them.

10 The other interesting thing that the state fire 11 marshall does is they don't use a standard assessment 12 tool; they don't use a survey form, the thing that we're 13 used to. They go in and claim that they're -- that they 14 want to be unencumbered and just observe things and then 15 record the deficiencies that they note. Okay?

16 So, in fact, the data may be only indicative of 17 poor programs. And what's interesting is that the list 18 that I'm getting ready to show you is not based on any 19 data; it's based on pure intuition, where the state fire 20 marshall sat down and said, "Here's the most common one."

21 Now, before I flip, what do you think?

22 VOICE: Extinguishers.

23 MR. DUNDULIS: Either blocked fire exits or no 24 set exit.

25 DR. EMERY: Okay.

118 1 MR. BAILEY: Outdated extinguishers.

2 DR. EMERY: Outdated extinguishers.

3 MR. WHATLEY: Room capacity or area capacity 4 exceeded.

5 DR. EMERY: Exceeded room capacity.

6 Anybody else?

7 MS. TEFFT: Exit lights out.

8 DR. EMERY: Exit lights out. Okay.

9 Well, let's jump forward here. Now what I want 10 to see is the show of hands of people who got Number One 11 right when we flip forward here. Okay?

12 The most frequent one is the failure to test 13 and maintain alarms and lights. How many people got 14 something akin to that?

15 (Pause.)

16 DR. EMERY: Okay. Well, that's okay. That's 17 sort of about half the people already. Okay.

18 Let's run down this list very quickly: Failure 19 to test and maintain alarms; the doors don't close; 20 maintaining door-closing devices; doors propped open --

21 there's a lot of door-related issues here -- failure to 22 schedule fire drills; improper storage of chemicals; 23 inappropriate door-locking devices; inoperable 24 smoke-detectors; extension cords; and obstructed 25 hallways.

119 1 Well, what does this tell us? Number One is:

2 That's all readily tangible stuff that can be easily 3 corrected. And you can go around and, if -- you could 4 hand this to your fire safety guy and say, "Look, make 5 sure we've got this taken care of; If we don't do 6 anything else, address this short list." Okay?

7 But what are some of the shortcomings here? I 8 have no idea what -- the truth is: I don't know how 9 frequent the first one is. I don't know if this Top Ten 10 list represents 10 percent of all the problems or 100 11 percent of all the problems; it's difficult to say.

12 So there's some value in having an intuitive 13 list, but it would be nice to sort this out; especially 14 since you have an agency that goes out and does the 15 inspections, if the data were collected and provided back 16 for preventive activities, it would provide a great value 17 and close the loop.

18 And this is something we've seen in our 19 research over and over again. Regulatory agencies are 20 great at collecting data, but, once it gets there, there 21 it resides, and it very rarely gets provided back in a 22 way that can be used for prevention.

23 Okay. How about food sanity -- is there 24 anybody here from Houston, by the way?

25 (Pause.)

120 1 DR. EMERY: Nobody from -- there's a famous guy 2 on TV, Marvin Zindler, down there. And he goes and does 3 food inspections. So every time I do this talk in 4 Houston, everybody immediately blurts out that the most 5 common food sanitation issue is slime in the ice-box --

6 (Laughter) 7 DR. EMERY: -- no matter -- because that's what 8 he -- that's his byline there.

9 Okay. How does the Harris County health 10 department do their inspections? The same deal: Ranked 11 system, from complaints all the way down to routine.

12 But, again, the resounding theme here is that 13 limited resources impact the ability to do routine 14 inspections. So the good thing is that they use a 15 standardized assessment tool. But the data is not 16 assembled or analyzed in any objective manner. So 17 they've got a nice check-list, and they fill it out, but 18 it goes in a file, and that's the end of it from there.

19 Again, common problems are going to be based on 20 intuition only, but the interesting thing is that they 21 create this list and make it available on their web page.

22 So that's kind of nice.

23 So what do you think the most common food one 24 is?

25 VOICE: Poor sanitation.

121 1 VOICE: Washing and not using gloves.

2 DR. EMERY: Hand washing, sure.

3 VOICE: Food temperature.

4 DR. EMERY: Temperature, yes.

5 Anybody else?

6 MR. BAILEY: Lack of hair restraints.

7 DR. EMERY: Hair-nets. Okay. Improper storage 8 temperature, things like that. Okay.

9 VOICE: Expiration dates.

10 DR. EMERY: Expiration dates exceeded. Okay.

11 Let's take a look and see. By the way, if you didn't get 12 the first one right, you're not out of the running. Keep 13 filling them out, because the prize is overwhelming, by 14 the way. It's --

15 (Laughter) 16 DR. EMERY: Okay. The -- we're going to get 17 your picture -- who ever's the prize winner, we'll get 18 your picture, too. And we'll put it on some obscure web 19 page that no one will be able to find, but you'll be out 20 there.

21 (Laughter) 22 DR. EMERY: Okay. The most common violation is 23 food stored and displayed at the wrong temperature --

24 Which is you right there. Right? You got 25 that.

122 1 Okay. Hand-washing, not sanitizing utensils, 2 rodents and insects present, toxic items not properly 3 stored or labeled, hand-washing in toilet facilities, 4 food not covered, improper water source, wrong 5 temperature, improper plumbing and spoiled food present.

6 Again, pretty simple stuff.

7 You could take this short list, hand it to 8 somebody and say, "When you do your regular reviews, make 9 sure you've got this stuff squared away; Wash your 10 hands," and stuff like that. But, again, because of the 11 lack of the data, we don't know what this represents. Is 12 this all of the list, the tip of the ice-berg, or what's 13 going on there? So we're getting a little closer.

14 Okay. Now, EPA. EPA is a gigantic 15 organization. And they have a ranked system from 16 reportable events down to routine, but, again, the same 17 deal, the same old song: They don't have enough people 18 or resources to go out and do all these inspections.

19 Now, we are interested in -- because we're 20 looking at colleges and universities, our major concern 21 had to do with hazardous waste, hazardous chemical waste 22 there, because -- there are some other areas that you can 23 be concerned about in our setting, which might be air 24 releases, underground storage tanks and stuff like that, 25 but we wanted a sort on the data with hazardous waste

123 1 because that was our major concern.

2 Now, the interesting thing -- I don't know how 3 many people here deal with hazardous waste. But you 4 can -- depending on how much stuff you generate, you're 5 classified as a large quantity generator, a small 6 quantity generator or an exempt small quantity generator.

7 Well, because they have limited resources, the 8 inspection data that I'm getting ready to share with you 9 is essentially biased toward the large quantity 10 generators, or the treatment, storage and disposal 11 facilities, because they don't have the resources to get 12 down to the people that are the smaller-volume stuff, 13 like us. And so, again, because this -- most of this is 14 driven by complaints, this may be indicative of only the 15 poor programs.

16 I think I've got some dollar figures associated 17 with this one. Here's a little more data. We're getting 18 a little closer, because we've got a little more stuff 19 now. Over this 10-year period -- all the data I'm 20 sharing with you is over a 10-year period, from '87 to 21 '97. There were 328 institutions that were inspected.

22 Over that period, 700 violations were issued, for a total 23 of $1.6 million in fines. Okay?

24 Now, what do you think the most common 25 violations associated in this setting are?

124 1 MR. DUNDULIS: Record-keeping.

2 DR. EMERY: Certainly, record-keeping.

3 MR. BAILEY: Pollution control.

4 VOICE: Improper storage use.

5 DR. EMERY: Improper storage.

6 VOICE: Chemical releases.

7 DR. EMERY: Chemical releases.

8 VOICE: Monitoring.

9 DR. EMERY: I'm sorry?

10 VOICE: Monitoring.

11 DR. EMERY: I didn't --

12 VOICE: Inadequate monitoring.

13 DR. EMERY: Oh, inadequate monitoring? Okay.

14 Let's take a look here and see.

15 All right. Unfortunately, the way the data's 16 collected, this is the best we can do. That's 17 unfortunate. All we can get is the general data 18 categories, which consist of something like 19 transportation.

20 Now, I don't know whether that means there was 21 an open 55-gallon drum with stuff slushing out the back 22 in a pickup truck or whether it was an improper DOT 23 label, which I suspect it was, but, nonetheless, it seems 24 that there are some opportunities for improvement in this 25 data collection in a way to provide it back for

125 1 prevention, for what it's worth. But we were able to get 2 some other stuff out of there, and so that's pretty good.

3 How are we doing so far on guessing on this 4 stuff? Are you guys getting in the ball-park?

5 (Pause.)

6 DR. EMERY: Yes? Okay? All right.

7 Now, what about OSHA? Okay? OSHA has got a 8 ranked system. Their ranked system starts at fatalities 9 and goes all the way down to routine inspections. As a 10 matter of fact, they have to inspect when something 11 called a Fat Cat occurs -- Fatalities or Catastrophes. A 12 catastrophe involves three people or more.

13 Again, the limited resources impact the ability 14 to do the routine inspections. I don't know what the 15 region number is out of Dallas for OSHA here.

16 Do we have anybody from OSHA here?

17 (Pause.)

18 DR. EMERY: Because, if you were to ask the 19 regional director in Dallas how many routine inspections 20 were performed last year, the answer is zero because 21 they're so swamped with some of the other concerns there.

22 Okay?

23 Now, the neat thing about this is that this 24 data's available right on the web. You can go to 25 OSHA.Gov, you can type in your SIC Code, and it will sort

126 1 out and give you all the data you want. With the other 2 ones, it takes a little more digging to get to.

3 So we're going to sort on SIC Code 8221. The 4 data may be biased toward the bad actors, keep in mind.

5 Another thing is: Public institutions are not 6 represented. Why? Because they're exempt from OSHA.

7 Okay?

8 Now, I think I've got some supplemental data we 9 were able to get out of here. Over the 10-year period, 10 there were 10,254 violations, but what's interesting is 11 that, at least, OSHA assigns a severity level to it, and 12 about 50 percent were considered to be serious. Okay?

13 So that's giving us a little more information.

14 Another little nugget is that the initial 15 penalty for these total is 2.1 million, but, in fact, 16 when the checks were written, it was only for 1.3 17 million. So if you're budgeting for violations, you can 18 budget for a 38-percent reduction and continue on your 19 way, guessing that you won't have to pay for the total 20 initial assessment. I'd just make management aware of 21 that.

22 (Laughter) 23 DR. EMERY: Okay. One other little 24 supplemental thing we can do here is that --

25 unfortunately, when you sort this data, each violation --

127 1 it's tied to its citation but all the way down to the 2 sub-code. So, in fact, it's too detailed. Okay?

3 In other words: The first one -- if you sort 4 it, the first one will be all the way down to, you know, 5 29 CFR 1910(e)(5), (7) or (3) or something. So you have 6 to kind of throw these things back together, re-congeal 7 these things, to at least make some sense out of them.

8 But if we take the top 25 violations and throw 9 them back together into with the 10 main categories, we 10 can now look at, "What percent do they represent of all 11 the violations issued?" And it runs between 30 and 40 12 percent, somewhere around there.

13 So this list, this kind of Top Ten list, will 14 represent 20 to 30 to 40 percent, depending on the year, 15 of all the violations issued to this work setting. Okay?

16 And that gives us a little flavor for what tip of the 17 ice-berg we're looking at.

18 What do you think it is? What do you think the 19 common violations are?

20 MR. DUNDULIS: HazCon, right to know.

21 DR. EMERY: Without a doubt, every person, 22 myself included, jumped on that like a duck on a 23 june-bug. And I say that for Mel Fry because I miss that 24 North Carolina term, "Like a duck on a june-bug," because 25 I was in North Carolina.

128 1 I thought that, too. I immediately thought 2 that it would be HazCon. But it's not. What do you 3 think it is?

4 MR. FLETCHER: Poor personal safety standards.

5 DR. EMERY: I'm sorry?

6 MR. FLETCHER: Poor personal safety standards.

7 DR. EMERY: No.

8 MR. FRY: Signage.

9 DR. EMERY: No. This is -- by the way, this 10 great question is on here so that nobody gets the prize.

11 (Laughter) 12 VOICE: Electrical sign posting.

13 DR. EMERY: Somebody got it. Not, it wasn't 14 signs. Electrical -- it was a violation of the 15 electrical standard. Amazing. Who would have thought 16 that? The take-home message here says that, "In this 17 particular case, are we putting our resources where the 18 major problem is with regard to compliance?"

19 You talk to any health and safety person in the 20 institutional setting about HazCon -- we beat people's 21 brains out over HazCon. Yet, lo and behold, 11.8 percent 22 of all the violations were tied to the electrical 23 standard. Probably to do with the ubiquitous use of 24 extension cords and those other things. Right?

25 But okay. A couple -- toxic, hazardous

129 1 substance, machine-guarding, means of egress, protective 2 equipment, walking surfaces, first-aid, fire protection, 3 environmental controls which -- I don't know what that 4 means, by the way; I'm assuming that's the lack of local 5 exhaust ventilation -- and hazardous materials. So over 6 the 10-year period, it's 34-percent of the total. Okay?

7 All right. So this is taking you from a 8 compliance organization that relies totally on the seat 9 of their pants all the way to an organization that 10 records data and has it available in some way to feed 11 back in the form of prevention.

12 I will now present to you -- and Mike Charlton, 13 as well -- perhaps the best data-collection mechanism 14 that's out there in the public health arena. And I think 15 you'll see that there are all sorts of great things that 16 can pop out of this.

17 One other thing we can do with the OSHA data is 18 that -- this 3-D graph will show that, if these are all 19 the violations and this is time, although the relative 20 position may change within, the top ten always stay the 21 same. It's always the same stuff.

22 And when we get to the Bureau of Radiation 23 Control stuff -- or the NRC-related stuff, if you will --

24 even though -- the reason we picked these years is 25 because it encompasses the revision of 10 CFR 20 and,

130 1 even though that occurred, it's always the same stuff, 2 which is kind of interesting. Good preventive education 3 stuff. Okay?

4 Now, the last one is the Texas Department of 5 Health Bureau of Radiation Control, our model program.

6 Right?

7 (Laughter) 8 DR. EMERY: Okay. But, now, a couple of neat 9 things about this. Number One is that everybody gets 10 inspected. There's a routine inspection process, and 11 everybody gets inspected; their frequency is just based 12 on the scope of activities, which I suspect is the case 13 for everyone here. It covers both licensees of 14 radioactive material and registrants of 15 radiation-producing devices.

16 So, in fact, it's probably the purest database 17 with regard to compliance that's out there. And let me 18 emphasize this: Our interest in doing this is not to 19 point fingers; our interest is to claim that we benefit 20 as a profession from the routine surveillance program, 21 that it is to everyone's benefit that we are inspected.

22 But if we can still have the inspections occur 23 but reduce the number of common violations, that's also 24 to everyone's benefit because there's a cost associated 25 with that. And we'll talk about that in a second.

131 1 So I'll turn it over to Mike Charlton, and he 2 can talk about the particulars here with the data.

3 MR. CHARLTON: Thank you, Bob.

4 Now that Bob has got everyone worried about 5 what they had for lunch, I'll try to get everyone back to 6 radiation safety.

7 (Laughter) 8 MR. CHARLTON: Okay. We have it broken down 9 into two sections, really. We have licensees and 10 registrants. Not everyone's going to have registrants, 11 but this should at least give you a feel for what we have 12 in terms of registrants.

13 First and foremost, we have the licensees. And 14 this is ten years of data that we obtained from the 15 Bureau, and they, I think, gladly gave it to us -- I 16 hope. And you can see that, of the top ten, just like 17 Bob says, they sort of vary in position between Number 18 One versus Number Two, but, over the entire 10-year 19 period, the same ten were observed.

20 And the top, Number One violation was 21 procedures -- failure to follow procedures that you've 22 written into your license, or some sort of licensing 23 condition -- absent surveys would be 10 percent.

24 Failure to perform lead tests or document lead 25 tests properly, personnel monitoring issues, instrument

132 1 calibration, inventories, transfer records, disposal 2 records, some sort of maintenance program and then 3 training issues -- when you add these things up, they 4 accounted for approximately two-thirds of all the 5 violations issued by the Department of Health during the 6 ten years. And that's sort of an important thing to 7 know.

8 And during the 10-year study, this Top Ten list 9 accounted for between 55 and, say, 75 percent of all the 10 violations issued. So from the licensee's perspective, 11 this is very important information; at least, it allows 12 us to know where all the sort of speed traps are. So, at 13 least, we know where the inspectors will be looking when 14 they come out to our program. And this is the sort of 15 information that our RSOs were very interested in having.

16 And you know you've reached the pinnacle of 17 your health physics career when you can say, "If this 18 graph were at all visible, you could see what is going 19 on."

20 (Laughter) 21 MR. CHARLTON: But, in reality, don't worry too 22 much about the details.

23 (Laughter) 24 MR. CHARLTON: The information is provided in 25 that little book. It's -- the book is broken down the

133 1 same way this presentation is in that there are licensees 2 in Section 1, registrants in Section 2, and then there 3 are some references and contact information for each one 4 of the states and the NRC, and that sort of thing. And 5 this graph is in there, also.

6 One of the nice things that the Bureau provides 7 is -- in addition to the citation, they also give a 8 severity on how severe it was, Severity Level 1 being the 9 most severe, or imminent danger, and Severity Level 5 10 being the least severe, or minor infraction.

11 And you can see that, by far, 75 percent of all 12 the violations over the 10-year period accounted for 13 minor violations. And this is the sort of information 14 that's important for both licensees and -- it's also good 15 for the Bureau to have this information, too, so they 16 know where to focus.

17 Okay. Now we can talk about registrants.

18 Registrants, at least in the state of Texas, far 19 outnumber the licensees. We have approximately, say, 20 15,000 registrants, versus approximately 2,000 to 2,500 21 licensees. So there's a whole bulk of problems 22 associated with these registrants that the Bureau has to 23 deal with.

24 And you can see that 20 percent of all the 25 violations issued over the 10-year period had to do with

134 1 operating and safety procedures not followed, not posted 2 properly, and these sorts of things.

3 Temperature and time charts for machines, no QC 4 performed, alignment problems, tests performed on the 5 machines, technique charts not posted, the registration 6 not current, dosimetry issues, timers and then just a 7 general other X-ray and -- this accounted for almost 8 three-quarters of all the violations issued.

9 And it's important to note that, for 10 registrants, there's approximately 150 different 11 violations that you can receive and, of those 150, these 12 top ten general ones have a tendency to account for, you 13 know, 75 percent of them. And during the study period, 14 these varied from 61 percent to 78 percent of all the 15 violations.

16 It's important to note that, of these top ten 17 violations, similar to the licensees, many of these 18 violations are at least somewhat derived from paper 19 work-type issues or failure to document things properly 20 and -- you're probably aware of that -- the ability to 21 retain the records properly or report the records 22 properly.

23 And this is another slide similar to the last 24 one. In that, you can see that the vast majority of the 25 violations occurred in the very first category, which is

135 1 operating safety procedures, radiation safety plan not 2 implemented or not posted or not available. And they may 3 vary back and forth between who's Number One and who's 4 Number Two, but, over the 10-year period, they were all 5 similar.

6 We also have the severity levels, the same as 7 we had for licensees. And you can see that, just like 8 there was for the licensees, the Severity Level 4 is the 9 most frequently occurring. And if you add that in with 10 the Severity Level 5, which is the most un-severe, that's 11 approximately three-quarters of all the violations.

12 Okay. And now we have some other program 13 outcomes. We have complaints and, also, incidents, 14 which -- I'm sure everyone here is aware of all of these 15 types of issues. And one of the things we like to tell 16 the people in our courses is, "Well, these are the 17 general kinds of complaints that you can suspect that 18 you'll receive by your work setting or by your 19 license-type, be it a registrant versus a licensee."

20 And here you can see that, if you want to get a 21 complaint filed against you, it's probably better to be a 22 registrant than it is to be a licensee. And 54 percent 23 of the complaints were issued against registrants, and 24 only 38 percent for licensees. "Other," is sort of 25 anything -- at least in the state of Texas, you can

136 1 complain about whatever you want to the Bureau, and 2 they'll do an inspection irrespective of whether or not 3 they actually regulate that particular material.

4 (Laughter) 5 MR. CHARLTON: And in several cases, this could 6 be like microwave ovens and then some sort of far-off 7 sorts of things. And that's where the, "Other," category 8 comes in.

9 And over the 10-year period, there were almost 10 a thousand complaints. So each one of those things also 11 resulted in an inspection and, perhaps, even some NOVs 12 coming from that.

13 We also have it broken down by work setting, be 14 it industrial versus medical. And you can see that the 15 medical profession has far more complaints filed against 16 it in terms of radioactive material or radiation sources 17 than the industrial side: 55 percent to 36 percent. And 18 that's probably an important nugget to know if you're in 19 the medical profession to, at least, make yourself aware 20 of sort of patient problems that you might encounter.

21 Okay. This is --

22 (Laughter) 23 MR. CHARLTON: Well, I apologized for this 24 slide already. It's a little bit difficult to read, but 25 it is in the book. And don't worry too, too much about

137 1 the actual details, but look at the actual -- the big 2 pieces of the puzzle.

3 And you can see that the Number One thing is 4 that 20 percent of the complaints were from 5 uncredentialed technicians or uncredentialed 6 technologists. People are complaining about, "The person 7 performing my X-ray imaging," or some sort of imaging, 8 "did not have the proper qualifications," or, "We did not 9 feel they had the proper qualifications."

10 This -- these results don't say what happened 11 after the Bureau did their investigations, i. e.: They 12 can complain to say, "Yes, we don't think that, you know, 13 my technologist had the credentials," but the Bureau 14 could come in later and say, "Yes, they actually did have 15 the credentials; they just weren't posted properly."

16 And that may be some of the issues that you and 17 your state may want to address. And then there's a bunch 18 of smaller ones, but that's probably the largest one.

19 Okay. Now I won't break it down into 20 incidents. There are mechanisms, which I'm sure everyone 21 is aware of, for reporting certain items -- for example, 22 over-exposures, mis-administrations and these sorts of 23 things -- which are classified in the state of Texas as 24 incidents. And there's some for registrants, and there's 25 also some for licensees.

138 1 And you can see that the vast majority of the 2 incidents over the ten years occurred for the licensees, 3 almost two to one -- three to one, almost. And during 4 the 10-year period, there was 2,000 incidents, twice as 5 many as there were complaints, by the way.

6 And we also have it broken down by medical 7 versus industrial. And you can see that, here, it's 8 about the same. There is an equal percentage of 9 incidents occurring in the medical setting as there is in 10 the industrial setting. Now, that, obviously, is 11 probably a little bit unique for Texas, because we do 12 have a lot of industrial-type sources which you may not 13 find in some of the other smaller states.

14 This -- I tried to make it as big as possible.

15 But the big pieces -- you can see that the big yellow one 16 is over-exposures reported to the state of Texas. And 17 that accounted for almost a-third. If you add in badge 18 over-exposures, that does account for 42 percent of all 19 the reported incidents to the Bureau.

20 And the other pieces are dose irregularities 21 and mis-administrations, which are sort of 22 mis-applications of radio-pharmaceuticals or radiation 23 therapy and these sorts of issues. Those four pieces 24 alone account for more than 60 percent of all the 25 problems associated with incidents in Texas. So if we

139 1 can work on those incidents or ferret out some additional 2 data, then perhaps we'll have some pretty important 3 preventive information.

4 So you may ask, "Okay. Now we have all these 5 spiffy graphs that no one can read, but, in addition, it 6 would be nice to have some educational information to 7 present to people besides ourselves." This first graph 8 is all incidents, which is the top red line, reported to 9 the Bureau each year. And then the lower blue line 10 which -- I think it's blue; I'm color-blind, but I'm told 11 it's blue -- is just over-exposures.

12 And you can see that they're approximately 13 constant up until 1994, and then, following 1994, there's 14 a pretty significant drop-off in the number of incidents, 15 and there's also a drop-off in the number of reported 16 over-exposures. And this is probably due to the fact 17 that the quarterly dose limits were revised or eliminated 18 on January 1 here in Texas.

19 This is important information for the Bureau to 20 have because it allows them to take resources that they 21 used to use on incident investigation and apply them to 22 other areas.

23 And that's a nice segue into 24 mis-administrations and does irregularities. They also 25 noted during that same time period an increase in

140 1 mis-administrations and dose irregularities around 1993, 2 and they could tailor some of these other incident 3 investigation resources into these mid-administrations 4 over on the medical side.

5 Now, from the licensee standpoint, there's 6 additional information that we can use. And this is a 7 breakdown if mis-administrations and dose irregularities 8 by radio-isotope.

9 And you can see that the vast majority of all 10 the reported incidents involving mis-administrations of 11 radio-pharmaceuticals occurs with techs using 99 M. Of 12 course, intuitively, you'll probably assume that because 13 approximately 80 percent of all the radio-pharmaceutical 14 applications involve techs using 99 M, but this sort of 15 goes right in line with what we would expect -- 75 16 percent, basically, of all the applications.

17 And, in addition, we also broke it down by 18 process variable, i. e.: "Did we inject the wrong dose?

19 Did we inject the wrong patient? Did we inject the wrong 20 compound?" And these sorts of issues are important for 21 training or preventive training for 22 radio-pharmaceuticals, nuclear medicine, hospitals and 23 even radiation safety people.

24 So these things, these sorts of easy-to-read 25 pie charts, allow the historical data that the Bureau has

141 1 collected to be reformulated and given back to the 2 licensees in a sort of easy-to-use-and-understand format 3 which will, hopefully, help prevent in the future.

4 Okay. Now I'm going to pass you back off to my 5 tag-team partner.

6 DR. EMERY: Okay. We're on the down-stretch 7 now, but perhaps the most important part, and that is:

8 "Well, what does all this cost?"

9 We go out and do these inspections, and we get 10 this data back. And the nice thing that the Bureau has 11 is a coding system which allows us to do some of this 12 data manipulation. We have some suggestions on how that 13 coding system might be enhanced a little bit, but the 14 idea is that, by coding the data as it's collected, we 15 can use it for some of these preventive tools.

16 And we have many, many more, but we didn't want 17 to bore you with all the gory details. But you get the 18 gist of what potential rests there.

19 But as we were working on this project, one of 20 the things we were quite interested in is, "Gee, although 21 no one will come out and say it, it may be inferred that, 22 just as the operating police officer out on the street 23 has to come back with so many tickets written to show his 24 boss that he did something -- or her boss -- we were 25 thinking about the idea that, "Gee, is the Bureau" --

142 1 "Are radiation agencies measured by their output, the 2 number of violations issued, and is that an appropriate 3 measure?"

4 And, in fact, it may not be actually done, but 5 it may be inferred. Okay? So we don't know the truth 6 there, but what we would like to know is, "What does all 7 this cost? What does it cost to issue these NOVs?"

8 Okay?

9 And so, again, we endorse and embrace the idea 10 of routine inspections. We think that the radiation 11 safety profession benefits from out. Our jobs come from 12 it. We like that.

13 But what we're interested in is, "What added 14 cost is reflected when NOVs are issued," because, if this 15 information is provided for a value of prevention, you 16 might be able to experience some pretty significant 17 administrative cost savings which then the agencies could 18 use for some other pressing issues that are beating down 19 their doors.

20 So what we wanted to do was estimate that 21 administrative cost that's added. So we wanted -- we're 22 not concerned about the cost of the base-line of doing 23 routine inspections; we just know that there's added cost 24 to issue and subsequently resolve NOVs.

25 So if we could estimate this, then maybe the

143 1 reductions that are available -- the potential reductions 2 through education -- could be quantified. And that's a 3 project that we worked on here.

4 So what we did was -- we created a map of the 5 inspection process independently, and then we sent it to 6 the Bureau and said, "This is the way we see how the 7 process works. Is this correct?" And then we held a 8 focus group session with the Bureau, and there were, I 9 think, ten employees of the Bureau who were involved with 10 this process who participated.

11 And we asked them what -- "How many hours are 12 required to do these additional that -- when an NOV is 13 issued, in order to write the letter and all that kind of 14 stuff?" And then some percentage of those things aren't 15 returned, and on and on. And some of these things 16 actually have to go to a higher level of authority, and 17 on and on.

18 But we were able -- I won't get into all the 19 gory details, but the idea is: They estimated times that 20 were associated with this. And then we were able to 21 develop an estimate of a relationship between the number 22 of NOVs issued and the administrative cost. And then, 23 being academic egg-heads, we had to develop a unit for 24 this. Right? If we didn't do that, we couldn't get 25 tenure and promotions and those kinds of things. Okay?

144 1 (Laughter) 2 DR. EMERY: Let's look at this graph for a 3 second. What this graph showed -- and, interestingly 4 enough, during this focus group, we were able --

5 everybody's data was within 20 percent. Kind of 6 interesting. They filled it out independently, but, 7 through their professional collective experience -- it 8 was over 100-and-some-odd years of people -- person 9 years -- the data was pretty close.

10 And here, we have, "Number of NOVs Issued," and 11 here's dollar figures. And lo and behold, there's a 12 direct correlation here between the number of NOVs issued 13 and the dollar -- the cost to process these things.

14 Right?

15 And the last blank on your little survey or 16 your form is, "What do you think the cost -- per year 17 added administrative cost is to process this stuff?"

18 What do you think, just a wild guess?

19 (Pause.)

20 DR. EMERY: Our claim is, "Keep going and 21 inspecting. But what do you think it costs to actually 22 process the NOVs that are issued in a year?"

23 MR. FRY: $100,000.

24 DR. EMERY: Very, very close. We came up with 25 $106,000. Okay?

145 1 Well, what does that say? What this suggests 2 is that, if any regulatory agency could develop this 3 relationship and then set as an educational or preventive 4 goal that we will reduce through education, not through a 5 reduction of the inspection process, the number of NOVs 6 that are issued, because people will now be enhancing 7 their compliance, we could save a proportionate number of 8 administrative dollars that would then be freed up for 9 other activities.

10 And you could set that goal at 10 percent, 30 11 percent, or whatever. And now, all of a sudden, we're 12 armed with some data that we can go to those people who 13 may judge our outcomes as the number of tickets written 14 and say, "Wait a minute. Let's look at the ultimate 15 outcome, which is the health of the public, and reduce 16 some of these administrative costs and put them somewhere 17 else." Just food for thought there.

18 Okay. Now, when Mike and I were working on 19 this project, of course, now came the most important 20 part, which was, "How do we name this unit," of course.

21 So we flipped for it, and we decided it was called the 22 Emery Unit -- the EU, the Emery Unit, which is the --

23 (Laughter) 24 DR. EMERY: Now, I'll tell you what happened 25 with the coin-toss. Because this is the administrative

146 1 dollars per NOV saved, that's standard, temperature and 2 pressure.

3 (Laughter) 4 DR. EMERY: Well, because we flipped on this, 5 this is the SI unit, and the English unit will be the 6 Charl-ton, which will be the weight of the dollar figures 7 that are saved per NOV lost, or something like that. We 8 haven't worked on that one yet.

9 (Laughter) 10 DR. EMERY: So notice those are all, "1," by 11 the way. Okay? So we're hoping to go down -- and we're 12 going to -- you know, the Health Physics member --

13 Society -- there are these coffee cups they give out each 14 year, that Boca Ridge one. So we're shooting for the 15 coffee cup next year. Okay?

16 So, now, your question is, "Well, what's in 17 this for my agency? Why am I enduring this stuff, these 18 egg-heads from UT/Houston spouting up all this stuff?

19 What's in it for me?"

20 Well, I think -- we think, in recognition that 21 health and safety programs may be evaluated in a number 22 of ways, that there appears to be a finite set of 23 frequently cited issues that can usually be identified.

24 And I think most people would agree with that.

25 A simple data-collection system can easily

147 1 augment the programs that are in place. And they can 2 show -- one thing, for instance, they show that the 3 common issues may not be where the resources are being 4 allocated. Conversely, it may suggest that the common 5 issues may not be where the real risks are. Just 6 something to consider.

7 So we contend that the dissemination of this 8 information in an easily-digestible format for the 9 regulated community serves to benefit everyone. And it 10 serves in administrative cost reductions, and now there's 11 a lot of emphasis on compliance risk plans, as well.

12 So where do we go from here? What's the next 13 thing? Right? Research is just taking one problem and 14 slicing and dicing it about 8 million times. Well, where 15 we think the real root of the issue is is this root-cause 16 analysis. And let's take one of the most famous 17 violations that everybody issues: Failure to do a 18 sealed-source leak test. Right? Everybody has had one 19 of those. All right?

20 What are the problems -- what can go wrong in 21 order for someone to get a sealed-source leak test NOV, 22 which is coded 030 in the state of Texas? What are the 23 problems? Here it is: It was either done or it wasn't 24 done. They either leak-tested it or they didn't. It was 25 never ever done, or it was done, but not at the

148 1 prescribed frequency.

2 The time frame in which it had to be done was 3 either a permit condition or a regulation. It could have 4 been done, but the documentation was incomplete. It 5 wasn't recorded in the units of micro-Curies. Or, in 6 fact, the thing was found leaking, but it wasn't 7 reported.

8 Now, can anybody else think of any other 9 problems that could go wrong with the issue of a 10 sealed-source leak test? That pretty much covers the 11 water-front. Okay?

12 Well, look at this. Lo and behold, what are 13 the problems here? It was either a performance issue, a 14 time issue -- it was either a violation of the reg. or 15 the permit condition, it was a completeness issue or an 16 inappropriate action issue.

17 And we think that that type of approach for the 18 most common violations, the finite list of the top ten, 19 if the data were coded with these subsequent sub-codes, 20 all of a sudden we could really get to the root cause.

21 Is really the problem that we're encountering because 22 people can't count six months? Is that really the issue, 23 or that they can't convert from DPM to micro-Curies? Is 24 that the real issue?

25 I mean, so maybe by having the standardized

149 1 coding system with a little follow-up data, we can really 2 get to the root cause of the problem and help educate the 3 regulated community so that we can save some of these 4 administrative costs.

5 Okay. That was supposed to get you psyched up.

6 I don't know if it did or not.

7 (Laughter) 8 DR. EMERY: Okay. So before you go home and 9 take the plunge, what do we need to think about? One is:

10 A coding system needs to be developed with the results in 11 mind; we don't want to over-code. We should have a 12 coding system that gets that simple stuff because, 13 really, what we want to do is just prevent the common 14 violations.

15 So think about the level of detail necessary.

16 Is it really necessary to have that OSHA level of detail?

17 No, probably not. We certainly want to limit the impact 18 on the staff.

19 And when we were working on this project -- and 20 we're very appreciative of the involvement of the Bureau 21 of Radiation Control -- one of the things they did was 22 had us come up and talk to them.

23 And by having someone come from the outside and 24 talk to the staff about how this fits into the bigger 25 picture and what's really going on here, it seemed to

150 1 open some eyes. And people began to understand what we 2 were trying to do here and that it wasn't some subversive 3 activity or something like that. And I would encourage 4 you to think about that, as well.

5 If you're interested in doing this, that --

6 it's probably worthwhile to have somebody from the 7 outside to talk about it because, if you get it from the 8 inside, it's the delivery person.

9 I think that inter-state consistency is 10 probably useful for benchmarking. This forum is 11 appropriate for that type of discussion. If this coding 12 is something that's of interest, it's probably a good 13 idea to have a standard coding system so we can start 14 comparing apples to apples, instead of apples to oranges, 15 and, last of all, keep it simple.

16 But -- by the way, that's my daughter. She 17 just learned to swim.

18 So I guess my questions for you are: Number 19 One, is the assembly and dissemination of this type of 20 information part of your program's mission? Is part of 21 the mission of your radiation control program education, 22 and, if it is, the second part is: Is the local climate 23 conducive to this type of approach?

24 And, third, if that's the case, should any such 25 effort be coordinated or supported at the national level

151 1 so that we have a coordinated effort and not a bunch of 2 people heading off in 31 different directions there?

3 Okay. So that's the end of our formal 4 presentation.

5 Before I stop yapping, who got the most right?

6 Anyone close?

7 (Pause.)

8 DR. EMERY: Well, let's see. Who got one 9 right? We'll start there. Okay?

10 (Pause.)

11 DR. EMERY: Who got two right? I'll start 12 going down.

13 So you might be our -- well, please, step right 14 on up here.

15 (Pause.)

16 DR. EMERY: So we have this handsome 17 environmental health and safety ice-chest developed for 18 our department because we got tired of putting beers in 19 the sink in there.

20 (Applause) 21 MR. CAMERON: I'm glad to see that they're 22 still having fun, lots of fun, in academia.

23 DR. EMERY: Yes.

24 MR. CAMERON: That's great.

25 DR. EMERY: Now, at the end of the

152 1 discussion -- I forgot to ask you this one thing: At the 2 end of any discussion you have, you have to save my job, 3 and that is -- we killed about three printers printing 4 out those color things. And my boss had apoplexy.

5 So what I told him I'd do is, "I'll get a 6 picture of all these people from all around the state."

7 So what I need to get your picture holding up the book 8 and your card from whatever state you're in. So we'll do 9 that before we take our break or something. That way, I 10 can show the boss that we're national leaders there. So 11 we can --

12 Oh, do you want to do that?

13 VOICE: Yes.

14 DR. EMERY: We'll stand in the middle of these 15 people. How about that? That way, if I'm unemployed 16 next year, you'll know it.

17 (Laughter) 18 DR. EMERY: A self-serving promotion.

19 (Pause.)

20 DR. EMERY: Well, any questions or comments 21 that you may have -- or thoughts?

22 MR. FRY: I guess North Carolina got a preview 23 of this, in that Bob came out of North Carolina and has 24 also talked to our school of public health. We are very 25 interested in trying something along this line. It's

153 1 going to force us to standardize some things that we've 2 kind of been doing on an ad hoc basis. So that will be 3 worth it just to get it standardized.

4 But I think it's something that's very helpful 5 and, if nothing else, helpful to us. I'd encourage this.

6 And, certainly, doing it in a somewhat uniform manner 7 gives us a benchmark we can all use.

8 DR. EMERY: Yes. We think -- a couple of 9 comments with regard to this. The Texas coding system is 10 very good, but there are a couple of those areas which 11 are, in our opinion, a little too general. For example, 12 20 percent of all the violations issued for the 13 registrants was operating and safety procedures, a very 14 broad category. And if we could get it a little more 15 detailed, it might provide some more value.

16 And then we're still furiously working on this 17 sub-coding idea. And if we can do that, our thinking was 18 just to make a simple sheet that people -- almost like an 19 op-scan sheet that, when they're finished performing, 20 they could just check the blocks. And then we could feed 21 this thing in and do some sort of database sorting, as 22 well.

23 MR. FRY: Again, I'll share what North 24 Carolina's thinking of doing at this stage. We're going 25 to tie that -- at least, that's our thinking -- into our

154 1 NOV writing process so that you use that same code to 2 tell your computer to grind out the standardized NOV.

3 DR. EMERY: Yes.

4 MR. FRY: And therefore you get it in your 5 database.

6 DR. EMERY: Yes.

7 MR. FRY: We do that now manually, but then we 8 throw it all in the file folder and lose it.

9 DR. EMERY: Yes. And that's -- a common 10 problem is that the data's collected and there it 11 resides. And it's a real opportunity to mine into that 12 data. I'll tell you, let me get to this guy, and I'll 13 come back to that.

14 MR. FRY: Sure.

15 MR. COLLINS: Two items. I don't know if it's 16 for you or for Richard or a member of the staff.

17 But have you looked at this now to -- after a 18 period of time to decide whether or not some of the 19 violations you were citing really did or could or might 20 even have the potential to result in the reduction of 21 exposure or a prevention of exposure for someone and, 22 therefore, it wasn't worth your time even looking for it 23 any further, or have you looked at this and said, "Okay.

24 After 10-year learning experience, now we need to focus 25 in these areas and change our data collection and

155 1 categories and things," so that maybe you could -- maybe 2 we could get a committee appointed with the CRCPD so that 3 you could get some helpers from other states and come up 4 with something that maybe all of the states would agree 5 that, "Yes, this is performance-based risk-informed 6 outcomes that we should all use?"

7 Several of us have been brought into this 8 benchmarking thing. And we really do need a tool like 9 this to use in our budgeting process, starting soon.

10 MR. RATLIFF: Yes. I think that's just the 11 start. And, you know, Art Tate is the division director 12 for compliance. And I think that they're going to start 13 looking at this data.

14 But one of the things that helped us with this 15 particular study -- it has been for several year going 16 on, but, last year, our state went through the sunset 17 process for our health department, and one of the things 18 they did continuous until 2011. But they said all of our 19 enforcement and incident trends would be put in the 20 internet.

21 And so these folks did a lot that we don't have 22 people to do this work for us. So it has helped in that 23 regard, to look at the trends. And then I think the next 24 step is to look at what violations are out there. Are 25 they serious? Are you devoting your resources to the

156 1 wrong area? I think it opens up all those questions that 2 we need to look at now.

3 MR. DUNDULIS: One problem in these days of 4 infinite resources and infinite budgets: Many of the 5 radiation control programs -- you know, unlike Illinois, 6 where it's an independent agency or, in some states, 7 where it's a big program, in small states, you're 8 sometimes victims of bean-counters who add one and one 9 and come up with five.

10 We had some very good statistics that we kept 11 on number of inspections and types of violation found.

12 And when we presented the statistics, the conclusion that 13 came back from our senior management -- not in the 14 radiation program, but the senior management above us --

15 again, we used this categorizing of One, Two, Three, Four 16 and Five Severity Level.

17 And the fact that we issued no Severity Level 1 18 violations and very few Severity Level 2 violations in 19 the last five years -- then there wasn't any problem out 20 there, and they were cutting back the number of 21 inspectors that we had.

22 DR. EMERY: There's certainly a risk associated 23 with that, but I guess my response comment would be: If 24 we as a profession don't collect this data to the best of 25 our ability, someone's going to collect it for us, and

157 1 they're probably going to collect it with their own 2 interests in mind.

3 And I think, by collecting it in a way that we 4 can show that we're attacking at the bottom of the 5 pyramid -- we're issuing violations or tickets, or 6 whatever you want to call it, before the problems get too 7 big, that's the sign of a sound preventive health 8 program.

9 Of course, from the other side of that coin, 10 from the public health perspective, you have decision 11 makers that are saying, "Wait a minute. We have an 12 increase in multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis incident 13 trends, so maybe we ought to take some from here to over 14 there." That's a problem for another day, but, you know, 15 you can see the limit they face, sure.

16 MR. GODWIN: Aubrey Godwin, Arizona. I'd just 17 like to know if you think the NRC will be able to 18 participate in this program if you come up with standard 19 coding.

20 DR. EMERY: We welcome the opportunity to work 21 with whom ever. I think, if we can do a standardized 22 coding system, perhaps -- I suspect there has got to be 23 some sort of training involved in that because there will 24 be all sorts of interpretations. But some sort of 25 standardized coding system, I think, would be very

158 1 beneficial to the community as a whole.

2 MR. GREEN: Bob Green with the state of Texas.

3 Originally -- the codes that Texas now currently uses 4 originally came -- were derived from some early NRC 5 violation codes. So we have modified them somewhat as 6 regulations change to add additional items of 7 non-compliance, and we tried to fit them into the main 8 categories that the NRC had put forth in the beginning.

9 We've added a couple, but, overall, though, that's --

10 where those codes originally came from was from NRC.

11 DR. EMERY: The good -- I'm sorry.

12 The good news about the coding thing is you 13 only need ten or 12. Right? Because this thing is so 14 skewed that, if 70 percent of your violations can fit 15 into a list of ten, then who cares if the other ones are, 16 "Other," right, because the bulk of them are in there?

17 So, in fact, it doesn't have to be, I think, an 18 extravagant coding arrangement. Sure.

19 MR. O'KELLEY: You know, just a comment on the 20 NRC. You know, I -- if I'm not mistaken, a lot of their 21 data also covered the X-ray program. So we might even 22 look at even going somewhere through CRCPD task forces or 23 something to --

24 DR. EMERY: And that might be --

25 MR. O'KELLEY: -- come up with the coding.

159 1 DR. EMERY: -- the appropriate forum to 2 present this information to. I -- we were kind of 3 outsiders looking in on that. But if you folks feel that 4 this information would be -- that the next step is to 5 present it or to have those discussions at the level of 6 CRCPD, we'd be happy to engage in that process and then 7 go from there and see if there are some opportunities 8 there.

9 We're quite interested in seeing if the trends 10 that are in Texas are applicable across the country 11 because, if they are, there's a really great educational 12 tool there, I think.

13 And, by the way, this ties in very nicely with 14 Ray Johnson's comments, the practical remarks being that 15 RSOs are dealing more with regulatory compliance, and not 16 doing a whole lot of calculations and things these days.

17 And so maybe one way to provide a service to that 18 community is to make them aware of these common 19 violations so they can avoid those and direct their 20 efforts toward some other issues, as well.

21 DR. EMERY: Anything else?

22 (Pause.)

23 DR. EMERY: Well, thank you, very much. And 24 we'll get that photo op. before break time comes. How 25 about that? Thank you, very much.

160 1 (Applause) 2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, guys. And I know the 3 photo op. is something to look forward to.

4 We have one more set of presentations before we 5 break and before the business meeting. And I think it 6 follows on nicely to Bob's and Mike's presentation. And 7 this is Performance-based Inspection, by Mohammed 8 Shanbaky, better known as Shan.

9 And what I'd like to do is to, after Shan gives 10 his presentation, have commentary by Art Tate and by --

11 of Texas and by Cheryl Rogers of Nebraska, and then have 12 a discussion of all of that.

13 Does that make sense to Cheryl and Art, to just 14 follow on after this?

15 MS. ROGERS: Sure.

16 MR. CAMERON: All right.

17 And that's okay with you, Shan?

18 MR. SHANBAKY: That is fine.

19 MR. CAMERON: All right. We'll turn it over to 20 you. Do you want to use this?

21 MR. SHANBAKY: I don't know.

22 Everybody, can you hear me, or do you want 23 me --

24 VOICES: No.

25 MR. SHANBAKY: -- to use the microphone?

161 1 (Pause.)

2 MR. SHANBAKY: Good afternoon. My name is 3 Mohammed Shanbaky; I work for the NRC in Region 1. Thank 4 you for inviting me to share some of our effort in the 5 area of inspection based on performance and based on 6 outcomes. I'm very pleased to be here today to share 7 some of the struggles we have with this concept.

8 We had a task group started back in '98. And 9 we had -- are close to a final product now, which is 10 going on its way to the Commission for approval.

11 The idea here is not really a revelation or a 12 new concept; it is a concept which all inspectors use to 13 a certain extent. What has changed here is that we're 14 trying to re-focus and streamline the inspection process 15 and re-focus the inspector on certain traits in the 16 program which we consider to be program outcomes, rather 17 than doing the inspection in what I call the traditional 18 way of taking the program from A to Z through procedures, 19 personnel, equipment and look at the records.

20 And we tried to re-focus the inspection 21 process. And we found as a good target in a multitude of 22 areas that we regulate is the area of nuclear medicine.

23 So we choose nuclear medicine. And, also, there is a 24 barrel program in the facility, but I will talk to you 25 today about the nuclear medicine effort.

162 1 The objectives of the program are essentially 2 to maintain safety, ensure compliance and, in the 3 meantime, do these two basic program requirements in a 4 way that's based on risk-informed and performance-based, 5 with improvements in efficiency and effectiveness and, 6 also, with optimizing -- I use the words minimizing the 7 impact of the regulatory activities on the licensee. The 8 actual thing here? There will be some impact, but we're 9 trying to optimize that impact.

10 And one of the major challenges when you're 11 going through the performance-based and outcome is to 12 keep focused, also, on the public confidence in what the 13 regulators are doing and the public perception. Some of 14 the concepts we're using, some individuals in the public 15 or even the licensees may perceive it to be backing off, 16 not doing inspections in a detailed way, skimming over 17 the surface.

18 And that -- those perceptions are very 19 difficult to deal with, but it takes education, it takes 20 lots of missionary works with the licensees and the 21 public to make sure that these potential perceptions will 22 not materialize.

23 The nuclear medicine area -- we started looking 24 at it based on lots of experience -- actually, years and 25 years of experience with the program traits versus

163 1 outcomes: What types of traits in the program would 2 result in a good outcome, and what types of traits in a 3 program would result in a poor outcome?

4 And when there is a poor outcome, what is that 5 in terms of risk? And the risk -- is it a risk to the 6 patient? Is it a risk to the professional staff who work 7 in the hospital or in the clinic? Is it a risk to the 8 general public? And is it a voluntary risk, like with a 9 patient? Is it involuntary risk? Is it transmittable 10 risk?

11 And we worked with all kinds of risk, and it 12 boiled down to that, in general, the nuclear medicine 13 area for diagnostic studies is an area of relatively low 14 risk. We looked at the risk in terms of consequences, 15 multiplied by the probabilities of these consequences.

16 And my advice to anybody who is venturing in this area?

17 Don't try to sharpen the marshmallow.

18 This is -- to start working with probabilities 19 of some order of the magnitude ten to the minus four or 20 ten to the minus fifths. And somebody said, "Is it 21 really two to the minus fifths, or three?" Who cares?

22 And so we avoided this, and that's why we were very 23 successful in coming up very quickly with rather 24 qualitative estimates of risk in terms of consequences 25 and probability.

164 1 And in the programs, there are all kinds of 2 shades between high probability and high consequences to 3 low probability and low consequences. And there is all 4 shades in between. In diagnostic nuclear medicine, we 5 found that, in this too, the consequences and the risk 6 are relatively low.

7 The focus of the task group was on program 8 outcomes, not outputs. A good example of that: When we 9 do an inspection, you find that licensees say, "100 10 percent of my staff is fully trained" -- that's nice --

11 "All of them got 80 percent on the exam." That's good.

12 This is really an output: "25 of the staff out of 26 are 13 fully trained." These are outputs.

14 The program now we are about to start, 15 hopefully, after the Commission approves it, is based on 16 outcomes, the actual knowledge of the staff: Do they 17 really know their job? Do they know the radiation safety 18 aspects of the program as applied to their risk 19 responsibility?

20 And this is not going to be easy because the 21 inspectors which have to be doing this, I would view them 22 to be more seasoned inspectors and inspectors with what I 23 call "inspector savvy." They have to be fair and 24 reasonable in their approach to verifying the knowledge 25 of the individual, the worker or the physician or the

165 1 nurse or who ever is involved.

2 So we came up with this performance indicator, 3 a surveillance and corrective action. And that's very 4 important. And essentially, one of the major elements of 5 management oversight of the program is the performance of 6 audits, the performance of routine reviews of the 7 processes and the performance of the staff.

8 And what is more important here is the 9 corrective action: Is the whole process working? Is --

10 the licensee, when they identify a problem or an 11 inadequacy, do they have the capability to correct it?

12 Do they actually correct the problems they identify?

13 So corrective action here is the key to this.

14 It's not necessarily the process, how detailed the audit 15 is or the scope of the audit or how formal the audit is; 16 it is the outcome and corrective action to prevent to 17 recurrence. And that's one of the -- I'm going to talk 18 about each of these for just a couple of minutes.

19 It is a surveillance program. It's -- it could 20 be formal audits. It could be surveillances, which are 21 walk-throughs. And all of these have to be focusing on 22 problem identification and problem solving.

23 Many, many licensees, for example, are very 24 good at performing these audits and surveillances, and, 25 when it gets to corrective action, they fall short in the

166 1 corrective action system. And that's -- that ties into 2 the management verification: How management is involved 3 in the program to close the loop, if the licensee 4 management are involved to close the loop on identified 5 problems.

6 Here is one of the performance indicators 7 outcome. This is very important. And that is 8 knowledgeable staff. We -- you can see here that we did 9 not use the words "trained staff." In training, the 10 inspectors go and look at the training plan, they look at 11 the training of the staff and they look at the records.

12 And the staff is trained. That does not necessarily mean 13 it's safe.

14 This -- the new procedure of the pilot, it will 15 actually require the inspector to actually go and discuss 16 things with the individuals to see if they are 17 knowledgeable of the safety aspects of that program as it 18 applies to their responsibility.

19 Of course, one of the major outcomes is that no 20 over-exposures, and that's all with public exposure or 21 occupational exposure and, to a certain extent, 22 [indiscernible].

23 Here's one of the very few items, what I call 24 involuntary risk in the nuclear medicine program, and 25 that's where a licensee loses radioactive material. Most

167 1 of the risk involves the patient, which is a relatively 2 voluntary risk. This type of risk here, it may involve 3 other personnel in the hospital or the medical 4 institution, or it may also involve even a member of the 5 public.

6 And that's one of the very important 7 performance indicators. And, of course, if there is any 8 violation associated with that, it will be definitely 9 based on the risk from the loss of that material: The 10 quantity of the material, the nature of the emission from 11 that material and the circumstances under which somebody 12 could get exposed.

13 Another outcome here, and that is: Conformance 14 to the written directive by the physician. And we're 15 looking at mis-administrations, the frequency of 16 mis-administrations, and that is very rarely seen now in 17 nuclear medicine. Because of the NRC definition of 18 mis-administration in nuclear medicine, essentially, you 19 have to have somebody to receive a wrong administration, 20 a wrong patient, and those have to be 5 rem or above.

21 Use of all the materials as authorized: That 22 the people who are using the material are authorized to 23 use it, and the type of the use and location and 24 quantities as authorized, and, also, that the people who 25 need supervision are being supervised when they use the

168 1 material.

2 Now, for performance-based inspection, the 3 conclusion of the inspection would be one of these two 4 outcomes. And then, as inspection results, one would be 5 that the licensee's program met all performance 6 indicators. In this case, we'd just issue a 591, a clear 7 inspection, or even with minor violations, Severity 4 8 violations.

9 And most of the Severity 4 violations now in 10 the material area, if the licensee takes corrective 11 action or even says that they are going to correct it and 12 it is not related to management oversight or a major 13 problem, usually we don't cite it. We call it a 14 non-cited violation.

15 If the licensee did not meet all of the 16 performance indicators, then we would revert back to the 17 classical, traditional detailed inspection to identify 18 the causes and root causes of the failure to meet the 19 performance indicator. So if they met, we do the 591, do 20 the exit, and the inspection's finished.

21 This would reduce the inspection time 22 significantly. A typical nuclear medicine program should 23 be expected to -- that inspection should be completed in 24 like two or three hours if they are meeting the 25 performance indicators. If they don't meet the

169 1 performance indicators, then we go back to a more 2 detailed inspection.

3 And here are some of the actions that we 4 usually do if the licensee fails to meet the performance 5 indicators. We do the inspection, identify the safety 6 issues, identify the violations and inform the licensee 7 management and inform the regional management, do exit 8 interviews and take the subsequent appropriate 9 enforcement action.

10 Now, what is the current status of our program 11 now? The program is currently with the executive 12 director for operations. We submitted memo with the 13 program, that it would be a temporary instruction, which 14 is, "Allow the staff to use this program for one year as 15 a pilot program. And if -- after the completion of one 16 year, it will be considered for application in other 17 areas of the materials area.

18 So this is the current status of the program.

19 One of -- that looks like -- very nice. It decreases the 20 impact on the licensee. It decreases the impact on us 21 and lets us use much less resources that could be 22 diverted to more important areas, more safety-significant 23 areas. And so this is a win-win situation for everybody 24 involved here.

25 What is the down-side of all of this? The

170 1 difficulty could be in the area of culture, culture in 2 terms of the inspector training. You need an inspector 3 who -- with good experience, with good savvy and with 4 extreme focus on safety, rather than compliance, issues a 5 violation as soon as the inspection is -- you know, you 6 get the violations, and the inspection's done. And 7 that's very few inspectors.

8 NRC, for example, in Region 1, has very mature, 9 experienced inspectors. And when we gave the initial 10 training on this, it was no problem at all; everybody 11 thought that this was the right way to go.

12 The other difficulty is to make sure that the 13 licensee understands where you're coming from, the 14 inspector -- where that inspector is coming from, 15 especially the staff -- the nuclear medicine staff, the 16 technologists and, even to a certain extent, the 17 physicians, that this is not really winging an 18 inspection; this is doing an inspection another way -- in 19 another more effective and efficient way.

20 So, with this, do you have any questions? I'd 21 be glad to answer them.

22 MR. CAMERON: Shan, let's -- thank you for the 23 NRC perspective and the benefits on this.

24 MR. SHANBAKY: Sure.

25 MR. CAMERON: Why don't we get Cheryl and Art

171 1 to come up here? And let's make room and get you a seat 2 up here and see what the state perspectives are and what 3 the common elements might be and then open it up to 4 everybody for questions. Okay?

5 So why don't you have a seat right here?

6 And, Cheryl and Art, why don't you have a seat 7 here? And there are some microphones for the three of 8 you.

9 And, Cheryl, do you want to go first with the 10 view-graphs, or Art? Whatever you guys prefer.

11 MS. ROGERS: I'll let Art go first, and then 12 I'll follow up.

13 MR. CAMERON: All right. Good.

14 MR. TATE: Well, since I don't see a podium and 15 there's a microphone nearby, I'll go ahead and use this.

16 But it's good to see so many of you here, especially some 17 folks like Joe Klinger and Ed, who have moved on to 18 bigger and better things. But, old friends and new 19 friends, I'm looking forward to talking with each of you.

20 When Richard first asked me to sit on the 21 panel, he approached me with, "We need someone to talk 22 about customer satisfaction survey forms." So here I am.

23 The panel has been asked to briefly discuss 24 performance-based inspections. I will speak from the 25 perspective of a large state, because we have some 16,000

172 1 to 18,000 licensees and registrants.

2 Our program regulates radioactive materials, 3 machine-produced radiations, non-ionizing radiations, 4 naturally occurring radioactive material, as well as 5 accelerator-produced radioactive materials. We also are 6 contracted with the USFDA to do their inspections, under 7 the Mammography Quality Standards Act in Texas, at about 8 550 facilities.

9 To do this, we have approximately 36 to 40 10 inspectors at any given time around the state. Seventeen 11 typically are X-ray, and another 14 RAM, five or six in 12 QSA, and then we have turn-over. And while it's not on 13 our agenda, you know, we're getting hit with turn-over, 14 and we're not able to replace people at equivalent 15 experience levels. And that's going to be a problem for 16 us.

17 We do have two very experienced people in 18 charge of our X-ray and RAM branches, Tommy Cardwell and 19 Bill Silva. Tommy, a lot of you may know, has been on a 20 lot of CRCPD committees. Bill is with the CAMRA and is 21 our current representative to the NPEP team and has been 22 there for two years.

23 While the OAS is made up of agreement states, 24 we share many other areas of commonality and interest.

25 And most of these are in the areas of -- the non-Atomic

173 1 Energy Act area of the non-ionizing, the X-ray and what 2 have you. Almost every state in this room in some way or 3 another will either do X-ray or one of the other portions 4 of this sphere.

5 We share many challenges. And one of those 6 challenges is doing more with less, and the other --

7 another is being more open and friendly to our customers.

8 In past years, we didn't treat our customers so well.

9 And they have better lobbyists than we do.

10 (Laughter) 11 MR. TATE: So we're going to have to start.

12 In Texas, our program budget has remained 13 constant now for about six years. Our travel budget has 14 remained pretty constant, and our program budgets, and 15 what have you. And it looks like it's going to be flat 16 for quite awhile. Our population, on the other hand, has 17 increased significantly, and we expect it to continue to 18 do that.

19 As our population increases, there's a certain 20 number of dentists and podiatrists and radiographers and 21 what have you that comes along with that. And as a 22 result, our legislature has mandated that we use 23 performance-based inspections.

24 They said, "We're not going to give you any 25 more inspectors, and we're not going to give you any more

174 1 money. So you're going to have to figure out how to 2 inspect the people and ensure that the public health and 3 safety is met and the safety of the workers is protected 4 on the same dollars." And that's essentially what we're 5 doing.

6 We have started with our X-ray program because 7 we have more flexibility there. I'm interested to see 8 how the NRC one-year trial program works out on the 9 performance-based inspections using the temporary 10 instructions. And we'll look forward to incorporating 11 many of the successes from their program into our 12 radioactive material program, but, with our X-ray 13 program, we have been able to do a lot of things.

14 I'm skipping over a bunch of material because 15 we're not on schedule.

16 Well, one thing here that we're -- the term, 17 "Performance-based inspections." I think you're going to 18 talk to three or four people and you're going to get a 19 definition -- a different definition from everyone you 20 talk to.

21 And my version of it is that it's not precisely 22 defined, and it's really kind of whatever you say it is.

23 So, with that, you're probably going to have three 24 different versions, and they're all okay because it's 25 currently being defined as we sit.

175 1 Like you, we're required to inspect by-product 2 material licensees at least as frequently as the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission schedule. And we do. However, in 4 cases we -- where we see that an entire category or 5 grouping of licensees are not doing the job that they are 6 supposed to do, we increase the frequency of inspection.

7 On the other hand, if we find an individual bad actor, we 8 will increase that person's frequency of inspection.

9 As Mr. Shanbaky said earlier, when we do have 10 either an industry group or a particular licensee that's 11 doing poorly, we need well-trained inspectors and we need 12 experienced inspectors, and these people should be used 13 when possible on follow-up inspections; they both know 14 the rules and can make valid observations about the 15 current state of regulatory compliance. They can also 16 evaluate the performance of the licensee's program and 17 offer suggestions for improvement.

18 My observation for today is that the shrinking 19 budget is the driver for performance-based inspections.

20 With our X-ray program, we were floating along, asking 21 our inspectors to do about 18 to 20 inspections a month 22 in addition to their other stuff. And we've increased it 23 from 18 to 25. And that's a 39-percent increase in their 24 work load.

25 And what we do know is that we have no help

176 1 coming and that, in order for them to do the inspections 2 and do the reports and do the other jobs, we have to stop 3 performing audits and start performing snap-shots, if you 4 will: Monitor critical functions. And that's what we 5 are doing.

6 We simply do not have the resources to keep up 7 with this increased work load generated by our state's 8 growing people, and we're not likely to get it. So we've 9 tailored our X-ray procedures to include those items that 10 are essential to demonstrate that public health and 11 safety can be protected and the workers can be protected, 12 and then we have given our inspectors the prerogative or 13 the authority, if you will, to do their inspections.

14 Are all of our X-ray inspectors there yet? No, 15 not really. But we're getting closer, much closer. We 16 have given our inspectors -- our X-ray inspectors the 17 right to close out inspections with severity levels of 18 Four and Five only found. And a lot of states -- and I 19 believe the NRC has done this -- we hadn't. It's 20 relatively new to us. We're working on it.

21 The thing that we have found is that it cuts 22 down in report-writing time, it cuts down on review time 23 and it cuts down on lots of other areas that will allow 24 more people to review more reports and to do more 25 inspections with the same resources.

177 1 While it's not a new concept, as I said, it, 2 for us, is. And that -- we hope to implement many of the 3 changes that we're making in our X-ray program in our RAM 4 program shortly. And just in terms of performance, I'd 5 like to just give three very brief examples.

6 When our X-ray inspectors go into a facility --

7 a large medical facility, typically -- that has 20, 30 or 8 40 X-ray tubes, we have a policy that tells them how many 9 to expect. And if they do that inspection and they don't 10 find problems with those tubes, then they go on. But if 11 they find any reason in the world that they should 12 continue, then they have absolute authority and 13 prerogative to continue the inspection and to do as many 14 as they possibly can or want to.

15 It's -- there is a reward for good performance 16 because, if the registrant keeps their machines in good 17 order and compliance testing validates that or verifies 18 it, rather, that -- they do receive a reward. Their 19 machines aren't taken out of service for an inspection 20 which is a timely and costly venue in some institutions.

21 To Richard's original charge: We send out --

22 every time we do an NOV letter or a letter of compliance, 23 we send out a letter to the licensee or registrant asking 24 them for their feedback. We receive those back at a 25 pretty fair percentage, and we take a look at them. We

178 1 evaluate them for trends. And we give kudos where 2 necessary, and we work with the inspectors when it's 3 necessary.

4 I can assure you from personal experience that 5 it's really not fun having a legislator in Bermuda shorts 6 and flip-flops in your office explaining to you why his 7 dentist didn't get a good inspection.

8 (Laughter) 9 MR. TATE: And it's also a good way to lose a 10 laser program, which we did, as -- possibly, as the 11 result of that, because he was on the finance committee.

12 So little things can add up quickly. And they 13 do mean -- they mean business when they come visit you.

14 So if you get complaints, resolve them.

15 The one thing that perhaps we do that perhaps 16 some others may not do is that, each year, we take a look 17 at the patient exposures avoided. As our inspectors go 18 out to do their inspections, the entrance-to-skin 19 exposures are determined. And if they exceed the limits, 20 we cause them to fix it. We issue an NOV, and they have 21 to get the red levels down.

22 Now, this past year, we ran the numbers using 23 the $200-per-rem per -- which is a relatively 24 conservative number. I think NRC is using there $1,000 25 or $1,100. But we had a savings of future cost of about

179 1 $1.8 million. And that -- if we extrapolated this to the 2 entire state, we would have some 12 or 13 million more in 3 savings.

4 And I'll just listen to Cheryl's presentation 5 and then be available for questions.

6 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

7 And after Cheryl is done, I would give the 8 three of you an opportunity to comment on what you've 9 heard about the other programs, too, what your 10 perspective might be on that.

11 Cheryl?

12 MS. ROGERS: See? I have seven over-heads 13 here, if anybody's counting.

14 (Laughter) 15 Basically, Nebraska put some procedures into 16 place about a year ago. So we're pretty early in 17 implementing this process. And I probably haven't put 18 everything in here, but, hopefully, there's enough food 19 for thought to generate some further discussion. So this 20 is Nebraska's definition of the performance-based 21 inspection process.

22 Just for your information, the four of our six 23 people that could do inspections did attend the NRC's 24 performance-based inspection course. So we're, 25 hopefully, highly biased in that direction.

180 1 I believe this definition did come out of the 2 training course: "Performance-based inspections are 3 inspecting the performance of the licensee's program 4 activities on the basis of safety and reliability." And, 5 of course, the million-dollar question is: Well, what 6 does this mean, and how do you do it?

7 The first thing we do is require that the 8 inspectors create an inspection plan. It can be on -- in 9 any form they wish. If they want to write it on a pad of 10 paper, type it up or use a pre-made form which kind of 11 steps you through the process, we'll take anything.

12 Basically, usually, I look at those, but 13 somebody else that has inspected those kinds of 14 facilities can. It's supposed to outline high-priority 15 areas and activities and include parallel, medium- and 16 low-priority observations that you wish to make. You 17 should indicate the major elements that you wish to 18 either observe or, if you can't actually observe, that 19 you want demonstrated, and identify the specific 20 individuals to be interviewed.

21 And the purpose of this plan is to really kind 22 of get in your head when you walk into that facility just 23 what your goals are: What is it that I'm coming here to 24 look at? You know, you don't really need the plan -- at 25 the moment you walk in the door, you should know what it

181 1 is you're going to do.

2 Okay. As far as maintaining your focus, the 3 inspectors, following or even during the entrance, 4 establish what activities we wish to observe and explain 5 the new process.

6 And Mr. Woodruff has been with us when we've 7 been in the entrance interview at a hospital that had an 8 HDR, and we said, "Oh, yes, we're interested in observing 9 the HDR," and, "Fine, we're going to do it in 45 10 minutes," you know. Now, that's cutting it a little bit 11 close.

12 But we really want to lay it out right from the 13 beginning what we're there for, explain it to management 14 and continue to explain as we go along to the -- usually 15 the RSO or who ever we're going with, because we would 16 also like them to pick up some of the performance-based 17 philosophy and carry that out in their routine audits.

18 And, basically, what we're telling them is 19 we're trying to focus on issues important to safety and 20 reliability.

21 I was going to tell more war stories, but I 22 thought I'd give you some examples of the kinds of things 23 that show up on our inspection plans. For high-dose 24 remote after-loaders -- and we've been pretty lucky about 25 hitting these -- we want to watch the quality -- the QA

182 1 checks that are done, usually by the HP or the RSO, and 2 the planning and the treatment process.

3 And usually, that's a little bit hard to -- we 4 don't really regulate the treatment, but it's very 5 interesting to see how the team-work comes together. And 6 I think that is going to be the major mode for these new 7 technologies. We're just putting a gamma knife in today, 8 as a matter of fact, in Lincoln. And that's the same 9 thing.

10 There's usually a whole team of people that has 11 to come together, and it's -- that's a tricky area to 12 regulate. You can't just put that in as a procedure. So 13 you want to see that that takes place.

14 For the nuclear pharmacy -- I'm sure you all 15 know this -- go early. That's when all the action is.

16 It's -- unfortunately, it's usually at two or three 17 o'clock in the morning, but that's when you're going to 18 see how the pharmacist is really flying then, getting all 19 his doses loaded up. They're receiving packages, and 20 they're shipping stuff out.

21 One of the things we came up with was to 22 accompany the delivery vehicle, although we don't 23 actually ride in the vehicle because they get -- because 24 of liability issues. But you can still, you know, drive 25 your care along behind them, especially if it's just --

183 1 they're going out to the local hospital.

2 Once in awhile, you find some interesting 3 things when you get to the other end. So that's a very 4 important observation we've discovered -- and, of course, 5 the receipt of packages.

6 Nuclear medicine. I'll be interested to see 7 how the pilot project goes. Basically, you want to see 8 package receives. You want to make sure that the people 9 that are doing surveys know how to do surveys. I mean 10 this is pretty -- and injections, xenon use.

11 My old-timers inspectors, particularly in this 12 area, say, "Well, that's how I've always done 13 inspections," you know. So the -- you like to watch and 14 see that people either know or can demonstrate to you 15 what they're doing.

16 A few more examples. I pulled the 17 manufacturing one off of someone's inspection plan --

18 who's going out next week. But, you know, basically:

19 What's the receipt of the material -- and the storage 20 area, the production line and the disposal? What are the 21 things that you want to observe?

22 A little footnote on the educational: I wish 23 we had followed the receipt-and-delivery process through 24 at one of my licensees, because they did manage to lose a 25 package. And when we went to, you know, go into the

184 1 detailed investigation and try to figure out what had 2 happened, some of the controls that we thought were in 3 place weren't there. There were no the chain-of-command 4 and sign-off-types of things that you would expect to be 5 in place.

6 I really haven't established how that happened, 7 but I think we were probably relying on a purchase 8 requisition form and, over the years, that form went away 9 and then the need to sign off went away. If we had gone 10 along and observed, at least, perhaps we would have 11 caught that. I can't guarantee we wouldn't have still 12 lost the package, but, anyway, that's just the kind of 13 thing that that picks up.

14 We have three irradiators in Nebraska. And one 15 of the things we've been doing is -- there's usually sort 16 of a daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly check-list. We 17 like to observe the person that's supposed to fill out 18 the check-list go through the check-list.

19 One example of something we saw was that the 20 person -- I think he was supposed to take a survey meter 21 reading off the irradiator pool. But what had turned out 22 was that he didn't really know how to read that scale.

23 And so we were -- the management on the way 24 into that were a little bit skeptical about what we were 25 trying to do, but we said, "Well, this is a demonstration

185 1 of a weakness in your program; you need to have better 2 training. You can't just -- you know, I think that the 3 person that's reading that meter needs this for her or 4 her personal protection. They need to know what that 5 meter is saying and what it means to them."

6 So we actually got the management turned around 7 a little bit. As part of what they could do on their 8 annual audits, they can also -- they can do the same 9 thing we do. They can go in there and observe.

10 Well, back to shrinking resources, "Inspection 11 Frequency." Nebraska -- for good performers, we can 12 extend the interval until the next inspection.

13 Basically, the cut-off -- we still have up to Severity 14 Level 5. We haven't quite gotten rid of the Fives yet.

15 So our cut-off is two or less Severity Level 16 4's, and it has to be done at the completion of the 17 current inspection. You can't just do it the next time 18 the inspection rolls around and your program's in trouble 19 and it's behind; it has to be done at the time.

20 And, for instance, if it's a Priority-level 1, 21 you have the option to extend it up to a year. So 22 there's quite a bit of flexibility there. The poor 23 performers, of course, must be inspected more frequently.

24 And just running through, What's new about it?

25 Of course, the old-time inspectors will -- they'll

186 1 disagree with me, because they've always done it the 2 right way.

3 But, basically, it's -- in the past, more of 4 the focus was on reviewing the document structure. You 5 go in, and you've got your regulatory check-list, you've 6 got your procedures they're supposed to follow and you've 7 got all the records you're going to check. And at the 8 present, the focus is on observing activity.

9 And you try to change your whole orientation by 10 having your plan. You do your walk-through right away.

11 You do your observations. You watch those individuals at 12 work, and, from that observation, you should be able to 13 identify problems. Then you can use the records to 14 verify what you think may be a problem. And the bottom 15 line is: You're trying to focus on the products and the 16 results.

17 So those are my prepared remarks, and I was 18 hoping that would generate some discussion from the 19 floor.

20 MR. CAMERON: I'm sure that it will. And I 21 guess that I would give Shan the opportunity.

22 Do you have any comments on -- Shan, on what 23 you've heard from Art and Cheryl before we go out or --

24 go to them for comments on each other's? Shan, anything 25 that --

187 1 MR. SHANBAKY: Not really.

2 MR. CAMERON: All right.

3 Art, you referred to Shan's presentation. Do 4 you have anything more to offer on either Shan's or 5 Cheryl's presentations?

6 MR. TATE: Not really. I do -- I'm concerned 7 about possibly the complexity of the training and being 8 able to get the experienced people that you will need to 9 make it work. If -- I'm concerned that, if we send 10 inexperienced people out with the proper training, the 11 lack of experience will hurt the inspection.

12 MR. SHANBAKY: I think that training is one of 13 the most important issues here to be resolved prior to 14 the initiation of the program. At the NRC, we have 15 already given training on the draft program to the staff 16 in Region 1. NMSS is going to actually go out to the 17 regions with an extensive training program on the new 18 pilot program before implementation.

19 So there is a significant amount of training 20 that will be done, but what is actually more important is 21 that, for a certain population of the inspectors, you 22 need to have a culture change. Some inspectors are very 23 detail oriented; they don't believe that they did a good 24 job unless they've dotted every I and crossed every T, 25 and they don't really feel comfortable with the new

188 1 concept.

2 And that's a very important function of 3 management and supervision in terms of coaching and 4 counseling to make sure that the people are going to be 5 following this pilot program, that everybody will be 6 following the pilot program.

7 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

8 Cheryl, do you have anything to offer before we 9 go out?

10 MS. ROGERS: I guess I would echo that the 11 training is important. But the older inspectors aren't 12 uncomfortable with it. It's -- the new inspectors still 13 want to, you know, go back to that check-list. And we 14 still use -- you know, all the regulations are spelled 15 out with a, "Yes," or a, "No." You are -- if you didn't 16 look at it, you just say, "Not observed." And that's 17 kind of a hurdle to get over.

18 And then we also tried to add to the inspection 19 report, you know, "What was the performance-based thing 20 that you looked at?" And this will help clue in the 21 people that are reading it in the next inspection on what 22 you looked at at that time and sort of leave the door 23 open for the things to look at.

24 And so it is difficult because, once you think 25 you have to fill in every box on the check-list, it's

189 1 hard to get out of that. And I don't know -- I'm kind of 2 wondering if, you know, we should go ahead and change our 3 whole inspection report, but I'm not really crazy about 4 going back to the old narrative reports, either.

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Very interesting.

6 Aubrey?

7 MR. GODWIN: A couple of comments. First of 8 all, up front, I like the idea of performance-based 9 inspections even though I have a couple of questions 10 about them. And I was a little surprised at Texas' 11 comment that their X-ray people do about 20 to 25 12 inspections a month. They tried to fire me out there --

13 they had legislators going to the government to fire me 14 for doing less than 50.

15 (Laughter) 16 MR. GODWIN: So, you know, I guess it's culture 17 shock and all of that.

18 The questions have to do with the fees. One of 19 the concepts that, apparently, got tied in with our fees 20 is that they're paying for the inspections. And if you 21 change the inspection process significantly, particularly 22 so that the X-ray types recognize that you're not, you 23 know, checking every tube and you're not checking every 24 little item, they feel like they're cheated and they want 25 to go back and reduce the fees, which is sort of a

190 1 counter-movement.

2 The other issue came out as a legal point. We 3 had a whistle-blower at one of our licensees who 4 subsequently quit or was run off, depending on which 5 point of view you want to take. But I had to testify or 6 give depositions for several hours, and the thrust of it 7 was: Did we check everyone's regulations to make sure 8 that they were doing everything right; And, you know, if 9 they had a single individual who, for one day or even ten 10 minutes, didn't wear their film badge, was that or was 11 that not a violation?

12 When ever you get into these kinds of things, 13 I'd like you-all's reactions about how the 14 performance-based would apply there and how we would go 15 with that.

16 MR. CAMERON: Does anybody from the panel want 17 to comment on the licensee perspectives that Aubrey 18 brought up or the -- I guess, the compliance enforcement 19 issues that might be raised by performance-based 20 inspections?

21 Shan?

22 MR. SHANBAKY: I think what you brought up are 23 very significant challenges. There is no really easy 24 answer for any of these. We meet those challenges every 25 day.

191 1 Whether we are doing performance-based 2 inspections or whether we are doing full-detailed 3 inspections, we always get in a situation of allegers 4 coming to the NRC or going to our IG and alleging that 5 the inspector did not do a good job because there was a 6 violation that they were aware of and the inspector did 7 not identify these violations.

8 It is a fact of life: No matter what type of 9 inspection we are going to be doing, there is no way that 10 we will identify every single violation. It's a fact of 11 life that we are doing a sample type of inspection.

12 We are not living at these facilities, and we 13 are not there every day. And it is very important that 14 everybody, including the licensee management and licensee 15 staff, knows that we are doing an inspection based on a 16 sample and, if they know of any problem with the program 17 or -- that it behooves them to come to us and tell us up 18 front and not wait until the inspection is finished and 19 call the IG.

20 But this is one of the challenges. This could 21 be also increased with doing performance-based 22 inspections because, like what I said in my presentation, 23 some people may get the wrong impression that this is not 24 really a good inspection, that it's an inferior 25 inspection. And it is very important to do lots of

192 1 education of licensee staff and licensee management.

2 Get them in on it early on in the inspection.

3 Get them in on it early on: What exactly we are up to, 4 what we are doing and what the advantages are of what we 5 are doing. But there is no straight, easy answer to 6 this.

7 MR. CAMERON: Art or Cheryl, do you have 8 anything further to add in regard to the points that 9 Aubrey has raised?

10 MR. TATE: I have just one comment.

11 And, in fact, Aubrey, your early point 12 regarding work load is quite well taken. Our inspectors 13 through the years have gotten into doing audits where we 14 would go into a facility and virtually do a physicist's 15 evaluation of a facility.

16 And we're having to re-train and develop a new 17 culture which says, "Check those things that are 18 necessary to ensure public health and safety," and go 19 from there. And, as Cheryl pointed out, it's just a 20 matter of training.

21 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

22 Cheryl?

23 MS. ROGERS: Let me see if I can -- what was my 24 second thought?

25 (Pause.)

193 1 MS. ROGERS: Well, I lost it. I'm sorry.

2 MR. CAMERON: All right. Well, maybe it will 3 come back.

4 But let's take Don so that he can sit down, and 5 then we'll go down the line from Ken on through.

6 MR. BUNN: Thank you, Chip.

7 Donald Bunn from California. I just want to 8 add to what Aubrey said about the fee payers. It took us 9 years to collect fees from our universities, who 10 steadfastly refused to pay us because they said they 11 weren't obligated.

12 Finally, when they did start paying because we 13 had a bill passed, we decided to start doing some 14 sampling of their X-ray facilities, rather than do every 15 tube in the place. The first thing I got was a complaint 16 that we weren't giving them their money's worth. So 17 that's the other end of the coin when we're getting into 18 these abbreviated-type operations.

19 But, Cheryl, I'd like to ask you: Has your 20 system undergone review by IMPEP?

21 MS. ROGERS: Yes, it has. And we passed with 22 flying colors?

23 MR. BUNN: Well, that's good news. Okay. And 24 you did say you hadn't modified your form yet. Do you 25 plan to develop a standardized type of inspection plan

194 1 for a certain category of licensee?

2 MS. ROGERS: No. We leave the inspection plan 3 up to the inspector. So the plan is -- you know, the 4 inspector has to decide what it is he wants to observe, 5 and that's based on, you know, what activities are 6 available and anything that may have been called out from 7 the previous inspection or what type of licensee it is.

8 The forms -- I just wonder if the forms keep 9 people thinking, you know, "I've got to get every box."

10 And so that's why I kind of wonder if there's a better 11 way to do it, but I don't want to go back to narratives.

12 So --

13 MR. BUNN: Yes. I don't, either. But it seems 14 like that might be appropriate, especially in some cases.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Don.

17 We're going to go to Ken and then down the 18 line. And then I would at some point ask perhaps Paul 19 Lohaus to just provide the NRC's perspective from -- the 20 IMPEP program's perspective on performance-based 21 inspections.

22 Ken?

23 MR. WANGLER: Ken Wangler from North Dakota.

24 This is for Cheryl.

25 When -- you said that you select performance

195 1 the elements that you want to look for before you go into 2 the inspection. Are you talking about like you might --

3 one performance element might be shipping and receiving, 4 and so then you look at those issues kind of in detail 5 and, say, overlook the review of the QM plan? Or -- I 6 guess I'm curious.

7 When you say you select performance elements, 8 what does that -- is that a broader categorization of the 9 individualized check-list, or how do you -- what is a 10 performance element? I mean do you have a list of 11 performance elements and then they select two or three, 12 or do they just select one? Or how many of those do they 13 look at?

14 MS. ROGERS: Well, of course, it depends on the 15 size of the licensee and the facility. But, basically, 16 you're looking for particular work activities that you 17 can observe. And in some places, it's easier than in 18 others. The irradiators -- you know, they're working 19 every day. And if they're -- they weren't planning on 20 doing a check-list, we might ask them to do a check-list.

21 But --

22 MR. WANGLER: Medical -- stick to --

23 MS. ROGERS: Medical --

24 MR. WANGLER: Let's talk about a medical 25 facility so that we get apples and apples.

196 1 MS. ROGERS: Okay. Well, for some reason, 2 we've been able to hit a lot of the HDRs, which I thought 3 was kind of surprising. To do a normal nuclear medicine 4 facility, it's pretty difficult to catch abrachiotherapy.

5 I've never actually been there on a day that they're 6 doing abrachiotherapy. But the HDRs must be more common; 7 because we've managed to hit those, we come more often or 8 something.

9 So we are really interested in observing the 10 activity. That's the first thing that you're trying to 11 do. You're trying to, you know, be the fly on the wall.

12 And if you can't actually observe it, then you may 13 request the demonstration, which would be the case, for 14 instance, for surveys if you didn't -- if the timing 15 didn't happen to be right.

16 But if you're sticking around for a little bit, 17 you know, and you come in early in the morning and you 18 just watch for, say, the pharmacy, if you've been there 19 from when they started for, say, three hours, you've seen 20 most of the activity that's going to take place at that 21 facility. And then you just sort of -- then, you know, 22 you, of course, have to interview and talk to them a 23 little bit.

24 But by that time, then you know what records it 25 is you need to follow up with. And that shouldn't take

197 1 that much longer. So it's changing the whole focus 2 around.

3 Did I answer your question?

4 MR. WANGLER: Well, what kind of -- but let's 5 say you do go into a facility and you want to look at 6 their HDR. That becomes a performance element that you 7 want to look at. So then, once the inspector has been 8 there whatever -- three to five hours and been fortunate 9 enough to observe a procedure, then you don't even look 10 at the leak-test records, the personnel dose monitoring, 11 the shipping and receiving or the QA of the dose 12 calibrator for Tech 99?

13 I mean do you just then not look at all the 14 rest of it? You select one element -- you select the HDR 15 for performance, and then that's all you look at? Or --

16 MS. ROGERS: Well, of course, with the HDRs, 17 you have to go every year. So of -- to me, that sort of 18 means, well, it's not all that bad if it -- the nuke med 19 can theoretically go every three years for an in-depth, 20 and you haven't missed anything.

21 MR. WANGLER: Okay. Well, then let's take the 22 HDR out.

23 MS. ROGERS: Okay.

24 MR. WANGLER: Let's take a normal nuclear 25 facility that's not HDR. Here's kind of what I'm getting

198 1 at: We just had our IMPEP, and we got great reviews on 2 the thoroughness of our inspections, which -- when we 3 look at personnel effort, we're probably two to three 4 man-days into a medical facility inspection because we're 5 very detailed and very prescriptive, and, of course, then 6 we got gigged on the timing.

7 You know, if we take too long, we don't get 8 them done on time and we don't get the reports out on 9 time. And the two kind of offset each other. So we 10 would certainly like to be more performance based.

11 But take a nuclear facility -- a nuke med 12 facility that doesn't have HDR. What are performance --

13 do you look at one performance element, or do you look at 14 five? And are they major topic areas where -- you know, 15 like I said, shipping and receiving, or is it dose 16 calibrator procedures? Or --

17 MS. ROGERS: Yes. I think, if the inspector 18 came in and said, you know, "Based on the previous 19 inspection, I'm going to select four inspection areas 20 that I want to concentrate on, and it's receipt of 21 materials, it's surveys, it's -- I want to really check 22 out xenon use and" -- I don't know -- something else, 23 maybe, "the dose calibrator checks," or whatever it is --

24 and I am -- I mean I would expect everybody to always 25 look at personal dose symmetry records.

199 1 I don't think that one ever goes away. You 2 always look at those and, also, bias toward checking 3 leak-test records. So, personally, you know, you had 4 better tell me you looked at those two records. So those 5 are always on my list.

6 But no, if you don't get to something else, you 7 identify that in your report. Say you didn't spend any 8 time on the transportation records and -- they've got 9 some sealed sources and maybe you didn't check that they 10 have all that paper work there. But that's identified in 11 your report, and the next person that goes out sees that 12 as an area that didn't get an in-depth and can factor 13 that into their plan.

14 So you pick the areas that you're going to look 15 at. And it's -- you're looking at how they perform the 16 work in that area. So you may not get to all the areas.

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's move down to Mel.

18 MR. FRY: Mel Fry, North Carolina. I'm 19 somewhat confused tying this talk to the previous talk, 20 where we started off with the hierarchy with the fire 21 marshall.

22 And I think I understood the complaint being 23 that all those lower-level inspections' inspectors just 24 came in and walked around and looked at things and saw 25 what was wrong and that was a poor, rotten, kind of

200 1 primitive way to do it and, yet, it certainly is a very 2 efficient way, and you can do them rather quickly.

3 I'd like a response, either from the university 4 or from the panel, as to -- am I putting apples and 5 grapefruits together?

6 MR. CAMERON: Can we get some perspectives from 7 you guys on that issue? And I know that Bob and 8 everybody are still hanging around out there for the 9 photo op. So maybe we can get them in here to give us a 10 perspective on that, too.

11 MS. ROGERS: May I go quickly?

12 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Cheryl.

13 MS. ROGERS: Well, just a quick response there.

14 The way I took Bob's presentation was: Let's get rid of 15 all those notice of -- those violations that keep coming 16 up over and over again; you know, let's educate people so 17 that we don't have those same violations.

18 And we have a 591 Form. The more 591 Forms 19 that we can issue -- you know, we'll still spend the same 20 amount of time as far as the performance-based inspection 21 goes, but, hopefully, we can give them a 591 at the end 22 of the inspection and save ourselves all that 23 administrative cost.

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

25 Bob, let me -- thank you for staying around.

201 1 DR. EMERY: Sure.

2 MR. CAMERON: And let me put this in a little 3 bit of perspective for you. We've been talking about 4 performance-based inspection and some of the reasons why 5 programs are going that way and some of the constraints.

6 And Mel Fry from North Carolina asked a question that, 7 basically --

8 If I summarize it correctly, Mel.

9 -- was that there seems to be a conflict 10 between some of the findings that you were describing and 11 this performance-based inspection.

12 Do you want to just re-state that quickly, Mel?

13 MR. FRY: I'll come back at you, Bob. You 14 started off with the fire marshall and came on down. And 15 I got the impression that you were somewhat less than 16 happy with the idea that what those inspectors did was 17 kind of walk around the plant and look around and see if 18 they saw anything to write up and then they wrote up 19 whatever they saw.

20 And as I'm hearing aspects --

21 Not the planning, Cheryl. That was a new note 22 to me, and that helped me a lot.

23 But what we're hearing out of these 24 performance-based inspections is that, instead of filling 25 out the check-lists and going down the line and coding

202 1 all the violations, you go in and you walk around and you 2 look around and you see what you see and you write up 3 what the violations are.

4 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to give us a 5 perspective on that?

6 DR. EMERY: Yes. Thank you.

7 I -- my -- I guess my personal complaint about 8 the fire marshall is not that they used their 9 professional judgment in assessing the violations; it's 10 that they don't have a consistent way of measuring it.

11 And so we don't know what the numbers are. They just go 12 out and come back with this intuitive list that they've 13 created.

14 And I think there's some real value in having a 15 document and saying, "Here's the outline. And here's --

16 you know, here's the violations we've found. And we did 17 it in a systematic way, and here's the percentages." I 18 think that there's some value there.

19 Mike Charlton and I have talked about the idea 20 of performance-based inspections at length, and, at the 21 risk of causing your heads to explode, let me lay this 22 one on you here. This is over cases and cases of beer, 23 as you can well imagine. But --

24 MR. CAMERON: Yes, we can well imagine that.

25 DR. EMERY: Yes. Because we're in a university

203 1 setting, we can get away with this.

2 But, actually, it's kind of interesting in 3 that, of all the data that we threw up there, never did 4 you ever see violations issued for an exposure -- a dose 5 over 5 rem or a release in excess of, you know, the ALI 6 or something like this.

7 So if you kind of take a step back and think 8 about it for a second and say, "Well, what's the original 9 intent for these regs" -- take sealed-source leak-tests 10 for an example -- the intent is that an individual should 11 not be exposed uncontrollably to an amount of radioactive 12 material in excess of .005 micro-Curies. So perhaps a 13 performance-based inspection might say, taking 14 sealed-source leak-tests for an example, that end-point 15 event did not occur. We didn't -- the leak-test is not 16 occurring.

17 However, these precursor events are there. The 18 forms aren't completed, it's not the right data, or 19 something like that. So, in other words: Maybe 20 performance-based inspections consist of measuring the 21 radiation levels or, you know, removable contamination or 22 something like that, and then these other things are 23 precursors to those events.

24 Perhaps the hardest problem we have in this 25 business is convincing management of the value of

204 1 prevention. One of the great things the radiation safety 2 business does is prevent, but I think the challenge is to 3 get management aware of the fact that we need those 4 resources and the reason we have good programs is because 5 we prevent a lot of things from occurring.

6 But it might be to the benefit of the 7 profession, I think, by showing that there are the 8 tangible events that occur -- that are not occurring --

9 you know, over-exposures, or whatever -- they're not 10 occurring. And then we go back, and here's these 11 precursor events, which maybe you could address by 12 writing a ticket or something like this, that you would 13 evaluate in subsequent inspections.

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, very much.

15 Let's go quickly to Bill and Richard and, 16 perhaps, Paul if he wants to say anything about IMPEP.

17 And then I think we need to take our picture and break.

18 (Laughter) 19 MR. CAMERON: The refreshments are out there.

20 Bill?

21 MR. DUNDULIS: One potential problem that I see 22 with these performance-type inspections is: It's going 23 to be very much a function of how stable and how trained 24 your staff is. In many instances -- and I don't mean 25 even your -- the inspector staff. I mean the people

205 1 being inspected.

2 A performance-based inspection may come in, and 3 if you've got people there that know what they're doing 4 and can do it in their sleep, then looking around and 5 just seeing if it's done may be fine.

6 But if you get into a lot of your research 7 settings, particularly in the universities and some of 8 the hospital medical centers, you know, where you've got 9 a post-doc who's there for a year or a doctoral fellow or 10 something, and, a lot of times, if there's no 11 infrastructure there to ensure that, like, they're 12 properly trained to do surveys, they're properly trained 13 to do this and they're properly trained to do that, in 14 many instances, you may get a, quote/unquote, "Good 15 inspection," in spite of, rather than because of, the 16 problems that are there.

17 And my big concern -- not that I'm an advocate 18 necessarily of looking at every single piece of paper in 19 the facility, but, sometimes, those more-detailed looks 20 can give you an idea of where your problems are going to 21 be six months or a year from now.

22 And I'm just afraid that, by doing these kind 23 of quick, feel-good walk-throughs, you're emphasizing the 24 present at the risk of failing to identify sleeping dogs 25 that could wake up and really bite somebody in the

206 1 future.

2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Bill.

3 Richard?

4 MR. RATLIFF: I think that kind of tracks into 5 what I was going to say in that, you know, those of us 6 that are in health departments, we have our food and drug 7 and our medical devices, and they're doing the hazards 8 inspections, you know, the hazards analyses of critical 9 control points. And we really do that, but we just don't 10 use that terminology.

11 But I think, looking at that -- looking at 12 those critical control points combined with the 13 performance-based, we really have the best of both worlds 14 and could really avoid any of the pitfalls that Bill's 15 worried about, but, yet, still get into where you're 16 really looking at performance.

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Richard.

18 Paul, do you want to close out with some words 19 on IMPEP?

20 MR. LOHAUS: Thank you, Chip.

21 Maybe by way of background, I really supported 22 having this area on the agenda. And I think there's 23 going to be some further discussion, too, in the 24 licensing area and performance-based regulation because, 25 when I look at this, we're really in a transition. And

207 1 there's a lot of reasons for this, I think.

2 There's a lot more focus on the outcome of our 3 program, as opposed to the outputs. We've talked about 4 those terms. What the focus is really on is protecting 5 public health and safety, as opposed to looking at how 6 many inspections we do and how many violations there are, 7 although that data is important from a certain 8 standpoint.

9 But the real focus is on: Are we really 10 protecting public health and safety? And I think the 11 IMPEP review process is really performance based. And in 12 looking at that process and looking at the transition 13 that we're going through in our whole area of regulation, 14 to become more performance based, to look at where the 15 real risks are and to put our effort into those areas to 16 achieve the greatest degree of protection in an efficient 17 way with focusing on the major areas -- and I see the 18 IMPEP process as focused on performance.

19 And, also, it is a dynamic process. One of the 20 things we've tried to do is reflect experience back into 21 that review process. So I think, as this program matures 22 and as we move more in the direction of performance-based 23 inspections, the IMPEP process is going to move in that 24 direction, as well.

25 And I think we're really there -- I know, in a

208 1 number of areas, there have been suggestions and comments 2 offered in terms of making our programs more performance 3 based. And, you know, we're doing a lot at NRC.

4 And I think this is a topic that is really ripe 5 for discussion. And the way I see it, we're in a 6 transition; we're moving through, we're becoming more 7 performance based and more risk informed. And we're 8 going to see more of that, and it's going to be important 9 for all of us. And I think the IMPEP process will be 10 able to reflect that and continue to maintain the 11 performance-based review process that we have.

12 Maybe, with that, let me ask others, because I 13 look at the IMPEP process as really a joint process. The 14 agreement states and NRC staff are involved in the 15 process, and I'd be interested in other comments or 16 observations on the review process, as well, if there are 17 others that would like to address that issue.

18 MR. CAMERON: Maybe we could have people think 19 on that and we can spend a few moments tomorrow to 20 address that. So we'll put that in the paddock for 21 tomorrow to re-visit it.

22 I would just like to thank --

23 Art and Cheryl and Shan, thank you, very much.

24 And, also, Bob and Mike, again, thank you.

25 (Applause)

209 1 MR. CAMERON: And who's going to orchestrate 2 the photo op?

3 DR. EMERY: Well, we need the state signs and 4 the book. Maybe up here?

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. The state signs and the 6 book? All right.

7 (Recess.)

8 MR. MARSHALL: Can we reconvene? Everyone, 9 come in and have a seat wherever you'd like.

10 I think there are a couple of ground rules that 11 ought to be established. I've not chaired this meeting 12 before, and I wasn't at this meeting last year. But the 13 question has come up already about it being open to 14 non-Agreement States people that are here, the NRC and 15 others.

16 VOICE: Do you want a motion?

17 MR. MARSHALL: Can I -- is there a motion one 18 way or the other?

19 VOICE: Move to keep it open.

20 VOICE: Second.

21 MR. MARSHALL: Is there a second?

22 There has been a motion and second to leave 23 this meeting open to all meeting attendees. All those in 24 favor?

25 (A chorus of ayes)

210 1 MR. MARSHALL: Opposed?

2 (No response.)

3 MR. MARSHALL: It passes. NRC's welcomed to 4 the meeting. I should say NRC's allowed into the 5 meeting.

6 (Laughter) 7 MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Is there such a thing as 8 protocol to do roll-call?

9 (Pause.)

10 MR. MARSHALL: This -- no? I see a shake of 11 the head by the parliamentarian from Arizona.

12 MR. GODWIN: I think you've got a quorum. You 13 don't have to have it.

14 MR. MARSHALL: I think we do.

15 I appreciate everyone hanging out. We'll have 16 some action here on this agenda. I'd like you to note a 17 couple of additions to the agenda.

18 I have another proposed resolution that will be 19 distributed. In fact, let me begin distribution of the 20 two. I have one from Jake Jacobi: A proposed resolution 21 to support the Colorado GL exemption. And I have a 22 second one, from David Walter, to support standardization 23 of exposure limits.

24 These will be presented with a short commercial 25 by each sponsor today. And we'll have tomorrow -- I

211 1 think there are presentations on each tomorrow. And then 2 we can take action if appropriate at tomorrow's session.

3 (Pause.)

4 MR. MARSHALL: The last item to be added is a 5 comment from Richard Ratliff. We'll deal with it at the 6 tail-end of today's session. It was an item that came 7 out of last night's dinner meeting of OAS officers, the 8 host state of Texas and Chairman Greta Dicus about 9 getting support from our congressional representatives 10 for a couple issues.

11 Lastly, an item that we'll start with a thing 12 that Kathy Allen brought up, just a short note, a short, 13 levity item.

14 Kathy, do you want to take the floor for a 15 minute?

16 MS. ALLEN: Sure.

17 MR. MARSHALL: I appreciate everyone being 18 here. We will try our best to be out of here by five 19 o'clock. I think the hotel wants us out by 5:00, so 20 we'll try to stay on that schedule.

21 MS. ALLEN: Jim Myers?

22 MR. MYERS: Yes?

23 MS. ALLEN: This is something that Jim Myers 24 and I kind of put together. This is almost -- like the 25 contest, it's going to help you get your blood flowing a

212 1 little bit.

2 If you haven't been to the NRC web site, you 3 have to check this out -- I'm sorry -- the OSP web site:

4 This little button with, "What's new." It's very cool, 5 and it will keep you up to date with the latest. And, in 6 fact, Jim put on -- the agenda for this meeting on there.

7 So follow up and, at least, look at it, 8 book-mark it, or whatever. Check it out. Okay?

9 To win fabulous prizes: Do you know which star 10 was added in honor of the 31st Agreement State?

11 Everybody look. Here's the diagram. I'm going to help 12 you narrow it down a little bit. If I go too fast, just 13 hang on.

14 (Pause.)

15 MS. ALLEN: I love technology. Okay. There's 16 your stars.

17 (Laughter) 18 MS. ALLEN: I have A, B, C, D, E, F, G or H.

19 Everybody think.

20 (Pause.)

21 MS. ALLEN: All right. Ohio is excluded 22 because they already called and asked. So forget it.

23 (Laughter) 24 MS. ALLEN: Marcia, no paying anybody to answer 25 it right.

213 1 Okay. Does everybody know which number you 2 have or -- which letter you have?

3 (Pause.)

4 MS. ALLEN: Okay. Everybody stand up, and keep 5 your number -- letter in your mind. Up, up, up.

6 MR. MARSHALL: Play along here. This will only 7 take a minute.

8 MS. ALLEN: Okay. Everybody, up, up, up.

9 (Pause.)

10 MS. ALLEN: Have you got your letter? If you 11 have H, sit down.

12 (Pause.)

13 MS. ALLEN: G, sit down.

14 (Pause.)

15 MS. ALLEN: C, sit down.

16 (Pause.)

17 MR. ALLEN: Bob, sit down. You're from Ohio.

18 You can't -- you don't count.

19 (Pause.)

20 MS. ALLEN: F, sit down.

21 (Pause.)

22 MS. ALLEN: E, sit down.

23 (Pause.)

24 MS. ALLEN: D, sit down.

25 (Pause.)

214 1 MS. ALLEN: Okay. Jim?

2 MR. MYERS: Yes?

3 (Laughter) 4 MS. ALLEN: All right.

5 The standing people should just have either A 6 or B. Right?

7 MR. MYERS: Uh-huh.

8 MS. ALLEN: All right. Ready? A, sit down.

9 (Pause.)

10 MS. ALLEN: It was B. B was added. So, all 11 the Bs, stand up. And I'll give you your prize.

12 (Pause.)

13 MS. ALLEN: Thank you.

14 MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Kathy.

15 The first item on the proposed agenda was 16 suggested by Ken Wangler of North Dakota. And the title 17 that was stuck on it is, "A discussion on T Norm," with 18 the question, "Are gas and oil rules included?" And I 19 will turn the floor to Ken to open comments.

20 MR. WANGLER: You're catching me by surprise 21 here, Stan.

22 This -- I've got to say that this is 23 something -- this was my perception of Part N. And in 24 the last -- since I've said this, in reviewing it, I'm 25 not sure that they are excluded.

215 1 Initially, when Part N came it, which was March 2 of '97 -- is that right?

3 March of '97, I think, for who ever raised 4 that.

5 I took those to -- my understanding of them 6 then was that they were not very relevant to exploration 7 and production waste from oil field activities. It 8 just -- the didn't seem to fit. I didn't know where they 9 fit in.

10 I've since reviewed them since I spoke with 11 you, and I'm not sure that this is a relevant point of 12 discussion any more. And I also know that we're having a 13 big T NORM implementation discussion Friday afternoon and 14 Saturday.

15 MR. MARSHALL: Very good.

16 (Laughter) 17 MR. WANGLER: Really?

18 MR. MARSHALL: Let's move to the first proposed 19 resolution, with comments by Jake Jacobi.

20 MR. JACOBI: I'm not going to say too 21 particularly much about this because I've got a 22 presentation tomorrow, and it's about 20 minutes. So 23 does anybody want to spend 20 minutes, and I'll give it 24 now?

25 (No response.)

216 1 MR. JACOBI: Basically, right now, the way the 2 regulations are established -- and this resolution's for 3 the NRC, but the same thing applies to the SSRs -- we 4 have two classes of licenses. Even though both classes 5 can expose their irradiation workers and, to their 6 rem-per-year level, can exceed release -- their release 7 limits, we have one class which has to maintain exposures 8 below a certain level, and the second class doesn't.

9 We have one class of licensees that have to 10 clean up an area before they leave, that have to provide 11 instruction to workers and have to post radiation areas.

12 And we have the second class of licensees that are exempt 13 from all of that.

14 And the proposal is basically very simple in 15 saying that all licensees should be required to limit 16 radiation exposures to their workers and to the public.

17 It goes into a little more detail on what we're 18 specifically asking, but it's basically to remove the 19 exemption that exists for source-material general 20 licensees.

21 Right now, they are exempt from Part 19 and 22 Part 20. And there is -- in my mind, there is no basis 23 to say that this whole class of licensees out there can 24 go and expose people to any level they want without 25 control.

217 1 I'll talk more about that -- about my 2 presentation. And maybe after the presentation at the 3 next business meeting would be the time to have this 4 discussion.

5 Let me just say one other thing. The proposal 6 to the NRC was co-signed and submitted by the State of 7 Colorado and the officers of the Organization of 8 Agreement States. And I think the Federal Register 9 posted it as, "Colorado and the Organization of Agreement 10 States." And I've heard some people get a little upset, 11 saying, "The Organization did not approve this."

12 And so let me clarify that it was the officers 13 of the Organization that submitted this. And I think 14 that's the way it was intended, and it got published 15 incorrectly in the Federal Register. 16 And, Stan, since you co-signed it, if you have 17 any other comments?

18 MR. MARSHALL: The proposed petition was 19 addressed by OAS officers in May, and I co-signed with 20 the State of Colorado on behalf of the officers only at 21 that time with regard to a filing process in mind and an 22 urgency issue in Colorado.

23 The second proposed OAS resolution, from David 24 Walter, is a proposal to standardize exposure limits.

25 David?

218 1 MR. WALTER: Originally, my idea on this was to 2 take this to the conference and put it in as a resolution 3 at that time, but it was discussed with me that I might 4 want to bring it before the OAS and give you all, I 5 guess, a little fore-taste of the feast to come.

6 We all have had an -- the OAS has already put 7 out a position paper that essentially says very much the 8 same as what this ends up coming up with. And what I'd 9 like to do is bring this forth to you guys, let you take 10 a look at it and think about it during the discussions 11 tomorrow and the talks tomorrow that go on with the 12 clearance criteria.

13 But the clearance criteria alone isn't the only 14 thing that's involved here. It has to do with just plain 15 exposure limits for everyone, and there are too many of 16 them.

17 And it doesn't matter whether or not you look 18 at just the NRC or if you look at the NRC, EPA and DOE 19 all together; they're all on a different wave-length.

20 And I didn't even consider the IAEA one milligram for 21 tools per year. I couldn't find any, to be honest, so I 22 couldn't give you a good reference for it.

23 So I'd like you to take a look at it and see 24 what you think about it and discuss it a little bit 25 tomorrow at the second part of the meeting. And if you

219 1 want to go through with this as a resolution, I think 2 that would show unity, because I have a feeling that the 3 same or similar thing is going to happen with the 4 conference and that would just show that much more unity 5 between the two groups, as well.

6 MR. BAILEY: David, may I ask a question?

7 MR. WALTER: Yes.

8 MR. BAILEY: This does not reference some of 9 the things that the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing.

10 MR. WALTER: No, it does not.

11 MR. BAILEY: And I think that they are 12 proposing still different limits than are here. And 13 those certainly need to be --

14 MR. WALTER: That may be.

15 MR. BAILEY: -- worked out --

16 MR. WALTER: I haven't seen those limits, and 17 that's why they weren't put in here. But I mean all of 18 the whereas's could be put into one just saying that, 19 "Whereas the following rules or guidance documents have 20 all these different criteria, it's a bunch of bunk."

21 (Laughter) 22 MR. WALTER: There should be one rule. There 23 should be one milli-rem. I mean a milli-rem is a 24 milli-rem is a milli-rem when it comes to these exposure 25 limits. So why is it okay for 500 okay one place and why

220 1 is it not okay, unless it's 1 milli-rem, somewhere else?

2 And that was my point in this.

3 But yes, any other places that anyone's aware 4 of that we can get documentation and specification to put 5 into these would be a great thing to add.

6 MR. BAILEY: Just for a point of clarification, 7 does the Part N now address the 25 milli-rem, or does it 8 go to 50?

9 MR. PARIS: Part N has -- leaves that open to 10 the states -- the implementing states to select.

11 MR. BAILEY: You know, well, I think we should 12 include the CRCPD's recommendations and the list should 13 be made uniform.

14 MR. WALTER: Do you mean on the resolution part 15 of it?

16 MR. BAILEY: Yes. I mean, and that's something 17 that, at least, if this organization's members support 18 it, it should be an easy thing to carry in the 19 conference.

20 MR. MARSHALL: Arizona?

21 MR. GODWIN: I notice this is talking about 22 federal agencies, yet there are to non-federal agencies 23 mentioned. And I would propose another one. The 24 National Council on Radiation Protection is not a federal 25 agency. The International Commission on Radiation

221 1 Protection is not a federal agency. And I would suggest 2 that these -- if we're going to talk about federal 3 agencies, we need to delete those.

4 And since this is talking about exposure limits 5 established by the federal agencies, I would -- for that 6 same reason, I would suggest the conference would not be 7 an appropriate addition to this -- or Part N.

8 MR. MARSHALL: You'd suggest not adding the 9 conference, or just changing the title?

10 MR. GODWIN: I think it would be cleaner if we 11 do not add the conference and if we take out those two 12 councils.

13 MR. PARIS: The Health Physics Society has also 14 come out with a position.

15 MR. MARSHALL: North Dakota?

16 MR. WANGLER: Well, I think leaving the -- I 17 think leaving those organizations in there adds a lot of 18 credibility to the standard that the NRC currently has.

19 That would be my only reluctance to take them out. It 20 seems like it's such a free-for-all between the federal 21 agencies that those other organizations added some 22 stability; any way, you had a number to shoot at.

23 MR. PARIS: And the conference.

24 MR. GODWIN: But when you're talking about 25 addressing federal agencies, that -- these people did not

222 1 establish the federal standard, and that's what you're 2 talking about: The standardization of -- for limits 3 established by U. S. federal agencies.

4 MR. WANGLER: No. But I think you're asking 5 the federal agencies to set a uniform standard. And I 6 think it's still okay to say that there are some groups 7 out there, some very credible groups, who have made some 8 references to standards that -- just as a bench or a 9 base-line --

10 MR. GODWIN: Maybe --

11 MR. WANGLER: -- benchmark.

12 MR. GODWIN: -- you need to change the title --

13 VOICE: Yes.

14 MR. GODWIN: -- to say that.

15 MR. MARSHALL: Steve, Illinois?

16 MR. COLLINS: The ISCRS, Inter-agency Steering 17 Committee on Radiation Standards, has already been 18 charged to do just this. They've been working on it 19 several years and have made --

20 VOICE: No progress.

21 MR. COLLINS: -- very little progress --

22 (Laughter) 23 MR. COLLINS: -- in that basic charge.

24 They've made a lot of progress in a lot of 25 areas, but that one thing, the so-called risk

223 1 standardization, is one area that, particularly, Joe and 2 I have basically been totally frustrated by the lack of 3 progress.

4 And it's basically two different philosophies 5 with one agency -- one of which -- we, by our written 6 position statement, pretty much agreed with one 7 philosophy, as opposed to the other, but that other 8 agency having the authority by congress to set a basic 9 limit, which is something right now that some of us would 10 not want to do at the numbers they're choosing under 11 their philosophy.

12 And this organization did present to the 13 Commission a position statement which basically said 100 14 milli-rem per year as a basic limit, with each state 15 implementing fractions of that as they deemed fit for 16 certain areas or different -- by clean-ups as a portion 17 of that TED E.

18 So I would caution you about going forth with 19 this as it's currently worded without putting a 20 recommendation as to what you thought that limit should 21 be. And, like I said, the position statement presented 22 to the Commission by the OAS board in fact did have that 23 limit in it or -- limits.

24 MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Steve.

25 MR. O'KELLEY: Comment One: I don't think

224 1 we've listed the limits at the boundaries of the nuclear 2 power plants in here, which could be added into it. And 3 under the part where it says how it will be resolved, it 4 says, "Set identical radiological release criteria."

5 Now, are we looking for release criteria, or are we 6 looking for exposure limits? I thought we were trying to 7 do exposure limits.

8 MR. MARSHALL: Let's --

9 MR. O'KELLEY: And I think --

10 MR. MARSHALL: Let's hear from David a 11 second --

12 MR. O'KELLEY: -- it may be semantical, but --

13 MR. WALTER: All right. A couple of things 14 here. Let me make it clear that my intent from the 15 beginning of this was to say, "For overall limits." And 16 in our discussions, virtually everything that we ended up 17 getting was, "Release criteria." And that's why it ended 18 up being that way.

19 This is something we threw together, to be 20 honest, to try and get ready for this meeting as quickly 21 as possible because I planned on doing it for the CRCPD.

22 But there are going to be -- obviously, as you guys have 23 pointed out, there are some areas that we need to clean 24 this up a little bit.

25 But it's something that, because of the fact

225 1 that we have this meeting now, if we're going to try and 2 give a unified stance on it, needed to come forth now, 3 instead of trying to wait until later on. I --

4 MR. O'KELLEY: You --

5 MR. WALTER: I would just prefer it to be just 6 the maximum exposure limits.

7 MR. O'KELLEY: Well, I was just wanting to make 8 sure I understood what we were referring to.

9 MR. MARSHALL: How about Ed and then Roland and 10 Steve?

11 MR. BAILEY: The -- at the Health Physics 12 meeting, Greta gave a talk. And one of the points in her 13 talk was, essentially, the dose limit harmonization 14 effort. And it might be beneficial if we could get a 15 copy of that to look at some of the suggestions that she 16 made and, basically, her commitment to working on getting 17 dose harmonization -- reg. harmonization in general, I 18 guess, we should say.

19 MR. MARSHALL: Roland?

20 MR. FLETCHER: Yes. If -- first of all, if,you 21 know, there's already a position paper in place, I would 22 have to almost put them side by side to see where there 23 might be differences because I don't know what would be 24 the added emphasis of this resolution if we already have 25 taken a position.

226 1 But, secondly, based on all of the conversation 2 I've heard, this would have to be revised. First of all, 3 the title, I believe, would need to be amended so that it 4 drops, "As Established by U. S. Federal Agencies."

5 What I'm hearing is: It's important to get the 6 viewpoints and positions of other organizations that are 7 not federal agencies. If those viewpoints are more 8 important, then we need to, you know, drop all references 9 to standards set by federal agencies.

10 That is also going to change the final, "Now, 11 therefore, be it resolved." So this is going to cause 12 some rather severe changes in this resolution, so I don't 13 know how we can focus on it at this meeting.

14 MR. MARSHALL: Steve, again?

15 MR. COLLINS: Okay. I believe the title of the 16 position paper had to do with clean-up standards.

17 MR. WALTER: Right, with clean-up standards.

18 MR. COLLINS: Even though, in the setting of 19 the basis for the clean-up standards as some fraction of 20 a more basic limit, I did go in there and talk about 100 21 milli-rem per year TED E being a basic limit and tried to 22 establish that when I was drafting it.

23 The other thing is: Senator Dominici right 24 now, in charging GAO and doing some other looking at 25 ISCRS and other -- at the federal agencies work, if this

227 1 group could come together with a good position statement 2 that is more all-encompassing -- or use that one -- as 3 well as a resolution, we have an opportunity here to be 4 most effective at getting them into the right influential 5 hands at the right time to maybe push the federal 6 agencies in the direction we want them to go, if this 7 group could agree on where they would like those 8 standards to end up, whether it's 100 milli-rem per year 9 or 25 for air and 25 for liquid.

10 And right now, from the research work that 11 you're going to be hearing of in San Francisco or Chicago 12 or Washington, D.C., or in Atlanta, it's going to be 13 range of one to ten milli-rem a year for release of 14 solids. And I've mentioned 50 milli-rem to the steering 15 committee, and all their chins dropped when I mentioned 16 it -- I mean there was silence on the phone. But there 17 would have to be quite a bit added to that.

18 And if you haven't already heard from coming to 19 those stake-holder meetings, stay near an exit. I can't 20 get the NRC to tell me what the bad language is in the 21 letters they've received, but, apparently, since they 22 discussed increased security for the meetings, they've 23 gotten some comments and letters that, apparently, are 24 quite intense.

25 They've -- people don't want radioactive

228 1 material in their babies' spoons and their fillings and 2 other things that are made out of recycled metals. I 3 don't know if they don't remember that everything's 4 radioactive to begin with, but they don't want one atom 5 from a nuclear plant cycle anywhere in it because that's 6 dangerous atoms as compared to those NORM atoms.

7 (Pause.)

8 MR. MARSHALL: I've made notes. And I think 9 Richard has made notes, and I hope David has made notes.

10 Is there an action on this resolution at this time?

11 Arizona, a comment?

12 MR. GODWIN: I would urge the group not to 13 change the title, but, rather, drop out those independent 14 organizations. We have no authority over the 15 International Commission on Radiation Protection.

16 There's no way we can change any of their particular 17 things. And that's what you would be saying if you 18 changed the title. We have no authority over the 19 National Council and don't have any membership I don't 20 believe on the National Council on Radiation Protection.

21 So, you know, it's -- these are separate 22 organizations, and I don't think their standards actually 23 exactly dove-tail with each other. I would suggest that 24 we probably should drop those out.

25 I'd also remind you that this dog's going to

229 1 come around and bite you again when you start talking 2 about these mine wastes and oil wastes and all these 3 other things and you start trying to set them. I think 4 the industry would have a good argument for saying that 5 the states ought to get their acts together and set the 6 same standard across the board for all the NORM waste 7 materials that are going to be coming out.

8 And while that may appear to bring in the 9 conference, since there's no national standard-setting 10 for that particular type of waste, I really would not 11 want to bring the conference into it. I think they ought 12 to do their business separately. And by bringing EPA in, 13 if there's going to be a national standard, EPA would be 14 the one to set it. So you already have that area 15 covered.

16 So I would urge not bringing the conference in, 17 and deleting these two radiation protection commissions 18 and council. Thank you.

19 MR. MARSHALL: California?

20 MR. BAILEY: I guess I'm not following your 21 logic, Aubrey, because we also don't have control over 22 these federal agencies.

23 (Laughter) 24 MR. BAILEY: And so I would think that we would 25 want to present to all relevant organizations who are

230 1 promulgating limits, if you want to call them that -- and 2 the word used is "limits," and not "regulations" -- we 3 would want to emphasize to all these organizations that, 4 at least, this body feels it's important that they all --

5 they we all get our acts together, whether it's us as 6 states or the feds as federal agencies or any kind of 7 national advisory groups. And --

8 MR. GODWIN: I would suggest that the federal 9 agencies in theory, at least, represent us through their 10 elected bosses.

11 MR. BAILEY: Well --

12 MR. GODWIN: That could be -- you know, on the 13 other hand, the national council and all may or may 14 not -- we may or may not belong to an organization that 15 supplies someone there. I would think --

16 MR. BAILEY: But we do --

17 MR. GODWIN: -- it would be more appropriate to 18 have it as a separate resolution to bring them in and 19 retain this federal identity group as separate and 20 unique. I think the comments that were made relative to 21 naming some -- placing some number as a suggested limit 22 have a lot of validity.

23 But I really would hate to see taking out the, 24 "Standards as Set by the U. S. Federal Agencies," as the 25 title. I think it would be a mistake to pull that out.

231 1 I would also suggest to you that the national council 2 probably makes recommendations, and they might argue -- I 3 don't know for sure, but they might argue that they don't 4 set standards. They -- it may be that they're a 5 standard-setting group. I'm not sure how they view 6 themselves.

7 But if you do that, then how would you look at 8 the ANSE standards and things like that? What -- some of 9 those could eventually have some numbers in them. I mean 10 when does this end? I mean you stick to a government 11 agency. You have a good group to work with. And then 12 you can stick with the other agencies, and that's another 13 clearly-identified group. And I would suggest two 14 resolutions would be desirable in this particular case.

15 MR. MARSHALL: Have we beat this up enough 16 without a motion yet?

17 (Pause.)

18 MR. MARSHALL: I've got three hands waving, 19 still.

20 Rhode Island?

21 MR. DUNDULIS: I think -- just following up on 22 Aubrey's train of thought, the reason that I think you 23 should eliminate the NCRP and the ICRP is: They are --

24 even though they may be consensus standards, they are 25 just recommendations which have no legal impact until

232 1 they are incorporated by reference or otherwise utilized 2 to adopt statutory requirements.

3 All of the other things that are listed in here 4 are actual statutory requirements which exist. And if 5 the title is, "Exposure Limits as Established by U. S.

6 Federal Agencies," then you should probably limit it to 7 those that have statutory impact, because that's really 8 the source of confusion.

9 These are all legally-binding limits that 10 are -- that appear to have totally different numbers, 11 whereas, these other two are voluntary standards. Now, 12 they may have scientific basis and maybe the benchmark 13 that all these others should be addressed to, but, if 14 you're talking about inconsistency among federal 15 agencies, then you should limit it -- the motion should 16 at least be limited to those areas which actually are 17 statutory, as opposed to advisory.

18 And I think that's -- the point Aubrey's trying 19 to make is: You're mixing apples and oranges.

20 MR. MARSHALL: Massachusetts?

21 MR. HALLISEY: Yes. I --

22 Aubrey, I read this a little differently. And 23 I think that there is a possibility that, if you go into 24 the, "Be it resolved," and take out the word, "federal,"

25 and just say, "other involved agencies and

233 1 organizations," because -- the idea of these other 2 organizations may influence the federal people in coming 3 to their decision, but you are looking at the federal 4 agencies' regulations.

5 Is that a possibility? It doesn't say that 6 you're resolving that NCRP or ICRP does something.

7 MR. GODWIN: If that's a question to me, I 8 still think it's better without it. And it --

9 MR. HALLISEY: Well, I agree it's federal 10 guidance. But why not involve them in the -- all it 11 says -- what this, "Be it resolved," says to do?

12 MR. GODWIN: I understand. I --

13 MR. HALLISEY: Yes.

14 MR. GODWIN: I would recommend that we put a 15 number in that, "Be it resolved." And I would -- again, 16 I would suggest not putting these others in there. I 17 think it's a cleaner resolution to government agencies.

18 I think a clean resolution to them, ICRP, NCRP and the 19 conference, would make a delightful new resolution.

20 MR. MARSHALL: I've got two sign cards: One in 21 line, and David.

22 David, do you want to speak?

23 MR. WALTER: Let me just give you an idea of 24 the flow first of this because the first and second, 25 "Whereas" -- the first, "Whereas," is not

234 1 regulatory-based for all of those three situations: EPA, 2 NCRP and ICRP. But it sets a standard of 100 milli-rem.

3 The second one is a standard, which is also 100 4 milli-rem. Then you start seeing all of the variations 5 on the standards after that.

6 More than anything else, the reasoning for 7 putting that first, "Whereas," in there is to set a 8 precedent by which you can look at -- and then we can put 9 that in the, "Therefore," and add in 100 milli-rem if we 10 wish, but it sets a precedent to show where the majority 11 of the suggestions and recommendations and so forth are 12 at this point in time.

13 Now, whether that stays in there or not is 14 really neither here nor there, but it does set the basis.

15 That's the reason for that.

16 MR. MARSHALL: We'll take the last two 17 comments.

18 MR. GODWIN: Mr. Chairman, as rebuttal, I would 19 suggest that the FRC guidance is indeed legally binding.

20 That's the guidance that has been approved by the 21 President of the United States that is to be used by 22 other federal agencies in selecting what portions to go 23 under what part of the exposure limits.

24 So, whereas it's nice to say that it's not a 25 regulation, per se, itself -- indeed, he's correcting

235 1 that, but it is a legally-binding requirement from the 2 Federal Radiation Council as approved by the President of 3 the U. S. for federal agencies.

4 MR. MARSHALL: Joe?

5 MR. KLINGER: You know, it seems pretty simple 6 to me. This is good background. It flows logically.

7 And then, if you look at the meat of the whole thing, 8 "Now, therefore, be it resolved," and then just change 9 that last word and, instead of, "Radiological release 10 criteria," to, "Standards," you know, I think we're okay.

11 MR. MARSHALL: Change which part to, 12 "Standards"?

13 MR. BAILEY: The very last --

14 MR. KLINGER: Yes. The very last sentence 15 there, "And an identical set of radiological standards 16 for all federal agencies," because that's the meat of it.

17 You're limiting what you're asking them to do to the 18 federal agencies. The other stuff is background, and I 19 think it's important background.

20 MR. O'KELLEY: Do you want to add that, 21 "Exposure standards," or, "Standards"?

22 MR. KLINGER: And even the title, I think, we 23 ought to change: "Standardization of Radiation Limits,"

24 or -- instead of, "Exposure Limits" -- to say, "Radiation 25 Limits," instead of, "Exposure Limits," on the title, and

236 1 then, like I said, on the last sentence.

2 MR. MARSHALL: Mike, you've been very patient.

3 MR. BRODERICK: It may be useful to clarify why 4 we're referring to the NCRP and ICRP by saying something 5 like, "Whereas the FRG sets a dose limit of 100 6 milli-rems to the public and this has been supported by 7 prestigious groups such as the ICRP and NCRP." That 8 might be a way to clarify why those are being brought in, 9 particularly --

10 VOICE: Yes. That's good.

11 MR. BRODERICK: -- for those who are critical 12 of EPA's standards.

13 VOICE: That will work.

14 MR. MARSHALL: Ed?

15 MR. FRY: Back on that -- Mel Fry from North 16 Carolina. On that issue, though, wasn't it the other way 17 around, that those international and national bodies set 18 the standard and EPA copied it?

19 MR. MARSHALL: I'm not sure that David heard 20 that, but I think that's right.

21 Jim?

22 MR. McNEES: That last line -- in the last line 23 of -- that, "Now, therefore, it is resolved," on the last 24 line of the page, it might be better if we replaced the 25 word, "Identical," with the word, "Consistent."

237 1 MR. WALTER: May I recommend that you table 2 them -- this at this point in time because we know that 3 there are some things that are going to have to be 4 changed in this at this point? I have the disk. I'll 5 just have to find a computer I can use with WordPerfect, 6 and I can make the changes that have been suggested here.

7 I did not hear what was being said, the last thing, but 8 I'm sure I will hear about it.

9 MR. MARSHALL: Mel commented --

10 Go ahead and, quickly, reiterate.

11 MR. FRY: You made the statement -- or somebody 12 did -- that the EPA set it and ICRP and NCRP recognized 13 EPA's action. It was the other way around. ICRP did it, 14 NCRP went along with IRCP, and EPA adopted what the two 15 recommended --

16 MR. WALTER: Oh.

17 MR. FRY: -- I believe.

18 MR. GODWIN: Well, actually, the publication 19 cited came out after FRC got it.

20 MR. MARSHALL: Roland?

21 MR. FLETCHER: If a motion is in order, I move 22 that this matter be tabled until the maker has the time 23 to rewrite and represent the motion --

24 MR. O'KELLEY: Second.

25 MR. FLETCHER: -- or the resolution.

238 1 MR. MARSHALL: There has been a motion and 2 second that this be tabled. I allowed this to go on a 3 little bit because I think we needed to have it now, not 4 tomorrow at five o'clock.

5 Thank you, David, for hearing all comments.

6 Is there a vote in favor? All those say aye.

7 (A chorus of ayes) 8 MR. MARSHALL: Opposed?

9 (No response.)

10 MR. MARSHALL: The same. The motion -- the 11 proposed resolution is tabled. We'll see it tomorrow.

12 The next item noted is nominations for an OAS 13 chair-elect.

14 MR. DUNDULIS: A point of order: We haven't 15 done anything with Jake's motion. It was discussed, but 16 it's in abeyance.

17 MR. JACOBI: I think I had asked that, since 18 I've got a presentation tomorrow on it, to --

19 MR. MARSHALL: It is simply presented at this 20 time.

21 (Pause.)

22 MR. MARSHALL: The nominations for chair-elect.

23 I solicited nominations from all agreement states, and 24 personally talked to Bill Sinclair, who accepted 25 nomination. I also personally talked to Kathy Allen, who

239 1 also accepted. At this time, we have Bill Sinclair, 2 Utah, and Kathy Allen, Illinois.

3 I will clarify that the organization of 4 Agreement States is not -- a not-for-profit organization.

5 We're not incorporated, and we're not so organized that 6 we have by-laws in place. For those new faces and you 7 new to this process: You don't have to be a radiation 8 program director to be an OAS officer. That's why we've 9 got some of the nominations in place as we have.

10 I also had two other suggested nominees, who 11 are in a position at this time not to accept. I 12 believe -- I'm going to leave them un-named. They were 13 good nominations, as all of you are, and I will simply 14 pass those on to Ed for consideration next year.

15 Are there any other nominations for 16 chair-elect? I would explain that this is a three-year 17 sentence --

18 (Laughter) 19 MR. MARSHALL: -- or more. You might be left 20 in to get it right. Chair-elect becomes Chair, and Chair 21 becomes Chair-past, to provide some -- for some 22 continuity in this group. Ed Bailey, as current 23 Chair-elect, will take office January 1 if he stays in 24 place. And --

25 (Laughter)

240 1 MR. MARSHALL: -- I will become Chair-past if I 2 stay in place. And Chair-elect will join us to guide the 3 group. Activities have included monthly tele-conference 4 with the OAS officers, other states, I think, as they 5 choose to join us and, also, the NRC and OSP staff to 6 talk about stuff.

7 Another official activity has been the -- I 8 think, now, our third or fourth year -- annual Commission 9 briefing. The Commission briefings had been in the 10 spring of the year. We had scheduling problems through 11 April -- from spring until now. We have the briefing 12 scheduled now for October 20.

13 And we've also elected to combine a CRPD joint 14 presentation with OAS comments, and, at that time, I'll 15 join Bob Hallisey in Washington, D. C., to present that 16 before the Commission.

17 Personally, I think -- and I'm just going to 18 offer an idea. I don't think that the fall briefing is a 19 bad idea at all. I think, with the flow of the May 20 conference -- many of us go in and out of our fiscal year 21 July 1 -- this meeting, if it were to become a standard 22 in September or October with a chairman or -- with a 23 Commission briefing within a month or so after, is not a 24 bad flow.

25 It gives Bob -- and myself, in this case -- the

241 1 benefit of 31 plus four others -- the input before we go 2 to that Commission briefing, as opposed to waiting 3 another six months to brief chairmen or -- with Ed 4 briefing chairmen -- the Commission six months from now.

5 I personally think it's not a bad idea for a fall 6 Commission briefing.

7 Ed?

8 MR. BAILEY: I think I'm not sure that the time 9 of the -- the calendar time of the Commission briefing is 10 necessarily critical or should be fixed, you know, set in 11 stone. We will have a new chairman coming on board 12 sometime. And I think, even if we've had a briefing as 13 scheduled now, that we should strive to have a Commission 14 briefing within the first two to three months after the 15 chairman comes on board.

16 I know several states, as a matter of course, 17 have their -- have a meeting with the EPA, the --

18 whatever she's called, the administrator --

19 MR. MARSHALL: Yes, the administrator.

20 MR. BAILEY: -- purposely go to Washington 21 every time there's a change in the administrator of the 22 EPA and make their presence known. And I think that will 23 be important, particularly if he does go through the 24 confirmation process and does become the chairman, 25 because I do not believe he has great deal of familiarity

242 1 with the agreement states program. So it would be very 2 helpful to have him briefed early.

3 MR. MARSHALL: That's a good point.

4 MR. KLINGER: Did you open this for 5 nominations?

6 MR. MARSHALL: I think I did, indirectly.

7 Is there any other -- are there any other 8 nominations for OAS Chair-elect.

9 (Pause.)

10 MR. FLETCHER: I'd like the nominations be 11 closed on the afore-mentioned names.

12 MR. MARSHALL: Is there a second?

13 VOICE: Second.

14 MR. MARSHALL: All those in favor say aye.

15 (A chorus of ayes) 16 MR. MARSHALL: Opposed?

17 (No response.)

18 MR. MARSHALL: We will -- in the draft agenda, 19 it's suggested that we vote tomorrow. We can do that now 20 or later, now that we're closed.

21 (Pause.)

22 MR. MARSHALL: Let's hold it for tomorrow.

23 MR. FLETCHER: Stan?

24 MR. MARSHALL: We'll let them politic tonight 25 over Ruth's barbecue.

243 1 MR. FLETCHER: Stan?

2 MR. BAILEY: And see -- how good they are at 3 pressing the flesh and addressing the crowd.

4 (Laughter) 5 MR. MARSHALL: Roland?

6 MR. FLETCHER: I wanted to make one follow-up 7 to your comment because I think a fall Commission 8 briefing is a good idea, but I don't think that we should 9 get a mind-set that we can only have one Commission 10 briefing a year, because there are always subjects and 11 states and positions that we may need to elevate.

12 Unfortunately, it just is so difficult 13 coordinating these things that it makes it seem like we 14 only have one shot. But -- I'd like to, you know, stick 15 to the fall, but I'd like to have open the potential for 16 doing it another time during the year, also.

17 MR. MARSHALL: I appreciate that comment. I 18 would also like to add to it that we keep our minds open 19 to multiple briefings and we keep NRCs mind open to 20 paying for multiple briefings.

21 (Laughter) 22 MR. MARSHALL: Our lodge and per diem and 23 travel is important.

24 Richard?

25 MR. RATLIFF: Yes. What I was going to

244 1 suggest, too -- what has happened over the, I think, five 2 years that I've been on the executive committee now is 3 that we get together, and the executive determines what 4 to brief.

5 And I think, since we're meeting now and we're 6 not going to go until October, it would be good to have 7 anybody here who has ideas that are real pressing issues 8 that wants the executive committee to take to the 9 Commission to bring those up, because we're not only 10 going to do the briefing of the Commission, but we're 11 going to brief the new EDO and Deputy EDO.

12 As -- you got the memo last week. NRC has 13 changed their organization, and they're going to talk 14 about that. So it gives us a chance to do both levels.

15 And so I think it's important that, if there are certain 16 issues that the states want, we need to really get those 17 forward to Stan so we can brief them on what's 18 interesting or important to you and not just the 19 executive committee.

20 MR. MARSHALL: Roland?

21 MR. FLETCHER: I wanted to touch on another 22 matter so that we could be thinking about it. This is 23 also the --

24 (Pause.)

25 MR. MARSHALL: Go ahead.

245 1 MR. FLETCHER: This is also the opportunity for 2 the agreement states to put members of their staff or 3 themselves in the IMPEP teams and on the MRBs. And we 4 are rapidly coming to the end of the year. I have -- I 5 think we all received a schedule of next year. And there 6 are some needs that need to be filled.

7 There are at least IMPEP team -- new IMPEP team 8 members needed, one of whom needs to have some SS&D 9 experience. We also need to look at bringing in some 10 additional or replacement staffers for the Management 11 Review Board.

12 One of the reasons it's important to designate 13 the IMPEP team members here is because training is 14 usually scheduled in January. So that's ample time for 15 them to prepare to get that training.

16 I'm not going to ask for anyone here, but, for 17 tomorrow's meeting, if you have someone in mind, I would 18 appreciate it, you know, being written down: The name, 19 contact, et cetera. And, you know, we'll go from there.

20 And if anybody who's on these teams would like to 21 comment, well, just feel free.

22 MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.

23 The last printed item is noted, "Consideration 24 of Secretary-elect." And I've noted myself and Richard 25 to talk on this. I'll start if it's okay.

246 1 I mentioned the three-year sentence for 2 Chair-elect, Chair and Past-chair. And Richard and I had 3 a discussion that it might provide for some continuity to 4 consider a Secretary-elect as an assistant secretary the 5 last of the three-year term for, in this case, Richard.

6 Richard is going into his last year as Secretary.

7 And I think the fourth person -- the fourth OAS 8 officer of Secretary is an important one. And it's just 9 an observation that, as we herky-jerk along with trying 10 to hold, you know, a chair in place for a couple of 11 years, we consider the same thing for Secretary and make 12 it less abrupt. I don't know that there's anything else 13 to say.

14 MR. RATLIFF: I think it's -- the main thing is 15 that the Secretary position -- this was Wayne Kerr's 16 idea, one of the better ideas, because we -- like we've 17 said earlier today, there's no official by-laws or any 18 organization. But Wayne took it upon himself to keep 19 many of the records together. And so he did the motion, 20 and Tom Hill did a great job of getting together all of 21 the historical records. We have a file of all the 22 motions that have passed.

23 And the Secretary is a three-year position, 24 and -- three calendar years. And so I know I'm not going 25 to run next time. And so, in the past, it has been --

247 1 you know, Tom had been on the executive committee. And 2 I've been on there.

3 So, you know, it's standard that Ed would have 4 to take it, but, if not, we really need someone who would 5 really have a chance to get involved and know that 6 they're going to get two file-drawers -- large 7 file-drawers full records and they are the keeper of 8 those records.

9 MR. MARSHALL: This is only brought up for 10 discussion at this time. It's intended only for 11 discussion, if there are any interested volunteers, to 12 let us know by tomorrow's meeting. And we might, you 13 know, vote on the idea or vote on nominations. If no one 14 wants it and no one likes the idea, we can drop it, too.

15 MR. FRY: Stan, in the context of the idea and 16 then needing to get somebody to serve, there seems to be 17 general agreement that we do this. Why don't we make a 18 motion now to do this and then, at tomorrow's meeting, 19 elect somebody that you've corralled into volunteering?

20 (Laughter) 21 MR. FRY: You may have a harder time doing that 22 from before.

23 MR. MARSHALL: Is there --

24 MR. FRY: I'd like to make the motion that we 25 create a position during the last year of the Secretary

248 1 for the term -- for a position of Secretary-elect.

2 VOICE: Second.

3 MR. MARSHALL: I didn't hear the corral part by 4 me. So I -- that's -- I hear the motion and second.

5 MS. SHULTS: I just have a question. So then 6 would that person have to serve four years?

7 MR. RATLIFF: Yes.

8 MR. MARSHALL: Yes.

9 MR. BAILEY: Well --

10 MR. MARSHALL: Well, they would be allowed to 11 serve four years; they wouldn't have to.

12 MS. SHULTS: I'm sorry. Excuse me.

13 MR. BAILEY: Stan, let's think about that.

14 That's a long time. We might shorten the term to two 15 years with a one-year overlap. That's a good point, 16 because that's like getting married to it or something 17 MR. FRY: I'd accept that amendment to my 18 motion.

19 MR. MARSHALL: Is there a second to the 20 amendment to shorten it to a three-year term totally?

21 VOICE: Second.

22 MR. MARSHALL: Those in favor of the amendment 23 say aye.

24 (A chorus of ayes) 25 MR. MARSHALL: Opposed?

249 1 (No response.)

2 MR. MARSHALL: Now we vote on the original, 3 now-amended motion that the Secretary-elect be for a 4 three-year period. All those in favor?

5 MR. DUNDULIS: No. That the --

6 MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me?

7 MR. DUNDULIS: The Secretary-elect for a 8 three-year period?

9 MR. MARSHALL: Secretary-elect -- no.

10 MR. BAILEY: To establish the position --

11 MR. MARSHALL: That the --

12 MR. DUNDULIS: To establish the position of 13 Secretary-elect. And --

14 MR. MARSHALL: And the term of Secretary for 15 two years --

16 VOICE: Correct.

17 MR. MARSHALL: -- is now the amended motion.

18 (Pause.)

19 MR. MARSHALL: What do you want?

20 (Laughter) 21 MS. ALLEN: I want to really confuse things.

22 And I don't know if this is the time or after your vote.

23 But we are not incorporated; we don't really have by-laws 24 or anything.

25 MR. MARSHALL: Correct.

250 1 MS. ALLEN: Some of the stuff that Richard's 2 going to talk about tomorrow has to do with finances and 3 arranging meetings and things like that. So one of the 4 things that I was thinking about is, Why don't we try and 5 become a tax-exempt organization so that we really become 6 an organization, and do the by-laws thing? And then that 7 would make the Secretary a Secretary/Treasurer 8 combination thing.

9 MR. RATLIFF: Are you saying, Kathy, that you 10 would withdraw from Chair-elect and go for 11 Secretary/Treasurer?

12 MS. ALLEN: Huh-huh.

13 (Laughter) 14 MR. MARSHALL: Let me add -- I'm not going to 15 clarify your comment. I'm going to add to it.

16 Tomorrow's discussion --

17 MR. DUNDULIS: Point of order: It's discussion 18 not germane to a motion on the floor.

19 VOICE: Yes.

20 MR. MARSHALL: Okay. What do you want to do?

21 MS. ALLEN: Well, unless you change -- well, I 22 guess you could pass -- you could probably vote on the 23 motion to accept the Secretary thing and then evaluate a 24 motion to change it to Secretary/Treasurer as a separate 25 thing.

251 1 MR. MARSHALL: I think we're at -- we need to 2 vote on the amended motion, that we have a 3 Secretary-elect position with a two-year term as 4 Secretary.

5 VOICE: Second.

6 MR. MARSHALL: All those in favor?

7 (A chorus of ayes) 8 MR. MARSHALL: Opposed?

9 (No response.)

10 MR. MARSHALL: So be it.

11 Now, you're still at the mic.

12 MS. ALLEN: I was just here to answer 13 questions.

14 MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Thank you.

15 Richard had a tentative last item that came up.

16 MR. BAILEY: Can I ask a question?

17 MR. MARSHALL: Yes, of course.

18 MR. BAILEY: Are we going to discuss the other 19 suggestion tomorrow? Is that what I'm hearing? I 20 don't -- I'm sort of left -- I don't know where we are on 21 this issue. I mean I think the discussion of 22 incorporation and all of that is maybe more than a 23 one-day discussion, because there's a whole lot of stuff 24 to be done. And I would offer that what we ought to do 25 is have the executive board review this issue and come

252 1 back with a recommendation next year.

2 VOICE: Here, here.

3 MR. DUNDULIS: So moved.

4 MS. SHULTS: Second.

5 MR. MARSHALL: There's a motion and a second to 6 do that.

7 (Laughter) 8 MR. MARSHALL: I'm serious. We're all tired 9 here.

10 MR. RATLIFF: Stan?

11 MR. MARSHALL: I think we understand it.

12 MR. RATLIFF: Okay. I'm just -- that was for 13 the person taking the notes.

14 MR. MARSHALL: All in favor of waiting say aye.

15 (A chorus of ayes) 16 MR. MARSHALL: Opposed?

17 (No response.)

18 MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Well, I will say that the 19 intent of the item tomorrow is simply to talk about what 20 Richard went through to host this very nice meeting in 21 order to help Ken or anyone that hosts next year and 22 subsequent hosts, because there's some stuff that goes on 23 now the NRC is not paying for it, and there's a lot of 24 work that goes on, even medium and small programs.

25 Yes, Ken can do this, but it's just an

253 1 operational discussion so that we understand and not end 2 up changing locations mid-way through the year. I was 3 not really intending to go after incorporation and all 4 that. We obviously have separated the two, and we'll 5 leave it that way.

6 Richard?

7 MR. RATLIFF: What I would like to recommend --

8 you know, the executive committee will look at this --

9 but that we assign or get volunteers for a group to look 10 at this in the interim, because I know Kathy has pursued 11 this and Ruth McBurney and our staff has pursued it --

12 and others with CRCPD -- so that there's a working group 13 that could really look at all the ins and outs and what 14 we would really need to do to come back to the executive 15 committee.

16 And I think that would work real good where you 17 could get a separate working group looking at this whole 18 issue and what it would take. And I guess we can -- the 19 executive committee can rule on that, but I think that's 20 a good way to go.

21 Last night, when we had dinner with Greta, one 22 of the things she pointed out was -- because we had some 23 interesting things back and forth, and she never got mad 24 at Ed once. That was pretty good.

25 (Laughter)

254 1 MR. RATLIFF: And -- but she said she really 2 needs our support on items of budget where they've got 3 their budget pending now and they're trying to get some 4 general revenue money that would not be tied to fee base, 5 and that we really need to try to get each of our 6 commissioners or heads of our agency, or how ever we work 7 them, with our inter-governmental policy, to write to our 8 senators and representatives to really support the NRC 9 program for funds that are not based on license fees for 10 the agreement states program, because -- she said the 11 agreement states program, believe it or not, is the most 12 expensive program that's not a licensee or registrant, 13 more than international programs.

14 And so I think it's one of the things that, if 15 we really are going to be successful -- from the chairmen 16 over the years, we've written to different committees of 17 NRC and very seldom got responses at all. But I think 18 each state, through their senators and representatives, 19 brings this issue forward, we have a much greater chance 20 of doing it.

21 And that's -- what Greta appealed to us to do 22 is to try and see what we can do. Some states won't even 23 be able to write a letter, I know. Others, though, it 24 may be easier.

25 But I think, if we can get more of the U. S.

255 1 congress folks know what the agreement states program is, 2 because -- quite frankly, Greta said that, in several 3 instances, especially one recently in Tennessee, congress 4 didn't even know that they had authorized agreement 5 states. And they didn't know that other states had the 6 authority to do what NRC did.

7 And so she really asked that we do this, and I 8 really would make that a challenge to all the states: To 9 try to, within the next few months, get a letter from 10 your head of your agency, or how ever you have to do 11 it -- if it has to go through your governor, or 12 whatever -- to the NRC supporting the agreement states 13 program and directly funding -- that they be funded not 14 out of funds that have to be recovered through fees.

15 MR. WANGLER: Didn't we have a model letter out 16 a couple of years ago? Didn't we have a model letter out 17 from -- was it from Mike Broderick -- that talked about 18 supporting a vote in congress to fund NRC's budget as 19 proposed?

20 MR. BRODERICK: I wrote one a couple of years 21 ago. There was a move by the nuclear power industry, of 22 all people. And what I tried to do was tie it into that 23 but, also, get that old dead horse of the NRC-funded 24 training -- bring that into it.

25 MR. MARSHALL: Roger?

256 1 MR. SUPPES: I was wondering about this 2 organization adopting a resolution to be forwarded to 3 congress supporting the NRC, in support of agreement 4 states.

5 VOICE: [indiscernible]

6 (Laughter) 7 MR. MARSHALL: I'll take it on.

8 Arizona?

9 MR. GODWIN: I would suggest to you that the 10 most effective letters come from your congress -- come to 11 your congressmen from you. An organization? Yes, it 12 will have some impact, but they can brush it off.

13 But I know, if you're writing your congressmen 14 or the governor's writing the congressional delegation or 15 you're writing it and it looks like it's coming from the 16 governor -- it doesn't really matter -- it's far more 17 effective than some organization they really haven't 18 heard of and they suspect is probably lobbying on behalf 19 of one of the federal agencies and they're not real sure 20 they want to go with that, any way.

21 But when ever it comes out of their state 22 capital to them, they'll read it. They might not vote 23 for you, but they'll read it, and it will have more 24 impact than any other kind of letter.

25 MR. MARSHALL: That point was emphasized last

257 1 night at dinner by Cindy Jones and Greta, who said yes, 2 it comes from the congress through the agency and they 3 respond within three days and it's a drop-dead kind of a 4 thing. You do it, and there's no other priority.

5 MR. O'KELLEY: Stan?

6 MR. MARSHALL: Pearce?

7 MR. O'KELLEY: I recommend we support this. We 8 don't want the NRC following FDA's precedent of trying to 9 charge our licensees to support their program. And, you 10 know, if there's anything we can do to help FDA get 11 funding so they don't charge our registrants, that would 12 be wonderful, as well. So you may as well write two, 13 instead of one.

14 MR. MARSHALL: Are there any other comments on 15 that item?

16 (Pause.)

17 MR. MARSHALL: Do I hear a motion to adjourn on 18 time?

19 MR. WHATLEY: I've got a cuss.

20 MR. MARSHALL: No?

21 MR. WHATLEY: This whole end down here has been 22 quiet all day. Okay? It won't take but a second.

23 MR. O'KELLEY: And we appreciate it.

24 (Laughter) 25 MR. WHATLEY: We've got -- Stan, you -- awhile

258 1 ago, you used the term -- in talking to Ed, you said --

2 were speaking of, "If you stay in place." Well, that 3 might not be within our controls. I want to commend you 4 on one of the first things you did today, and that was 5 recognizing some people that are no longer with us. And 6 there are others.

7 And I think, you know, none of us or none of 8 our programs -- we're not here -- we're here where we are 9 today because somebody went before us and did a good job.

10 And I think it's appropriate at any of our meetings, 11 whatever they are, where we are as a group here -- this 12 may be the last time this group of people here ever gets 13 together as a group.

14 And I just think it's appropriate to call out 15 the names of folks that are no longer with us. There 16 were several others -- one was very vocal at this meeting 17 last year -- that are no longer here. And I just think 18 it's appropriate that we do that.

19 So there's a few states that have somebody 20 that's no longer there. I don't. But I -- if you do, 21 you might like to recognize them.

22 MR. FRY: North Carolina will never be the 23 same.

24 MR. MARSHALL: Aaron will be missed.

25 VOICE: [indiscernible] contributed more than

259 1 just [indiscernible] itself.

2 MR. MARSHALL: He'll be missed.

3 Are there others?

4 MR. O'KELLEY: I'd like to express my 5 appreciation for the leadership that was shown to me in 6 our program from Hayward Sheely. He was an integral part 7 of this group in the Conference of Radiation Control 8 Program Directors, and we also miss his gentle way of 9 showing us the right way.

10 (Pause.)

11 MR. MARSHALL: Is there a motion to adjourn?

12 MS. ROGERS: I have one thing that's on another 13 topic.

14 MR. MARSHALL: Please.

15 MS. ROGERS: If you need a ride, meet us out in 16 front at 6:00. For those of you who are driving, I have 17 maps. And if you have a car, even if you didn't 18 volunteer to drive, please see if you can pick somebody 19 up and take them with you. And, lastly, if you drive, 20 you have to bring those people back, too.

21 MR. O'KELLEY: Which day?

22 (Laughter) 23 MS. ROGERS: Thank you, all.

24 MR. MARSHALL: I heard a motion and a second.

25 All those in favor to adjourn?

260 1 (A chorus of ayes) 2 MR. MARSHALL: Opposed?

3 (No response.)

4 MR. MARSHALL: We'll see you at Ruthie's.

5 (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the meeting was 6 adjourned, to reconvene at 8:00 a.m. Thursday, September 7 9, 1999.)

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25