ML24290A119
| ML24290A119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/2024 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24241A136 | List: |
| References | |
| M241008 | |
| Download: ML24290A119 (49) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
MEETING WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES (OAS)
AND THE CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS (CRCPD)
+ + + + +
- TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2024
+ + + + +
The Commission met in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, One White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, at 10:00 a.m., Christopher T. Hanson, Chair, presiding.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chair DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner BRADLEY R. CROWELL, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
CARRIE M. SAFFORD, Secretary of the Commission BROOKE CLARK, General Counsel
LISA BRUEDIGAN, Director, Radiation Section, Consumer Protection Division, Texas Department of State Health Services (CRCPD Chair Elect)
STEVE SEEGER, Deputy Director of Field Operations, Chattanooga Field Office, Division of Radiological Health, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (OAS Champion)
RIKKI WALLER, Senior Radiation Physicist, Laboratory Improvement Section, Idaho Bureau of Laboratories, Division of Public Health Laboratory Improvement, Idaho Department of Health, and Welfare (CRCPD Chair)
KEISHA CORNELIUS, Environmental Programs Specialist IV, Radiation Management Section, Land Protection Section, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (OAS Past Chair)
PATRICK MULLIGAN, Assistant Director, Radiation Protection Element, Division of Climate, Clean Energy, and Radiation Protection, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (CRCPD Past Chair)
SARAH SANDERLIN, Radiation Physicist 2, Bureau of Environmental Radiation, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (OAS Chair Elect) 1
3 PROCEEDINGS 1
9:59 a.m.
2 CHAIR HANSON: Good morning, everyone. I convene the 3
Commission's public meeting with the Organization of Agreement States, or 4
OAS, and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, or 5
CRCPD. In this meeting, we'll hear from these two organizations about 6
their views on radioactive materials policy and regulatory issues that are of 7
interest to them and other states. Before we start, I'll ask if my colleagues 8
have any remarks they'd like to make.
9 Okay. So I intend to proceed in the order in which you all are 10 listed on the scheduling note. We'll hold questions until the end of the 11 speaker presentations. And then we'll hear questions from the 12 Commissioners.
13 So, with that, we'll begin with Lisa Bruedigan. Lisa, the floor 14 is yours.
15 MS. BRUEDIGAN: Good morning. There we go. Good 16 morning. We appreciate the opportunity to come meet with you this 17 morning and discuss all things that are important in radiation going on 18 across the country. So from the state perspective, we have a little different 19 angle of things than you guys do.
20 And so we appreciate the chance to exchange ideas and 21 make sure that we're collectively handling the business of radiation in the 22 country. So if my first slide will come up there. Do I have the advance or 23 someone does that for me? Okay. Next slide, please. And the next one, 24 please.
25 All right. So I'm the director for the Radiation Control 26
4 Program in the state of Texas, and I'm the current chair of the Conference of 1
Radiation Control Program Directors. And so today I'm going to speak with 2
you a little bit about communications. And overall, we believe that 3
communication between the states, between CRCPD and OAS and the NRC 4
is at an exceptional level these days.
5 As the person that's been in the program for 27 years, it 6
wasn't always the case in former years. And so the efforts that we are 7
seeing have been greatly appreciated and are acknowledged. So some of 8
the positive things that the groups are doing together are the 9
government-to-government meetings. The G2G meetings are wonderful.
10 The Champions Chats offer us an opportunity to talk about 11 things that are really of interest at the state levels that are truly issues that 12 we're dealing with and are relevant to the current times. The integrated 13 working materials and working groups are giving us the opportunity for 14 integration as far as being able to know whether the concerns are going to 15 be from a state level before we have a new rulemaking that's coming down 16 that says here's what we propose from the NRC side. So we applaud those 17 efforts and would like to see those continue.
18 And having the integrated IMPEPs, that has been a fabulous 19 tool for the members of our state teams that are participants in that as well 20 as I believe for the NRC. It's giving you more manpower. But it also gives 21 you a greater perspective, and I think we all learn from each other on each 22 IMPEP that happens across the states or in the country.
23 And we appreciate those efforts and want to continue to see 24 that grow. So some recent examples that we've had and I'm from the Texas 25 program. We are a large program and have quite a bit of activity going on 26
5 in the state.
1 So I've used several of my personal experiences. So 2
industrial radiographers, we had -- I'm sorry. Next slide, please. So that's 3
the current one. So for the industrial radiographers, there were some 4
questions that came up.
5 I believe someone at NRC was approached by a different 6
group about adjusting the hours on industrial radiographers. So we got a 7
call and they said, what is going on in Texas? What are you looking at?
8 What's going on in some of the other states?
9 And so we were able to quickly put together a discussion on 10 that, bring some additional information, let NRC know what was happened at 11 the national level as well as in Illinois, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas and 12 that the proposal that was being given was indeed going to align the country 13 and was going to be a better fit for industrial radiography across the country.
14 So again, having those contacts, making that phone call, and just saying, 15 can we have a discussion I think has been a benefit to everyone. Next 16 slide, please. Another not so recent but in the last few years was the 17 industrial radiography two-man rule.
18 And so as you know, this is one that the request was 19 originally submitted by Texas many, many years ago. And the powers that 20 be change. And as we have more experience and we learn more, 21 sometimes philosophies change as well.
22 And so by the time this came around, Texas had already 23 changed its stance on this. And we were not in favor of this. And we 24 shared our opinions on that.
25 We did not know that we could have withdrawn our request.
26
6 And had someone whispered that in our ears, we might would've done that.
1 We just did not know that was something that was an option for us.
2 So that's an example that the communication just took a little 3
bit longer time than what we anticipated. And maybe some conversations 4
right before it came up again would've been helpful and might've avoided us 5
all a lot of work. Next slide, please. So some recent examples there.
6 So we've had topics discussed during the national fall call that 7
we had on the exempt devices. And then we brought it up between the 8
OAS and the CRCPD boards. We met, had a conversation, and this 9
exempt device has kind of caught us a little off guard.
10 It had been published a couple years before. But to be 11 honest, we weren't paying attention to it and were not quite so prepared 12 when it was brought up on the national call. So we asked to have a 13 conversation with NRC staff.
14 We discussed it at the OAS meeting that we just had in 15 August and then again at the Champions Chat that we had last month. And 16 I believe that there's work in progress that we're going to be developing a 17 users group or something to have that conversation again. It's an 18 opportunity that we appreciate having our voices heard, that we had 19 concerns, and we wanted to come back to the table and have a discussion 20 on that.
21 And more than anything no matter what the final outcome is, 22 is the opportunity to know that we were heard and listened to. And I think 23 that goes both ways and, again, strengthens communication as we need to.
24 Next slide, please. And so ongoing interactions, we would encourage you 25 guys to keep it up as much as you can.
26
7 We will commit to doing so from both OAS and the CRCPD 1
side as well as the states themselves. The earlier the notifications we can 2
have about any significant issues that are coming along would be nice, 3
updates on the ADVANCE Act as that continues. And then the annual SLO 4
meeting we believe is an important thing.
5 And I know there was a time when it was discussed virtually 6
or not. And we believe that the in-presence attendance is an important 7
thing for the states. And then continued support and attendance for 8
CRCPD and OAS at the meetings and the board meetings.
9 The interactions that we have are just invaluable, to be able to 10 know that we've got a partner at the table to express our concerns to as well 11 as listen to and get updates. And it's been a very key and very helpful 12 component. Next slide. So future interactions, we would like to see --
13 continue the G2G meetings, the Champions Chat, individual interactions, the 14 request for comments.
15 We'd like to see those continue to be ongoing and any 16 combination of that much. Advance notice for meetings is always a benefit.
17 I understand schedules are incredibly hard to coordinate.
18 But if things like the third Thursday of the month is very, very 19 helpful for us to be able to adjust our schedules at the state level so that we 20 can participate to the extent possible in the meetings and make sure that 21 we're getting the important information that we need. And my last slide is 22 for questions. But I think we're moving along.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Thanks. Next, we'll hear from Steve 24 Seeger from the state of Tennessee. And I understand you're going to talk 25 about fusion.
26
8 MR. SEEGER: Yes. Thanks, Lisa. Good morning, 1
Commissioners. I am Steve Seeger from the state of Tennessee, and I 2
currently serve as the OAS Champion.
3 I want to thank you for meeting with us today. Radiation 4
protection and the status of the national materials program are very 5
important. So we thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule.
6 And like you said, I'll be discussing the status of fusion regulatory framework.
7 Next slide.
8 NRC is committed to working closely with the Agreement 9
States in a true partnership to ensure a well-developed and comprehensive 10 program is created. This includes the development of fusion regulations, 11 regulatory guidance, and procedures as well as figuring out how it will fit into 12 the IMPEP framework. Next slide. Both the NRC and the Agreement 13 States have common goals of achieving consistency and competency across 14 the National Materials Program.
15 Consistency will allow us to work together to create uniform 16 practices and methodology to ensure safety across our regulated entities as 17 well as instilling confidence in members of the public that fusion is a safe 18 and clean alternate for our future. Competency is an important factor for the 19 Agreement States. The NRC provides the Agreement States training which 20 ensures our technical competency.
21 Fusion is different than fission. And therefore, the training 22 available doesn't adequately cover the technical information we would like to 23 know before regulating a fusion license. Next slide. There are many items 24 we have already started working on with NRC.
25 There have been several working groups that have involved 26
9 NRC staff as well as Agreement States staff, the draft NUREG and 1
regulations were released for comment earlier this year. Many states 2
commented on these documents. By the number of states that expressed 3
interest and took the time to comment, you can tell it is a very, very hot topic 4
and everyone wants to ensure we all get this correct.
5 The NMP Champions have had several Champion Chats 6
regarding fusion and there have been many public meetings. All of these 7
were well attended and helpful for the states to keep an open 8
communication thread. Another way for states and NRC to collaborate is 9
during conferences.
10 During this year's OAS annual meeting, almost an entire day 11 was dedicated to fusion. We heard from the NRC, the different states 12 already working with fusion as well as many fusion companies.
13 Communication is key to helping us to create this new framework. Another 14 aspect of communication we have found very helpful is the open line of 15 communication between the states and the potential licensee.
16 Having conversations early and often can make sure that both 17 parties have a full understanding of the process and technology to be 18 regulated. Next slide. Everyone's big question, what do we do now and 19 how do we get to the point where we feel comfortable regulating commercial 20 fusion? Next slide. One of the most successful parts of the NRC and 21 Agreement States relationship is our training opportunities.
22 You will hear later from Sarah just how important these 23 training opportunities are to the stability and continuity of the National 24 Materials Program. Regulating fusion requires training Agreement State 25 and NRC staff. This training will need to not only focus on licensing and the 26
10 inspection of these machines, but it'll also need to include fusion technology.
1 The training classes that are available now are fission-based.
2 To understand how to license and inspect these machines, we need an 3
understanding of the technology that will allow us to regulate in a 4
risk-informed and performance-based manner. The Agreement States have 5
never regulated putting power on a grid.
6 This has been solely regulated by the NRC until now. The 7
NRC should leverage this experience to help the states feel comfortable with 8
this part of regulating fusion. Next slide. Another way to help Agreement 9
States and the NRC prepare for fusion would be to create a group of subject 10 matter experts made up of representatives from the states that currently 11 working with fusion companies in some way.
12 States that receive new interest for fusion in their state will be 13 able to reach out to this group for advice and guidance. This group could 14 also help develop standardized licensing conditions and inspection 15 checklists since they already have some experience in this area. With lots 16 of communication and working together, we can be ready for commercial 17 fusion before it's here. Next slide. Next is Rikki, and I will have questions 18 at the end. Thank you.
19 CHAIR HANSON: Great. Rikki Waller who's from the state 20 of Idaho, over to you.
21 MS. WALLER: Thank you. I am the director for the state of 22 Idaho. Thank you all for meeting with us today. Commissioner Hanson, 23 congratulations on recent reappointment as chair. We appreciate the 24 opportunity to present with you today. Can we go to the first slide, please?
25 When I met with -- when we met with you 17, 18 months ago, 26
11 just one of my topics out of three was AI. Since that time, AI has grown in 1
leaps and bounds. It gets its own topic this time.
2 And now we can get AI on our cell phones, on web browsers, 3
and even on social media. Next slide, please. With the growth of AI, we 4
need to figure out how to use it to our advantage. There are many tasks 5
that may be assigned to AI to aid the states in performing radiation safety 6
procedures and practices.
7 The tasks listed are just a few of the items that may be 8
accomplished with the use of AI. And as time goes on, that list just 9
continues to grow. Next slide, please. AI can be a tremendous aid in 10 assisting with inspection preparation.
11 With the ability to gather and analyze past history of each 12 facility, a more focused inspection plan for each facility can be generated 13 prior to inspection which leads the inspector themselves to be more -- gosh, 14 I forgot the word. Just more prepared and with more of a past history of 15 what has happened before this current inspection. Next slide, please.
16 And training can be enhanced with the use of AI by aiding the 17 capability of simulating various scenarios for training purposes. It can also 18 help streamline the scheduling process as well as preparing any necessary 19 documentation required before and after the inspection. Next slide, please.
20 And AI can also help streamline operations while also considering the 21 ethical use. It can also assist in monitoring and detection, 24/7. Next slide.
22 As with all emerging technologies, it will take some time to 23 learn how to use, manage, and develop the use of AI as a radiation safety 24 protection tool. A means to provide privacy and data safety measures is a 25 key component to using AI. Training will be necessary along all levels of 26
12 users to ensure proper use as well as fiscal responsibility.
1 And ethical considerations should always be in the forefront, 2
making the decision to use AI. Ethics in AI is one of the most critical issues 3
that have been identified as AI has come up in more people using it and it 4
being more prevalent in society. Next slide, please. Much work still needs 5
to be done.
6 Experts and industry leaders must collaborate proactively to 7
invest in infrastructure. It will be important for them to stay updated on the 8
latest advancements and best practices in an ever-changing technology.
9 Next slide, please. And it will take a great deal of training to implement an 10 AI assisted program.
11 AI is only as unbiased as the data put into it as a lot of the 12 experts like to say when utilizing AI as garbage put in is garbage put out.
13 So putting the data in correctly and efficiently is something that's very 14 important. So if the data is imperfect, the resulting AI will be imperfect as 15 well.
16 And as always, the balance between innovation and fiscal 17 responsibility will always be a consideration. So in closing, the main thing 18 we need to consider in the AI use is that no human element. And therefore, 19 AI lacks the human emotional intelligence, the ability to understand, 20 empathize, and connect on an emotional level.
21 It also lacks the capacity for creativity and new ways of 22 thinking. And as I said before, the data put in to AI is crucial and must be 23 accurate and true. Knowing this, we should ourselves focus on keeping 24 these attributes alive and well. Thank you.
25 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much. Next we'll hear 26
13 from Keisha Cornelius from the state of Oklahoma. Keisha, over to you.
1 MS. CORNELIUS: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Keisha 2
Cornelius from the state of Oklahoma, and I serve OAS as the past chair. I 3
want to thank you for meeting with us today and for taking time out of your 4
schedules to discuss radiation issues that are so important to the NMP.
5 I'll be discussing the prioritization of recommendations from 6
the working group to assess National Materials performance and also 7
integrated materials performance impact process improvements. Next 8
slide. Based on the charter approved by the director of the Division of 9
Material Safety, Security, State and Tribal Programs and the chair of OAS, a 10 working group was established to assess the current IMPEP process with 11 respect to for providing a proactive assessment of the National Materials 12 Program, NMP, Radiation Control Programs, or RCPs. In addition, the NRC 13 wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMPEP program to predict, 14 identify, and reverse declines in performance indicators before RCP's 15 performance would result in an unsatisfactory finding.
16 Because of recent declines in performance, the NRC wanted 17 to identify potential root causes common to declines identified in recent 18 reviews and identify leading indicators to help identify RCP's experience and 19 challenges in achieving satisfactory findings for each indicator. The NRC 20 and OAS established a 15-person working group comprised of staff from the 21 NRC and four Agreement States. The working group focused on 22 recommendations that fell into two distinct categories.
23 The first
- one, enhancing awareness of the RCP's 24 performance, including metrics used to identify programs with a declining 25 performance or performance challenges, and second, improving the IMPEP 26
14 assessment of RCP's performance. Through its review, the working group 1
identified five recommendations, three associated with enhancing 2
awareness of the RCP's performance and two with improving IMPEP 3
assessment. Next slide. Recommendation No. 1, identify and implement 4
meaningful performance metrics to track the health of the NMP.
5 The working group reviewed the current CBJ performance 6
indicator, NM-23, to determine if there's room for improvement. NM-23 7
measures the Percentage of Materials Programs with More Than One 8
Unsatisfactory Performance Indicator. The working group determined that 9
NM-23 was unnecessarily narrow as it did not consider other program 10 performance measures like the number of programs on monitoring, 11 heightened oversight, or probation.
12 It also doesn't account for the degree of recovery of a 13 program between IMPEPs. The working group considered how to update 14 the CBJ metric to measure more than just the number of unsatisfactory 15 performance indicator results. Therefore, the working group recommends 16 that a new performance indicator for NMP performance is established.
17 Management should consider establishing a less than 15 18 percent of Agreement State programs on enhanced oversight metric. OAS 19 also supports a joint OAS/NRC working group to develop a new metric. The 20 working group determined that the annual report to the Commission could be 21 improved by including additional tracking, trending, and statistical insights 22 providing information regarding the overall health of the NMP. Next slide.
23 Recommendation No. 2, develop tools and strategies for 24 identifying potential performance issues and facilitating prompt corrective 25 action. The working group and stakeholders continue to describe IMPEP as 26
15 a strong program within the NMP. Under this program, individuals from 1
NRC and Agreements States work together to evaluate the effectiveness of 2
each RCP's performance while ensuring public health, safety, and security 3
surrounding the use of radioactive materials.
4 The working group identified that RCPs that experienced 5
declines in performance also had turnover in personnel. This turnover in 6
personnel often affected the programs ability to reach out to other RCPs for 7
information or formal advice and made it less likely that the program would 8
approach the NRC for help early in the process. In order to build 9
relationships in the NMP, the working group recommends that we continue 10 to support the NMP through the monthly NMP calls and Champions Chats.
11 OAS also appreciates that NRC provides funding for each 12 Agreement State director to attend the OAS annual meeting. These all give 13 opportunities for NMP to discuss common issues. We also recommend that 14 we develop an IMPEP awareness training for new radiation control program 15 directors.
16 Many new RCPDs have never been through an IMPEP and 17 do not realize the scope or importance of IMPEP. An IMPEP training 18 program should be created for new RCPDs. This could also include a new 19 RCPD observing another program's IMPEP so they can get a firsthand view 20 of the process.
21 We also recommended facilitating NMP counterpart meetings 22 for inspectors and license reviewers, increasing the opportunities for NMP 23 program personnel to build relationships and discuss common performance 24 challenges. This would likely result in more engaged staff and may mitigate 25 potential future declines in performance. Early identification of challenges 26
16 facilitates timely corrective actions.
1 The working group recognizes the benefits of self-reflection 2
and self-identification and taking a proactive approach to solving 3
performance issues. The working group heard from stakeholders that 4
performing periodic self-audits could aid with early identification of potential 5
challenges in an RCP. OAS recognizes that a self-audit tool must be clear, 6
concise, and easy to use.
7 Implementing the self-audit tool into web-based licensing 8
could encourage more programs to use WBL. Also ensuring when a 9
program self-identifies and corrects an issue, that would not necessarily lead 10 to an unsatisfactory finding during IMPEP. That would encourage more 11 programs to use the self-audit tool.
12 The number of agreement states has increased and 13 continues to increase while the number of regional State Agreement officers 14 has remained constant. The working group noted that in 1990, there were 15 28 Agreement States and 5 RSAOs. Today, there are 39 Agreement 16 States, soon to be 41 and still only 5 RSAOs.
17 The working group recommends assessing the current and 18 future role of the RSAO in the NMP. Next slide. Recommendation No. 3, 19 develop NMP strategies to assist RCPs with performance challenges. The 20 working group also considered how to effectively provide timely and targeted 21 assistance to RCPs with performance challenges.
22 This could be accomplished by revising the programmatic 23 technical assistance section of SA-1001, Implementation of Management 24 Directive 5.7, Technical Assistance to Agreement States. The revision of 25 this section should include self-identified programmatic issues in addition to 26
17 ones discovered during the IMPEP reviews. The revision should describe 1
how programs can request timely assistance through the OAS board, 2
RSAOs, other Agreement States, and NMSS.
3 It should also identify how the request is acknowledged, 4
assigned, tracked, and closed. Next slide. Recommendation No. 4, modify 5
and enhance IMPEP to ensure that reviews continue to be done in a 6
consistent and risk informed manner. Working group and stakeholders 7
agree that the essentials of IMPEP are sound, but there is room for 8
improvement related to consistency of implementation of IMPEP.
9 One recommendation is to consider evaluating all RCPs 10 under the same common performance indicators and establish a joint 11 working group to implement this action. Evaluating all Agreement State 12 RCPs using the same criteria, six performance indicators, could allow for a 13 holistic review as well as provide a much more aligned focus and oversight 14 of the NMP. We also recommend enhanced team leader training to include 15 more scenarios.
16 Scenarios should be informed by previous IMPEP reviews 17 where the teams debated indicator findings and recommendations, also 18 establishing forums for team leaders to meet to discuss recent IMPEP issues 19 and findings. Include additional training on report writing and how to deliver 20 a high-level brief for exits and MRB. This is increasingly important as new 21 team leaders in training are identified.
22 We know recently the decision was made to have team leader 23 and team member training virtually instead of in-person. OAS believes that 24 this is counterproductive to ensuring consistency at IMPEPs. In-person 25 training allows for individuals to give their undivided attention during training 26
18 without distraction.
1 It facilitates more interaction among attendees and gives 2
opportunity to continue important discussions outside of the classroom 3
during breaks and after hours. Next slide. Recommendation No. 5, modify 4
IMPEP processes to increase efficiencies in addition to creating consistency 5
in the implementation of IMPEP. The working group and stakeholders are 6
recommending consideration of areas within the entire IMPEP process that 7
may be streamlined, including the Management Review Board.
8 Currently, Agreement State IMPEP team members are not 9
allowed to review the LROPE indicator which is Legislation, Regulation, and 10 Other Program Elements. Consistent with SA-107, much of that evaluation 11 consists of reviewing whether the state has submitted the appropriate state 12 statutes. Importantly, the compatibility review of submitted state statutes 13 and regulations is conducted separately by qualified NRC staff outside of the 14 IMPEP process. There is a need to qualify individuals to review this LROPE 15 indicator.
16 As a number of Agreement State IMPEP team members 17 increases, the working group sees this activity beneficial to the NMP. Items 18 for the MRB chair consideration for improved performance and efficiency, 19 the working group recommends the following items for the MRB chair to 20 consider; revising the MRB script to guide discussion to the challenging 21 performance indicators, consider grouping all clearly satisfactory indicators 22 into one short discussion so that the remainder of the time can be focused 23 on those indicators that are less than satisfactory, encouraging MRB 24 members to provide questions to IMPEP team members prior to the MRB 25 meetings and with enough lead time for the IMPEP team members to be 26
19 able to provide quality answers. Because the MRB meetings are open to 1
the public, we want the IMPEP team members to be prepared to provide the 2
answers as necessary. Also encourage MRB members to provide 3
questions to the IMPEP team prior to the MRB meeting and with enough 4
lead time for IMPEP members to be able to provide quality answers.
5 With a new MRB chair to be named still, OAS thinks that this 6
is a perfect opportunity to implement recommendations with the 7
Management Review Board. Next slide. This presentation is in no way 8
intended to be representative of the all the recommendations that the 9
working recommended. These are just the ones that OAS considers a 10 priority.
11 But we think all are good recommendations that should be 12 considered by the Commission. I would also like to thank you for your time 13 and welcome any questions at the end. And now I would like to turn it over 14 to Patrick.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Patrick Mulligan from the state of 16 New Jersey, over to you.
17 MR. MULLIGAN: Good morning, Commissioners. And 18 again, like my colleagues had mentioned earlier, certainly appreciate the 19 opportunity to come here again this year and speak with you and allow you 20 to kind of understand what's collectively on the minds of some of the state 21 folks. And I'm going to talk a little bit this morning about new reactor 22 technology and the reactor design approval process.
23 As I'm sure all of you are aware, one of the challenges that 24 we're facing right now is the world's global climate change initiatives and the 25 quest to reduce carbon emissions, some aggressively, certainly by 2030 and 26
20 others more aggressively by 2050. And in order to reach those goals, we 1
understand that we're going to need to be creative. We're going to need to 2
be flexible, and we're going to need to consider all the tools that are 3
available to us in order to reach those goals.
4 And certainly subject matter experts agree that the nuclear 5
energy needs to be part of that portfolio if we're going to meet those. And 6
so we fully understand that over the next 15, 20, 30 years or more that we're 7
going to see a lot -- an increase in the nuclear portfolio that supplies 8
electricity in this country. And we're seeing it a lot at the state level too.
9 I mean, many states have provided legislation that provides 10 funding for nuclear sector, some states specifically for small modular 11 reactors. And so we see that from the state perspective we're moving in 12 that direction as well. And so as we move through, we understand that --
13 you can go to the next slide. I'm sorry. I'm probably two behind now.
14 Apologize for that. Yes, that's the one.
15 So considering that right now the current technology is light 16 water reactors. But we have a lot on the horizon that there's a lot of 17 research that is being done right now. Obviously, small modular reactors 18 are very close to being a reality, and we should be seeing some of those 19 relatively soon.
20 Steve talked about fusion reactors. And so I think that we've 21 heard from the industry that possibly by the end of this decade we may see 22 fusion as a viable possibility. But there are also other more next generation 23 nuclear reactors that we're also taking a look at and there's a lot of research 24 being done too.
25 The Generation IV reactors, the sodium cooled fast reactor, 26
21 molten salt reactors, the gas-cooled fast reactors, and then you have some 1
other general types that have the high heat reactors. So those are all being 2
considered as new technologies. And obviously as that research comes 3
down the line, there's going to be probably NRC involvement with approving 4
those designs along the way.
5 And so that's where I think my point is coming to the NRC 6
with -- and you can go to the next slide, please. They play a critical role in 7
the technical review of those reactor designs to ensure that they are 8
operated safe and reliable for the public. And that rigorous oversight 9
process ensures that they operate safely.
10 And I guess my message is state and local governments rely 11 on your agency to do all that work. I mean, we don't have the level of 12 subject matter experts to really take a look at the engineering designs and at 13 the reactor safety analysis that needs to be done with sufficient rigor to 14 ensure that these plants may be operated safely. And so we look to the 15 NRC to continue, as we know you will, look at those from a very critical eye 16 and from a public health and safety perspective.
17 And I know that moving forward -- let me go to the next slide 18 because that's where my head was going. There's a lot of pressure. I 19 know that the Nuclear Energy Institute obviously is a proponent for the 20 nuclear energy industry.
21 They work not only within this country but they work 22 internationally to support harmonization of standards and practices in the 23 nuclear industry. But I know that in hearing some presentations from NEI, 24 they're also looking to encourage streamlining of the process for which the 25 regulatory bodies approve and review reactor designs. And we understand 26
22
-- if we can go to the next slide, please.
1 We understand that there can be efficiencies in reviewing that 2
process and streamlining. But I think that the message from the states is 3
we need to temper that streamlining with making sure that we're actually 4
continuing to ensure safe and reliable operation of the design. So that 5
means kind of sticking with -- and the whole processes that we've been to, 6
especially with going through the severe accident management 7
consequence analysis, those kind of things, and providing the rigorous look 8
at what the impact pathways may be.
9 I don't know that we can -- state agencies certainly can't and 10 don't have the knowledge to really go through that. And so we're relying on 11 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the experts that you have here to 12 address those issues that we're comfortable in the end that the review 13 process has been rigorous to the extent that these designs are approved 14 and they can operate safely. So I think that we're -- I know that there's a lot 15 of pressure, and it's not just from NEI.
16 But there's political pressures and there's other pressures to 17 streamline the process and move quicker than you have in the past. And I 18 don't believe that looking at just the time that it takes to do that is a measure 19 of how good or bad it is. You can streamline the process if it makes sense.
20 There are some steps that just need to be done and are going 21 to take time because they need engineering analysis to do them. And they 22 need some studies to be done to do them. And so some things do take 23 time and they cannot be rushed.
24 And so we just -- and the question is just to be cognizant of 25 that process and to remain true to the standards that you've always set 26
23 within this agency. And that's safe, reliable operation of nuclear power 1
plants. And I will turn it over to our next presenter, Sarah.
2 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Next, we'll hear from Sarah 3
Sanderlin, also from the state of New Jersey who's going to talk about 4
training.
5 MS. SANDERLIN: Yes, good morning, Commissioners. I'm 6
Sarah Sanderlin. I work with the state of New Jersey. Is that better?
7 Okay. I'm currently serving as the OAS Chair Elect. Thank you for taking 8
time to meet with us today and discuss radiation protection issues that 9
impact us all in the National Materials Program.
10 Today, I will be discussing Agreement State training. Next 11 slide, please. The NRC provides -- currently provides funding to Agreement 12 States to obtain training on various topics. There are several formats used 13 for the training such as in-person.
14 This can be onsite through the NRC, state hosted or state 15 delivered, virtual with an instructor, and self-study through the collaborative 16 learning environment online, also known as the CLE.
17 Next slide, please. With an influx of new staff, Agreement 18 States are having an increase in demand for training. The current 19 availability of training is unable to meet this demand.
20 Due to this, some Agreement States have begun the process 21 of having state delivered training. State delivered training is when 22 Agreement States staff run the course themselves, providing the venue and 23 instructors. For this to happen, staff audits the particular course and 24 obtains all training materials from the NRC.
25 The main benefit of state delivered courses are that the state 26
24 can have as many staff members attend the training. So if there is a large 1
amount of new staff members, they can get them trained on that course all at 2
one time. There's also great potential to have nearby states send their staff 3
members to attend the course as well.
4 However, state delivered courses receive no funding from the 5
NRC for travel and accommodations for any of the staff attending the course.
6 For in state NRC funded training, an Agreement State would have to apply 7
to host an NRC sponsored course which is also known as state hosted.
8 This form of training course is when an Agreement State provides the venue 9
and NRC instructors run the course.
10 Both are beneficial, but funding can be an issue. Over the 11 last several years, more courses have moved to an online format, whether it 12 be virtually given or self-study -- self-guided courses online. While the 13 increased availability of online courses is a great benefit to the Agreement 14 States, there are several downsides to this format as well.
15 When taking a course online, whether it be instructor-led, 16 virtually, or self-guided, there's a lack of hands-on experience and in-person 17 visualization of material being taught. For instance, the medical courses 18 have recently been moved online under the self-study through the 19 collaborative learning environment. There is no longer -- this no longer 20 allows core students to do the field trips to local hospitals and other medical 21 centers which has been a critical part of the in-person version of these 22 courses.
23 While the CLE online format does have a discussion board 24 and NRC staff available for questions, this does not account for the natural 25 discussions that may occur between students during breaks or with 26
25 instructors. Self-study can also impact the knowledge uptake as there may 1
not be any explanation beyond what is available on the page. It can also be 2
harder for a student to be able to give all of their attention to a self-study 3
course when they are making their own schedule as opposed to having a 4
designated period of time to complete the course like other formats provide.
5 Next slide, please.
6 Moving forward, the Organization of Agreement States would 7
like to see continued support and funding for all training of Agreement State 8
staff. We would like to see this also include funding for students traveling to 9
state delivered courses. Obtaining NRC training is crucial for all staff 10 working under NRC agreements to ensure regulations and best practices are 11 being implemented across the National Materials Program. This concludes 12 my presentation. I would like to thank you for your time and welcome any 13 questions now that we are at the end of everybody's presentations.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll start 15 with questions this morning with Commissioner Wright.
16 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. Good 17 morning, everyone. Thank you for your presentations. I know some of 18 you, it's your first time I think maybe. So I hope the nerves didn't affect you 19 too much. We're going to have fun today.
20 This is a great meeting. This is probably my favorite meeting 21 of the year. I really enjoy this and I enjoy interacting with you during your 22 conferences during the year as well.
23 There's a lot that's been going on -- that is going on in your 24 states. I recognize that not all states are equal. You have funding issues 25 from your legislatures or whoever.
26
26 Sometimes your fees aren't where they should be and you're 1
having trouble with employees being poached by even us because of the 2
financial considerations and just the disparaging amounts between -- the 3
differential amounts between each place. When I travel around, as you 4
know, I do try to stop in and meet with the OAS staff or CRCPD staff that is 5
there in the state. And if I need to, I'll go talk with the people are your 6
overseers in the state, right, to try to let them know your value to the NRC 7
and try to make those issues known that you're having issues with and 8
maybe bring some awareness to things maybe they don't and you're not able 9
to do from a peer-to-peer thing.
10 So I plan to continue doing that. And I think that Kevin and 11 them are doing a wonderful job as well. And I really loved the way that -- in 12 the last four or five years, the way this relationship has really come together.
13 And so I commend you from your positions for your reaching 14 out and wanting to be transparent and inclusive with our program that Kevin 15 and them head. And we're very -- I feel we're very fortunate to have people 16 like you who are willing to do what you do because it's passion that you do it 17 for. It's not the money. I get it, right?
18 Steve, I want to start with you this morning. You talked about 19 creating a group of subject matter experts, right, as a future action. How 20 are the states that have already licensed fusion devices such as Washington 21 state, right, how are they sharing how they license their fusion facilities and 22 lessons learned with other states? How are they doing that now?
23 MR. SEEGER: That's a good question. I guess, like, if we 24 could get a working group maybe and we can have those discussions. And 25 the working group would know talking with the OAS board and how we could 26
27 reach out to the states what they need.
1 It's so new right now. Training and just understanding the 2
technology because right now in Tennessee, that's what we're working on 3
too. And it's also affecting our x-ray regulations too.
4 So it's not just the radioactive material aspect. It's the x-ray 5
portion too. So right now, I don't know the best answer for that. But I 6
guess starting off with a working group.
7 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So on the training piece, I 8
guess tell me a little bit more about the role you envision for us at the NRC 9
having. Is there something that -- I don't know. like, most training for the 10 states would be NRC initiated and led. Or is this something that you think 11 the states would take the lead on because in some areas you're ahead of 12 us?
13 MR. SEEGER: Right, right. I guess it could be both. I 14 guess first, licensing, like, for the grid, we've never done anything like that, 15 so that'd have to be we'd lean on the NRC for the experience on that and the 16 expertise. And then the state could do some of the other things too and 17 especially with the x-ray portion of it too.
18 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you. Sarah, 19 welcome. So you talked about funding challenges, right, for training 20 courses. And it's not the first time that I've heard it or the Commission has 21 heard about the funding challenges that we have.
22 So tell me a little bit more about some of the obstacles here.
23 Is it a policy issue? Are there legal issues? Or is it a resource challenge 24 issue for this in your opinion?
25 MS. SANDERLIN: I might need some assistance answering 26
28 this question. But I think maybe some of the issue is coming from higher 1
ups and getting the funding from your own state and getting the approvals 2
and maybe not knowing the importance of that training. So how you were 3
talking about coming in when you're available and talking to higher ups and 4
telling the importance of our function with you and our agreement, that 5
probably will help. Anybody else have anything, Steve or Keisha?
6 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So I'm aware that we have in 7
the past and probably still do, Kevin, I'm guessing, we send letters to people 8
too to tell about the importance of this and encourage -- tell them what's 9
available from us. Tell them how important it is that will assist you. This is 10 in addition to maybe a Commissioner dropping by and saying hi and making 11 that known. So are you all using that that still from the boards maybe, 12 encouraging the states to do that?
13 MS. CORNELIUS: I think with the increased turnover that 14 states are having, more and more of their staff needs training. And NRC is 15 not always able to provide that training in a timely manner that the states 16 need it. So we've been having other states delivering the training for us.
17 But the issue the NRC doesn't pay for those states to attend.
18 And I think that may be an NRC policy issue that could be addressed. And 19 that's the issue that we have.
20 And we want other states to be able to deliver and do that 21 training because we have so many experts at the state level that can give 22 that training that they know licensing and they know inspecting. But it's just 23 a matter of states being able to pay for their employees to travel to that state.
24 So that would be a very big help.
25 MR. SEEGER: And I can add on to that because right now 26
29 Tennessee, we're delivering -- last week, we did the licensing procedures 1
class. This week, we're doing inspection procedures. And we have three 2
other states that are attending it. And those states and some other states 3
said they would've sent more people, but it was just funding was their main 4
issue.
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So on the training a little bit 6
further here, I'm just trying to get a full understanding of this. So getting 7
back to Sarah, but you can pitch in as well. On the virtual courses and that 8
idea, I'd like to know a little bit more.
9 I mean, I know that these could be hybrid courses, right, 10 maybe where having a paper version of it versus -- as well as a virtual part.
11 And I guess the reason I'm asking about that, it seems like hands-on is 12 preferred, right, in-person, hands-on. And if you're doing it virtual, how are 13 you going to know if someone has mastered the material?
14 And how and maybe when would you know if they mastered 15 the material, right? Because I can see some benefits to a virtual thing. But 16 then in the end, you got to do the inspections.
17 You got to get out in the field and get that experience too.
18 But you don't want to send someone out that's not prepared to be sent out, 19 right? How are you going to measure that, or has there been thought given 20 to that?
21 MS. SANDERLIN: I'm not really sure how you measure it.
22 But I do think that hybrid is a great path forward. I know there is some of 23 the lab equivalents that are in person mostly for instruments.
24 And Oak Ridge staff comes into the TTC and shows 25 instruments and learning different programs on the computer and things like 26
30 that. When I was making my very short presentation, I was thinking about 1
the medical courses and I did talk to some of my staff in my office about that.
2 And I almost visualize, like, maybe even, like, a couple days where there's 3
people that took the class virtually that could go down to Houston or to 4
somewhere else and just do the in-person portions of that just to see the 5
equipment in person because I know for myself I'm an industrial site 6
inspector and license reviewer.
7 I don't do medical. I'm starting to cross train. I took the 8
medical courses a couple years ago. And I think seeing them in person 9
really did benefit me. I know after a certain period of time, you can retake 10 courses and that's probably beneficial as well. So I do think that hybrid is 11 more of a way to go with classes like that.
12 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Certainly we'll have discussions 13 about that with Kevin. And Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
15 Commissioner Caputo?
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning. It's wonderful 17 to see you all again. Always good to have you here. I appreciate the 18 presentations so far and thank you for preparing for today.
19 I was lucky enough to attend the National Conference on 20 Radiation Control this year. And it was great to see all of you there. I did 21 learn a lot. It was a brief visit, but I enjoyed my time. And it's always great 22 to see so many regulators working together as a team to address the 23 challenges that we're all facing.
24 I'm going to start, Mr. Mulligan, with you. I feel like it's 25 incumbent upon me to just sort of ease your mind and assuage your 26
31 concerns. You mentioned pressure on the agency to streamline, and you're 1
urging us to maintain our standards.
2 Our employees come to the NRC because of the mission.
3 And they are incredibly dedicated. So there's no intention to rush or skimp 4
on our decision making. And this agency will always maintain its standards 5
because that is why we are here to protect public health and safety.
6 And our personnel are very, very dedicated to that as is your 7
team. So that said, Congress has given us direction. And there is room for 8
improvement to become more efficient and more risk informed and data 9
driven. But we will not be lowering our standards or rushing our decision 10 making as a result of that or pressure from industry groups either. So you 11 can --
12 MR. MULLIGAN: And I didn't mean to offend anybody here 13 because from working with this organization for so many years, I knew that 14 that was the case.
15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: No offense taken. But I think 16 it's often inferred by people that any discussion of streamlining or improving 17 efficient equates to decreasing the safety and decreasing standards. And 18 that is simply not the case.
19 There will always be better ways to improve the nature of our 20 decision making to make sure that we are risk informed and efficient. And 21 that, I think, is what we are certainly as Commissioners focused on.
22 So it's been an exciting year. I already mentioned passage 23 of the ADVANCE Act and the focus on -- focus by Congress on our 24 becoming more efficient and timely in our decision making to enable nuclear 25 energy to be a significant contributor to meeting our nation's energy security 26
32 needs. The ADVANCE Act also directs the NRC to submit a report to 1
Congress on the results of a study conducted in consultation with Agreement 2
States and the fusion industry to develop a regulatory framework for the 3
mass manufacturing of fusion machines. So Mr. Seeger, I understand the 4
Agreement States have had a chance to weigh on some draft proposed rule 5
language and its implementation guidance for the fusion rulemaking.
6 I appreciate how closely Agreement States are working within 7
NRC staff on the proposed rule, especially considering your subject matter 8
expertise which we've already heard about this morning. Stakeholders 9
raise concerns regarding how the current version of the language may be 10 contrary to direction Congress provided in the ADVANCE Act. Do you think 11 that the Agreement States foresee any challenges in implementing the 12 fusion proposed rule considering the direction given by Congress in the 13 ADVANCE Act?
14 MR. SEEGER: I'm not sure if I can answer that completely 15 for all the states. I know for our state, part of the definition for particle 16 accelerator is some of the concern the industry has, a conflict with the 17 ADVANCE Act. And then with our state, we have x-ray regulations too that 18 we have -- where we define accelerators. So I think that's the main -- that's 19 a big concern with the industry. And I guess it could be hard with some of 20 our regulations when we go forward with changing them.
21 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. So you envision a need 22 to change state language to reflect the ADVANCE Act?
23 MR. SEEGER: I don't know if -- I don't know yet. It's too --
24 I'm not sure. I can't answer that thoroughly.
25 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay.
26
33 MR. SEEGER: Anybody on the OAS board have anything to 1
add to that or same with me?
2 MS. CORNELIUS: I know we just saw the stakeholder letter, 3
like, last week. So we have not met to talk as a board about our opinions 4
on that letter yet.
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. All right. Well, I think 6
this is potentially going to be an issue and a complication. So I believe NRC 7
staff and Agreement States should carefully consider Congress' direction 8
and raise any potential implementation concerns as soon as possible. If 9
that is going to be an area for complication, we need to get that resolved 10 sooner rather than later.
11 MR. SEEGER: And we as the board will talk about that in 12 our next meeting. We'll make that a priority.
13 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Thank you. Ms.
14 Cornelius, always nice to see you. And I forgot to mention, thank you, 15 ladies. It's always wonderful to see women willing to take on leadership 16 roles and acting in leadership roles, those who have been and those who 17 are and will soon be. So thank you for stepping up.
18 So you talked about recommendations for improving the 19 IMPEP process. Would you just expand on that a little bit? Particularly, 20 what do you see possible in the near term for making the process more 21 effective but also more efficient?
22 MS. CORNELIUS: I think some of the main priorities we 23 have for the IMPEP process is a self-audit tool. I think that goes along with 24 a lot of the other recommendations. A self-audit tool can be used by new 25 program directors where they can see the health of their program before 26
34 they start, before they made changes.
1 A self-audit tool can be used during your periodic meeting 2
when you're talking with your RSAOs and the NRC that comes in. But I 3
think being able to use something that's efficient to be able to determine the 4
health of your program annually or whatever frequency that the program 5
decides to use is so important. And also training to new radiation control 6
program directors, I think a lot of new program directors that we've had have 7
never been in radiation.
8 They're coming from other parts of the health department or 9
environmental department. They're never been through an IMPEP. They 10 don't know what an IMPEP means.
11 They may not know what NMP means or truly understand 12 what the Agreement State process is. And I think getting there from when 13 they start and having some kind of training program to bring them up is 14 extremely important. And even if they can visit another program and watch 15 an IMPEP in process and understand, okay, this is what I'm supposed to do.
16 This is how I prepare my documents. This is what they're 17 looking for. I think that would go greatly in improving the IMPEP process 18 and then also a new metric.
19 Just because a program has two unsats that triggers the 20 metric. But there's so much that goes into that. So if a program has two 21 unsats and they're put on probation or enhanced oversight.
22 And they've got another IMPEP in two years. Well, they've 23 been working hard and they've been trying to improve. And they may not 24 be at that process where it's satisfactory yet.
25 And that, again, triggers that metric. But it doesn't take into 26
35 account that they've improved, that they've been working throughout the two 1
years. And it may have gone from unsat to satisfactory, needs 2
improvement. But that metric if it's still unsatisfactory doesn't show the 3
actual improvement of the program.
4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: All right. Thank you.
5 Microreactors, Mr. Mulligan. But also, I'd like to hear from Ms. Bruedigan.
6 Obviously, there's a history of licensing reactors. That's very standard.
7 And what we are looking at in the future are business models 8
that differ widely from what the agency has customarily done. Microreactors 9
is one example of that. As the NRC moves forward with how to regulate 10 microreactors, and I know this is an issue of particular interest in Texas, how 11 do you see the role of the states in complementing or supplementing what 12 the NRC will be looking at if we are shifting away from a pair of large plants 13 at one particular site to a package of ten microreactors scattered across in 14 multiple locations?
15 MR. MULLIGAN: The way I look at that from a state 16 perspective is that we can certainly work with the Nuclear Regulatory 17 Commission on how that looks within the state as far as the regulatory -
18 because most states don't regulate nuclear power. But it becomes a 19 stakeholder involvement where we're partners with the Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission in some of the day-to-day things that we do. For example, in 21 New Jersey, we have an agreement with the NRC where our nuclear 22 engineers attend the NRC inspections at the site.
23 And we participate in those, we observe. So it could be sort 24 of the same type of process where the state is involved with where these 25 microreactors are located. And we just keep stakeholder involvement with 26
36 understanding where they're located, what they're doing, what the reactor 1
operating parameters are, and what their safety onsite looks like.
2 And so that we can support the Nuclear Regulatory 3
Commission and the oversight of those once they're located. And I think 4
that just comes down to communication and information sharing between the 5
organizations as we move forward with those. I think the technology is fine.
6 I just think that there's a new paradigm coming in how do we 7
locate them? And then what is our role from a regulatory perspective and 8
what is our role from the state perspective because obviously the state 9
needs to know where they are. You can't just bring a nuclear reactor on 10 any size into a state and someone is going to say it's okay. Wherever it 11 goes is fine.
12 Someone is going to need to know. So there needs to be 13 that kind of communication and coordination with the state. And I think 14 that's a relationship that we can build as we move forward. It's going to be 15 a shift from what we are typically used to. But we're willing to work through 16 that because I know that's what's coming and we need to be ready for it.
17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Is there anything you'd like to 18 add from a Texas perspective?
19 MS. BRUEDIGAN: Just to echo what Pat has said. It's kind 20 of the not knowing. As the first ones to come on board, one of our concerns 21 is the offsite support. What does that truly look like for the states to be 22 prepared with the Dow project that's being proposed in Texas.
23 NRC came in and did this is what the licensing part will look 24 like. And it was just a preliminary meeting. We very much appreciated 25 being involved in that and allowing the rest of our state counterparts to come 26
37 and learn from that instance.
1 We took that opportunity to then attend the NRC meeting that 2
they had with the public in that community and just to meet with the locals to 3
say when the time comes, we will be here. And we will help you figure out 4
what this looks like for you as a community and how you ensure your 5
stakeholders in your community that it is, indeed, safe and what would 6
happen if there was an unforeseen scenario that was not planned that we 7
would be there to respond and help them assist with that. But there's a lot 8
of unknowns. And it's just about making sure that we're paving the way as 9
we go, so inclusion.
10 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Thank you.
11 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you. Commissioner Crowell.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
13 Thank you to everyone for being here today. I will -- without repeating it, I'll 14 associate myself with Commissioner Wright's remarks about the importance 15 of what you all do and your value in being here.
16 As a former state regulator myself, I can appreciate the 17 challenges and pressures you work under and the unique challenges that 18 come with working with different legislatures and elected bodies in each of 19 your states. So I'm going to kind of go across a couple topics here. But let 20 me start, Patrick, with you.
21 I appreciate your comments about the importance of the 22 critical role of nuclear power and, again, our climate goals. We just --
23 there's no math that gets you there without it. But that means we need to 24 do it safely.
25 And I will underscore what Commissioner Caputo said that we 26
38 will ensure that the safety case is maintained here at the NRC. But the 1
external pressures are real. And I think you pointed them out is legitimate.
2 And one of the primary interest groups pushing for efficiency, 3
and inefficiency is not bad. But they are an industry-led private sector 4
representing industries that are for profit. That's got to be taken into 5
account.
6 But it's never a bad thing to remind us all of that. But we will 7
also be maintaining a rigorous safety case. And if you ever see us straying 8
from that, make sure you say something.
9 Ms. Cornelius, I'll go to you next on a different topic here. So 10 thank you for your presentation. I thought all of the recommendations 11 sounded reasonable, and I'm wondering if you would care to give some 12 insight on where things stand now.
13 I know that NRC has had the report since last December.
14 Has there been discussion or feedback on the recommendations and what 15 may or may not be doable? And what are the next steps? Where are we 16 at?
17 MS. CORNELIUS: That's all that I have heard is that the 18 report is out. I know that some of them are quite easy to do and they've 19 already been implemented. I went to team leader training, and we did have 20 more scenarios this time.
21 And we did discuss it. And one team leader thought we 22 should do this, and another one thought this is how we should handle it.
23 And it really helped this year in training.
24 But we as Agreement States, we worked really hard on this.
25 And we don't want to see it fall through the cracks. And we think that there 26
39 are a lot of good recommendations.
1 Sometimes IMPEP are the five most feared words in the 2
NMP. But we want to change that type of culture. We want it to be 3
something that we -- we want to help. We want all programs to succeed.
4 We want everyone to be compliant and health and safety and 5
security of radioactive materials. So if states are succeeding, we know that 6
the National Materials Program is healthy. So that's our goal, but we want 7
to make sure that these recommendations do not fall through the cracks 8
because we think they are very good.
9 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I don't want them to fall 10 through the cracks either because at first blush, they seem very reasonable 11 and accommodatable. But we'll have more internal discussions on that.
12 And we share the goal of making sure the National Materials Program is 13 successful and IMPEPs are not scary. But if you're being asked to do your 14 job with one hand tied behind your back, or you have no ability to do better 15 despite your desire to, it's no fun when you get slapped on the wrist for it.
16 So I understand that.
17 Ms. Waller, can we talk a little bit more about AI? And this is 18 an area that I'm fascinated with as well. And I'm still trying to wrap my head 19 around it. And I don't fully appreciate or understand all the potential 20 applications or risks or pitfalls. But I do understand kind of from your 21 presentation where there could be efficiency gains from using AI.
22 So, on the operational side, and that can be a good thing if 23 managed correctly. What about on the -- using AI and machine learning for 24 improving our forward-looking regulatory safety and risk analysis? Does AI 25 have potential there to improve the way in which we apply the analysis that 26
40 is part of our regulatory framework or to potentially offer new regulatory 1
pathways based on a more advanced analysis of available data?
2 MS. WALLER: I believe, yes, it can do that. I believe its 3
capabilities are endless. And like I said, it puts out what you put into it.
4 And so that's going to be a key component is that part of it, is the data that 5
it's getting. It can pretty much do, I feel, anything we want with the data that 6
it gets. Did that answer your question?
7 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Yes. I mean, the devil is 8
going to be in the details.
9 MS. WALLER: Yes, definitely.
10 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: But I hope it has the ability to 11 maybe while improving efficiency also give more assurance that we're 12 constructing a safety case that is as relevant as possible, so to speak.
13 MS. WALLER: Yes, yes, definitely.
14 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: We've talked a little bit about 15 fusion and the pressures that can create on states as this technology 16 emerges and the regulatory framework around it. But there's another area 17 of emerging technologies that states are going to have to manage that the 18 NRC has been focused on lately and that's with remediation of abandoned 19 uranium mining waste. And I don't know who here or who's familiar with this 20 on this panel.
21 But I was thinking about it more in the context of, Ms.
22 Bruedigan, your presentation about communication. It's going to be critical 23 that there's good communication channels between states, tribes, and the 24 NRC as we look to apply novel uses of emerging remediation technologies 25 to ensure that we're all in compliance with the law but also that we're 26
41 meeting the objectives and that it's well understood what can be 1
accomplished with these new remediation technologies and what maybe 2
can't. That need to continue to be monitored. Anyone want to comment on 3
either the technical concerns or the communication concerns related to that?
4 MS. WALLER: I'll just share because we do have a lot of 5
uranium mining in the state of Texas and that technically belongs to my 6
partners at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. But there are 7
constant new challenges. And when we have those in the state, especially 8
where they may cross over between how the state agencies are split out.
9 Then we have those ongoing conversations. And it's not just 10 with the uranium mining because TCEQ is very much informed and stays 11 abreast of what those current issues are. But we have other technology 12 issues that come to us that we're not always able to be convinced that we 13 have the right pathway forward on how to deal with the potential licensees 14 on that.
15 And so we reach out to other states. We reach out to our 16 contacts at the NRC and say, who's seen this? Who can help guide us in 17 the right direction? Or do we need to develop something from scratch as 18 these new technologies come along?
19 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Which gets right back to the 20 broader capacity issue amongst all states in being able to -- if you're asking 21 your friends and neighbors, they're, like, well, we don't have the ability to do 22 that because of funding or staff constraints.
23 MS. BRUEDIGAN: And some of us are very happy to phone 24 a friend. I do that fairly easily and readily. But other states do not. And 25 they tend to live in their silos, and that can be a detriment sometimes.
26
42 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I keep looking at the sticker 1
on your laptop and kind of loving it. Not bossy, just aggressively helpful.
2 And I think that applies in many ways.
3 We all need to lean in, in terms of helping each other. My 4
last question, Sarah, first I just wanted to say congratulations because you're 5
the incoming Chair Elect. And I'm going to ask you a question that may end 6
up being rhetorical because you may not know the answer.
7 The fact that the NRC does not fund -- currently fund states to 8
go to certain training or training in other states. And I forget all the areas 9
you said that NRC funding is not currently available. Do you know if that's a 10 policy prohibition on the NRC's part or statutory prohibition on the NRC's part 11 in our ability to fund those things or funding availability issue?
12 MS. SANDERLIN: I think it's a policy. Keisha mentioned 13 something about that earlier. She probably --
14 (Simultaneous speaking.)
15 MS. SANDERLIN: Yeah.
16 MS. CORNELIUS: We don't know whether it's a policy issue 17 or a statutory issue. We just know that the funding isn't available.
18 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Then we will look into it on 19 our side and get back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. And 21 let me just echo my colleagues this morning. Thanks, you all, for being 22 here. It's great to see.
23 I know several of you have been before us in the past, and it's 24 good to see you all. And really looking forward to the discussion. I want to 25 just pick up -- this is the trouble with going last, of course, as I'm picking up 26
43 on a lot of the threads that have been discussed.
1 But I want to start with one thing for you, Ms. Cornelius. And 2
it's not even a question. I think it's more of just a statement. I appreciate 3
the work that OAS and CRCPD put into the report and the recommendations 4
that you all had for us.
5 I think we owe you a detailed answer. I'm somewhat 6
concerned that you haven't seen one of those from us. I'm glad maybe 7
you've started to see some just downturn -- downstream results of that.
8 But I think it's incumbent on us to get back to you all about 9
here are recommendations we think we can do. Here are ones we want to 10 talk more about, whatever the response is, but to have that kind of -- to 11 continue, I think, the tradition that the NRC has with you all on that strong 12 and open dialogue. So I think we need to follow up on that.
13 Ms. Bruedigan, this is kind of on the theme of communication.
14 And I wanted to -- I appreciated your presentation very much. And you 15 talked about one of the examples was on exempt devices. And I know -- I 16 guess this was discussed a year or so ago and then most recently, I guess, 17 on an NMP Champions Chat as well. Could you expand a little bit on the 18 exempt device kind of back story?
19 MS. BRUEDIGAN: So one of the issues is that we came up 20 with the theory that we were moving those types of sources, devices from --
21 sources to x-ray side. And so to see that they were now being exempt and 22 it's easier for those manufacturers to sell those and the facility or the user 23 not have to license them where on the x-ray side of the house, they would 24 still be required to register them. It's kind of a step backwards in our eyes 25 as far as radiation safety in general is concerned but also that we don't have 26
44 awareness of where the devices are. There's some concerns about 1
potential disposal, that they may end up in the landfills and things like that.
2 And just some general awareness that we'd kind of been asleep at the wheel 3
and not paying attention that these were still being manufactured and sold 4
and we just weren't aware of that at the state level.
5 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Well, so then kind of what actions 6
are being taken by the NRC with you all to kind of resolve your concerns in 7
this area?
8 MS. BRUEDIGAN: So it's my understanding we have a 9
commitment for -- I think the term is a users group is what was mentioned 10 the last -- just within the last couple of weeks to take a look at this and again 11 to open the dialogue is what I see from our side to say, what can we do 12 about this? Are there true safety concerns that need to be readdressed? I 13 don't know. We're asking for that conversation to occur.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Well, thank you for that. And given this 15 case and kind of the other examples that you had, I mean, are there -- what 16 do you think has had the most impact on fostering strong communication?
17 Where can we do better?
18 MS. BRUEDIGAN: I don't know it's so much do better. I 19 think that where we've done an excellent job in fostering is truly getting face 20 to face and meeting with each other and becoming more familiar and 21 comfortable with each other. When you are able to spend some time with 22 folks, have the little chit chat on a break or something like that and develop a 23 little bit more of a relationship, then you're a little more encouraged or less 24 cautious about making a phone call or saying, hey, what can we do about 25 this, and then being receptive to it. That has been very much improved over 26
45 the years. Again, we feel like our voices are heard and that you are taking 1
into consideration what the states are saying and where our concerns are 2
and that's key.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much. Ms. Waller, I just 4
wanted to touch on AI, kind of like my colleagues, in the variety of potential 5
use cases and so on and so forth. But one of the things I started to get at 6
least more educated on for myself is the importance of governance models 7
for the use of AI, that you have a body or maybe a collection of regulatory 8
agencies that have some input. Because as you mentioned, the ethical use 9
of --
10 MS. WALLER: Ethical, yes.
11 CHAIR HANSON: -- that is really critical, right? So how that 12 gets applied and how those -- the way the questions that we're asking of AI 13 get screened and so forth, is this -- and I've seen in some cases with 14 regulatory bodies and others that there are some -- I keep using the word 15 model because model gets used all over the place. There are some 16 frameworks maybe for governance concepts. Is that something that OAS 17 and CRCPD have an interest in developing amongst yourselves or in 18 collaboration with NRC about how we might apply this to the NMP?
19 MS. WALLER: I don't believe we've even had that 20 discussion. So that's probably something that we would need to meet and 21 discuss. And we're actually talking about AI stuff this morning as we were 22 waiting to meet with you. So it's definitely something that's on our radar.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Yeah, yeah. Well, I'm also really 24 interested in this idea -- and again, these are things that I'm kind of getting 25 up to speed on myself about the way in which AI models can be 26
46 self-referential, right?
1 MS. WALLER: Yes.
2 CHAIR HANSON: They feed off of the same data again and 3
again. And they kind of regress to a mean or kind of a set of rote answers 4
rather than getting the kind of insight that you might hope that they get. I 5
wonder if this is another area where the NRC and OAS and CRCPD might 6
collaborate because if you look across the entire country, right, there are 7
20,000, I think, materials licensees, give or take. NRC has about 10 8
percent of those if the numbers are kind of right in my mind as opposed to an 9
individual state which might have -- again, if my math is right -- an average of 10 five or six hundred materials licensees themselves. That's a big difference 11 between those data sets.
12 MS. WALLER: Yes.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Is that also something that maybe 14 individual states are thinking about this? Or are you all thinking about it 15 collectively?
16 MS. WALLER: You know, I think it's just grown so much in 17 the past, like I said, 18 months that I think everybody is still trying to wrap 18 their minds around it and just trying to figure out how to use it and how to 19 regulate and maintain the data you're getting from those. And I think at this 20 point, it's just new. But it is something that us as organizations and 21 individual states need to start working on.
22 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, great. Yeah, please.
23 MS. BRUEDIGAN: So if I may on that topic. So all of the 24 alphabet soups, all of the organizations are discussing AI. Everyone has a 25 new committee on it. We don't know what each other is doing.
26
47 And so that's one of the things I posed at a meeting. I was 1
with ICRP last month in Germany. And I asked the question, how are we 2
going to figure out what are we collectively doing? What are we crossing 3
over and duplicating efforts on?
4 And so there's going to be a survey developed to try to find 5
out what's everyone working on. I think most folks know it's here. We 6
have to address it. But we don't know where to go. And so yes, CRCPD 7
would very much like to partner with the NRC. I believe OAS would as well 8
on trying to develop that.
9 One of the questions that I had as we were talking about AI 10 earlier, is web-based licensing going to have an AI component that will help 11 us look for trends earlier than what we might spot as individual states? It 12 may be one little nugget here and another one from another state on a 13 simple mention on a report that might develop something that we would 14 notice earlier than what we would have caught as humans. So thank you.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Even more intriguing. Thank you.
16 Yeah, I really appreciate that. Ms. Sanderlin, I'll finish up with you on the 17 training issue. Look, for my part, I really like the idea of states, we've 18 trained them to train kind of other states. And people can interact 19 collectively. I'm interested in the answer to this question about the funding 20 and so on and so forth.
21 But I guess -- and a question that Commissioner Wright 22 asked which I think is a very good one too about the efficacy or the 23 effectiveness of different kinds of training modes I think is also a really, really 24 important question so that we can either modify the programs that we have 25 to make them more effective or just go with the modes that work best. But 26
48 here's my question for you. Do you have a sense of how much -- given 1
what the NRC is doing now and assuming that the NRC didn't start suddenly 2
do more training, do you have a sense of how much kind of state-based 3
training is needed to kind of meet the demand out there?
4 MS. SANDERLIN: I personally do not. I feel like Steve 5
probably has a better insight maybe or Keisha or anybody else at this table.
6 MR. SEEGER: I don't know if I have a good insight. I just 7
know that with turnover that that really is where it is. When you get a lot of 8
turnover, then you need more training. And there's only so many spots and 9
classes available.
10 And then when a state delivers it, the funding would really 11 help with other states being able to -- like, Tennessee, we have so many 12 states right around us that they were able to come. And they would've sent 13 more. But the funding was an issue.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Yeah, that's -- well, that's helpful, right?
15 And I think in terms of how many train the trainers we have, is it 10 states, is 16 it 15 states? And how much -- I know that has some other things to do with 17 training, volume, and so forth.
18 But we've had such a -- I think a productive and positive 19 collaborative working model on so many fronts. If we can continue to 20 develop that on the training front as well on whether capacity building or 21 funding or whatever, we can -- good. Thank you.
22 All right. We have reached the end of our time together. I 23 want to thank again everyone for being here. I want to thank my colleagues 24 for their thoughtful remarks and the discussion and look forward to having 25 you in the building today.
26
49 And thank you all again. Thank you for SECY for the support 1
for the meeting. And, with that, we are adjourned.
2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 3
11:24 a.m.)
4