ML20127F899
| ML20127F899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301210074 | |
| Download: ML20127F899 (115) | |
Text
__ _-_______-___-_____-_ _ _ _ _ _ _
ry n
c p
nJ R 3 \ A_ _
j,f OFFICIALTRANSCRIFT OF PROCEEDINGS O
~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agen@ orrice or state Programs c
Title:
Workshop on 10 CFR rart 34 Docket No. ^
!! h mg Irving, Texas M Wednesday, November 18, 1992 PAGES: 356'- 468 4
190015
,. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1612 K St N.W, Suite 300
%shington, D.C 20006
[]
(202) 293-3950
.-9301210074 PDR STPRC ESGGEN 931118 m g/
/(j I
o u
,se agak eyoz 85/,
356 1- UNI 2ED STATES OF AMERICA
~2 NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
4 OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS 5 WORKSHOP ON 10 CFR PART 34-6 ***
7 [PUBLIC MEETING) 8 ***
9 Crown Sterling Suites 10 Salon B 11 4650 West Airport Freeway 12 Irving, Texas 13 14 Wednesday, November 18, 1992 15 16 The workshop met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 8:30 a.m., Vandy Miller, Presiding Official.
18 19 20 21
,22 23 l .24 l
25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
! Court Reporters
!~ 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
357 1 NRC PARTICIPANTS:
2 3- VANDY L. MILI.ER, CHAIRMAN 4 DONALD COOL, MODERATOR 5 CHERYL TROTTIER, DISCUSSION LEADER 6 BRUCE CARRICO, NMSS 7 JACK HORNOR, REGION V 8 JIM MYERS, OSP 9 TOM RICH, NMSS 10 MARJORIE ROTHCHILD, OGC 11 12 AGREEMENT STATE MEMBERS:-
13 14 TIM BONZER, COLORADO 15 CINDY CARDWELL, TEXAS 16 MIKE CLEAVER, KENTUCKY 17 VICK COOPER, KANSAS 18 MARTHA DIBBLEE, OREGON 19- MIKE DUNN, TEXAS 20 -DAVID FOGLE, TEXAS 21 BOB FREE, TEXAS 22 ROBERT FUNDERBURG, CALIFORNIA 23 BOB GOFF, MISSISSIPPI 24- MICHAEL E. HENRY, LOUISIANA 25- GEORGE L. KASYK, NEW YORK ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
' Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950-
b 358-
. 1- AGREEMENT STATE MEMBERS, CONTINUED:
2 3 RICK KELLEY, ARKANSAS 4 JOE KLINGER, ILLINOIS ,
5 MARGARET LOPEZ, NEW MEXICO 6 CORNELIUS MARYLAND, GEORGIA 7 JIM McNEES, ALABAMA 8 EDDIE NANNEY, TENNESSEE 9 CARL TRUMP, MARYLAND-10 ROBERT VERELLEN, WASHINGTON 11 12 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:
13 14 GARY AMMON, OKLAHOMA 15 ROY L. BAILEY, DELTA AIRLINES 16 BRUCE R. BALLARD, CONSOLIDATED, NDE, INC.
17 W. DENNIS CABE, DUKE POWER 18 ALLEN CASH, YUBA HEAT 19 RONALD SINN, ST. IDUIS TESTING LABS 20 HUGH K. HOWERTON, CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON CO.
21 RICHARD LOWMAN, U.S. NAVY 22 JIM MORGAN, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES 23 A.R. PATTERSON, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 24 CATHLEEN ROUGHAN, AMERSHAM-CORPORATION 25 SHEARN SPENARD, AMERICAN AIRLINES ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters i 1612 K. Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, 'D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 ii
p 359 1- MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, CONTINUED:
1 3- RONALD C. STEPHENS, DELTA AIRLINES 4 EMMANUAL TUAZON, CONSUMERS POWER CO.
5 BOB WALKER, CANADA 6 TERRY WALLANDER, WISCONSIN INDUSTRIAL TESTING 7 ROGER WHITE, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 P
24 25 ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006-(202) 293-39 S)
360 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (8:30 a.m.].
3 MR. MILLER: We're about ready to get started here 4 this morning. First I want to say good morning to 5 everybody.
6 Now we are ready to move into our last four hours 7 of this workshop. And I must say that I think we are 8 meeting our objectives, and we are pretty well on time.
9 But, I know some of you probably will be trying to get out 10 of here before noon. But, before we get involved into the 11 issues this morning, I just want to know if there are any _
12 general comments that anyone from any of the states would-13 like to make before we get into the final discussions here
.14 this norning? Any comment in general from anybody?
15 [No response.]
16 MR. MILLER: Okay. Hearing none, just let me say 17 this. Some of you have been asking about the transcript 18 again. And I have indicated that, as soon as it becomes 19 available, it will be placed in the public document room of 20 NRC,-and it will be available for a cost. And when you 21 check with the public document room, they will tell_you what 22 that is. I don't know what that is myself. But it will be 23 available.
24 Now, we ended up yesterday talking a little bit 25 about compatibility. And, as you well kncw, there will be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
-Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington; D. C. 2000G (202) 293-3950
.. ~. . - . . . . - - . - - - . . . - . - - -
361' '
1 some aspects of the Part 34, carrying'along with it some 2 level of compatibility, and we made some revisions. But, as 3 usual, you know, we try to get the states very early 4 involved in new Tevisions and new regulations. And 5 certainly we come up with compatibility of various parts of 6 the new revisions. We certainly will be running that up the 7 flag pole, and yc 2111 get a chance to see that. Because, 8 as I indicated very early, that now, when we go to the 9 Commission for a Commission Paper, we indicate to the 10 Commission the staff's position on compatibility and a 4
11 general statement regarding the state's position on 12 compatibility.
13 Now, what we try to do there is that we try to get 14 the majority opinion, because you know that we are not going 15 to get 29 states agreeing to everything. But, most-of the 16 time when we give a summary of the states' opinion, it 17 pretty much reflects the majority of the states and not 18 individual states. And that brings me to another comment 19 that I want to make in general.
20 Now, I have noticed, in some of your comments here p 21 this week, that you have some peculiarities within your own
! 22 states that is a little bit different from things in i 23 general. But, we are not going to worry about that because L
L 24 when we write regulations, you know, we have to make sure 25 the regulation covers the generic field, not just trying to i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
362 1 solve one state's problem. What we try to do is to make it 2 reflective of the states in general, and not any one 3 specific state here. Because you have to do what you have 4 to do in your own state, and it may not be exactly what the 5 regulation will come out reflecting NRC.
6 Although we like to hear everybody's comments, the 7 regulation may not necessarily reflect exactly what you-8 want, but it will reflect the majority of the states. Now, 9 with that said now, are there any other comments before we 10 start? Hearing none, Don, it is yours again.
11 MR. FREE: Just to reply a little bit to what you 12 said, reflecting, in general, the states' situations. I 13 think Part 34 should reflect NRC's situation, and NRC should 14 recognize the individual Agreement State's needs in their 15 rulemaking.
16 MR. MILLER: Yes. I think we pretty much do that.
17 In fact, we stated in the Federal Register, you know, that 18 one of the objectives in revising our Part 34 is to look at 19 some of the things that we see-in other regulations, and-to 20 come up to theirs. Normally, it is the-other way around.
21 Somebody got on me about that and said when did the NRC ever 22 start taking things from states?- And I thought it was the 23 other way around. But, you see, we are cooperative. We are 24 - in a partnership. And so, we see things that are in other 25 regulations that we think would be good for the ANN RlLEY- & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Goud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
363-1 non-Agreement State licensees. And cortainly, this Part 34 2 kind of reflects that. And,-when we leave here, we hope 3 that what we come up with will be reflective of all the good 4 things that we see in a lot of different regulations from 5 the other states and from Canada too.
6 Any other?
7 [No response.)
8 MR. MILLER: Thank you. We will get started now.
9 MS. TROTTIER: All right. I promised Jack Horner, 10 from Region V, that I will let him say a few things first 11 before I got into the other issues.
12 MR. HORNOR: This is a case where we talk about if 13 it is not broke, don't fix it. But, it is broke, and we 14 need to fix it. First, what we need to fix in here is 15 34.43b, where it reads: "The entire circumference of the 16 radiographic exposure device must be surveyed."
17 And I want to say this for the Texas regulations.
18 There are managers and there are inspectors out there who 19 are going-to require this because it is written down there 20 in the regulation. In fact, we teach our inspectors to 21 inspect against the regulations.
22 The purpose of this requirement in this regulation 23 is the radiation safety that we find that we know the source 24 has been retracted back to the sealed -- shielded position, 25 and so it shouldn't be prescriptive to survey the entire ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 364
. I circumference. What you need to look at is the guide tube 2 -- is the source and the guide tube, or is it back into the 3 camera? And the way that you do that is you take the survey 4 meter out there and you follow down the guide tube, and make 5 sure that the source is in there. And you will know 6 instantaneously that that source is in there. What has 7 happened with this in that out in Region V an inspector went 8 out -- the new inspector agreed, but he went out and the 9 guide to a 270 degres survey was written up as an inadequate 10 survey to the camera, as a serious level three in our 11 enforcement regulations. The radiographer is being charged 12 a 5,000 CP because of an inadequate survey, when he did a 13 perfectly adequate survey. He went around the front of the 14 camera. He didn't do the guide tube. I would have got him 15 on the guide tube, but that is not the way that this thing 16 reads. That has got to be changed. It has got to be a 1 17 performance-based rule and not a prescriptive rule in the 18 case of that one. I want to get that on the record.
19 And if there is anyone who wants to comment on 20 that, otherwise I will go on to some of the others.
21 MR. FREE: I would like to. I think the reason 22
~
for the requirement is that, in the number of incidents 23 reported to us, anyway, the radiographers indicated that 24 they had set the survey meter on behalf of the camera and 25 were unsure of whether the source was in the shielded ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. ,
l Coud R0poders L 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 >
(202) 293-3950
365 1 . position or not. And that was their routine operation not 2 to pick the survey meter up and survey the camera, but to 3 rely on that position which is inadequate.
4 MR. HORNOR: That's right. That is not an 5 acceptable survey, that lo an inadequate survey.
6 MR. FREE: Exactly. I am not saying that -- I am 7 saying that that portion of our regulations is our attempt 8 to assure that the survey meter is in-hand and the camera is 9 surveyed. Maybe there is another approach, but that is 10 reasonable.
11 MR. HORNOR: The approach is that you make it a 12 performance-based rule. You say assure that the source is 13 retracted to the shielded position. Mr. Patterson pointed 14 out, what if it is around the concreto corner at the end of 15 the guide tube? Then surveying the camera doesn't tell.you
-16 a damn thing. It still could be in~that guide tube. The 17 amount of radiation at the front-of the camera could be 18 exactly as what the scatter that comes from behind-the 19 concrete pilar. So, he has got to survey that guide tube, 20 otherwise he doesn't know when the source is withdrawn. .
21 MR. CARRICO: The regulations require surveying 22- the guide tube.
23 MR. HORNOR: Okay.. But, in this situation'--
24 MR. CARRICO: Right. I understand what you are 25 saying. But, still, they require a survey.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. - 20006 (202) 293-3950
)
l i
366 l
. 1 MR. FREE: With that rule we are trying to'go l l
2 beyond something we can enforce and get to radiation-safety. ,
3 MR. HORNOR: Right.
4 MR. FREE: All I said was I agree that there may 5 be another approach. That was our attempt te solve the 6 problem.
7 MR. HORNOR: Okay. But this is also in our rules.
8 So, I think that that's something that ought to be fixed.
9 MR. FUNDERBURG: I think you have to look at what 10 the intent of the rule was. And, if you change it and say 11 they shall assure, it is really a difficult item for the .
12 inspector to rely on, because the only way they can say you 13 didn't assure that is to say, yes, it was left out. And, 14 okay, you left out, then it'is definitive. But, when the 15 inspector looks at the individual and he runs around it real 16 quick and goes back in, you can't really prove that one-way-17 or the other. So, I think it has.to be the intent that you 18 look at rather than the insurance.
19 MS. CARDWELL: Bob has got a. point. And this goes 20 back to what Vandy said about the differences in each state, 21 and what the legal stats require. And ours-say that that is 22 not enforceable. Words like when feasible, when applicable, 23 to assure that is not in, is too interpreted. So, there are
~
24 -- your point is well-taken, but there are individualities.
25 MR. HORNOR: Well, then let's come back to-the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters .
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
367 1 whole idea. Are we trying to develop enforceable rules, or 2 are we trying to develop safety rules? And once we make 3 that decision, I guess, then we can go forward.
4 MS. CARDWELL: How can you do one without the 5 other? If you do safety rules that you can't enforce, what 6 good are they?
7 MR. HORNOR: If you go out and a guy has got an 8 over-exposure because he didn't survey the tube, you can't 9 enforce that? I certainly can.
10 MS. CARDWELL: Ours say you will survey the tube, 11 MR. HORNOR; Okay. Dut what if he didn't do a 360 12 degrees? You still make the intent _of the source being back 13 in the shield?
14 MS. CARDWELL: Our inspectors wouldn't measure the 15 270 degrees.
16 MR. HORNOR: But now you have got something on the 17 books --
18 MS. CARDWELL: Yes.
19 MR. HORNOR: -- that it can be cited for which 20 ;makes no sense whatsoever. Let's hear -- Mr. Patterson, I 21 would like to hear from you on this issue.
22 MS. CARDWELL: Well, I don't think it-is an 23- arguable issue, because it goes back to what each legal 24 staff can say. The NRC obviously has said it has to be to 25 the letter of the law. Ours is different. Our staff has ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- . . . -- = - . .- . . ,
368
- 1 said you cannot put those interpretable things in there, try 2 to steer away from those. So, I-don't ~ you know, we could.
3 argue until dawn.
4 MR. PATTERSON: I think the rule has said 360 5 degrees around a device. Of course, we have to take into 6 consideration what size the device is. It could be a large 7 cobalt unit or the smaller iridium unit. A large cocalt 8 unit, yes, you need to do a 360 degrees around it, but there 9 is no an iridium unit on the market that you could simply 10 put the survey meter right here on top and do 360 degrees.
11 MS. TROTTIER: You just-been turned'into an 12 iridium.
13 MR. PATTERSON: But, there, again, you have to 14 take into consideration the model, the style, the survey, 15 against the instrument that you are using. A-good meter for 16 our radiography is a fast meter. You don't want something 17 so slow that you have to go around and creep down the source 18 tube. I see demonstrations by regulatory people of creeping 19 down the source tube. And if you can't check the 20-foot 20 source tube in three seconds, then you are fooling around.
21 Just let the source survey meter see the end of the source 22 tube. I don't care if it is six feet or 10 feet from it.
23- All he has to do is see the end of it. You don't have to 24 traverse the whole length of the source tube. L'ou are not 25 making money that way either, and you are not really being L
ANN RILEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodera 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
369 1 safe.
2 MR, McNEES: I suggest we replace circumference.
l 3 We have had several problems before. I think of the last 4 three years. The field didn't come all the way back, but it 5 hung right in the nipple, right in the exposure nipple.
6 And, the gentleman put the meter down. This is the camera, 7 and he put the meter down right here. And he assumed it was 8 back in. It had to do with the pigtail connection bumping 9 the lock, and thinking it was all the way back, and he goes 10 out here, and he is a well-co111 mated beam coming out of the 11 nipple. The circumference -- they run it two places, you i
12 know. If it is set entrance and exit in the source tube, 13 replace the word circumference, that is kind of nit-picking 14- to come up here and say I went around just like that because 15 I didn't cover this quadrant, which, as the radiographer on E 16 the job, I would know that these are the two places the beam J
17 is going to come out. So, I probably wouldn't cover this 18 quadrant.
19 I suggest you replace circumference with entrance 20 and exit.
21 MR. BALLARD: As a company that has been cited by 22 the NRC for inadequate camera surveys, I can speak from 23 experience. The argument that there is no practical safety 24 necessity to survey the back of an exposure device, fell on 25 quite deaf ears. They enforced their regulations to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court - Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
370 1 letter. And, just g.ing up the guide tube, two feet away 2 from the tip, with the tip in plain site, was not adequate.
3 They seem to look at the initial camera survey regulations 4 of six inches as a guide to how close you should be to the 5 tube and the outside of the camera. And I do think this 6 regulation does need to be -- well, it may not need to be, 7 but it could be modified without any sacrifice in safety 8 and, as the representative from Alabama said, an exit and an 9 entry point. Because the only place the source can hang out 10 is in front. It cannot hang out in the back. And, if you 11 survey one side, that is adequate to assure you that the 12 readings are the same on the other side. But, the guide 13 tube does have to be surveyed, to the extent that you have a 14 straight unshielded line between the tip and your survey.
15 MR. McNEES: BL t, ever en the guide tube you see a 16 lot of this -- that this is the camera and the pin is the-17 guide tube coming out. If you stick the meter here, and it 18 is reading 30 or 40, you start moving down three or four 19 feet down the guide tube, and the radiation is going down.
20 That has told me something that the source is in here. -It 21 continues to go down. And it is true. The regulations say 22 you are supposed to walk all the way to the'end. Dut, if it 23 is going down -- unless there is a broken part, go away from 24 something -- the radiation goes down. I know the source is 25 back in here. - But, we still require them to go all the way i.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 .
(202) 293-3950
371 1 to the end, because, I guess it is possible that the source 2 could come apart.
3 MS. TROTTIER: Jack, did you have another one?
4 101. IlORNOR: Yes. The other one is in 34.33, and 5 it is just a small wording change. But, 34.330, it says.the 6 range of a pocket dosimeter will be from zero to at least 7 200 milliroentgens. Now, we all know that it should be 200 8 milliroentgens. But this does leave open the situation for 9 a radiographer to have a larger range dosimeter, and he 10 can't be cited for it. So, if we really mean 200, we should 11 take out the word "at least."
12 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. That is easy.
13 MR. HORNOR: Also, there is a notice, which I 14 didn't bring with me, from Fred Combs, on this new alarming 15 dosimeter. Apparently some people are using ones that are 16 not acceptable, in the fact that they are integrating 17 dosimeters that alarm at 500. That needs to also be 18 indicated. If you are going to talk about alarming 19 dosimeters, the type of alarming dosimeter needs to be in 20 there. And you will see that notice. It is just -
21 circulating within NRC right now. I am sure that it will
'22 get out-to everybody pretty quickly.
23 Okay.. The final one, and it is a little more 24 complicated, but it is one that, again, in this-25 misunderstanding of why we are here this week, iw the whole ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
372 I business about QA on the camera package as a type B 2 container. Agreement States have not opted to adopt -- most 3 of them, that is, have not opted to adopted the QA program 4 on the camera. So, that when a radiographer moves from an 5 Agreement State, under reciprocity, into a non-Agreement 6 State -- in particular, I an talking about Alaska, in this 7 situation, also from California on to exclueive Federal 8 jurisdiction property in California -- he has to have a OA 9 program. To have a QA program right now, he sends for a 10 piece of paper from NRC, and they send it out, and he fills 11 out a few things on that piece of paper, and he sends it 12 back. And, for $1,700, $1,750, he gets a QA program that is 13 approved, and then goes on to approved list. And then, to 14 keep it on the approved list for five years, he pays another 15 $1,500 a year, to keep this two pieces of paper, which they 16 review once every five years, on that approved list costing 17 $1,500 a year.
18 There are several problems here. One is the 1 reason the states have not adopted this QA rule is a 20 two-fold purpose. One of the reasons is that everything 21 that is in this document, ren<'nsibility, training, design 22 certifications, which I hope you are sending out to the 23 customers when you sell them a camere, record control, O&E 24 -- the O&E manual, which talks about handling, storage, and 25 shipping, maintenance on the camera,'which I am going to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers {
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 2000S (202) 293-3950
373 4 _- 1 bring up in more detail, the records, including the package-2 approvals, which, again, is the document you are supposed to 3 send them, and the audits dre all covered in Part-34, or 4 equivalent regulations in the Agreement States. And they 5 are asking to be -- have them covered again.
6 What I am proposing, and I got this mainly from 7 our inspectors and reviewers in licensing -- or materials 8 licensing in Region s is that the States do adopt this 9 program. But, what we do is try to incorporate in what we-10 call maintenance, which is almost the identical thing that 11 they are requiring on the QA camera. We incorporate the 12 additional two or three things that are needed on here'to 13 cover the QA, reduce two-pieces of paper to one piece of 14 paper, and the states adopt this. Then these Agreement 15 State people don't have to come back to us to move into a 16 reciprocity situation. There already is a good QA-program, 17 it has already been inspected by the states. And, if they 18 -adopt it, you know, as a matter of compatibility, then wo 19 can get away from this proble:. of every time the 20 radiographer crosses, if he doesn't-have a QA program, 21 because the states don't require it, then he has-got.to go 22 get it. -
23 Now, that is just a suggestion I am throwing out 24 here. And I realice that there are going to be some people 25 in NMSS and Transportation who are not going to like this ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LM.
Coud Reponers h 161?. K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 (232) 293-3950
374-
. 1 very wall. However, when the QA program came in several-2 years ago, it was definitely looked at, as far as Agreement 3 States were concerned, and it was decided on a Level 3 4 matter compatibility. And, again, the reason being is it 1e -
5 a duplication of effort. And so, I think we need to reduce 6 that duplication of effort.
7 I don't know how many people have run across.that 8 problem. And I wouldn't have wyself, except that the 9 radiographers under-reciprocity in California are getting 10 stung on this thing, and stung pretty hard.
11 MR. McNEES: What does it cost them, $1,500, 12 again?
13 MR. HORNOR: Because that is what we charge. You 14 have to have your QA program approved. So, when you fill in 15 the blanks here -- there are about six blanks here -- and 16 send it back there, somebody has got to look at that piece 17 of paper. That is $250. Then they put it in to a registry
-18 of approved QA programs, which is-the requirement for NRC.
19 And, to keep it on that registry, the same as it is to keep 20 sealed sources and devices on the' registry, it costs you 21 another $1,500 a year. So, the first year it is.$1,750.
22 For the next-four it is $1,500. For the fifth one, you have 23 to send them another sheet to make sure that the names are 24 still the same'on this piece of paper. You pay another 25 $1,700, and another $1,500 a year to' keep-it active on the ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3050
375 1 registry.
2 MR. McNEES: You can't get a cost recovery? It 3 will cost you that much, and you can't --
4 MR. HORNOR: I am not going to try to account for 5 what it costs -- Chuck Mcdonald's program, in transportation 6 and NMSS. I am just telling you what the real circumstances 7 are and what is happening because of it.
8 MS. CARDWELL: Let's just say we havo heard about 9 that.
10 dR. McNEES: Put the QA program into the rules and 11 say everybody had to do it -- the quarterly maintenance, and 12 not charge them anything?
13 MR. HORNOR: Hey, that is what I am proposing.
14 That is what I am proposing.
15 MR. McNEES: But, in the rules -- not charge them 16 anything. Put it in the rules and not charge them anything.
17 MS. ROUGHAN: We have been involved in this for a 18 few years. It has been a problem over the years between the 19 sealed source device registration group and the 20 transportation group. The transportation group looks at the
-21 device as a type B package only, strictly for shipment.
22 They. don't look at it as a crank-out device for radiography.
23 So, their QA is slightly different than-what is required to 24 use in other rules.
25 MR. HORNOR: But only slightly different.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suito 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
376 i
. 1 MS. ROUGHAN: Slightly different, right.
2 MR. HORNOR: I can show you in here that the same 3 maintenance is required in both documents.
4 MS. ROUGHAN: I agree. I fully agree with that.
5 And that is a paperwork exercise for the transportation 6 branch. If a customer submits something other than those 7 two pages, the transportation branch bounces back --
8 MR. HORNOR: Right.
9 MS. ROUGHAN: -- and says this is what we want.
10 MR. HORNOR: It says check the box above it. And 11 if you don't check the box above, re-read the instructions 12 and check the box above. This is an okie-dokie-type of 13 regulation, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
14 MS. ROUGHAN: Yes. And no one gets suspected to-15 it, I mean, in terms of the users of the packages, and in 16 terms of --
17 MR. HORNOR: We are-asking the NRC to make'a huge 18- sacrifice that they don't normally do here. But, I think, 19- in the interest of everybody,-they have got to do it. And 20 that is for research to sit down with transportation and say 21- now, look at, this rule was designed for the manufacturer, 22 for those people there, not the radiographer in the field.
23 We either ought to modify the rule-for the radiographer in '
24 the field, or go ahead and incorporate it in the 25 radiographer's regulations. And it is something that has ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COun RepOners 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
377
-1 needed-fixing for a long time. The manufacturers will tell 2 you that, the radiographers in the industry will tell you 3 that, and the regulators will tell you that. And the only 4 person to hold that up is Mcdonald.
5 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. We will take a look-at that.
6 MR. COOL: Are there any other comments? And then 7 I am going to sum this up.
8 MR. MARYLAND: I would like to say something.
9 MR. COOL: Neal?
10 MR. MARYLAND: How many states do ve have here 11 that have a QA program?
12 MR. COOL: A show of hands?
13 MR. MARYLAND: Yes, a show of hands.
14 (Show of hands.)
15 MR. COOL: Going once,' going twice.
16 MS. CARDWELL: Do you call that a QA program, or 17 is it just what is covered in the rules?
18 MR.-MARYLAND: It's a QA program for 19 transportation.
20 MS. CARDWELL: What I was going to say is we have 21 got calls -- I have gotten calls on this from our licensees.
22 that said you all are not going to do this, are you? And, 23 say no, because you essentially do most of it by rule 24 anyway, and then go thank God. .Thank you. I have just' paid 25 NRC $1,700 for something I already do for free for you all.
d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COun RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W.,_ Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- r 378 1 MR. HORNOR: Right. It is a dual regulation, and 2 we have got to kill dual regulation.
3 MS. TROTTIER: We can have a discussion with them.
4 MR. COOL: I appreciate sentiment here. We will 5 certainly go and talk -- that is one of the things that we 6 have to do as you go and prepare any regulation. I will not 7 sit here and promise you one way or another to do that. You F would know I would be lying to you. And let's go ahead and 9 move on, because I don't think we are going to accomplish 10 anything more on this particular topic.
11 MR ., HORNOR: Well, thank you for listening.
12 MS. TROTTIER: All right. We are going to go back 13 and deal with the rest of these other issues that are on the 14 slides.
15 And, again, just to put this in perspective, these 16 are just the things that were identified by NRC staff as 17 being different in other regs than in NRC regs. And the 18 question is, should we incorporate these into Part 34?
19 The first one hare is about putting names, 20 addresses and telephone numbers on storage areas. Is.this 21 something that -- I mean, I can understand, to a'certain--
22 extent, the benefit of it. If there is some problem, at:
23' least you know who to contact. Is there any comment on 24 this? Disagreement?
25 MR. COOL: I would like to note, some of these ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud - RepOners 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950
_ _ _ _ =
379 1 things -- it would be very nice if you had views on each 2 utility. One of the things that we have to do, that you may 3 not necessarily have to do, is we have to go to a " sister" 4 Federal agency, the Office of Management and Budget, and get 5 them to agree that all of our recording and supporting 6 requirements are justified and appropriate, and have them 7 clear them, And, something like this, where you are asking 8 people to post, where you are asking people to create a 9 piece of paper gets looked at rather seriously -- a lot more 10 seriously of late than perhaps in the past, as to why this 11 kind of requirement -- why this paperwork information 12 collection or recording is necessary. And, in fact, the NRC 15 has had situations where OMB comes and says we don't believe 14 this is necessary. And then there is a great deal of 15 hammering that we have with the Commission, the Directer of 16 OME sitting across the table, yelling at each other. I 17 would like to avoid that. So, I am not sure what I heard 18 here. I didn't here much of everything. I saw some nodding 19 up and down, yes, this was a nice idea. But, just saying it 20 is a nice idea really doesn't cut it when you go over with 21 the citarance package.
22 MS. DIBBLEE: One of the reasons, I believe, that 23 some counties and municipalities in states require these 24 sorts of things, and that would be my only comment. I know 25 that I have to provide my cour. ties with all of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
300 1 radioactive material licensees, and all the storage areas 2 and all of these sorts of things for county emergency 3 response. And this is something that is totally unrelated 4 to your regulation; but, nevertheless, it is a requirement 5 that we have to deal with.
6 MR. McNEES: When the fire department shows up and 7 the police department shows up, the sign says, in case of 8 emergency contact. It would save a lot of their time. I 9 think that's what this was about.
10 MR. TUAZON: I believe the posting of name, 11 address, telephone number, storage area may not be on the 12 vehicle. There must be a posting of that information. Plus 13 the operating and emergency procedures right now spells out 14 those specificclly. If we add posting, name, address and 15 telephone number, and storage areas, I don't personally see 16 why we have to do that. You know, there is a storage 17 facility. The last thing that you would like to do is be 18 close to that area.
19 MS. CARDWELL: That may be true when your storage 20 facility is on your property. But, in the case of a storage 21 facility at mini-warehouse, then you don't have that same 22 kind of knowledge inherent to the emergency response, that 23 you would when it is on your property.
24 KR. PATTERSON: It is most imperative that, if you 25 have radioactive material stored in any position that it be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 .
381 1 posted to let the fire department know what is inside that 2 building. Because, if you were a fireman, would you want to 3 walk in there with the radioactive material and know that it 4 was there?
5- MS. TROTTIER: We are only asking them to put ,
6 their name, address and phone number on the storage unit.
7 MR. McNEES: Already posted a sign on the door?
8 MS. TROTTIER: We are not giving them any 9 information other than that in this regulation. If the area 10 is already posted that it is a radioactive material area --
11 MR. PATTERSON: They need.to know who to contact 12 to be able to get into the facility.
13 MR. CABE: Hopefully we are talking.about storage 14 areas that are outside the facility in this situation. It 15 may be just putting that in there, in the statement, will 16 clarify that.
17 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
18 MR. CABE: I don't see any reason to'haveLthe name 19 and address of the company on the storage building --
20 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
L 21 MR. CABE: -- if it is inside of the protected-22 area. Also, I don't know -- how would they post a 23 mini-warehouse? Would you put the radiation storage area on f-l 24 the outside of the door, or would-you put a chain link fence 25 inside and put radiation storage area on that? I would not i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 j (202) 293-3950
-382
. I want my name and address right in front of a mini-storage 2 building with a radioactive materials sign on it.
3- MR. FUNDERBURG: I think, if you do this, you are 4 going to have to specify the 24-hour energency number. If 5 you put an emergency number, or just a regular number for an 6 RSO on an academic institution, that individual won't be in 7 his office.
8 MS. TROTTIER: Right. That is true.
9 MR. FUNDERBURG: So, you have got to be very 10 specific and have emergency numbers.
11 MR. BONZER: You know, most of your fire acadenies 12 require -- or a fire academy or a national fire academy 13 requiring a posting be put for any radioactive materials in 14 a building. It is a very very small amount. It is almost 15 something like -- I could be totally miuquoting this -- but_ I 16 it is -- gee, it is something like 10 microcuries or 17 something. It is real small.
18 MR. FREE: It is less. It is a millicurie or 19 less.
20 MR. BONZER: A millicurie? Yes. So,-you know, 21 their requirement is right there straight out.
22 MSa TROTTIER: All right. Are there any other 23 comments?
24 MR. BALLARD: Are you going on to the second one?
25 MS. TROTTIER: Yes, you can. Did you want to make 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
f 383
- 1 a comment on that one?
2 MR. BALLARD: Yes. Did you want to say something 3 first?
4 MS. TROTTIER: No.
5 MR. BALLARD: I think it is a very good idea to 6 require radiography companies to have their name and address 7 displayed on vehicles. I am proud of out company. And, 8 although our safety record is not perfect, I think it is 9 very good. And, anyone -- I would be suspect of anyone that 10 would not want to have their name and address on their 11 truck. My first thought is are they trying to hide 12 something from the public or from regulators, or from other 13 people?
14 One of the best preventative measures in radiation 15 safety is if people know you are there. And when you pull 16 up in a truck that has your name on it, this can help them 17 recognize the operations you are about to perform. And, 18 although name and address is required on commercial vehicles 19 by DOT regs, there apparently are one or two small companies 20 that either do not have commercial plates on their vehicle 21 or transport these materials in the trunk of a car, which is 22 not necessarily illegal, if you take the right DOT 23 precautions with blocking and bracing, but it would alert 24 people that this vehicle, be it a conventional x-ray truck, 25 with darkroom, pick-up truck, cargo bay, or station wagon, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
384 1 that this vehicle is carrying something, and you can 2 identify it very casily by that.
3 MR. VERELLEN: I -- most of the companies in our 4 state are -- drive vehicles that are identified. But, I, ;
5 personal 3y, don't want to cite somebody because their paint 6 faded on their pick-up truck. I don't see it being a real 7 critical part of the regulation.
, 8 MR. EUNDERBURG I really have to dig deeply to 9 find out if this is really a health and safety rule. I can lo see it, you know, I understand it, and it vould be nice to 11 have. But, is it really a health and safet) item?
12 MR. McNEES: What would you do wit.1 the small 13 companies that have two or three trucks or may be two trucks
^
14 they use regularly, and the owner's truck that he uses for 15 other things besides the buuiness? This would prohibit him 16 from using that other truck, unless he had a magnetic sign 17 to stick on there.
18 MR HoWERTON One of the things that I see is 19 that the only time that you are required to placard a 20 vehicle is if it 10 a yellow three. So, you could be 21 transporting yellow two's with the companies name and 22 address, but nothing to identify that there is any
( 23 radioactive material in the vehicle. So, I don't see where 24 this accomplishes anything for yellow two, or white one 25 shipments.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite. 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 ,
385 1 MR. CABE: 'rhat is the only time that we require, 2 through our procedures, that the company name be on the 3 truck. We don't specify that the address has to be on 4 there. But, we have done that very thing -- made a magnetic 5 signs where the vehicle has to be placarded. And we do 6 stick the company name and address -- the company name on 7 the side of the truck. And most of our trucks now have the a company name, but they do not have the address, and that 9 would require going back and have them put the address on 10 these vehicles. If you have the company name, they could be 11 -- you could find them.
12 MR. HENRY: We have this regulation already in 13 place. And I will admit it is not a health and safety 14 regulation. But, it does help us as regulators, and it is 15 for the inspector's convenience. We find it very helpful to 16 know who those people are riding around in these trucks, and 17 it has nothing to do with transportation regulations. Wo 18 don't care whether it is a three-bar label with posting or 19 not.. If it is an out-of-state company, we would like_to
- 20 know who it is, we want the option of following them, we j l 21 want the option of inspecting them. We would like to know l 22 who they are when we walk up on them on the job site, t
23 If you walk up on a job site and you see these two -
24 radiograpners, they have got baseball caps from God knows 25 where, they may have some other company's hats on, they have .
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
386
. 1 no name on the truck, you don't even know who you are about 2 to shut down or inspect. And we are going to continue this 3 in Louisiana. We find it very helpful.
4 MS. CARDWELL: I might clarify that, since that is -
5 one of our rules. It does specify that it has to be on both !
6 sides of all the vehicles used to transport radioactive 7 material on a temporary job sito use, to answer some of 8 those earlier questions about trucks used for something 9 else.
10 MR. WALKER: We also find it useful for the :
11 inspectors, but it is also useful in cases of emergency 12 response. We have had many casos of radiography trucks or 13 well logging trucks that have turned over on a ditch on an 14 icy road in the middle of the night somewhere in Northern 15 Alberta. The policy know exactly who to call.
16 MR. HENRY: Yes.
17 MS. TRoTTIER: Because the phone number is there.
16 MR. WALKER: The driver, in one case, was gone.
19 They didn't know where he wis. He had been picked up by 20 somebody else and taken to uhe hospital. So, all they had 21 was the vehicle. And, without the name and address on that 22 thing, they would have had to do a search through DMV.
23 MR. FUNDERBURG: But you have that in the 24 registration of the vehicle anyway, which is carried on the 25 vehicle.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
d 1 MS. TROTTIER: But that may be carried on the 2 person. There is no rule.
3 MR. VERELLEN Toxus and Louisiana, I think, have ,
4 a lot different circumstances than we have. We can almost 5 recognize a truck just by the color and the location, and 6 their accent. It may be a problela, if we do this, in the 7 states with a higher with a highur rate of radiographers, 8 but we don't see it.
9 MS. TRoTTIER: All right. Are there any other 10 comments on this one? The next issue is a general area.
11 Since this is a Canadian one, I thought I would read it, so 12 you would understand what the actual words are. All right.
13 Where it is not possible for a qualified operator, 14 trainee or trainee supervisor when operating or. supervising 15 the operation of an exposure device to keep watch for any 16 person who may enter the area referred to in paragraph A, 17 the erecting of a sufficient number of barricades at the 18 perimeter of the area or the posting of a sufficient number 19 of security personnel near the perimeter of the area to 20 prevent any person wno is not an atomic radiation worker 21 from entering the area.
22 MR. CARRICo: I would want to take this a little 23 bit further. While we all have,, as part of licensing,
! 24 erecting barricades, ropes, and things like this, I guess 25 that is a question too. Should that be something that' l
ANN filLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 l .(202) 293 3950
- . - _ _ ~ -. . _ . .. ~. - - - - _ _ _ - - . . . . . . _ . . -
388
- I clearly specifien in the regulation that some sort of an 2 identifier, barrier or rope or something, so it is easy to 3 identify where that radiation area boundary is.
4 MR. McNEES: Are you talking the radiation area or 5 the restricted area?
6 MR. CARRICO Restricted area.
7 MR. PATTERSON: Control area.
8 MS. TROTTIER It is the restr3cted area.
9 MR. CARRICO That is where wo expect posting at.
10 MR. McNEES: Is that going to be a change under 11 the now Part 20?
12 MR. COOLt No.
13 MS, TROTTIER: Comments on this?
14 MR. BALLARD: It seems, at first read, a bit 15 excessive. Erecting barricados sounds like wooden horses, 16 and like a police barricade, or cement barricados that they 17 use at highway construction sites to re-route traffic. And 18 the posting of security personnel -- that leaves it wido 19 open to interpretation. Security? Is it by the licensee's 20 definition of security? Is it a person that has some
- 21 training in radiation safety, or is it just the welding l 22 foreman. You happen to say, you know, hey, Joe, stand over.
I 23 here and don't let anybody in. The problem with that is i
f 24 that person you post there probably does not work for the 25 licensee. It is not his apple cart that will get tipped l'
L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- 1COud Reponers l -1612 K. Street, . N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950 ,
389 1 over if someone enters that area. And I believe that you 2 run the great risk of whoever you post there, if it is not 3 directly impacting on him, they may have a tendency to not 4 pay attention, walk away to smoke a cigarette, turn to talk 5 to their other buddy, and people go in the area. You can 6 run the rit:k of not doing any good with this. And it seems 7 like it could be kind of hard to interpret and enforce.
8 MR. McNEES: We are currently doing this in 9 operating emergency procedures in parallel with other cases 10 here where we have changed from O&E procedures in the 11 regulations. But, also, in looking at the second one there, 12 and in combination with this, is this going to apply to all 13 situations? A lot of c-tates, when their radiography is 14 going across the country on the pipeline -- in Alabama, wo 15 just make them put up a posting sign at either end of the 16 pipeline where they are working, rather than try to put the 17 rope and move the rope along as they go along from weld to 18 weld on the pipeline. But, in the situation where they are 19 in the fab shop, you have got to have the roping assigned 20 around it, as opposed to putting it in the regulations that 21 it is going to require that everywhere, even wuen they arc.
22 going across country on a pipeline.
23 MR. FREE: In the situation Jim just described, it 24 is also difficult to get people, that is, that are not 25 licensee employees, to stay out of the area. If they feel T
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. y Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 f" (202) 293-3950 e
390 1 that they have something to do, they are on one end of the 2 pipeline, and need to get to the other end, they just walk 3 through, in some cases, regardless of whether the source is 4 cranked out or not. I have gotten several calls from 5 radiography companies just complaining about that and asking 6 what they can do. Our answer is to throw up our hands. We 7 don't know.
8 MS. TRoTTIER: I will read to you what the Texas 9 regs say, because they address the issue. This is under the 10 posting for a high-radiation area.
11 Whenever practicable, ropes and/or barriors shall 12 be used, in addition to appropriate signs, to designato 13 radiation areas and to help prevent unauthorized entry.
14 Then, under D, the next one. During pipeline 15 industrial radiographic operations, sufficient radiation 16 signs and other barriers shall be posted to prevent 17 urimonitored individuals from entering the radiation area.
10 MR. CAsil: Regardless of what kind of barricades, 19 ropes, people you have watching it, nothing relieves the 20 licensee of the responsibility to make sure that nobody gets 21 in to that radiation area. So, barricades and ropes are 22 good, but, the licensee is already, by licenso design, has 23 to provide some means of ensuring that people stay out of 24 the area.
25 MR. TUAZoN:- Just to add to the comments of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 WasiMgton, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
391 1 gentleman from Oklahoma. I would like to say that, in our 2 case, probably mentioned by the gentleman by Texas mentioned 3 happened, you can tell the person in charge of the project 4 either followed the requirements, that is not to cross the 5 boundary, or we quit the operation. And that really caught 6 their attention because the last thing they would like to do 7 is somebody shutting down the operation, because they did 8 not follow the safety requirement. And I could tell you 9 that that clininates a lot of trouble. That is the way wo 10 do it. Either they follow the requirements, or we don't do 11 the job.
12 MR. CARRICO: One thing I wanted to bring up. Dr.
13 Glenn, the Branch Chief, brought this up in particular, and 14 I guess it is related to posting security personnel. It is 15 an enforcement case where a licensee had set up a restricted 16 area boundary, but did not have sufficient people really to 17 maintain surveillance of that restricted area boundary.
18 Because of this situation he found himself in, he failed to 19 do it, so he was cited for that. Dr. Glenn thought the 20 regulations also should be ar. ended so, if something -- say 21 something along the lines -- you have to have sufficient 22 personnel there to maintain surveillance.
23 MS. TROTTIER: Any other comments?
24 MR. BALIARD: On the second item, the use of ropes 25 or barriers. I think one area where this could be addressed ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950
392 1 is in licensing. The licensee's operating procedure manual.
2 What do they say they will do? When do they say they will 3 uso ropes? Because there are situations where ropos are or 4 should be used. But, it is, although not probably an 5 official position of the NRC, it has been said off the 6 record that ropos, in themselves, do not prevent 7 unauthnrized access. And to require the use of ropos in 8 ovary case, I can assure you would be unduly burdensome.
9 MS. TRCTTIER: Okay.
10 MR. KASYK: I think the point is that the signa 11 and the ropes, or tape, they are not necessary to prevent 12 somebody to walk in, but to delineate the boundary where the 13 two MR por hour is, so that the radiographer can spot a 14 person approaching not the ropo, but the point where two MR 15 is. And that's what it is for, because, you know, you can't 16 say if you are looking across the field where the two MR 17 line is, unless it is marked, right? You don't have any 18 right to exclude a person coming up to the two MR line. So, 19 it is more a matter of telling the radiographer. And they 20 are supposed to, at least in our manuals and procedures, 21 calculate where the area is and mark it, and then, when they 22 expose the source, they are supposed to make a survey to 23 verify that that's what the barriers or the ropos or signs 24 aro for.
25 MR. CARRICo: I think this would be simply a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. ,
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
393
. 1 codification of licensee procedures.
2 MR. KASYK: The lawyers tell us, at least, that if 3 it is something that you put in every licensee's license, 4 then it should be in the regulation. It should not be in 5 the license.
6 MS. TROTTIER: Right I agree.
7 All right. The last item on this slide I will 8 read so that it makes more sense. 31.33d. 31.33 has to do 9 with radiation surveys and records. Okay, this is from 10 Texas.
11 All potential radiation areas in which industrial 12 radiographic operations are to be performed shall be posted 13 in accordance with 31.32, based on calculated dose rates 14 before industrial radiographic operations begin. An area 15 survey shall be performed during the first exposure, i.e.
16 with the sealed source in the exposed position to confirm 17 that the 31.32 requirements have been met, and that 18 unrestricted areas do not have radiation levels in excess of 19 the limits specified in 21 blah blah blah.
20 Each time the exposure device is relocated and/or 21 the exposed position of the sealed source is changed, the 22 requirements above shall be met.
23 Comments on this? "
24 MR. McNEES: That has been in the licensing guides 25 -- the NRC's licensing guides for radiography for 17 years.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
394 2 MS. TROTTIER: It is not in Part 34 though. So, ,
2 the question is --
3 MR. CARRICO: It is not in Part 34. One other 4 thing, unless I am misreading -- it has been a long time 5 since I have looked at this -- it says -- I guess there had 6 been some things that say you crank the source out before 7 you actually do your first exposure, do your survey, verify 8 your things and then put your film in. Am I wrong about 9 that?
10 MS. CARDWELL: It says what?
11 MR. CARRICO: Before you put your film in. Before 12 you actually make your first exposure, you crank your source 13 out, then you crank it back in.
14 MS. CARDWELL: It says based on calculated dose 15 rates. You don't want to go out there and go I think this 16 is about right, crank it out,-oops, no, maybe -- no. t 17 MR. HENRY: And, Bruce, that would violate ALARA 18 in every possible way.
19 MR. CARRICO: I agree. It is a codification.
20 MS. TROTTIER: Just putting something in to Part 21 34 in the rule.
22 MR. BALLARD: What I want to do is tie this in 23 with en issue we-discussed Wednesday--- a two-man 24 radiography crew. With a one-man radiography crew to comply 25 with surveying the area boundary, he has to crank out the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 -
.. . _ _ - - .. _- -. ~ . . - -
395 1 source and leave a crank area and go to his perimeters and i O survey the area. One man, you are increasing the tinto the j 3 source is in the exposed positiori. You are keeping him 4 farther away from the controls, if he has to crank them in 5 quickly, and you are increasing his personal exposure. So, 6 one regulation directly affects a single man unit. And, to 7 be fair. and to do it better, a two-man unit, you crank it 8 out, he is already standing at the point he wants to survey, 9 he gets a reading, it is cranked back in. Otherwise, it is 10 a minute, a minute and a half of trying to walk back and ,
11 forth.
12 MR. TUAZON: The thing about that two-man crew --
13 depending on the situation of the job location, I believe 14 that the judgment has to be made, if you are in open area, 15 40 acres, plain, nothirig in between you and the job, I 16 believe that a one-man crew could do the job. Ilowever, I am 17 with you. When there is a safety concern -- potential for a 18 pedestrian or other operation personnel within the job area, 19 then there may be a need for more than a two-man crew.
20 MR. CABE: I have two things about surveillance of 21 the ar.ea, as to what different area we are going to maintain 22 surveillance over. There are situations that arise that we i 23 maintain visual surveillance or closed surveillance over the 24 high-radiation area that is established within the 25 controlled, or our two MR lines. In some situations, it ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
396 1 would be physically impossible for a six-man crew to 2 maintain surveillance over the radiation areas, the two MR 3 area. It may be on two floors above you because of grading, 4 and you may hang 50 or 60 signs and ropes on stairwells, and 5 everything to control an area. And the only brea that is 6 physically possible to maintain surveillance over is the 7 high-radiation area as it exists when you crank the cource 8 out. And that is the requireinant that we put up on uur 9 radiographers, is that he knew that he does maintain that 10 surveillance.
1.1 How, at some point in titue, the people working 12 outside the two MR line have to take that upon themceives 13 that, hoy, it sayr. keep out, radiography ir progrens on this 24 sign all across that boundary. That becomes within the --
15 making the people that are working on the job site aware 16 that that radiography is taking place, and that they are not 17 to cross these areas. And, hopefully, what I am hearing is 18 that we are not going to try to maintain surveillance over 19 the whole radiation area, but just on'the high-radiation 20 area that is within the two MR boundary.
21 HR. PATTERSON: May I ask you how you establish J
22 the 100 MR barrier?
23 MR. CABE: High-radiation? By survey.
24 MR. PATTERSON: You would actually send your man 25 in there and actually measure? .
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
397
. 1 Mk. CABE: No, sir. In most situations where we 2 work, we can calculate it. You can calculate the area. You 3 can post a high-radiation area. In our situation, it is 4 different for every job site. Most high radiation areas --
5 MR. PATTERSON: I have seen people cited out in 6 the tall, piney woods for not having radiation signs 10 7 miles from the nearest house or residence or anything else.
8 And I think it is against good, common sense to go in there 9 and send somebody to post a 100 MR area.
10 MR. CABE: Our situation lots of times, 90 percent 11 of the time, the 100 MR area is going to be at the entrance 12 to a room, or entrance to an area where we are doing 13 radiography. The radiographer, himself, is rolling out the 14 crank can be 21 feet away from it, llopefn11y, at all times, 15 he is going to be outside that 100 MR area.
16 MR. PATTEF. SON: In the first place, the-two MR 17 barrier was established and talked about simply to keep 18 people out of the five MR area.
19 MR. CABEt Right.
20 MR. PATTERSON: And you are not really, even 21 according to regulations, I don't think required to post the 22 two MR area, only the five MR area.
23 MR. TUAZON: We use the two MR area. I hope wo 24 mean two MR are per hour. Because when you put your survey 25 meter in there, it is very possible that that survey meter ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite TO Washington, D. C. 200M (202) 293 3950
. _ _ .~. _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _- ._. _ . _ _ _ _ _ ,
398 1 may read more than two MR. liowever, if you stay there only 2 for a minute or a split second, then you are not really 3 crossing that boundary. So, when you use two MR, just to 4 clarify, we mean two MR per hour, in any one hour.
5 MR. !!OWERTON: The requirements are that the 6 radiation arou be posted. That is fine. That tr. greater 7 than five milliram in any one hour. We, at Chicago Bridge 8 and Iron, rope and post two milliroentgens poi hour.
9 Because we feel the only way that we can restrict people out 10 of the restricted area is with a rope. Now, I will agree 11 that the rope doesn't always koop them out of it, because 12 they have a tendency to go under it. Because the signs say 13 the wrong thing. The signs say caution. They don't say 1
14 stay the heck out of this area.
15 Now, in addition to that, again, the ropes don't 16 physically, a hundred percent keep people out,.but it helps 17 protect the public, and that is what the radiographer is 18 trying to do.
19 MS. CARDWELL: I almost hate to bring this up. We 20 have a different rule. We have an exception. Our rule is 21 equivalent to 10 CFR 20, which requires the posting of the 22 radiation area in a high-radiation area. We make a little 23 provision in here that is only in our radiography rules that 24 say -- because most of ours, if I have it, do the exact same 25 thing, they post the two MR. We say they can put all of the P
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)-293 3950
l 399 4
1 signs at that two MR -- the high-radiation area, the l
2 radiation area, and the caution ones all out at that two MR. l 3 Decause we figure well, if they have gotten in that far 4 anyway, we alreacy in trouble. So, we put all the signs out i 5 at the two MR -- allow them to post all of the signs out at j 6 the two MR. j l
7 MR. HORNOR: California does that too. I will :
l 8 speak for my friend from California. l 9 MR. CARRICO: Cheryl, that does bring up a point 10 -- that one of our regional staff brcught that up. he 11 believed that the regulation should specify two MR per hour, 12 rather than twc MR in any one hour, mostly because it is 13 what you are looking at -- the survey meter. A radiographer 14 is going to know what that means. Whereas, if you have the 15 source out for five minutes, and you are trying to calculate 16 out what that is, you know, it is kind of an almost 17 impossible task.
18 MR. PATTERSON: Yes. Posting two MR per hour, 19 rather than two MR in any one hour. I think some of you 20 here have attended either the school at Amersham, and it has 21 been demonstrated to you how far you really have to back 22 off, with say a hundred curie source, in order to reach a 23 two MR per hour level. And most of the radiography done in 24 large cities, you would have to rope off or blockade at 25 least a block or two square blocks of area. That is very ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
400
- 1 impractical. You can't do that.
2 MR. McNEES: If you are concerned with health and 3 safety issues, the total dose is the health and safety 4 losue. So, on that basis, I support the two in any one 1
5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, because that is the doso thtt an individual would i 6 receive if they were there.
7 MS. ROUGitAN: To help alleviate some of Bruce's 8 concerns, in terms of try4ng
- 7 keep track of what the 9 radiation level should be, what we have been advising 10 customers to do when the utilization log, or whatever table i 11 they are using, is to list out the number of shots per hour, 12 and list out where the restricted area is -- what the 13 radiation level within that boundary, and then allow the 14 inspector to come in to the temporary job site and assure 15 that that is what being done. Then they can take their 16 survey motor, go up to the restricted area boundary, and see 17 it is 12 MR per hour or whatever it may be, based on the 18 number of shots taken in that one hour. And that gives 19 justification for raising the radiation level at the 20 restricted area, bringing the boundarios, so, again, it is 21 easier to control. It is very difficult to control several 22 hundred feet in . circle basically.
23 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. -I think we will move on. I 24 am going to skip the next one, because I think we addressed 25 it sufficiently yesterday. We will go to the next one, ANN RlLEY &. ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Pepoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950-
.- _ . _ - . - ~ . - . -- - .. . _ _ _
l 401 1 which is on page 29. And it says more on surveys. We will 2 pull out the regs that discuss this.
3 Okay. This is still on 31.33. The first one is 4 H, which is, if a vehicle is to be used for storage of 5 radioactive material, a vehicle survey shall be performed 6 after securing radioactive material in the vehicle, and 7 before transport to ensure that the radiation levels do not 8 exceed the limits specified in Part 21 at the exterior 9 service of the vehicle. I guess the question is, this does 10 not currently -- it's not stated in Part 34. Does it need I 11 to be stated? I don't --
12 MS. CARDWELL: I just want to clarify, that is not 13 a permanent storage thing. This is for the situation we 14 talked about yesterday, when trucks are being -- doing a 15 cross-country job, and they are parking at the hotel.
16 MR. HOWERTON: Could I ask a question? Does this 17 require a piece of paper, a sketch? Because the way we are 18 doing it in Texas it does.
19 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. There is a section on records 20 of all of these. We have a whole sectien on surveys, and 21 that is one of them. And the last one says records.of all 22 of this.
23 MR. HOWERTON: Okay. So, in order to comply with 24 this, it would require anot.her piece of paper?
25 MR. FUNDERBURG: Doesn't Texas already have a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, O. C. 20006 (202)-293 3950
402 1 survey proposed storage area anyway? And isn't this just 2 redundant? It doesn't say whether it is temporary or not.
3 It just says the survey --
4 MS. CARDWELL: This one specifies the vehicle, 5 which is not normally a storage site. But, while they are 6 in transit, it becomes one as overnight storage. And so, we 7 have clarified maybe, for their benefit, that the vehicle 8 had to be done too. Because it now, indeed, is the storage 9 area.
10 MR. FUNDERBURG: It seems to me that is just 11 redundant. You already have the storage area anyway.
12 MS. CARDWELL: A licenoce or someone else may 13 argue that a vehicle is not a storage area. And this --
14 therefore, we clarified that you must do the vehicle.
15 MR. VERELLEN: I think a lot of times we use the 16 transportation survey. They have to do it on their truck, 17 and it is in the record, and we don't require an additional la survey -- the perimeter of the truck, and the cab area.
19 MS. CARDWELL: That would suffice.
20 MR. SONZER: Our licensees f.n Colorado have a 21 utilization form. They just put it on their vehicle. We 22 require that basically for an unrestricted area, to kind of
- 23 combine.
l l 24 MR. BALLARD: We have the separate vehicle survey l
25 on our utilization log. Ar.d we also have the transport l
l ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L Court Repoders l 1612 K. Street, N,\V., SuP.e 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202) 293 3950
403
- 1 index on our shipping papers. But, see, I think this is 2 necessary, because you can your devices stored at your 3 facility, or a field station, and when it is removed from 4 that storage area it is surveyed. But, then it is put on 5 the truck. And so that's why I think the truck needs a 6 separate survey. Because even though you have surveyed it 7 coming out of the vault, I think you need to survey it when 8 it is in the truck, because the truck can be parked 9 overnight in parking lots, motels, restaurants. And, as a 10 company, even if it wasn't required, I would do it simply so 11 that no one could say to me, hey, I was sleeping in my car 12 next to your truck, and I got an over-exposure of radiation.
13 They can't say that because I have a record that said there 14 was no surface on the outside of my truck that had more than 15 one millirem in any one hour.
16 MR. TUAZON: Right now Part 34 requires surveys 17 for transport index to determine the transport index for 18 that radiographic material when you transport that. In this 19 instance, you have to perform two surveys, and that survey 20 is reflected on the report, on the bill of lading.
-21 Therefore, in my opinion, with that kind of information 22 available already, another redundant survey and 23 documentation of that may not be desirable. It could be 24 indicated by'Part 34.
25 MS. TROTTIER: Any other comments on this one?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
404 1 MR. DUNN: I will just try to give you a reason 2 why we have this. I think this is the reason in Texas we 3 have a whole lot of transit radiographers. We don't 4 necessarily have a bunch of people that go to the shop every 5 night. A lot of those people stay out in motels for long 6 period of time, long distances from where they work out of, 7 and this is just something that makes them realize that if 8 they are going to be given the option to store it in their 9 truck, they have to be aware of how to store it and what the 10 requirements are.
11 MS. TROTTIER: I don't think we need the next one, 12 which is also from Texas Regs. And part 34 does currently 13 require a survey of storage areas. But what is specifically 14 mentioned in this one is the survey shall be performed 15 initially, the maximum amount of radioactive material 16 present in the storage location, and thereafter, the time of 17 the quarterly inventory, and whenever storage conditions 18 change.
19 Comments on this?
20 MR. TUAZON: Again, Part 34 right now requires 21 survey of a storage are to ensure that the reading will not 22 exceed two MR per hour. How we do it in our area -- for 23 instance, if we put more high activity source in that 24 particular storage area, we ensure that that is achieved by 25 providing extra shielding -- lead shielding inside to bring ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 )
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~ _ _ _ - - . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _
405 .
. 1 down the level of radiation in the particular area.
2 MR. HoWERTON: Again, I think this requires 3 another piece of paper to be filled out. In the Texas regs 4 it is already taken care of by sign-off either on the-5 utilization log by the radiographer when he puts his source 6 in the storage area and signs for them.
7 MS. CARDWELL: I might comment that all these 8 requirements -- a lot of these -- and our radiographers do 9 -- a lot of these are all consolidated on the -- you know, ;
10 this is not 15 separate pieces of paper.- They can put a lot I 11 of it o:i utilization logs and transport papers. !
12 MR. VERELLEN: Texas, do you actually look at this 13 survey? Do you look for another additional quarterly-survey 14 then? Have you -- you would accept any survey?
15 MR. DUNN: We do require a quarterly survey.
16 MR. VERELLEN: Do they did it everyday, or'one day 17 a quarter?
18 MR. DUNN: They do it every day. That's fine.
19 In Texas we use common sense.
20 MR. KASYK: Since most of the cameras either have 21 a small load, or they are used what's called a convenience 22 over-pack, they are radioactive labelled too, which does not 23 ' require any placarding. -If the truck is parked somewhere
-24 without any identification, and it's radioactive-material on -
25 it, it probably should be some for parking, not necessarily ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washingon,1 D. C. - 20006
'(202) 293-3950.- --
- . - . - _ - _ . . = . _ . - - = =
406
. 1 for transportation, but; when the truck is parked. It is a 2 white box with the name of the company, and there is nothing 3 on it.
4 MR. TUAZON: To address that concern, I believe 5 Part 34 now addresses that specific concern, and that is, do 6 ve use the vehicle as a temporary for your radioactive 7 material? It must be posted as radioactive material.--
B caution, radioactive material. I don't know in your 9 statement. In our case, we use this vehicle to transport 10 radiographic material and, at times, stay there in the 11 hotel, motel, wherever. But, when we Co that, that vehicle, 12 that placard are posted, caution, radioactive, material.
13 MR. KASYK: Be ca reful what you call a placard.
14 MR. TUAZON: I said post. I said post sign. So, 15 we post a sign that says caution, radioactive material.
16 MS. TROTTIER: Any other comments?
17 (No response.)
18 MS. TROTTIER: All right. The last one is simply 19 inserting into Part 34 requirements that exist right now in 20 Part 39 under radiation surveys. This one says in Part 39, 21 before transporting licensed material, the licensee shall 22 make a radiation survey of the position occupied by each '
23 individual in the vehicle, and of the-exterior of each 24 vehicle used to transport the license materials. It is just 25 putting it clearly into Part 24. Part 34 apparently, under ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
407 1 radiation surveys, does not address transportation at all.
2 HR. BALLARD: I think what you are doing here is 3 getting a little redundant. Because radiography also 4 entails exclusive-use shipments, and overnight storage. And 5 what I think you should do is combine this into one survey.
6 Because, no matter if it is being used for storage or 7 transportation, radiographers tend to wear two hats. They 8 are getting the hazardous material there, and then they are 9 using it. But, they are not having any other cargo. There 10 are not stop in between to unload. So, you should 11 incorporate this into one regulation.
12 MR. FUNDERBURG: Since that is redundant, if I 13 were a licensee, and I violated that, would I get twice as 14 much of a fine?
15 MS. TROTTIER: We would find a way to do it, yes.
16 MR. HORNOR: Yes. You violate two regulations, so 17 ve are going to fine you twice.
18 MS. TROTTIER: The thing we especially like is 19 multiple violations, because then we can up the severity 20 level.
21 MR. TUAZON: Just to make a comment. I believe 22 Reg Guide 10.6 specified a 10-inch survey from the side of 23 the vehicle, and then the driver's cab to be surveyed to 24 ensure that the reading is less than two MR per hour.
25 MS. TROTTIER: This is just elevating it from i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
408
- 1 guidance to regulation. That is raally what the issue is.
2 MR. BALIARD: One question. Manny just brought >
3 this up. Would there be any distanco on this survey? Would ;
4 it be a surface survey, a six-inch survey? Any --
, 5 MS. TROTTIER That is a good point.
6 MR. CARRICO: Well, that's what our Reg Guides are 7 for. You have got regulation. The Reg Guides tell you what-8 is anticipated.
9 MR. BALIARD: So, at the publication or adopted 10 34, or Reg Guide, to follow it would come out?
11 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
12 MR. CARRICO: No. I wouldn't guarantee that.-
13 There would have to -- at the same time, there'might be --
14 MS. TROTTIER: Not at the same time, but to follow 1 15 it.
16 MR. CARRICO: One of the things that does happen 17 with our regulations, is that we try to describe what is la intended in the regulations themselves. It becomes an 19- -important part of'the records for interpreting what:the 20 staff intended, in enforcement cases and all the way down 21 the line. So,-statements of consideration are a very 22- important aspect.
23 MR. FUNDERBURG: If you do put'something in there-2 4'. requiring a survey,.then I would say you reference-the-DOT =
25 regulations or those regulations that are cited, rather than ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. .
Court : Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,: Di C. 20006 (202);293-3950 :
,_ . ~ . _ _ _ __ _ _, . _ . -
_ . - . _ - - _.- _. . _ . _ . - ~~ . -- . -
409
. I are repeated.
2 MS. TROTTIER: Let's go on to the next one.
3 MR. COOL: Cheryl, perhaps before we get started 4 -- we have been going for not quite an hour and a half, but 5 I sense the people starting to leave or otherwise move 6 around. Why don't we use this opportunity to take a brief 7 break? I am going to hold it to 10 minutes, so we can get 8 on about this and get done. We will come back at 10:00 9 o' clock.
10 (Recess.)
11 MR. MILLER: All right. We are on the last 12 stretch here now.
13 MS. TROTTIER: All right. On to a new slido. We 14 are down to about three or four slides, so we are making 15 progress. All right. This is from the suggested state 16 regs.
17 MR. KASYK: I have a comment here. I think we 18 just cleared one thing here. If the package is an approved 19 package for DOT transportation, the track does not have to-20 have any sign on it that it is radioactive material. I 21 think that should be changed, if it used for parking.
22 MS. TROTTIER: You thinX it should have.
23 MR. KASYK: It should not be exempted'from the 24 labeling identifying it as containing radioactive material, 25 just as an exemption for that, for any package.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i 410 1 MS. TROTTIER: All right. This is under the regs 2 for conducting a quarterly inventory. And it is E.106.
3 This last little bit -- I will read the whole thing on 4 quarterly inventory. But, it is the last little bit that is 5 not in NRC regs right now.
6 The records of the inventrry shall be maintained 7 for two years from the date of the inventory, and shall 8 include the quantities and kinds of material, the location 9 of the sources, the date of the inventory. And here is what 10 is not in NFC regs. The name of the individual making the 11 inventory, the manufacturer, model number and serial number.
12 I guess some of those issues were already covered. But, wo 13 deel with the name of the individual, I guess. Let's skip 14 that one.
15 Let me look at this 201(d), and see what is unique 16 about this one. This is under the section which covers 37 training and testing. Each licensee or registrant shall 18 conduct an internal audit program to ensure that the 19 agency's radioactive material licensing conditions of the 20 licensees or registrants operating and emergency procedures, 21 followed by each radiographer performed at least quarterly.
22 And each radiographer should be audited at least quarterly.
23 Records of internal audit shall be maintained for inspection 24 by the Agency for two years from the date of audit.
25 Part 34 already addresses a lot of that. There ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950
411 1 must have been something different for it to get stuck in 2 here. Any comments on this?
3 MS. CARDWELL: What is different?
4 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. It seems to me like Part 34 5 already addresses it, and Bruce isn't hear so I can't ask 6 him why this is on the list. Anyway, I don't see that this 7 is much of a problem. But, for some reason, this was added 8 on.
9 All right. I am not going to dwell on this slide 10 unless there is something that anyone thinks is worth 11 while?MR. TRUMP: Either Monday or Tuesday we talked about 12 some of these real small companies that have a president, 13 acting -- a one or two-man shop, and, in some cases, because 14 of the economy problem, which may have lost staff, he did 15 have an RSO, had to lay-him off, and now he is the RSO. How 16 does that reflect the internal audit, if you have an 17 individual who assumes two roles back and forth like I 18- think, George, you said about the president of the RSO doing 19 his own audit. How is that fair or valid? How does the NRC 20 look at that? Because I know of a couple of them that would 21 inspect it.
22 MR. CARRICO: I come in at the end of this, so I
- 23 am not exactly sure what we are talking about. The RSO 24 owner for a radiographer situation. How does he perform his 25 internal audit? My predecessor would have said that this ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
412
. 1 . regulation is-intend 9d so that management could assure that 2 its workers, its radiographers and assistants ware complying 3 with regulations and emergency procedures, and that you have-4 to expect licensing management to comply. They are expected 5 to comply.
6 MR. TRUMP: My point is that if you have the-7 president of a two-man company --
8 MR. CARRICO: By that, what he would say wan, if 9 the RSO is also a radiographer, there wouldn't be an 10 expectation of internal audit on him. He would simply be 11 the RSO or manager or whatever, verifying that other workers 12 are complying. If he is a part of management, there is an 13 expectation of compliance.
14 The control program is for management to go out in 15 the field and verify that their hires were complying. The 16 questions have come up how far down do you go? In Texas, we 17 see this -- where you have got organizations who are spread 18 all over, and have assistant RSO's or airectors and all 19 these things, and they are doing the same thing. When does 20 that stop? And I don't know what the answer to that is.
21 MS. CARDWELL: I agree. That's the way we 22 interpreted it because we were made to interpret it that 23 way. Two. reviews ago, NRC came in and said this is a level 24 ene compatibility all of a sudden, and made us change our 25 rule, because we had ours in to do this -- that the licensee ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street,- N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.- C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
413
. I had to do it quarterly, and that each radiographer had to be 2 done at least annually. So, on a quarterly basis, the 3 licensee was doing these internal audits, but maybe not of 4 every radiographer, because they may be out in the. country 5 for three months doing radiography, or in New Mexico, or in 6 Oklahoma, or Louisiana. And we said, that way -- and we put 7 in the extra clause with at least each radiographer's 8 performance being audited at least annually. And they came 9 back and said no, no, no, it has got to read exactly like in 10 34. And that was on our review. And we tried to fight that 11 one and got no where on that one.
12 MR. CARRICO: Well, I think that NRC has always a
, 13 _ald that -- that each radiographer has to be audited
, 14 quarterly.
- 15 MS. CARDWELL
- See, that makes it real hard on.
16 companies that have a whole lot of field stations, field 17 site, and radiographers, and they have got them all over the 18 country, or all over Texas. It is a problem to get them all 19 back in one place. And, for that person to travel, and make 20 sure every quarter -- he has got to chase around these
. 21 radiographers.
22 VOICE: Quarterly audited if he is active?
23 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. There are some words in there 24 about active.
3 25 MR. CARRICO: There are some terms about activity, l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
'Coud RepOders 1612 K. ' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
F 414 1 but that is an interpretation. But, any active radiographer 2 has to be audited quarterly, and that audit does not
- 3 necessarily include RSO precise radiography.
4 MR. BALLARD: I am maybe the devil's advocate 5 question. There is the provision that, if the radiographer 6 is inactive, you will be evaluated at the next time he is 7 asked. If an NRC licensee has a radiographer working in an 8 agreement state in which they have an agreement state 9 license, is he considered to the NRC inactive, and therefore-10 exempt from the NRC's three-month evaluation?
11 MR. KLINGER: Jack, do you think that would fly?
12 MR. HORNOR: If they are active in an-Agreement 13 State, they are active in NRC. There is no differance.
14 MS. CARDWELL: So, is essentially being audited 15 twice then? Because he is working -- like, for instance, if 16 you have, under your Texas license -- he is working under a.
17 Texas license, isn't he going to be audited quarterly by the 18 RSO in Texas?
19 MR. CARRICO: It is being complied with.
20 MR. HOWERTON: I think the words state that you 21 will be internally audited at periods not to exceed 90 days.
22 I have heard everybody say quarterly. I wish quarterly were 23 the words-put in Part 34, rather than not to exceed 90. days.
24 As Cindy just said, it is very difficult for large 25 companies, with large numbers of radiographers, to perform ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C; 20006 (202) 293-3950
415 1 this audit and not to exceed 90 days, because you have to 2 chase the radiographers around. Well, the quarterly basis. 1 3 would be much more adequate. And at any one time, then a 4 radiographer would be internally audited at a period not to 5 exceed six months. I think that is more practical for many 6 of the companies thet are doing radiography.
7 MS. CARDWELL: I have to say, we say quarterly.
8 Our lawyers made us put in not to exceed 90 days.
9 But, our point is, if you get to them at least a 10 year -- you said at sir. mr :ths -- some other time period 11 than trying to do every one of them every three months, that 12 is tough on a lot of companies who are really trying to 13 comply.
14 MR. McNEES: In the past two years, the issue of 15 the RSo getting around to seeing every radiographer overy 90 16 days is cur most violated regulation. We just can't 17 schedule it.
18 HS. CARDWELL: Do you think, if we had that other 19 one, with each individual at least a year, that way they 20 can get to them all. And, you know, they are trying. They 4 21 ar trying to comply with it, for the most part.
22 101. McNEES: They try to comply.
23 MS. CARDWELL: We had to change ours back, and our 24 licensee -- you know, all we could say was NRC made us do 25 it. You know, we don't mind telling them that. It didn't ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
416-1 help.
2 MR. HORNOR: There are a lot of radiographers 3 under reciprocity in Alaska. There is no way they can do 4 it. So, what kind of slack are you cutting them?
5 MS, CARDWELL: Under the rule, we can't. I mean, 6 this is not even one we can usrs colmnon sense on. This is 7 one with --
8 MR. HORNO'R: Well, you are not going to fly up 9 there.
10 VOICE: We try.
11 MS. CARDWELL: And we would really request that 12 you consider putting in some kind of -- you know, the 13 licensee doing these kind of things every quarter-is no 14 problem, but, to do every individual radiographer every 15 three months is a problem. There needs to be that dual kind 16 of requirement for the licensee to do the internal audits 17 every three months. That makes sense. But then some other 18 -- either six months or a year to have done at least every 19 radiographer employed by the licensee.
20 MR. KLINGER: Could we poll the room and get a 21 consensus on that?
22 MR. COOL: Yes. That is a good idea.
23 MS. TROTTIER: Let's go around.
24 MR. FASYK: I agree. The State of New York, we 25 agree.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l l__ - __ _
417 1 MR. CLEAVER: Kentucky agrees.
2 MR. FUNDERBURG: I agree.-
3 MS. DIBBLEE:- Oregon agrees.
4 MR. HORNOR: I agree.
5 MR. VERELLEN: We don't have a problem with it.
6 MR. HENRY: Louisiana agrees.
8 MR. MARYLAND: Agree, Georgia. ,
9 MR. BONZER: Colorado agrees.
10 MS. TROTTIER: We don'tl care about Canada.
11 MR. WALKER: If I had a voice, I would. agree. .,
12 MR. KELLEY: Arkansas agrees. But we don't really 13 have that problem, because our radiography companies are not 14 that large in Arkansas.
15 MS. CARDWELL: We agree.
16 MS. LOPEZ: New Mexico agrees.
17 MR. TRUMP: Maryland agrees.
18 MR, KLINGER: Illinois agrees.
19 MR. McNEES: Alabama agrees.
20 MR. GOFF: Mississippi agrees.
21 MR. NANNEY: Tennessee agrees. Although-out' state 22 -- we have not had that big of a problemt but we still think 23 it is a good idea.
24 MS. CARDWELL: -Now, does_this mean we can put our-25 rule back to the way it was?'
l L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 L
Washington, D. C. 20006
._(202) 293-3950
418 .
. 1 MS. .TROTTIER: It means you agree.
2 Now, Bruce, the last issue here says require 3 annual safety reviews. And that comes from Part 39. Do you 4 know why that's in there?
5 MR. CARRICO: Didn't we already discuss that the 6 other time? I dc6::t think that the regulations, Part 34, 7 talks about having annual retraining. I don't know what the 8 language is, record maintenance of that. We have talked 9 about the definition. I guess it would be more like it.
10 MS. CARDWELL: 34 now says periodic refresher 11 training, doesn't it?
12 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
13 MS. CARDWELL: And we have dropped that 14 completely.
15 MS. TROTTIER:- Okay.
16 MS. CARDWELL: Our reasoning is that we have 17 specified classroom hours, we have specified numbers of 18 hours and types of equipment they have, to tell us what they 19 have their OJT on. We require a test. Now, we have got 20 these quarterly audits. -We say periodic reviews and 21 training is not necessary on top of all this other stuff.
22 And this was our viewpoint for dropping it entirely.
23 MS.-TROTTIER: Any other comments on that? We 24 have talked about it.
25 MR. TUAZON: The annual safety review, I believe, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite -300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
419
. I has the advantage in the sense that we, together, could 2 review what is moving on the industry, like what is coming 3 from the NRC, what are the incidents in the industry. And 4 it seldom happens that you could get together, except for 5 the particular date. And so, in our case, we find it very 6 beneficial. It is not something that we look for our work,
~~
7 but it is something that we find beneficial, because we have 8 something in common that is to review the requirements, to 9 review what is going on in the industry. And those 10 incidents too, that, in essence, hopefully, we can preclude
[ 11 that from happening from our relations.
12 MS. CARDWELL: It may be part of the semantics.
13 Because 34 says periodic refresher training. It does not 14 say annual safety reviews.
15 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
16 MR. TUAZON: Right.
17 MS. CARDWELL: And that goes back to the '
18 discussion yesterday about defining safety review. And that 19 might be part of it. Our opposition is to that periodic 20 refresher training.
21 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
22 MR. CARRICO: You are looking at training, meaning 23 going back over the independent topics?
24 MS. CARDWELL: Right. Right.
25 MR. CARRICO: Not so much that this will-define --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
420
. -1 MS. CARDWELL: Exactly.
2 MR. CARRICO: -- things about inspection reports?'
3 MS. CARDWELL: Although we don't require the 4 annual safety review. There is a difference between the two 5 -- between training, the appendix topics and the safety 6 review.
7 KR. HOWERTON: What we do with our radiographers 8 is every six months we give them a review test, a written 9 test of 25 questions that they can take between January and 10 June, July and December, two tests a year that, number one, 11 cover all the recent changes to our radiation manual.
12 Number two, reinstructs them, or makes them resolve time, 13 distance and screening, and inverse square log problems, so 14 that we know a guy can still do that. Number three, it 15 helps us in the industry, as Manny said, to notify our 16 follows as to what is happening. Where is the isotope 17 source on a genesis source train? It is not at the end, it 18 is in the third connector, things like that.
19 MR. McNEES: Several years ago -- many years ago, 20 we reprinted some of the radiography incidents in your 21 report of abnormal occurrences to Congress, and sent those 22 out to radiography companies. And we got such a positive 23 response back to it that we routinely do that in the I&E
-24 bulletins -- send them out to the RSO's, and then they call 25 back in and thanked us for it, because the material that ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 3C0 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l I
421 1 they use, when they go over these' incidents with their 2 employees, so that they won't -- so that won't happen to 3 them.
4 MR. CARRICO: This brings up another question. We 5 started in the last year -- in sending an NMSS newsletter.
6 I think we got a good response to that.
7 MS. TROTTIER: Did the Agreement States all get 8 this -- the NMSS Newsletter?
9 MR. BALLARD: I am in favor of annual safety 10 reviews and keeping records, because the whole point, I 11 think, of this is to improve the safety performance of 12 radiography operations. And one way to do that is to weed 13 out companies that improperly train or neglect training, and 14 weed out radiographers that don't or retrain radiographers 15 that don't understand the regulations. So, this could be a 16 very positive step in giving emphasis'to companies that may 17 be deficient, under the guise of periodic training, to bring 18 their training up a few notches, and improve the 19 performance.
20 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Any other comments on 21 this slide?
22 MR. NANNEY: Can I back up just a second on the 23 issue of internal audit programs? I would make a comment 24 that we haven't had a large problem with an internal audit, 25 but there was quite a bit of talk about the RSO auditing.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D. C. 20006 >
(202) 293-3950
422
. 1 That has been a problem for us. I didn't say that at the 2 time, but that has been a problem for us. -I would like to 3 see that clarified one way or the other.
4 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Okay.
5 This slide deals with dosimetry. Now, the first 6 of these comes, again, from the suggested state regs. And 7 it is requiring records of pocket dosimeter calibration.
8 Apparently Part 34 does not require licensees to maintain 9 records of the calibration of pocket dosimeters. Is that 10 something that should be added? I'll_ read the language from 11 the suggested state regs.
12 If an individual's pocket dosimeter is discharged 13 -beyond its range, industrial radiographic operations by that 14 individual shall cease and the film badge processed 15 immediately. That is the same as Part 34. This is not the-16 same point. Why I am reading this? Never mind.
17 Pocket dosimeters shall be checked for correct 18 response to radiation at periods not to exceed one year.
.19 Acceptable dosimeters shall read within plus or.minus 30 20 percent of the true radiation exposure. Then this is what 21 is not in Part 34. Records of this check shall be 22 maintained-for inspection by the agency for two years from 23 the-date of the event.
R24 Comments on this?
25 MR. FUNDERBURG: How does NRC now inspect to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
m, m
'423 ,
l1-- verifylthat_they_have the calibration, if they don't_-keep '
2 records?
3 -MS. TROTTIER: I have no idea.- ,
4 MR. KASYK: He ask them and they. say yes.- .
a 5 MS. TROTTIER: I know-that'the~ dose of record 1ist 6 the film badge or TLD. But,'I mean,!I don't know what1they [
7 do with the pocket dosimeter.-
8 MS. ROUGHAN: I think it--is_; common'for the 9 lic'ensee to keep their records.
-10 MS. TROTTIER: Probably.
11- MR.'TUAZON: To answer the question of the 12 gentleman.from california. :They do check that in-the 13 internal audit. You just did'this. 'Where are.the records?:
14 And then they check it.
15 MR. FUNDERBURG: _ So, that's your proof to them.
16 And what they're.wanting is to put in the regulations.
17 MS.-TROTTIER: Thel-question-.is should it be added 18 to the regulations?- '
19 MR. CARRICO:- Does your licenselrequire it.now? --
20 MR. KLINGER: We always, tie this down'in the 21- license.- I think it should be in the ' regs. = 'We: have -_had--- i 22 _ problems where-we-have required people-to.-do thingsi but-we-
- 23- don't. require records, and it drives-inspectorsinuts. And 24 so the only way_you can inspect is if-there is a record,cand 25 so it should be in the-regs.
v ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612: K Street l N.W., Suite 300 '
o Washington,T D.- C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950
l 424
- 1 MR McNEES: Is this not an accuracy check instead.
2 of a calibration? Because, 3f you have got a calibration --
3 MS. CARDWEIL: Yes. It's not --
- 4. MS. DIBBLEE: It is a response check.
5 MR. McNEES: A response check.
6 MR. BALIMD: This really reflects what the 7 representative from Alabama said. I would requent that you-8 all would use the word " check." And this calibration 9
inplies that you can adjust it?
10 MS. TROTTIER: Right.
11 KR. BALIARD: And I -- again, I am in a bit of a 12 loss. I always thought this was a regulation, because that 13 is one of the first things the inspectors asked for when 14 they came and did an audit. And so I see no problem in 15 keeping records and having it in the regulation.
16 MR. NANNEY: I would like to respond to Druce. I 17 hear where you are coming from. I think, from an 18 inspector's point of view, one sure way of verifying 19 conpliance of something is if you have a record of it. If 20 you have that record, then you have demonstrated compliance.
21 If you don't have any such record, then we cither believe 22 you or don't believe that you did it. And, even though we 23 don't believe that you did it, in some cases, we might not 24 be able to prove that. And we wouldn't cito. You can't 25 cite for a reg requirenent that is nct there. But, if you I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters ,
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 )
Washington, D. C. 20006 l
, (202) 293-3950
l-425 1 .have it, we can establish compliance easy enough. That is 2 probably why inspectors ask.
3 MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
4 All right. The second one is from Texas. Let me 1
5 pull out what Part 34 currently says. That may help.
6 MR. CARRICO: I don't think there is any dosimeter 7 recordkeepir.g requirement before.
8 'fS . TROTTIER: No. I think it just says pocket 9 dosimeters must be read and exposures reportnd daily. It 10 does say that. The licensee shall retain each record of 11 these exposures for three years after the record is made.
12 But, I think the difference is the issue of recharging, 13 31. 2 3 (b) (4 ) . Okay. This is 31.23(b) is -- still in that 14 same section -- personal monitoring. And (b) (4) says the 15 exposure reading on each pocket dosimeter shall be recorded 16 at least daily and before recharging. That is the only 17 thing that is not currently in Part 34, 18 Do we need to add the "and before recharging?"
19 MR. KASYK: I have a question on that. Suppose 20 you don't use the dosimeter for a couple of days? What does 21 the reading mean before you recharge it?
22 MR. BALLARD: I think what it should say is 23 immediately after.
24 MS. CARDWELL: Let me clarify. Our new revision 25 doesn't say that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
426-
-1 MS. TItOTTIER: Oh, okay.
2 MS. CARDWELL: It says, as a minimum pocket 3 dosimeters shall be recharged and " start reading is 4 recorded." And it gives under what circumstances. And it 5 goes on to say, whenever they -- the operations are _
6 concluded, at the end of the day, the end reading on the 7 dosimeter shall be recorded.
8 MR. DUNN: Also, before that it says pocket' 9 dosimeters shall be recharged at the start of tach work
, 10 shift. So, that is the issue too before. That clarifies 11 it.
12 -MS. TROTTIER: Is that a clearer way to state this 13 requirement than what Part 34 currently says, which just is 14 pocket dosimeters shall be read and exposures-recorded 15 daily?
16 MR. CABE: I think the only time you would need to 17 record the reading before recharging is if it had reached 60 r 18 to 80 percent of its scale. And during you work you had 19 noticed that it had reached 150 or more. Then you would go 20 to the officer, wherever -- to the truck and recharge your 21 instruments. And we want to write that down before 22 recharging, and then you would start back over from zero or 23 20, wherever you recharge the dosimeter.
24 MR. HOWERTON: A follow-up on what Dennis said. I 25 have heard everybody say recharge the dosimeter. Does that ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 -
t 427
. 1 mean recharging it to zero or charging it to 10 or to 20? I 2 think the intent is for the radiographer to find out when he 3 receives and exposure upwards of 200, not if he has to start 4 at zero. And we all know that dosimeters are very difficult 5 to get on zero every time. The intent is to find out if the 6 individual received a large dosage. So, I think that maybe 7 there needs to be guidelines as to where you want it to 8 start. Is it zero, 10, 20 or 30, 9 MS. CARDWELL: That was our very discussion on 10 staff ae to why we changed this and said, as a minimum it 11 should be recharged and the start readings recorded.
le MS. TROTTIER: Yes.
13 MS. CARDWELL: It doesn't define recharging as 14 zero or the start reading, so that you will get that 15 difference.
16 MR. BALLARD: What has been accepted in our 17 practice is to write in every charge within one scale 18 division, which just happens to be 10, and that it cannot be -
19 recharged to the negative side of zero.
20 MR TUAZON: I just want to make one comment in 21 regard to the charging of an inspector. Many times -- the 22 last time -- about the initial reading of the pocket 23 dosimeter, and said I want to say that this is less than the 24 15 MR at the beginning of the job. And it happens that that 25 pocket dosimeter, like Bruce is saying, sometimes it is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reponers {
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
428 1 difficult to read that to zero. So, this particular one 2 would be recharged at 15 and then go from there. But, for 3 some reason, this happens three days in a row, and he has to 4 check this particular individual, and says each time you had 5 mentioned to him that one is to bring it less than this.
6 So, I do not interpret this. If you want to set a limit, 7 just the word recharge would be acceptable to the regulatory 8 requirements, I do not know.
9 MR. COOL: I need for someone to explain to me 10 why, if what you are concerned about is the amount he is 11 getting, is that particular start, whether it is 10 or 15 12 important? My recollection -- but it was a long time ago, 13 that I worked with these -- you were worried about a very 14 gross estimate of where it was going. Those babies aren't 15 worth anything more than that. Have they changed?
16 MR. McNEES: You lose your 200 and your range.
17 MR. COOL: 185 to 200?
18 HR. McNEES: I would like to know how clase to 19 zero do the other states accept recharging. The man here 20 says 15, and somebody said 10. How close to zero does it 21 have to be?
22 MR. HENRY: 20, something like that.
23 MS. CARDWELL: The point is the dosimeter is just 24 an indicator. And so, if they made an effort to recharge 25 it, to be able to notice a difference --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 1 Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950
429 1 MR. MARYLAND: We changed from at least 200 2 millirem to 200 -- where they have to get a dosimeter of 3 200. That way they can't get a 0-R packet dosimeter. And 4 the reason why is because we had a licensee where he 5 recharged -- he had a 2-R pocket dosimeter, and he recharged 6 it to like 90 or something like that. And we had some real 7 problems with that. And, the intent of the rule, I think, 8 as far as if that pocket dosimeter would go off-scale, if 9 **
a have got a 2-R pocket dosimeter, it would probably never 10 go off-scale. So, we changed from at least a 200. And, if 11 they want to have another high-range pocket dosimeter along 12 with it, then that is fine and dandy.
13 MR. BALLARD: I do think there does need to be 14 some kind of reference point. Because, in the past, it is 15 common on some operations to pick up the dose in a half a 16 day's time of 10 or 15 or 20 or more. And more than once, I 17 should say infrequently, an inspector has not quite accused la a radiographer of not re-zeroing his dosimeter, but has been-19 very very skeptical that he has, because, when he came out 20 there to look at it, it was on 15. And the person had only 21 picked up five.- And his contention was, well, you couldn't-22 have re-zeroed it, because his interpretation was that zero 23 is zero. That's why I think you need to define it in some 24 Way so that some inspectors do not get too meticulous in 25 their interpretation.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
-- - - . . - - . ~ -. - - - - . - - .. .. . .. . -. .
b
. _ . 430
.1 MR. COOL: Wouldn't that problem'be solved by 2 wording something like what Texas is talking about where the 3 -record has to show that it was charged, and that you record 4 the start, so that he could say then back to_the inspector, 5 okay, it was charged this morning, that charging then' read 6- 10. >
7 MR. BALLARD: But what if the best-staff 8 radiographer feels he can do just 40?
9 MR. McNEES: You can get him down to 10 or-15.
10 MR. BALLARD: I know you can. You are leaving 11 this open to argument if you are just saying record the
-12 start _ setting, and'not give a reference as-_to plus'or.minus..
13 what'it has to do.
-14 MR. COOL: Does'somebody want to give me what-a 1 51 good number would be? Is that five percent of full-scale, -
~
16 -or 200 MR? I cee heads shaking in this direction.
--17 MR. BALLARD: The check accuracy;is'30-percent.
-18 MR. HORNOR: That is a. good' number, 19 MR. BALLARD:- So, since-the, check accuracy'is 30 -
20 percent, you could say you.have to re-zero'within 30 percent
-21 of zero.
'22 MR. McNEES: I think it ought-to be either 10'or 23- 15. I have never seen one-that-you couldn't run down'to 10; 24 with-just a few turns of the handle.
25 MR. PATTERSON:- 'I think ' that the situation- could -
1.
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
L l1 Court Reporters.
L 1612 K.- Street, - N.W., -' Suite - 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 =
0 -. . . _ - - . . .. ..
.i
-431'
, 1 be solved a little better if the-inspectors were educated to.
2- the fact of the limits'of the dosimeter. As to being able- _;
3 to test the dosimetry in any particular thing, if you say 10 4 or 15, and it happens to set it on 12, then you are in 5 violation.
6 MR. COOL: That is .nother subject that we could: -
7 get into, but I don't want to right now. What I_-am looking 8 for here is some measure of consensus or input as to how to 9 best have this read. I am hearing some people-say limits of 10 accuracy of 30 percent. I an hearing Jim;say no reason you 11 can't say 10 or 15. I would like a little more. input on 12 that.
13 MR.'HORNOR: Let's come back to -- I didn't use 14 these in radiography, but I used them around the-reactor 15 with pencil dosimeters. And a tech would: stand there for 10 -
16 or-15 minutes trying to get the damn ~ thing on zero or_less-17 than five. And the whole idea, as Cindy said,:is the 18 differential reading. It is only. good-to-30 percent-anyway.
19 We know that as long as you are-in the' bottom--30. percent-of 20 the scale, and the differential is what you want,-you:rocord 21' the input number and you have got it.
-22 MR.-MARYLAND: There is nothing in place right now 23 that says below-30--percent.
24 MR. COOL: That's going to happen.
25 MS. .TROTTIER: Right.
ANN. RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K.= Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
TE >
i 432-
~
4' 1- -MR. MARYLAND: Ch. That is'what - >
2 MR. COOL: That in what we are trying to get?your 3 input on. ,
4 MR. MARYLAND: Yes.
5 MR. COOL:
Forget'what is there now. What oughti 6 it read? How ought the regulation read and why? that is 7 what I would really like to know. And then we can go and 8- see if we can make that happen.
9 MR. McNEES: Making them say 10, when the license-10 application -- they can recharge them down to 10.
11 MR. MARYLAND: Yes. And that is pretty much what-12 we look at.
13 MR. COOL: 10.000, ad nauseam?
14 MR. McNEES: Hold it up and look. That is one 15 scale division. You have only got to round it off to--the 16 nearest five, at best, when you read it. So,.if it is a 17 around 10 or 15, somewhere around that. Ten as one scale 18 division on a 200 MR dosimeter, so down about the.first
-19 division.
20- MR. MARYLAND: . That is typically what we: would-21 look atlin Georgia through the-licensing--- would probably 22 be below 10 or right at 10,-you know, for a 200 millirem- ti 23 dosimeter.
24 'MR. McNEES:: That is five~ percent of the scale.
25 -Perhaps 10 percent of the scale though would be reasonable.
ANN RILEY & : ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D. C. 20006 )
(202) 293-3950 :I
433 1 MR. CABE' What about the situation where the 2 radiography crew is using, in our situation, the dosimetry 3 at the station, and are using their dosimeters, their film 4 badges and everything. Those dosimeters are not recharged 5 daily. You don't have the facilities. But, if you were 6 going to use the dosimetry that the station has, you use the 7 station directly for the radiation inspection program, you 8 do not have the ability to recharge that dosimeter at the 9 beginning of the shift. So, what we do is we write down on _
10 the dosimeter card stop and start. It may be 30, it may be 11 45 that day. But, once that -- the regulations say give you 12 a point as to when you should turn that dosimeter back in 13 for recharging, it is the same for every one in the plant, 14 as with the radiographer.
15 The situation where we go to remote job sites is 16 we do have offsite -- what we call offsite dosimeters and 17 film badges for separate offsite work. And that situation 18 is written in our procedures that you do charge daily, prior 19 to each work shift. If an offsite locations -- if you are 20 working at the station, you are using the station dosimetry, 21 and the facilities are not there to recharge them everyday.
22 And you don't take the station dosimetry over to the 23 radiography office to recharge it yourself.
24 MR. McNEES: How far do you charge?
25 MR. BALLARD; Our procedure say within one scale ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
( (202) 293-3950
434 1 division, which is 10, and that seems to be easily hit by 2 the industry and easy for an inspector to judge.
3 MR. CABE: I think the wording zero to charge --
4 zero means -- a zero charge can mean within a certain range.
5 If you want to designate that range, fine.
6 MR. TUAZON: Let me pose a question here. With 7 all this discussion about dosimeter, do we really have to 8 check annually the dosimeter's calibration? With all this 9 checking that we are doing, right now, is thero any need for 10 that? If we cannot achieve that, we will dispose of it 11 anyway. '
12 MR. KASYK: You are talking about two different 13 things.
14 MR. TUAZON: I realize we have a requirement right 15 now. But, we say, if we cannot achieve that number, then 16 dispose of it.
17 MS. TROTTIER: But the check is a response check, 18 not whether you can zero it.
19 MR. MARYLAND: Also, I think a drip test should be 20 incorporated in it too.
21 MS. TROTTIER: All right.
22 Now, the next issue is one that I do not believe 23 we currently permit the use of a dosimeter, if there is no 24 film badge or TLD. Is that right, Bruce?
25 MR. CARRICO: I'm not sure.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters !
-1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
-_~ -
i 435 ~
. -1 MS. TROTTIER: I see nothing in Part 34.that says if you lost your film = badge or TLD you could use a pocket
~
2-3 -dosimeter. .
4 MS. ROUGHAN: I think Part 20 addresses that.- I 5 think the survey --
6 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. But, Part 34 is more 7 restrictive than Part 20. Part 34 requires a film badge or 8 TLD, and Part 20 does not.
9 MR. CARRICO: You cannot-substitute a' film badge 10 for it. You can't substitute and say I don't have a film 11 badge, I will just use the pocket dosimeter and go out and 12 act as a radiographer. You have got to have a film badge.
~
13 That is not what this said though.
14 MS. TROTTIER: Well, it does. .It.says that'if the 15 dosimeter readings were used to determine external radiation 1
16 dose, i.e. no TLD.or film badge exposure records exist --
17 MS. CARDWELL: Let me clarify.
18 MS.-TROTTIER: Okay. 4 19 MS.-CARDWELL: This is in part of the. rules _that's 20 talkingiabout record maintenance --Lback to~the comments we
= 21< had earlier. If you don't recall our. record of-it, I can 22 check again. . The-first sentence in that'said records or 23 pocket dosimeter-readings of' personnel. exposure'should be 24 maintained for two years. -Then-it goes on-to say:that, if 25 they were used to determine an external radiation exposure.
ANN-- RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
(202) 293-3950
436 1 dose, and we all know how many -- how many times we have had 2 incidents where they didn't have the film badge on. It was 3 on their shirt, laying on the pipe. It was hot, or it was 4 in the truck. You know, that kind of thing. Then it says 5 the record shall be maintained until the agency authorizes 6 disposal. That is what the rule says. It is strictly 7 talking about the records. If, for some reason, they have 8 had an over-exposure, and the licensee used those personnel 9 monitor readings to try to justify what they think the dose 10 was that he actually got, or try to back up his own 11 calculations, then they have to be kept until we all devise 12 a disposal, just like personnel monitoring records.
13 Otherwise, they can -- after two years they can trash it.
14 MR. BALLARD: If I understand the intent, we get a 15 certain percentage of film badge readings back that have no 16 reading. The company says that-they are not able to, for 17 several reasons, give an accurate or any reading whatsoever.
18 There have been occasions where an individual has lost his 19 film badge. It went to the washer. It is no good. So, we 20 used dosimeter readings for that period, simply to replace 21 the film badge readings that, for one reason or another, are 22 unavailable. We maintain those records just like you do a 23 film-badge, 24 MS. CARDWELL: And that's what that rule is 25 talking about. It does not say that you use instead of.
ANN - RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950
437
. 1 MS. TROTTIER: All right. Now, then the last one 2 comes out of Part 39, which specifies replacement periods.
3 And I will read that. Each film badge -- all right, here it 4 is. Film badges must be replaced at least monthly, and TLDs 5 replaced at least quarterly. We need to specify a 6 replacement period in Part 34. Apparently Part 34 does not 7 indicate a replacement period.
8 MR. HENRY: If you are suggesting that 9 radiographers only replace the TLD's every three months, we 10 are very much opposed to that. That is not adequate. That 11 is all right possibly in well logging, where the exposures 12 are so low. But, our radiographers run five rem a year just 13 traditionally. I think -- and, bebiaes, suppose a person 14 got an over-exposure the first month of the quarter? How 15 would you ever have anybody with an excessive exposure for 16 the quarter? What could you do about it? You could take -
17 action. There would be no manacement action to take, if_the 18 quarter is over before you get a reading.
19 MS. CARDWELL: To reiterate what Mike said. This 20 3 a big problem. And the way -- I will read our revision.
21 The way we have done this is film badges and TLD's must be 22 replaced at least monthly. We have also gone a step further 23 and said, after replacement, each film badge or TLD must be 24 returned to the supplier for processing within 14 calendar 25 days of the exchange date specified by the person, the month ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
438 1 and supplier, or as soon as practicable. And our lawyers 2 said that is for the provision for offshore work, when they 3 can't get it back in that fast, or they just physically 4 cannot do that. And our lawyer says you can't enforce as 5 soon as practicable.
6 So, we go on to say, in circumstances which make s 7 it impossible to return each film badge or TLD within 14 8 calendar days, such circumstances must be documented and 9 available for review by the agency. This would take care of 10 the situations whether they are out of state for a longer 11 period of time than that, out of the country or offshore.
12 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Now, reactions to inserting 13 the requirament about how often you would change film badges 14 or TLD's? Do you understand? Apparently Part 34 says 15 nothing.
16 MR. BONZER: I think you have to go with the State 17 of Texas, exactly the way it is worded. TLD, for a 13 quarterly, is unacceptable for exposure for radiography.
19 MR. MARYLAND: Georgia agrees.
20 MR. FUNDERBURG: California agreds.
21 MS. CARDWELL: That might explain the reason for 22 putting in that they have to be returned tc the processor 23 within 14 days, is we would have companies ttat would meet 24 our monthly exchange date, and then hang on to thee and tell 25 us, well, we have got a crew way out in Odessa or down in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters j 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~
1 439 1 Del Rio or somewhere, and won't be back for another three 2 weeks. And we would end up with them being returned at that 3 quarterly period anyway. So, we put the double provision in 4 there.
5 MR. KASYK: The reason for it is because they only 6 have one control gauge, the film. And if you send them a 7 partial shipment, they use it, read it out, and I guess they 8 dispose of it. But, if you send an additional badge later
- 9 on, they don't have the reference anymore to compare it 10 with. So, that's uhy they wait until they get everything 11 togethm .
12 MR. McNEES: This is being done by license review 13 -- by a licensing guide of both the states.
14 MS. *ROTTIER: It's just not in the NRC 15 regula': ton . In 90 percent of the cases, what. happens is 16 enforcement action depends on the reference. And, 17 enforcement against too regulation is always preferred.
4 18 MR. BALIARD: I would request that a provision for 19 the situation our company uses. We have monthly film badges 20 mandatory. And, we have quarterly TLD's on a -- in our 21 regulations we.say on our decision. We actually do give all 22 of our personnel a film badge and, at-our option, the TLO.
23 That TLD is quarterly. It is not developed, but it is read 24 quarterly. And what that does is that gives us a back-up, 25 and it lets us know-if our film Ladges are accurate compared ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)_ 293-3950 - =
440 1 to the TLD's. So, if you were to say film badgou and TLD's 2 on a monthly basis, that inhibits us from having this second '
3 back-up.
4 MS. TROTTIER: If you have it --
5 MR. HORNOR1 Do anything you want to be on the 6 requirement.
7 MS. TROTTIER: A film or a TLD, it is not and.
8 MR. DALLARD: We found this to be --
9 MR. CARRICO: It must be read by a qualified 10 company. '
11 MR. DALLARD: Landau.
12 MR. CARRICO: That will do.
13 MR. COOL: You have got the separate requirement 14 it. Part 20 about the processing dosineter, which I don't 15 think we need to get into that. I think we have made a 16 clear option. Is your option --
17 MS. TROTTIER: Have we exhausted conversation on 18 this one?
19 (No response.)
20 MS. TROTTIER: If so, let's go. This is one I 21 stuck back that was in one of the earlier slides. So, we 22 are going to deal with this now. I just thought it was more 23 appropriate to deal with dosimetry things.
24 I suspect the issue here is that our rega are not 25 clear on this. Our regs say if an individual's pocket ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
-4 441 1 dosimeter is discharged beyond its range, hi; film badge or 2 TLD shall be immediately sent for processing, It doesn't 3 say that he can't work. And suggested stato rega do specify I 4 that they can no longer work. Is this something that all 5 the states require? I would assume that this is done by 6 licensee technician.
7 liR. FUNDERBURG: They have to investigate before 8 they continue.
9 MR. McNEES: I believe you have licensing guides 10 dating back to a decade or so requiring that.
11 MS. TROTTIER: It has not been put in to Part 34.
- z
_ So, the issue was should we insert this into Part 34 so it 13 is. clear?
14 MR. MARYLAND: Yes.
15 MR. COOL: I see agreement around the room.
16 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. We also added another 17 provision that said they also must calculate a dose. The 18 words are: The individual should not return with sources of 19 radiation until a determination of his or her radiation 20 exposure has been nade.
21 MR. HARYIAND: Take off at least to 100 millirem.
22 MR. BALIARD: Since your regulations say that an 23 individual cannot perform radiography without a film badge 24 or TLD, and that if a dosimeter is off-scale, it must be 25 immediately sent to processing, doesn't that automatically ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K.' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
. - . ~ . _ . - . .. . - - . . - . - . . - . - . - - - . . . . - . - . -. -
4 442 .
. 1 rouove him? I 2 MR. McNEES: Just give him another one.
3 MR. BALLARD: Wil, yer, you could give him i
4 another film badge. But, how would you read that from 5 conducting further operations? Forever? Till he gets his ,
6 reading back? ,
7 MS. TROTTIER Until the dose is determined. ,
8 MR. BALLARD: Until the dose is determined? Okay. d 9 MS. ROUGHANt What in the case -- a lot of 10 licensees use the zero to one MR dosimeter and, in addition,- i 11 they were a zero to 1-R dosimeter as a back-up. The zero to 12 200 dosimeter due to bumping, whatever_-- do they still have l
13 the 1-R dosimeter for the dose? Are they required to stop '
14 work on that, in that sense, and then send in'the' film- -
15 badge?- A lot of-licenseen do that, they wear the two 16 dosimeters.- It is a question we get-at-lot-of.
17 MR. TUAZON: Just.a follow-up. When you work in a ,
18 nuclcar plant, there are areas that are high background,g200 .
, 19' MR pocket dosimeter does not work.- So,- in this instant:e, 20 -we, are reducing the high dose range dosimeter as'high as 21- 10R. So, we still work,lbut this time we are'using the'zero-22 to 200. We are using the film badge-' TLD, plus that high -
23 dose dosimeter. Is that going to be a problem _because we.
24 are not using zero to 200?
25 MS. TROTTIEh: That is a different situation. The--
ANN - RlLEY: & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. ,
-Court Reporters; l
_.-1612 - KJ Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. - C.L 20006
-(202) 293-3950- ..
443
. 2 dose is not due to the device, the dose la due to something 2 else.
3 MR. TUAZON: Somehow what we're talking -- is that 4 exclusively for radiographic operation?
5 MS. TROTTIER: The issue is the dose came from the 6 device.
7 MR. CARRICO: Apply for a specific exemption from 8 dose requirements, since you are a 200 MR period. For those 9 type cases, then you need to-come to the NRC to apply for an 10 exemption.
11 MS. CARDWELL: Yes. That is what we would 12 recommend -- that you write in for some kind of special 13 exemption for those specific situations.
14 MR. HORNOR: Bruce, if he is allowed to do that in 19 a nuclear plant, we have already examined that that is an 16 allowable process. Otherwise,.a nuclear plant would never 17 put him in that situation believe me.
18 MS. TROTTIER: That's right. Right.
19 MR. CARRICO: The regulations say that. What 20 would you do as an alternative? What you are saying, in 21 essence, is that would be allowable.
22 MR. HORNOR: We are allowing him right now to-use 23 the nuclear power plant dosimetry period. And it is on the 24 power plant's discretion and on their license for the 25 over-exposures.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
444
. 1 MR. CARRICO: Well, I am not sure that is i 2 credible. I understand that once that radiography was 3 conducted under a radiography license. Unless the nuclear 4 power plant has a part of their operating license and 5 description in the radiography program, which I am not sure 6 we do have.
7 MS. TROTTIER: The issue is that if we made the 8 change where we took the at least out, would they then be in 9 violation by having a pocket dosimeter that was beyond the 10 200 MR?
11 MR. MARYLAND: Well, if he had two in the State of 12 Georgia, and the 200 one didn't work. he would be in 13 violation, because -- we put that requirement in,-because if 14 it went off, still -- with the 10R, I mean, you know, you 15 wouldn't be around to talk about it, would you?
16 MR. TUAZON: You are really going to create a 17 problem with the licensoo because, prior to the work that 18 was determined already, it is already known. Your plant 19 knows it. You have to do work.
20 MR. MARYLAND: If you work in a nuclear power 21 plant, we wouldn't expect you anyway.
22 MR. CABE What would you do in a situation just 23 reading that issue there? At what point _in time, say, if a 24 TLD or film badge is lost, what point in time would'the 25 individual go back to work? Would that be the case - that
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters, 1612 K. Street, N.'N.,- Suite 300 Washington, i D. C. - 20006
_(202) 293 3950
445 1 you would stop operation, once he realized he had lost his 2 TLD, and take a dosimeter reading, and then determine that 3 he was not over-exposed, and whatevnr -- he has still got 35 4 HR on his 200 dosimeter and lost his film badge, and it may 5 never be found? Do we issue him another badge at the 6 beginning of the next shift and send him back to work once 7 we have established that it is hazardous to proceed with an 8 over exposure of radiation?
9 MS. TROTTIER: I believe once you determine the 10 dose, he can go back to work.
11 MR. CARRICO: How quickly can you get a TLD or 12 film badge read?
13 MR. BALLARD: Two days.
14 MR. CABE: We have facilities within probably six 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> to do it ourselves.
16 MS. TROTTIEn: The suggested state regs say the 17 individual shall not return to work with sources of 18 radiation until a determination of the radiation exposure 19 has been made.
20 MR. CARRICO: We have at least one situation where 21 the licensee made mathematical errors in calculating the 22 individual's dose. As a matter of fact, they dramatically
~
23 under-estimated it.
24 MR. BALLARD: The representative from Amersham 25 raised a point that her customers have asked if they carried ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950? -
)
446
. 1 the zero to 200 pocket dosimeter, and then the higher range, 2 500 to 1,000, 2,000, what happens if the 200 goes off-scale, 3 but the other reads only three or 4007 Rightly or wrongly, 4 we have been told by regulatory agencies, Federal and state, 5 if the 200 dosimeter goes off-scale, we do not care what 6 alse you carry, it kicks in the mechanism of having the film 7 badge immediately processed.
8 MS. CARDWELL: That is exactly right.
9 MS. TROTTIER: That is probably true.
10 MS. ROUGHAN: There was one other issue on that 11 slide, operation of dosimeters discharged. Again, another 12 question we get from the licensees is, if they knowingly 13 bump the dosimeter, and they just read the dosimeter at the 14 end of the shift, and then dropped the dosimeter, and it is 15 discharged beyond its range, what is the appropriate action 16 to take at that point? Do they have to stop work, and send 17 in the filn badge, an wait till they get the results before 18 they go back?
19 MS. TROTTIER: A lot of heads are going up and 20 down. Yes.
21 MS. ROUGHAN: That's not was is done.
22 MS. TROTTIER: I'm sure that's not what's done.
23 Okay. This is the last slide that I have. And, 24 the first one deals with specific requirements that exist in l
25 the Texas regs for unusual types of radiography. NRC, and I
': ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. '
Coud Reponers l
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 L .
447
. 1 wish Bruce had not left, apparently does not have specific .
2 requirements in the rogs for other types of radiography.
3 And the question has como up, do we need to add --
4 MS. CARDWELL: I'm not sure Oklahoma has ,
5 underwater radiography. I am not sure they have enough 6 water.
7 MR. AMMON: We have got a couple of big lakes. I 8 don't know if we lay a pipeline across the lake though.
9 MR. MYERS: I will comment on that office of state 10 prograras.
11 MS. TROTTIER: Okay.
12 MR. MYERS: Considering that offshore radiography 13 is now part of NRC's jurisdiction, it would make sense to 14 have something in there about offshore radiography.
15 MS. TROTTIER: Yes. And I guess the question is 16 would that-be a problem if wo added it?
17 MR. FUNDERBURG: Not if it was --
18 MS. CARDWELL: Are you going to define it? We 19 defined offshore. Offshore means within the territorial 20 waters of the State of Texas. And, according to our state 21 law, it says that it extends out to three Marine by nine 22 nautical miles from the coast. Does the NRC kick in after 23 that?
24 MS. TPOTTIER: Yes, we do offshore inspections.
25 MR. MYERS: It was the intent -- is that there is ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. _
4 Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)'293 3950___ _ _
r 448
. 1 a gap. Texas currently covers out to nine nautical miles.
2 Beyond that is NRC jurisdiction. If you have no provisjons 3 in the regulation on how to perform offshore radiography, I 4 think that is the gap.
5 MS. CARDWELL: How far out do you go?
6 MR. HENRY: I thought it was three.
7 MS. CARDWELL: Well, it says three marine league 8 line, which I have no idea what it is, or nine nautical 9 miles.
10 MR. MYERS: I think it is three miles.
11 MR. HENRY: I thought it was three miles, Cindy.
12 MR. McNEES: Texas is different, due to the way in 13 which they came into the Union. We were told at one time 14 that Louisiana was kind of in agreement with the NRC to do 15 offshore, off the coast of Alabama. What is the status of 16 that?
17 MS. CARDWELL: Yes.- There is a thing in the 18 regulations.
19 MR. HENRY: It is basically ignored. We didn't 20 want to go offshore.
21 MS. CARDWELL: We have nine nautical miles, that 22 we didn't need -- needed room.
23 MS. TROTTIER: All right. The next one is about 24 organizational delegations. Oh, I am sorry, go ahead.
25 MR. BALLARD: I would respectfully request that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court _ Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202);293-3950 __
449
. 1 the NRC adopt regulations similar to those in Texas, that do 2 make certain provisions for pipeline radiography.
3 MS. TROTTIER: Okay.
4 MR. BALLARD: Because it is radiography like no 5 other.
6 MS. TROTTIER: Okay. Now, the reference to Part 7 39 is under applying for a license. That is E. Let me find 8 it here. The applicant shall submit a description of its 9 overall organizational structure as it applies to the 10 radiation safety responsibilities in well logging, including 11 specified delegation of authority and responsibility.
12 Now, the question that was raised by the staff is 13 this something wo should insert in to the sections of Part 14 34 which specify license requirement?
16 MR. KASYK: Well, we require anybody for any 17 application to do this.
18 MS. TROTTIER: It is in your standard.
19 MR. KASYK: It should be a standard condition.
20 MS. TROTTIER: Apparently it is not listed with 21 the other things in Part 34 for applying for a license. So, 22 the thought was that maybe we should add it.
23 All right. The next one is- the or.e from Texas, 24 and that is records of receipt. What did I do with it?
25 Records of receipt, transfer and disposal, which is 31.10.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters 1G12 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950 j
a -A -- e -s: q m <Ae- - s a st. + -+a< - am.i 450 1 And, it simply says each licensee shall maintain records 2 showing the receipt, transfer and disposal of sources.
3 These records shall include the date, the individual making 4 the record, the radionuclido, the number of curies, the 5 make, model and serial number of each source, and device as 6 appropriate. Records shall be maintained until disposal Is 7 authorized by the agency. Apparently Part 34 doesn't 8 specifically address that.
9 MR. KASYK: I think that is a very good 10 requirement, because we have cases where not necessarily, in 11 the radiography, but in other licensing too that you require 12 the licensee to provide records of transfer. They bring a 13 stack of invoices and shipments, and there is no way you can 14 establish what is the material in possession. And it is a 15 mess, so we solved it by putting a license condition, which 16 requires that each isotope has to be tallied by itself and 17 show individual transfers of records, because you can't 18 expect -- first of all, the inspectors should not be 19 rummaging through their papers. They should produce the 20 transfers. And, if they cannot produce the transfer, we 21 would cite them on the licensing condition, because they 22 cannot prove'to us what they possess at any given time. So, 23 I think that that would be a very good idea.
24 MS. CARDWELL: This is a related issue. I just 25 wanted to add something NRC might consider. I don't know ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 L(202) 293-3950
451 i
. I how major a deal this would be. But, we started a couple of 2 years ago in putting in an extra appendix in each part of 3 our regulation. Time requirements for recordkeeping, where 4 it is referenced in the rule -- what the record is, and how 5 long you have to keep it. That is because the recordkeeping 6 requirements are varied in all the different sections, and 7 it made it so much easier. Now they can -- here are all the 8 records we have to have. Here is where it is referenced in 9 the rule and here's how long. And we got a lot of good --
10 such good response that we are now -- every time we change a 11 part, we just stick it in this.
12 MS. TROTTIER: I don't know that the Federal 13 Register would allow us to do that.
14 MR. COOL: That is not all that Inuch different 15 from what we attempted to do in Part 20, where we put all 16 the record retention pieces in one place.
17 MS. TROTTIER: In a section?
18 MS. CARDWELL: It made it a Jot easier on our 19 licensees.
20 MR. COOL: There is at least some precedence, so 21 we can look at that.
22 MS. TROTTIER: And the ' st one is simply the i
23 standard language that goes with i..lations. It is not in 24 Part 34. I suspect it is just because Part 34 is a very old 25 regulation. The section is called enforcement. Any kind of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
452
. 1 injunction or other court order may be obtained or prohibit .
2 a violation of any provision of this part. A court order 3 may be obtained for the payment of a civil penalty. Any ,
4 person who willfully violates any provision of this part --
5 this is the new one -- may be guilty of a crime and, upon 6 conviction, may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or 7 both, as provided by law.
8 So, it is not that we can't do this. Everyone 9
9 knows we can do this. But, it is just the-idea of insorting 10 it into the regulation.
11 MR. CARRICO: Cheryl, I can't remembat. that that 12 was a matter of compatibility between the states.
13 MS. TROTTIER: It probably isn't. And nobody says 14 it has to be either.
15 MS. ROUGHAN: Relating to that -- kind of more of 16 a general comment. In the training we have done on RSos and 17 managers of companies, one of the biggest sections of the 18 NRC regs they are not familiar with is Part Two. And that 19 sets out all the criteria for enforcement actions, and what 20 are exempt, and notices of violations, and what civil 21 penalties are. As a result, I don't think they are familiar 22 with what is required of an inspection. They don't realize 23- what can be cited as a violation. I think they need to know 24 that by virtue of their training. I don't believe they get 25 a copy of that when they renew their license either.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D._- C. 20006
-(202) 293 3950-
. _ _ _ ~_ _ . - - . _ - . _ _ _ . . _ _ . - __._ . _ _ ._
h 453 4 1 HS. TROTTIER: Part Two? They should get a copy.
2 MS. ROUGilAN: The should. I think they really 3 nood to be educated.
4 MS. TROTTIER: I think we could probably add that 5 when they send in the application.
6 All right. That concludes the slides that I have.
7 MR. COOL: I guess the next question becomes does 8 anyone have any issues that we haven't Sanaged to address in 9 the last two days?
10 (Show of hands.)
11 MR. COOL: I have got one, two, three, four hands.-
12 Let's start with Tom.
13 MR. RICll: The one thing we haven't addressed is 14 34.20. Is the scaled source safety section responsible for 15 doing evaluationq cn radiography cameras and changers? And 16 what we.are faced with now is do we accept a new ANSI guide 17 for the old one? And, if we do accept the new one, can we 18 use internal policies as statements in the ANSI Guido? What 19 I would like to do is get some feedback from the Agreement-20 States. Are they accepting the current ANSI Guide?- Do they 21 have incorporated in their regulations the old ANSI Guido?-
22 And, if not, what are they using for design requirements and 23 manufacturers? They come into their territory for a review. -
24 If I could just go around the room.
25 MR. PUNDERBURG: What is the number of the new ANN RlLEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)'293-3950
i i
454 l
. 1 ANSI Guide?
2 MR. RICH: ANSI M43.9, 1991.
3 MR. FUNDERBURG: What is the old one?
4 MR. RICH: ANSI 432, 1980.
5 We currently have in our regulations the N432, 6 1980, which puts certain requirements on the cameras and 7 changes -- particularly, the source must be secured when not 8 backing the camera -- cannot be pulled out the back of.the 9 camera at;d so forth, and also pute certain test requirements :
10 that they must meet. We feel it is very important. And 11 that is why we have incorporated it in the 12 regulation.However, there are some good points in the new 13 ANSI guida that have not been incorporated. We need to find 14 out what your approach in. Is it best to go around the 15 room?
16 MR. Cool: Tom, there may be some that you will 17 want to let them think a little bit on and gut to you within 18 the next week or so. I have a feeling, just from looking at 19 people's reaction that they are not quite prepared to go yas-20 or no to the question at this moment.
21 MR. KASYK: We would use the latest regulation, 22 because what sense is it to use the previous one, if the new 23 one is issued.
24 MS. CARDWELL: Well, I think Tom is right. It has l 25 a bearing because that is a compatibility item, these-l I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
i Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suito 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)- 293-3950
455 1 equipment standards. And we had all of them -- most of them 2 in before NRC did. We used the N432, 1980, and specified 3 that. And this revision is N432, 1980 because of its 4 compatibility. It reads the same as -- and, if NRC is going 5 to change anytime soon, you have got to take into account 6 that three-year time period that all the Agreemunt States 7 have to adopt that rule. Some of us are working on it right 8 now, some of us are going to do it at the very last minute.
9 And that is something that needs to be really considered, 10 because it is not good to do a rule and take it all the way
. 11 through, and then have NRC turn around and change that 12 reference, and then say it in compatibility again.
13 MR. RICH: It is also unfair to the manufacturer.
14 There are some major differences between the two ANSI 15 guides.
16 MR. CARRICol Could you aiscuss what those might 17 be?
18 MR. RICH: Well, I do have a couple of the slides 19 that I was going to present. And what they contain is 20 basically the major differences between the new guide and 21 the old guido. If you have time, just address them and send 22 them back to me. Send copies to the state programs.
23 MS. CARDWELL: Can we request that maybe, through 24 State Programs, we can grt your slides, so we can see what 25 the dif.ferences are?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suhe 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 ,
I 456
. 1 MR. RICH: I have copios here.
2 MS. CARDWELL: Oh, bless your heart.
3 MR. RICH: Our current policy is to accept the 4 current industry standards. However, sometimes the 1 S standards that are published are not directly applicable to 6 what we do, uo we try to go with the industry conTensus.
7 What we are trying to do here is get some kind of consensus 8 -- everybody working together, so it is fair to all the 9 manufacturers across the board.
10 MR. COOL: Other comments?
11 MS. ROUGilAN: I have got a general question 12 possibly to Vandy, for all the states.
13 MS. CARDWELL: We have been told to answer for 14 Vandy.
15 MS. ROUGHAN: I would expect them to be, but I 16 wanted to hear that.
17 MR. MILLER: I think you are pretty well on target 18 there, Cindy. I won't make that commitment at this moment.
19 But, like I said, you will be involved with the levels of 20 compatibility concerning any revision to Part 34, 21 MS. CARDWELL: Well, our contention is not so much 22 that it is a matter of compatibility, it is probably a good 23 idea for all the Agreement States to be in there. But, 24 let's not change mid-stream. That makes it really hard on 25 the states who are in the process of, or who need to, or who l
l l
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washtoaton, D. C. 20006
- l. (8 2) 293 3950-
457-
. 1 already have adopted the compatibility.
2 MR. CARRICO 34.20 is a matter of compatibility?
3 MS. CARDWELLt Yes.
4 MR. COOL: All right.
5 MR. KASYK I have a comment. It is about 6 radiographer certification, which also impacts on it. And, 7 since the regulations still require that the license trains a the radiographer for the certification, it seems like we are 9 beating a dead horse.with training manuals of radiation 10 companies, radiography companies. I think, while we are 11 taking the certification, it would be a very good idea to 12 develop a standard training manual which can be used by 13 everybody, instead of approving -- every time a company 14 comes, you have to approve a training manual. Now, why 15 should we keep reinventing the wheel? If we could develop a 16 standard course, a standard text, and they could-use it for 17 the training of the radiographer, this would save a lot of 18 time and a lot of trouble.
19 MR. COOL: We will take that comment back to the 20 right people.
21 MS. DIBBLEE: Along with that comment, I concur >
22 with that. And I would like to see something done along the 23 same guide as 10.8, which you did for the medical guido, so 24 that both licensees and reviewers have the benefit of a 25 standard game plan for_this whole thing, including ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202)- 293 3950
458 1 records.May I make my other comment now?
2 MR. COOL: Go ahead.
3 MS. DIBBLEE: Recently, in fact, we are still in 4 the process of investigating an overexposure, and we 5 required the licensoc to do an investigation -- in the 6 process, called oak Ridge to see if they would help us out 7 on some of the dosimetry. Their response to the licensee --
8 nat to us, to the licensee upon this request was they 9 couldn't do it because the licensee was a private party.
10 And they referred the licensee to Carlotyping and Dosimetry.
11 It is somoplace in Pittsburgh. And it was my understanding 12 that this was an option that we or our licensees could use.
13 I have since learned that perhaps that persons should call 14 directly. And, had we called, we would had -- we, the state 15 agency, would have been able to have this done. It seems to 16 be an unresolved item. It was my understanding that Oak 17 Ridge and Dr. Ricks was the place for this dosimetry, and 18 was state of the art, and could be used.
19 MR. Cool: We will go back and re-check that. The 20 Oak Ridge group is certainly one of the best groups around 21 for doing that. We will have to recheck their procedures.
22 It may, in fact, be that the Federal agency has to make the 23 request because it is under DOE contract. That is the only 24 way we can get them turned on so that may be what happened.
25 But, we will check that and try to get you back an answer.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1012 K. Street, N.W., - Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
459 1 MR. FREE: We have had several incidents where we 2 ask for support from Oak Ridge, and it scoms to depend on 3 the severity of the incident. We have had some radiation 4 burns, where they eagerly jumped in and did their dosinetry 5 and estimated doses to individual radiographers. And we 6 have had other incidents of lower doses, where no obvious 7 injury occurred, where they apparently chose they should 8 charge the licensee for the service. One number I was 9 quoted by a licensee a few years ago was a thousand dollars 10 for a chromosome aberration study. In the one case, where 11 there was a radiation burn, they were actually assisting --
12 the radiographer actually was a trainee. In the other case, 13 the company approached them. And we made the initial 14 contact with Oak Ridge. And they felt they should charge 15 the licensee or the service.
16 I have never been able to put together a list of 17 facilities that provide the study for chromosome aberration.
18 The DOE facilit,' at Oak Ridge was the only one I knew of. I 19 have been told that there are others, but I haven't been 20 able to identify them.
21 MR. HENRY: The University of pittsburgh does 22 them.
23 MR. MILLER: Let me just point out that one of the 24 things the states should do is contact their Agreement State 25 office first. The support you need from NRC, through one of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950
460 1 the NRC contractors, you should try go directly to the 2 contractor. And I am not familiar with Oak Ridge providing 3 some assistance to private licensees. That is outside of 4 our scope. But, I do know that we can go through LMSS --
5 have our Agrooment State officer come in to headquarters, 6 then through NHSS, and then through Oak Ridge. We can get a 7 lot of things done. But, we can't do it if you are going to 8 go and deal with oak Ridge directly.
9 MS. D1BBLEE I would like to comment on that. As 10 soon as this incident happened, I did contact Region V, and, 11 in fact, talked to Jack Hornor, who was in Alaska. And we 12 do go through the proper notif.ication. All he knew about it 13 -- Jack know about it, and everybody who was supposed to 14 know about it know about it --
15 MR. MILLER: Oh, yes. I am not talking about 16 arguing personally, I am talking on a generic basis. Don't 17 take that to be a personal offense to Oregon.
18 okay. We have got to quickly move on now.
19 MR. C00L: Are there any other comments?
20 (Show of hands.)
21 MR. COOL: We have got one comment from a member 22 of the public?
23 MR. TUAZON: Yes. We would like the consideration 24- for the mandatory requirement for alarm rate daters. Alarn 25 rate meter does not work in m.r.y places in Michigan during c
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 i _
461
. 1 the winter. With all the winter approaching -- that you 2 have that survey would not be heard by the radiographer. In 3 the power plant, when we work at times, you know it is 4 background there, plus, those air protectors that is 5 required to be able to work in the area would prepare the 6 individual to hear the alarm. Therefore, I would like to 7 suggest this Committee to reconsider the use of that as 8 optional rather than mandatory.
9 The other thing that I would liko to suggest is 10 the third part of the certification. I believe that when 11 the program of the licensee is good, and has been proven by 12 the NRC, that there must be a point where this becomes right l's now as option to the licensee. We would like that to be 14 maintained that way, because, if the licensee is doing its 15 job, and duing what must be done, then there is no reason to 16 go farther an6 add financial burden to the licensee, just to 17 comply with the requirement. It does not add to the safety 18 of the operation. That is my comment.
19 HS. CARDWELL: I want to bring this up because I 20 want to go home today. But, I feel likn I need to comment 21 on those alarming rate meters. I have been informally 22 surveying our licenses, if you will, about the use of the 23 alarming rate meters. And it is not a requirement currently 24 in our rules -- but they indicated to us yes, that it is a 25 matter of compatibility. Of course, there was the notice ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
462 1 that came out from liRC that they don't work in certain 2 situations, and then, upon getting that, that is when I 3 started asking some of our 2iconsees. I have been told that 4 OS!!A requirements in c11 of our factories and our refinerlos 5 down around flouston require hearing protection. They cannot 6 hear them in those situations. If they could hear them 7 above the refinery noise -- they can't hear them with the 8 hearing protection on.
9 There was the thing about they falsely alarmed in 10 high RF ficids, such as around welding machines. I believe 11 some of them have RF shielding around them now, but I am not 12 sure about that.
13 During an incident investigation that I was on 14 just last month or so, I asked the guy, and he said some of 15 his employees had voluntarily bought the alarming rate 16 meters and uranium at one of his quarterly inspections that 17 he was required to do of his employees -- found him using 18 the alarming rate :aeters with the survey meter in the truck.
19 And, if that is going to be a trend, with the mandatory 20 requirement of them, then we are very much against them.
21 Now, I e.m going to say we have proposed it in our -- or we 22 will propose it in our rule, in order to get formal comments 23 to write back and say we don't think it is a good idea, if 24 that is, indeed what we did as comments. But, it has raised 25 serious concerns, and we have heard those concerns from our-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite - 300 Washington, D. C, 20006
-(202) 293 3950-
.. .~ _
463
, 1 licensees.
2 MR. MARYLAND: The State of Georgia -- we have 3 incorporated that in our rules. And va have had a lo: of 4 complaints from our licensees about the safety situation.
5 MR. MILLER: We will take a look at that.
6 MR. MYERS: I recently reviewed the draft policy 7 and guidance directive that the regional offices would send 8 to radiographers from Agreement states looking for 9 reciprocity, wanting to work in NRC land. It dawned on me, 10 after sitting through yesterday -- there were two things il brought up in this package that would be sent to the 12 radiographer, one of them dealt with the certification 13 process of their packaging, and the other had to do with the 14 QA program, which is kind of a tedious and involved process 15 for somebody coming into NRC and saying here is my program, 16 here is my QA thing, please do this and do it in a hurry, 17 because I have got a job to do next week.
18 I think that all the offices at NRC should sit 19 down and perhaps come up with another strategy to address 20 that so that, if you are a radiographer --
21 MR. MILLER: Yes. We have covered that, Jim, 22 before you came in this morning.
23 MR. MYERS: Yes?
24 MR. MILLER:- That is all on the record.
25 MR. MYERS: All right.
i l
l - ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
464
. 1 The second suggestion was to perhaps suggest to 2 the wording. A day and a half ago we discussed the options 3 of locking or securing cameras. And I thought of perhaps 4 some terminology that could be used and maybe should be 5 considered. One is that you would consider a camera to be 6 in a safe option, in other words, or being made safe. In 7 other words, the source in retracted and you physically 8 survey to see that it is, in fact, in the camera. That 9 would allow you to use it in a situation, moving out taking 10 shots, but that it would have to be locked or secured-in 11 order to move to, let's say, across the plant or down the 12 road. So, you have a different set of options there. You 13 make it safe, so that you can approach it and perhaps handle 14 it, versus securing it for transportation.
15 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
16 MR. COOL: Any other additional issues? Going 17 once?
18 MS. ROUGHAN: I just wanted to add a comment. You 19 can make it safe in terms of having the source return to the 20 shield position, but that doesn't mean the source is not 21 going to move if the radiographer picks up the control and-22 drops the camera two-feet to the next shot. It can traverse 23 out of the S-tube and cause a potential problem. So, I 24 believo security is a good definition.
25 MR. COOL: Anyone else?
ANN- RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite- 300 '
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202): 293-3950-
465
. 1 (No response.)
2 MR. Cool: All right. To wrap this up, I want to 3 tell you that I, personally, appreciate, and I know Cheryl 4 -- I am speaking for her also -- appreciates the way in 5 which you all have participated. There have been some very 6 good discussions, very informative. We have gotten some 7 very good idea and some learning that hopefully we will be 8 able to go back and use. Likewise, I am very appreciative 9 of all the input that we have gotten from our licensees and 10 members of the public who have been here. We really valued 11 your input and contribution, and are glad that you have been 12 able to stay with us for the entire session.
13 At this point, just so you have some notion of 14 what happens, because this otherwise goes into the white 15 box. They are distilled, and gestates for some period of 16 time. We are going to, from here, try and prepare a draft
- 17 proposed rulemaking for review. We will provide that to the 18 office of State Programs at the same time we would go for 19 revision and review within the agency. And, we would have to them serve as the conduit to send it out to the Agreement 21 States for you to look at simultaneously with that.
22 We would hope to have some idea of what might be 23 various levels of compatibility for various requirements, so 24 that we can get your input to that. We would hope to be 25 able to do that probably in January of 1993. We would not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
466 1 expect, at this point, to hold another meeting of this type, ,
, 2 but, rather, that you would next be seeing something which 3 was actually written down and be able to provide specific 4 comments on particular points of wording.
5 As with all cases that I have been aware of, once 6 you get on the airplane this afternoon you will probably 7 think oh, if I had just said that particular comment, or 8 maybe there was this little nuance. We would appreciate 9 your going ahead and jotting that down and sending it to me.
10 I don't need things that are incredibly formal. You have 11 got my fax number on the bottom of the page. I know that 12 Vandy will say please let him know of things that you send 13 to me, but, please don't let that formality deter you from 14 sending me your ideas. But, in order for us to really be 15 able to impact us in preparing the draft, I would really 16 like to have them by the end of November, so that we can 17 take that into account. The first two weeks of December is 18 when most of the drafting is going to be done. We hope to 19 be done with that before we hit the Christmas break.- That 20 is the timing associated with that.
21 Those are the comments that I have got. We are 22 very appreciative of the participation. And I am going to 23 turn it back to the Chairman of this group for his august 24 words of closing.
25 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Doug, and I do have a ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, - D. C. 20006 l---- (202) 293-3950
467-1 couple of august words for you.
2 First, I wa to say that we had started off our 3 new fiscal year on a good food here. This is our first 4 workshop for the FY '93. It is a good way to start, because 5 this was a very successful workshop. And I must commend thu 6 states and your management for getting the right people here 7 to participate in this workshop. None of you were. bashful.
8 I think you are very closc to these issues, and you let us 9 know that. And I appreciate the states sending the right 10 people to this workshop.
11 Now, I want to thank our court reporter down there 12 for doing an outstanding job to make this workshop a matter 13 of record. Because, you know, that is not an easy job.
14 But, she has stuck right with us. 'And I want to thank her 15 and her management for her efforts. And the last thanks 16 will come if we get it right away. Those are the results of 17 this meeting. She knows. I have already talked to her 18 about that.
19 Now, I want to thank the hotel staff for making 20 this a very successful workshop, and providing the amenities 21 here. Of course, we pay for this; but, we want to thank 22 them anyway. We might want to come back here some 'odaer 23 time.
24 I certainly want to thank Don Cool and Cheryl 25 Trottier, because they were the two individuals from NRC ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 3(X)
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
468
. 1 that really.made this workshop very successful. They-did-2 their homework before coming. You all gave them what they 3 needed, and this -- and, from cheir vantage point, it was 4 very successful. And thanks to them for making it 5 successful.
6 Then, I >nt to also thank Jim Myers, of my own 7 strff, because he u che individual who makes sure that 8 everybody gets notified and makes sure you get here and you-9 get the right hotel and so forth and so on, and also to make 10 contributions in the workshop. He certainly has done that.
11 And, lastly, I want to thank the individual-12 attendecs; and not to forget the public, because sometimes 13 the public can cause distraction at a workshop. But, I must 14 say, here you were a very cooperative public, and we 15 certainly appreciated your input. And I think we all ended 16 on a good note, and this was very successful. And we will 17- now call this workshop to a close at approximately 11:40~.
18 Any further comment?
l 19 (No response.)
20 MR. MILLER: Hearing none, the workshop is closed.
21 (Whereupon, at 11:40 o' clock a.m.,.on Wednesday, 22 November 18th,'1992, the abovn-entitled workshop was
! 23 adjourned.)
!: 24 f- 25 i
l
- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATE 9, i td.
j= Court Reporters L 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
m _ -
L
- ( -+ REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceed-ings before' the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: P a r t' 34 Workshop
-DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Irving, Texas were held as herein appears, and that this is the original _ transcript-thereof for the file of-the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and-thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of_the court report-ius company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing' proceedings.
dfT;. M cr\Q % s.-
Q t V Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
. ~j i
~
i
' ~ '
-_.