AGREEMENT STATESAGREEMENT STATESVSVS

U.S. NUCLEAR U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY REGULATORY COMMISSIONCOMMISSION

AUBREY GODWINAUBREY GODWINAZ RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCYAZ RADIATION REGULATORY AGENCY

IntroductionIntroduction

• Like a family, the relationship between the two parties is subject to change as they mature in the relationship and as new issues present themselves for regulations or changes in regulation.

• The perceived needs of each party most often is not the same nor will the parties likely each choose the same method to address the issue.

IntroductionIntroduction• I will present three examples of how the relationship

has changed with differing issues and the perceived need for action.

• The first is the 1984 melting of a Cobalt-60 source of around 500 curies in Mexico.

• The second is the late 1980s development of new Nuclear Medicine regulations.

• The third is the on-going development of the increased controls for large possession licensees.

Melted Cobalt-60Melted Cobalt-60• Arizona notified by New Mexico January 18, 1984.

The New Mexico Radiation Protection Bureau had detected contaminated construction steel (rebar).

• A few days later an Illinois State Trooper detected radiation on a truck carrying table legs. The steel later was determined to have the same contaminate and was melted in the same plant.

• The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency received over 300 telephone calls a day at the peak of public interest totaling over 6,000 for the event. Arizona received an estimated total of 250 tons of rebar that was returned to the Mexican foundry.

Melted Cobalt-60Melted Cobalt-60• 40 States received contaminated table legs and four

received the contaminated rebar. A total of 600 tons of rebar and 33,000 table legs.

• NRC requested assistance from the all states. Received 100% cooperation.

• From January 1984 through May 1984, AZ conducted 740 inspections, supervised the removal of rebar from 11 facilities, and responded to the press and 6,000 public inquiries. A total of 69 facilities had the rebar, 26 of which it remains in place.

Melted Cobalt-60Melted Cobalt-60Why did the states respond so well?

• Problem was recognized as affecting all.

• Clearly, NRC and DOE were not resourced to respond to all areas.

• Each program wanted to serve their constituency.

• All responding jurisdictions were viewed positively by their elected supervisors.

• NOT a compatibility issue

CompatibilityCompatibility• Most Agreement States view:

Compatibility is a goal but not an absolute requirement. Protection of the Public Health, Safety and Security are the absolute requirements.

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission view:

Compatibility, Protection of the Public Health, Safety and Security are all absolute requirements to maintain an Agreement State status.

Nuclear Medicine RegulationNuclear Medicine Regulation• On the surface, the States wanted prescriptive

and defined regulations for any necessary enforcement. NRC wanted more performance regulations.

• NRC viewed they were regulating mature, well motivated programs. States saw a large number of less radiation safety mature programs.

• States viewed that they had regulated the practice medicine for years. NRC view, this was not an area NRC should regulate, rather it should be regulated by the medical profession.

Nuclear Medicine RegulationNuclear Medicine Regulation• The states pointed out that the NRC advisors

were all from mature programs. The same could be said of the staff of the NRC. Many of the states had experience with rural and small, one physician licensees and therefore questioned the wisdom of many of the proposed regulations.

Nuclear Medicine RegulationNuclear Medicine Regulation

What was different from the Cobalt-60 event?

• The states and NRC had differing views as to the problem.

• The NRC and the states had differing views as to the solution.

• States viewed that they could and should regulate the problems and not leave to licensee committees.

• Compatibility was believed to be the basis for requiring the states to regulate in a way they did not support.

Nuclear Medicine RegulationNuclear Medicine Regulation• Both the NRC and the states had sufficient

resources to address the problem, therefore the states felt little need to rush in. There was no immediate threat

• The results were not likely to attract support from their constituencies.

• These differences continue today.

Increased ControlsIncreased Controls• The September 11, 2001 attack on our country

resulted in concerns of possible miss-use of sources of radioactive material. The NRC, in response, issued several orders to both their licensees and Agreement State licensees. The authority for such action was cited by the NRC as the security provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

• The Agreement States pointed out that any security action taken also effected public health and safety. Further, at least one Agreement State also has security against unauthorized removal authorization in their law.

Increased ControlsIncreased Controls

• After the initial set of orders were issued, working groups consisting of staff from both the Agreement States and the NRC have been established.

• Recognition that the security issue was also a public health and safety issue has allowed Agreement States to use their own authority to adopt enforceable requirements.

• While not all state staff members agree, the Agreement States are enforcing increased controls for the designated licensees.

Increased ControlsIncreased Controls

• Key to the acceptance by the Agreement States was the formation of the working groups with all regulatory parties involved.

• This issue is still evolving and time will tell if this is a success.

Just One Man’s Opinion

QUESTIONS