[ RadSafe ] Agreement States v. NRC (was: radiography incident)

Mon Apr 2 18:02:09 CDT 2012

Dear Jim,

I'm very familiar with the IMPEP, having been on several IMPEP teams, and going through the IMPEP review process in California.  The program is based on a 1997 policy issued by the Commission on the topic of adequacy and compatibility.  It's not actually law.  Also, just for the record the IMPEP teams review both Agreement State and NRC regional programs, and include NRC and Agreement State team members.  Regardless of the cooperation of the States in this process, neither the process itself, nor the criteria for finding a program inadequate or incompatible are in law.  

Barbara

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hardeman <Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us>
To: radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>; CJB01 <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Agreement States v. NRC (was: radiography incident)

All --

ee http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/impeptoolbox/impep.html 

In 1996, NRC began full implementation of the Integrated Materials
erformance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) to ensure that public health and
afety are adequately protected from the potential hazards associated
ith the use of radioactive materials and that Agreement State programs
re compatible with NRC's program." (emphasis added)

im Hardeman
>>> Barbara Hamrick <blhamrick at aol.com> 4/2/2012 16:57 >>>

ear Bill,
I have to side with Clayton on this.  The exact wording in Sec. 274.b.
s “the Commission is authorized to enter into agreements with the
overnor of any State providing for discontinuance of the regulatory
uthority of the Commission” (for certain byproduct, source and special
uclear materials).  
Section 274.d(2) contains a reference to being “compatible” with the
ommission, and as Clayton properly points out, this is a finding that
ust be made prior to entering into the agreement, but there is no
rovision for continued compatibility (except with respect to uranium
ill tailings).  Section 274.g states the “Commission is authorized and
irected to cooperate with the States in the formulation of standards
or protection…to assure that State and Commission programs…will be
oordinated and compatible.  This is a mandate to the Commission, not to
he States.
Finally, in Section 274.j. the Commission may terminate or suspend an
greement after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing, and
pon a finding that the action is required to protect the public health
nd safety, or if the State has not complied with a requirement in
ection 274, which does not require continued compatibility with the
ommission.  
The Commission has only terminated one agreement, since 1962; that was
n agreement with Idaho, who requested that the Commission terminate the
greement.  There was also one partial termination of which I’m aware,
nd that was in New Mexico (I think) who requested that the Commission
ake back a specific program (either sealed source and device approvals
r something to do with waste).  It is true they can terminate or
uspend an agreement, but they cannot walk into an Agreement State and
tart enforcing federal law, because the federal law does not apply to
greement State licensees; those licensees are governed by State law
nless and until the State agreement is terminated or suspended.
Sincerely,
arbara L. Hamrick

-----Original Message-----
rom: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
o: Clayton J Bradt <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>
c: radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
ent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 12:25 pm
ubject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Agreement States v. NRC (was: radiography
ncident)

nder section 274 of the AEA the NRC can withdraw an Agreement State's
emption from NRC regulation.  Also, an Agreement State's program must
e
mpatible with NRC regulations.  I interpret this as giving the NRC
inal
sponsibility.
ill Lipton
n Apr 2, 2012 2:10 PM, "Clayton J Bradt" <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>
rote:
 Bill Lipton wrote:
**************
n response:
1.  The NRC still has final responsibility.  The licensee has an
Agreement
tate" license.  Although Texas issues the license, the standards are
et
y the NRC, and the NRC has responsibility for assuring that the
tate's
rogram is adequate.  It seems that there are grounds for thinking
therwise.
2.  The problem is not the regulations, but their enforcement.  " If
exas
ad Control don't [sic] have time or expertise to do it..." the NRC
hould
ithdraw it's agreement state status.
3.  I agree.
**********************

ot so , Bill.
The final responsibility always rests with the Agreement State. Under
n
greement, the NRC relinquishes its authority to regulate by-product
aterial. The Agreement State enforces state, not federal, law through
ts
adioactive materials regulations. Although the NRC has claimed
therwise,
he Atomic Energy Act has no provision for NRC to assure that a state
oes
anything *once an agreement has been signed (with the sole exception
f
egulating uranium mill tailings site in accordance with federal
tandards).
As has been said elsewhere, Texas does in fact have the one of the
est
egulation programs for industrial radiography in the country (which
eans
robably one of the best on the planet). They do a better job than NRC.
y
ll means we should look at the licensee's compliance history and the
tate's responses to previous incidents, but one should not expect to
ind
ny systemic problems with Texas' regulatory program.
The reason we see the same radiography incidents repeating themselves
ver
nd over again is to be found in the nature of the industry itself.
adiographers are generally not unionized and not paid all that much.
urn
ver can be fairly high. Many of the trainees speak English as a
econd
anguage. The work sites where radiography is performed, like all
eavy
onstruction sites, tend to be dirty, uncomfortable, and dangerous
laces -
ven without the radiography source! The radiographers frequently work
nder considerable time pressure because the construction work has to
top
hile they set up their shots and make an exposure. Given all the
actors
orking against safety it is remarkable how few of these over-exposure
ncidents occur.

layton J. Bradt
rincipal Radiophysicist
YS Dept. of Health
iggs Laboratory, Room D486A
mpire State Plaza
lbany, NY 12201-0509
518-474-1993
______________________________________________
u are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
efore posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
he 
dSafe rules. These can be found at:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html 
or information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
isit: 
tp://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
he RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html 
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
isit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
adSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu