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

Mon Apr 2 23:36:20 CDT 2012

I realize that those who are, or have been involved with state programs are
sensitive about this, and I do not mean to say that state programs are
unimportant.  However, in practical terms, the NRC sets the standards, and
I doubt that they would allow any significant incompatibility on a core
requirement.  If there are any such incompatibilities, I appreciate hearing
about them.

Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Barbara Hamrick <blhamrick at aol.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>