[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
statement by nrc commissioner on agreement states
thought you might find the following of interest
paul skierkowski
univ. of oklahoma
------------------- S-96-17.TXT follows --------------------
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20555
Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234
Internet:opa@nrc.gov
No. S-96-17
ALL AGREEMENT STATE MEETING KEYNOTE ADDRESS
"THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS:
REFLECTIONS FROM THE OTHER SIDE"
Commissioner Greta J. Dicus
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland
September 17, 1996
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad to see so many
friends and colleagues at this, the 1996 annual All Agreement
States Meeting. As you can well imagine, this is a unique
experience for me in that I am not a stranger to these meetings,
and, in fact, had the honor to serve as Chairman of the
Organization of the Agreement States (OAS). Having now stepped
through the looking glass, so to speak, I have the opportunity to
view the NRC Agreement State program from the perspectives of both
a NRC Commissioner and as a former Agreement State radiation
program director.
I will begin my remarks this morning with a short review of the
Agreement State program. I will then share with you my impressions
of the NRC and my views on basic regulatory concepts, provide you
the latest news on NRC's strategic assessment and rebaselining, and
discuss some of the personal values that I bring to the Commission.
Finally, I will offer thoughts for the future of the Agreement
State program.
In Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass," the King says:
"I shall never forget!"
To which the Queen replies,
"You will, though, if you don't make a memorandum of it."
The following is my brief memorandum on the history of the NRC
Agreement State program.
THE AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM - A SHORT HISTORY
The Agreement States Program was the product of a lengthy,
thoroughly deliberated Congressional action that culminated in 1959
in a carefully crafted addition to the Atomic Energy Act, Section
274, entitled "Cooperation With States." The most significant part
of Section 274 was the creation of a unique program of cooperation
with the States in the regulation of nuclear materials, the
Agreement State program. In 1983, 24 years later, the National
Governors Association cited this program as a remarkably successful
endeavor in Federal-State relationships. Today, it continues to
stand as a uniquely successful program in this regard.
Nonetheless, it was not without controversy at its inception and,
in the 34 years since the first agreements were signed in 1962,
there have been differing views among its stakeholders about the
direction and implementation of this program. When I say
stakeholders I mean not only the NRC and the States but the most
important of the stakeholders, the licensees and the public whose
public health and safety we are obligated to protect. How well we
reconcile those differing views and also meet our regulatory
responsibility of protecting the public health and safety and the
environment are my subjects this morning.
When the 1959 legislation was introduced into the Congress, the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) commented that,
"It provides a statutory framework within which the States may
assume an independent regulatory role in extensive areas now
occupied by the Atomic Energy Commission on a basis which will
assure appropriate protection for public health and safety and
continued compatibility of the regulatory programs of the
States and the Atomic Energy Commission.
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, in its comments on the bill,
also emphasized the bill's intent to
"clarify the responsibilities of the Federal Government, on
the one hand, and State and local governments, on the
other..."
The Committee went on to say that:
"[i]t is also intended to increase programs of assistance and
cooperation between the Commission and the States so as to
make it possible for the States to participate in regulating
the hazards associated with such [radioactive] materials."
With respect to Section 274i which authorizes the Commission to
provide training or such other assistance to employees of States or
local governments, the committee report said that,
"such assistance shall take into account the additional
expenses that may be incurred by the State as a consequence of
the State entering into an agreement with the Commission."
The Committee also took into account that such training would have
wide spread benefits in that the capacity of State and local
officials to
"deal with the other materials already under their
responsibility - such as X-ray machines and radium - would
also be increased, thus further protecting the public health
and safety."
Some examples will show that the Agreement State program and its
associated training provided to the States by the NRC has become a
valuable national asset. In 1983, when radioactively contaminated
iron and steel products were unknowingly imported from Mexico into
the United States, the States responded to NRC's request for
assistance in surveying, locating, and controlling contaminated
products. As a result over 500 tons of contaminated steel rebar
and 2,500 contaminated cast iron pieces were returned to Mexico.
The States contributed 7.9 person-years of direct effort and
incurred over $200,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.
Similarly, in 1991, radioactively contaminated steel fence
components were imported from India. In 1993, radioactively
contaminated ferrophosphorus was imported from Kazahkstan. In both
cases, radiation surveys by the States helped to assess the
potential radiological impact. In 1988, when the NRC recalled
48,000 defective 210Po static eliminators the Agreement States
provided over 8,000 hours of survey effort to support the NRC
decision. When the States provide such assistance it occurs at
the cost of diverting critical, and usually limited, State
resources from the States' programs to protect public health and
safety in areas that they are responsible for. There are, however,
no provisions for reimbursements to the States for such assistance
nor have any been made.
If the Agreement State program were not in place, the NRC would be
responsible for regulating an additional 15,000 specific materials
licensees and over 60,000 general licensees with the attendant
needs for staff and training, all at Federal, not State, cost
levels. Given Congressional mandates to reduce our budget,
notwithstanding that it is almost entirely paid for by licensee
fees, the NRC is not staffed to assume responsibility for a large
number of licensees from Agreement States that might elect to
terminate their programs.
In summary, Congress, when it enacted Section 274, concluded that
there was a need to more clearly sort out the roles of the States
and the Commission, recognized that States would incur additional
expenses by taking advantage of the agreement program, and,
prescribed a means for offsetting this burden. In practice, the
Agreement States have become a valuable national resource, thanks
to the NRC Agreement State Program. The NRC has avoided
significant regulatory costs and the Federal Government can rely on
the Agreement States to augment national responses to radiological
events that pose a potential threat to the public health and
safety.
Like Alice's King, we should not forget this.
IMPRESSIONS OF THE NRC
Since becoming a Commissioner I have been more impressed than ever
by the professionalism of the NRC and by the wide range of
activities that NRC regulates, nuclear reactors and related fuel
cycle activities, radioactive materials, and waste disposal. In
addition to all this, the NRC has extensive international
responsibilities.
I have seen how much we can learn from our fellow international
regulators and how important it is to share information with other
Federal and international agencies and organizations. In April of
this year I attended an international meeting on the radiological
consequences of Chernobyl sponsored by, among others, the
International Atomic Energy Agency. I have also been appointed by
the Chairman as the NRC representative to the Joint Coordinating
Committee on Radiation Effects Research, a joint U.S.-Russian
committee to coordinate research that former Commissioner Gail de
Planque was instrumental in creating. This research is focussed on
radiation effects of exposures of workers and the public in and
around U.S. nuclear weapons plants and the Russian nuclear complex
at Mayak near Chelyabinsk. Some preliminary reports on the
research opportunities there were presented at the 1994 annual
Health Physics Society meeting in San Francisco and published in
the July, 1996 issue of Health Physics.
On the other side of the coin are the frustrations that arise from
the lengthy amount of time it takes the NRC to focus upon and,
then, resolve issues. Examples are lengthy rulemaking activities,
development of responses to correspondence and requests, and
regulatory guidance development. As the Red Queen said to Alice,
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to
keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else,
you must run as least twice as fast as that!"
Well, I hope we can improve in this area not by running twice as
fast but by working more efficiently.
I am concerned that communications with stakeholders and even
within NRC are not always clear. One result is that when
regulatory problems emerge questions also arise about the
effectiveness of our regulatory oversight. Examples of such issues
are those recently identified concerning the reactors operated at
Millstone, Maine Yankee and Haddam Neck.
Earlier this year I participated in a celebration marking 100 years
of use of radioactive materials at the annual meeting of the
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. I remarked that
the last 100 years was marked by constant change and evolution in
the use of radioactive materials; hence for the next 100 years, we,
as regulators, must be flexible. We must be prepared to meet the
regulatory challenges presented by future changes in how
radioactive materials are used and we must do so with shrinking
resources.
BASIC REGULATORY CONCEPTS
In 1991, under the sponsorship of Commissioner Rogers, NRC issued
its Principles of Good Regulation which include the concepts of
Independence, Openness, Efficiency, Clarity and Reliability.
Inherent in these principles is the concept of necessity, the
importance of open channels of communication, the responsibility
and accountability of regulators and the need for self-assessment
by and responsiveness of regulators to changing needs and the need
to involve users, the public, and other stakeholders in the
development of regulatory programs.
An example of fully and successfully involving licensees, the
Agreement States and other stakeholders was the approach taken by
the joint Agreement State-NRC Working Group charged with reviewing
the need for better control and accountability of licensed devices.
While the Commission has not yet received the staff's
recommendations, the Working Group's report is publically available
and will be published as a NUREG. I noted with interest that the
core recommendations originated from representatives of the
stakeholders most likely to be affected, the vendors and licensed
users of these devices. This happened because the Working Group
reached out to the stakeholders early on and fully involved them in
their deliberations. This working group is a model for future
regulatory initiatives which jointly involve the Agreement States
and the NRC.
Finally, we must recognize that regulatory programs must be
flexible because statutory requirements change, technologies
change, priorities change, and resource allocations change. In
this sense, I believe that the NRC is well prepared because of
NRC's Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining.
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND REBASELINING
Now let me give you the news about the NRC's Strategic Assessment
and Rebaselining.
In 1995 Chairman Jackson, after consulting with Commissioner
Rogers, concluded that, given the changing environment in which NRC
must conduct its business which includes increasing budget
constraints, staff should conduct a strategic assessment and
rebaselining. Such an effort would also provide additional
assurance that the NRC would meet the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. After reviewing
over 4,000 NRC activities and the reasons behind them, the
Commission staff identified several key Direction Setting Issues
(DSIs) and developed policy issue papers for preliminary Commission
consideration. The approved issue papers including the
Commission's preliminary views were released for public comment
yesterday, September 16th. I understand that copies will be
available at this meeting. The Commission set for itself and the
staff an ambitious schedule for moving forward on this effort.
According to this schedule, staff will begin a series of public
meetings with stakeholders beginning in October. The schedule
calls for final Commission decisions on the issue papers beginning
next year.
Each issue paper generally starts with a discussion of the issue
followed by a list of options to consider, and, in most cases,
preliminary views of the Commission on these options.
I urge you to carefully follow developments. The public meetings
will be on October 24 and 25 at the Washington, D.C. Hilton,
October 31-November 1 at the Colorado Springs Sheraton and November
7 and 8 at the Chicago Ramada at O'Hare. Try to attend and
participate. If you cannot attend the public meetings then please
send us your comments. I assure you that your comments are
important - we want to hear them, to read them, and we will
consider them carefully.
PERSONAL VIEWS
I have spoken about my personal impressions of the NRC, the basic
regulatory concepts that undergird NRC's regulatory programs and
the need to assure that our regulatory program will continue to
provide a good fit with current and future needs. You may also
ask, "Commissioner, what are the beliefs that you as Commissioner
bring to the regulatory decision-making process?"
First, I believe in the Commission system of making decisions for
this agency. The advantage of the Commission form of
administration is that decisions reflect the expertses and diverse
perspectives of the individual Commissioners. This assures that
agency decisions have been carefully thought through. When a
consensus is not attainable, the separate views of the minority
provide insights into the Commission's decision making.
As you can see, I am a strong believer in seeking stakeholder input
as early as possible in the decision-making process. Do we need a
regulatory effort, and what form should it be in, are questions
that should be asked early and often and in settings that encourage
stakeholder responses.
We need to carefully consider the full impacts of regulatory
actions. An example is the Commission decision to seek recovery of
costs for training and other support for the Agreement States. In
my view, this decision deserves further consideration because this
policy may lead individual States to drop out of the Agreement
State program in the future. As I said earlier, the NRC is not
staffed to assume responsibility for a large number of programs
that Agreement States might return to us. I am also concerned
about seeking reimbursement from our fellow countrymen in Agreement
States for services while those provided to foreign governments and
their employees are paid from revenues derived either from NRC
licensee fees or from public revenues.
Because the Agreement States are key elements in the overall
national program for protection of public health and safety and the
environment with respect to materials covered by the Atomic Energy
Act, the NRC needs to be sure that we do not undertake an action
that jeopardizes your continuing participation in that program. It
is not clear to me that this action will not jeopardize your
continuing participation in this program. This matter will be
addressed under the Strategic Assessment umbrella, but beginning
October 1st, the Agreement States will have to reimburse the NRC
for training and other costs. Therefore, I am going to soon ask
the Commission to re-examine its position on this matter. I would
appreciate learning your additional views on this matter.
I would add to the foregoing values my personal belief that
regulatory decisions should stand the tests of reasonableness,
necessity, and cost-effectiveness. Again, I note that these
personal values fit well with the NRC Principles of Good Regulation
that were in place when I began my term as Commissioner.
THE FUTURE - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
One thing is constant, change. I believe that the Commission is
positioning itself to respond well to the changes that confront the
NRC and the Agreement States. NRC must strive for openness,
flexibility, actively seek stakeholder input and be willing to
undergo critical self-examination. Collaboration with the
Agreement States, which today regulate well over two thirds of the
licensees in the United States, is essential.
What should the Agreement States do? Let me offer some views that
reflect my experiences as a State radiation control program
director and a NRC Commissioner.
The Agreement States need to become more visible but in an
organized way. Twenty-nine independent and sometimes disjointed
opinions will never have the same impact as a timely, coordinated,
well-written communication. At its annual meeting in May, 1996,
the Conference of Radiation Control program Directors (CRCPD)
developed a position on the National Academy of Sciences Report on
regulation of radioactive materials in medicine. This position is
a model of its kind: well drafted and conveying a clear sense of
the views of the State radiation control programs.
When you are in Washington, especially those of you who are members
of the executive committees of the CRCPD and the OAS, you should
routinely ask for courtesy visits with all of the Commissioners.
Your visits will be especially important because you can personally
make the Commissioners aware of the views and concerns of the
Agreement States. When you visit Commissioners, you have direct
input. You will also gain a better understanding of the
Commissioners' concerns.
Prior to these visits, you should decide what issues are important
to you. Be prepared to discuss your issues in detail. For
example, what are the foremost issues for you at this moment?
Funding for training? Regulation of licensed materials used in
medicine? Oversight of the DOE? Control and accountability of
licensed devices? Have a prepared agenda and keep it up to date
perhaps with the assistance of the CRCPD Secretariat.
In short, be proactive!
Tweedledee's poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter," contained the
memorable verse,
"'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes - and ships - and sealing wax -
Of cabbages - and kings -
And why the sea is boiling hot -
And whether pigs have wings.'"
I have not spoken today about whether pigs can fly, but, whether
the Agreement State program can continue to prosper. The Agreement
State program is part of a national fabric of radiation protection.
We, the regulators, our licensees, their workers, the public and
the environment are threaded together. We, the regulators, and our
licensees are joined in the common goal of protecting workers, the
public, and the environment from the potentially harmful effects of
radiation from radioactive materials. The degree of regulation and
the approach are almost always matters of disagreement. But, all
of the stakeholders - regulators, licensees, workers, and the
public - must commit themselves to working together to meet that
goal. When the regulators adhere to the principles of good
regulation, actively seek the involvement of all of the
stakeholders, and remain flexible and openminded in response to
changing environments, effective regulation for radiation
protection will not be a dream, as was Alice's looking glass house,
but a reality.
####
PAUL SKIERKOWSKI
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY SERVICES
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
905 ASP AVE., ROOM 112
NORMAN, OK 73019-0420
405-325-1015 FAX - 7238
PAUL@ESS-LAN.STUDIES.UOKNOR.EDU
or PSKIERKOWSKI@OU.EDU