1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

+ + + + + 

MEETING WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES 

(OAS) AND THE CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL 

PROGRAM DIRECTORS (CRCPD) 

+ + + + + 

PUBLIC MEETING 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY 

APRIL 16, 2015 

+ + + + + 

The Commission met in the 

Commissioners' Conference Room, 1st Floor, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland, at 9:30 a.m., Stephen G. 

Burns, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT

STEPHEN G. BURNS, Chairman 

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, Commissioner 

WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, Commissioner 

JEFF BARAN, Commissioner 

ALSO PRESENT

MIKE WELLING, OAS Chair 

MICHAEL SNEE, CRCPD Chair 

SHERRIE FLAHERTY, OAS Chair-Elect 
 2 

WILLIAM IRWIN, CRCPD Chair-Elect 

ALAN JACOBSON, OAS Past-Chair 

MARGARET M. DOANE, OGC 

ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK, SECY 
 3 

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 9:32 a.m. 

3 CHAIRMAN BURNS: I'll call our meeting 

4 to order, and we welcome the Organization of 

5 Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation 

6 Control Program Directors. Today's meeting with 

7 OAS and CRCPD is an opportunity for the members to 

8 inform the Commission of radioactive materials 

9 policy and regulatory issues of interest to the 

10 States, as well as to the NRC. And we'll be briefed 

11 on a number of topics by several members of OAS and 

12 CRCPD. First, Mr. Bill Irwin, the Chair-elect of 

13 CRCPD and the Chief of Vermont --- in the Vermont 

14 Department of Health's Radiological and 

15 Toxicological Sciences Program, and he will 

16 discuss reactor decommissioning, RadResponder and 

17 RadNet. 

18 Mr. Michael Snee, the CRCPD Chair and 

19 Program Administrator in the Bureau of 

20 Environmental Health and Radiation Protection for 

21 the Ohio Department of Health will discuss 

22 training. Mr. Alan Jacobson, OAS past Chair and 

23 Health Physicist Supervisor for the Maryland Air 

24 and Radiation Management Administration will 

25 discuss source security. And Dr. Sherrie Flaherty, 

26 OAS Chair-elect and Supervisor for the Minnesota 
 4 

1 Department of Health's Radioactive Materials Unit 

2 will discuss Web-Based Licensing and the License 

3 Verification System. And Mr. Mike Welling, OAS 

4 Chair and Director of the Virginia Department of 

5 Health's Radioactive Materials Program will 

6 discuss the Integrated Materials Performance 

7 Evaluation Program, often referred to as IMPEP. 

8 The presentation will be followed by a 

9 Question and Answer session with the Commission. 

10 Would any of my fellow Commissioners like to say 

11 anything? Then, Dr. Irwin, would you begin your 

12 presentation. 

13 DR. IRWIN: Well, thank you. Thank you 

14 very much for inviting us, and for this opportunity 

15 to discuss issues of importance to all of us. The 

16 two topics that I've been asked to address are 

17 reactor decommissioning and the 

18 RadResponder/RadNet efforts that are being 

19 undertaken by the States and federal agencies. 

20 In the area of decommissioning, just a 

21 note that we're in a new era where merchant plants 

22 are not, necessarily, responsive to local issues, 

23 and where numerous reactors over the next 20 years 

24 will decommission. It's an era when regulations are 

25 not specifically focused on post-operational 

26 concerns; when states may lose the radiological and 
 5 

1 nuclear emergency capacity that they've developed 

2 over decades that are a tremendous asset to this 

3 nation; when vital laboratories may lose 

4 environmental radiochemical analysis capabilities 

5 because reactor environmental sampling is 

6 curtailed. 

7 There are good situations in this 

8 country where we'd like to consider them models. 

9 For example, in Maine using sister states in New 

10 England, the utilities there provided the state 

11 with the environmental surveillance and emergency 

12 preparedness needs that were negotiated with the 

13 licensee, the states, and the public, and the 

14 utilities. And this was very useful for the entire 

15 time of the decommissioning from DECON through 

16 finally the fairly recent license termination. 

17 In Connecticut, Millstone maintains 

18 its environmental surveillance and its emergency 

19 planning from offsite response organizations 

20 because at that facility there are two operating 

21 reactors aside the one that is in SAFSTOR. That 

22 provides the State with the capacity to continue 

23 to be prepared for a wide array of radiological and 

24 nuclear emergencies that, unfortunately, in some 

25 circumstances will go away. 

26 For example, in Vermont. In Vermont, 
 6 

1 it's not utility-owned. It is owned by a private 

2 corporation with a fleet of nuclear plants, and the 

3 regulations, in essence, provide for abandonment 

4 of emergency planning even before spent fuel is 

5 removed from the spent fuel pool to the independent 

6 spent fuel storage installation. And environmental 

7 surveillance can, essentially, be curtailed to 

8 what may be unacceptable levels for the host state 

9 and its residents, and its environment decades 

10 before the liquid and solid radioactive materials 

11 within the torus and the dry layup of systems are 

12 taken out of what is, essentially, a huge 

13 radioactive storage facility. 

14 The solution, I believe, and I think 

15 other states agree, and it's a position that the 

16 CRCPD has heard and we believe is appropriate, is 

17 that we should encourage the reactor licensees, the 

18 owners, to support offsite response organizations 

19 until spent fuel is removed into dry casks, and 

20 encourage full application of the Nuclear Energy 

21 Institute's Groundwater Protection Initiative 

22 until all radioactive materials are removed from 

23 the site so that the license can be terminated, and 

24 the site released for unrestricted use. 

25 Sadly, without these kinds of 

26 encouragements for cooperation with the states, 
 7 

1 states only have litigation as a resort. And it's 

2 a sad waste of resources to use litigation to solve 

3 these problems when, possibly, they could be solved 

4 otherwise. 

5 The results, if we were to have this era 

6 of negotiated settlements encouraged by the 

7 regulators, the possibility that we maintain a 

8 radiological nuclear emergency preparedness that 

9 this nation has benefitted from and developed over 

10 decades, rather than lose it because over the next 

11 20 years and more we'll see dozens of nuclear power 

12 plants and several states lose their funding that's 

13 primarily afforded by the reactor licensees. And 

14 we may lose the nation's critical radiochemical 

15 laboratory capacity because, again, the funding 

16 for that has been borne by the nuclear industry. 

17 It's a very valuable legacy that we would feel 

18 disappointed to lose. 

19 With regard to our second topic, I'll 

20 join RadResponder and RadNet together. This is a 

21 very encouraging activity. The tool, RadResponder, 

22 is a software based on what the FRMAC used in 

23 Fukushima, and has used in a variety of exercises 

24 and actual events to collect field data about the 

25 radiological conditions in the environment after 

26 an incident. 
 8 

1 It was developed in coordination with 

2 EPA, FEMA, Department of Energy, Department of 

3 Homeland Security, and the States, and it allows 

4 for collection of field data and realtime display 

5 of where responders are, and what they're finding. 

6 It's now moving to a condition we're calling 

7 RadResponder-ready where it's known, for example, 

8 that Vermont can trust the data from Massachusetts, 

9 or New York, or New Hampshire because they are 

10 RadResponder-ready. They have met certain quality 

11 control requirements. 

12 We're now working, too, on linking 

13 laboratories across the nation so that their data 

14 about the samples they are taking from the 

15 environment can be processed through the EPA's 

16 Exchange Network where Clean Air Act and Clean 

17 Water Act data go, and that information shared with 

18 all parties that need to see that. And a policy has 

19 been developed by the CRCPD to insure that this data 

20 is shared with the partners who contributed, 

21 especially when that data is quality data, and that 

22 policy is in the latest revision of the Nuclear 

23 Radiological Incident Annex. 

24 At the beginning of this effort a few 

25 years ago after Fukushima, the NRC was a very strong 

26 part of the initial meetings. I'm not sure exactly 
 9 

1 why, but that involvement has curtailed somewhat, 

2 and I would appreciate the great benefit of having 

3 NRC representation with RadResponder again, not 

4 just as a partner, as is often the case with the 

5 work that NRC, and the States, and other federal 

6 agencies do together, but also because we believe 

7 that the licensees can be encouraged to 

8 participate; those licensees that are not 

9 reporting to the State, but those of the NRC. In 

10 particular, the nuclear power plants could be 

11 encouraged to use RadResponder in their field team 

12 data collection, and in their environmental 

13 laboratory data sharing. And it could be 

14 incorporated into the Radiological Emergency 

15 Planning Program of FEMA. 

16 So, I appreciate, again, this 

17 opportunity to speak before you to present some of 

18 the perspectives of the State of Vermont, myself, 

19 and the Conference of Radiation Control Program 

20 Directors. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thank you, Dr. Irwin. 

22 And I think we'll go to Mr. Snee. 

23 MR. SNEE: Thank you. I would like to 

24 briefly discuss training opportunities for 

25 Agreement State personnel, but before I start, I 

26 think I owe an apology to Commissioner Svinicki and 
 10 

1 Commissioner Ostendorff because I realize you have 

2 heard this message time and time again over the past 

3 few years not only from those of us sitting here, 

4 but previous board members of both CRCPD and OAS. 

5 But there's a reason why we bring it up every 

6 opportunity we get to meet with the Commission, and 

7 that is how crucial this training is to the success 

8 of the Agreement States. Without the NRC training, 

9 Agreement State personnel, we'd have a hard time 

10 supplying this training. There's nowhere else to 

11 get it other than, perhaps, trying to do some 

12 in-house training the quality that we get from the 

13 NRC classes, Agreement States, it would be 

14 cost-prohibitive to do that. And, to be honest, 

15 most states don't have that capability. 

16 For the past three fiscal years there 

17 have been an average of 486 Agreement States people 

18 have gone each year to NRC-sponsored classes, which 

19 is, you know, the cost fully picked up by the NRC. 

20 It's, like I said earlier, crucial to the success 

21 of Agreement States so we get our people trained. 

22 Much like the NRC, state programs are 

23 seeing our people getting older, getting close to 

24 retirement age. We're bringing in new people, the 

25 next set of leadership for Agreement States that 

26 are greatly benefitting from this training. And the 
 11 

1 message we try to bring up every time we meet with 

2 the Commission is how much we appreciate what the 

3 NRC does. We fully realize the cost that the NRC 

4 bears from this. We support your efforts in fine 

5 tuning some of this training. There's an effort out 

6 of your Chattanooga Training Center now to get a 

7 lot of this on line, which states are supporting 

8 to help test these modules. And we'll do whatever 

9 we can to help. CRCPD has a working group working 

10 on training issues, more on the x-ray side to do 

11 the same sort of thing, to get this training out 

12 easier, to get more people involved. And we stand 

13 ready to help any way we can, but the big message 

14 is the states appreciate the NRC's efforts with 

15 this, and we ask that to the extent possible that 

16 you continue with your support for Agreement State 

17 training like you have over the past few years. 

18 Thank you. 

19 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay, thank you. I 

20 think next, I think Dr. Flaherty, or Mr. Jacobson. 

21 MR. JACOBSON: Thank you. Thank you for 

22 the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 

23 Organization of Agreement States on the topic of 

24 source security. 

25 Security and control of radioactive 

26 sources is a priority for the Agreement States, and 
 12 

1 we have a long history of insuring radioactive 

2 source protection and security. The OAS believes 

3 that it is important to maintain a culture that 

4 integrates safety, security, and control in an 

5 effort to protect public health, safety, and the 

6 environment. 

7 The GAO has been examining security 

8 gaps at materials facilities for over a decade. We 

9 support the concept of oversight, and we appreciate 

10 the opportunity to accompany the GAO auditors at 

11 state-regulated facilities so we can insure that 

12 the findings are accurate, and that concerns are 

13 addressed in a timely manner. 

14 Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11 put 

15 a new emphasis on security, the NRC and the States 

16 have effectively worked together to create and 

17 implement a regulatory framework that provides a 

18 common baseline of security. In this framework, 

19 security is achieved in layers with multiple 

20 approaches working concurrently. 

21 States were engaged early and often in 

22 the development of 10 CFR Part 37. State 

23 representation on the working groups and the 

24 steering committee was substantial. As a result, 

25 this level of security provides the necessary 

26 assurance for the protection of radioactive 
 13 

1 material in the current threat environment. 

2 

3 Currently, the NRC and four states have 

4 finalized security regulations or legally binding 

5 requirements. Eight other states have submitted 

6 proposed regulations to the NRC for comment. In 

7 October 2014, the NRC approved the Conference for 

8 Radiation Control Program Directors suggested 

9 state regulations for security. We remain 

10 optimistic with the intent of meeting next year's 

11 deadline for the implementation of Part 37 security 

12 requirements. 

13 Under the scope of the National 

14 Materials Programs, the Agreement States continue 

15 to take action to improve security at our licensed 

16 facilities. Our inspectors, our license reviewers, 

17 and our licensees are using the National Source 

18 Tracking System, and we recently implemented an 

19 improved access system. Security at our licensed 

20 facilities is further enhanced with NUREG-2155, 

21 the implementation guidance for physical 

22 protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities 

23 of radioactive materials. Security at our 

24 facilities is further enhanced by NUREG-2166, the 

25 physical security best practices for the 

26 protection of risk-significant radioactive 
 14 

1 materials. 

2 Regulatory authorities and licensees 

3 are now using the License Verification System to 

4 insure that materials are shipped and securely 

5 received by the intended authorized recipients. 

6 Today we look to the future, prepared 

7 to implement these essential security requirements 

8 without discouraging the beneficial use of 

9 licensed radioactive materials. Thank you. 

10 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thank you. Dr. 

11 Flaherty. 

12 DR. FLAHERTY: Mr. Chairman and 

13 Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity today 

14 to present to you on behalf of the Organization of 

15 Agreement States. I'd like to discuss the topics 

16 of the Web-Based Licensing System and the License 

17 Verification System, which are otherwise known as 

18 WBL and LVS. 

19 These are part of the integrated source 

20 management portfolio, which also includes the 

21 National Source Tracking System, or NSTS. The 

22 integrated source management portfolio is designed 

23 to have these three information technology systems 

24 working together as part of the Nationwide 

25 Radioactive Materials Security Program. Starting 

26 with the implementation of NSTS, then with WBL, and 
 15 

1 then lastly with LVS. The web-based licensing 

2 system has two functions, one as the repository for 

3 radioactive material licenses, and the second as 

4 a platform for licensing and inspection tracking. 

5 States began submitting license 

6 information to the WBL system in May of 2011. They 

7 started with the states with the largest number of 

8 Category 1 and Category 2 licenses, and because of 

9 the large number of licensees, it took until August 

10 of 2012 to get all the Category 1 and Category 2 

11 licenses captured in WBL. 

12 Next came the License Verification 

13 System. This system is intended to insure that only 

14 licensees authorized for licensed material receive 

15 it and within the allowable limits. License 

16 verification is accomplished in the LVS by allowing 

17 authorities and licensees to use the information 

18 that's already stored in WBL and NSTS. WBL confirms 

19 the validity of the license while NSTS checks the 

20 licensee's current inventory. This information is 

21 then relayed back to the user so they can determine 

22 if the material may or may not be transferred. 

23 OAS has been actively involved in the 

24 Web-Based Licensing process since the early 

25 working group, and we appreciate the opportunity 

26 to offer input and make recommendations as part of 
 16 

1 this group. We recognize that in order for this 

2 security program to be effective, all regulatory 

3 agencies must participate; meaning the NRC Regions 

4 and the Agreement States must continue to populate 

5 WBL with the current licenses. 

6 NRC Staff has worked with the States to 

7 insure that as licenses are amended, all the 

8 necessary license criteria is captured in WBL. And 

9 as I mentioned earlier, WBL has two functions, the 

10 first as that license repository used in 

11 conjunction with LVS, and the second function of 

12 WBL as a program tracking system. 

13 The NRC uses WBL to manage all of its 

14 materials licensing and inspection data, and more; 

15 things like incidents, and allegations, and 

16 reciprocity. And because these are the same items 

17 that are being managed by Agreement State programs, 

18 the NRC has made WBL available to the Agreement 

19 States. 

20 Currently, one Agreement State is using 

21 WBL, and two others are in the process of 

22 integrating it, one of which is my state. Several 

23 others are actively looking at implementing WBL. 

24 The OAS fully supports the states' 

25 using all of the WBL capabilities, and recommends 

26 it to states wanting or needing a complete database 
 17 

1 and tracking system. We feel the use of WBL by the 

2 states builds consistency as part of the National 

3 Materials Program. It also adds to the efficiency 

4 of the IMPEP process because team leaders will be 

5 familiar with the data format, and allows IMPEP 

6 team members the capability to review information 

7 from any location over the internet. 

8 Another benefit is the NRC has 

9 continued IT support for the system, and upgrades 

10 are made, as necessary, with ongoing changes. And 

11 I would be remiss not to mention the feature of zero 

12 cost to the states, because to create and maintain 

13 a similar program by each state would be extremely 

14 expensive and time consuming. 

15 While OAS recommends the use of WBL by 

16 those states interested, the OAS does not recommend 

17 that this be mandatory for the states. We recognize 

18 that some states manage multiple programs, 

19 including the Agreement State Program, within one 

20 comprehensive data system. Many states are 

21 satisfied with their current system that's in use, 

22 and it meets their tracking requirements. They also 

23 have IT support necessary to maintain these 

24 systems. It would create difficulty for these 

25 states to separate that program from the larger 

26 system, and it would also require their staff 
 18 

1 members to work in multiple systems. 

2 OAS requests that NRC continue to 

3 support states that wish to integrate WBL as a 

4 system to manage their Agreement State Program 

5 data, and for the NRC to continue reviewing the 

6 status of WBL to make the upgrades in the system; 

7 things like adding capabilities to create 

8 licenses, and to have some sort of billing feature. 

9 We also value being part of the Change Committee 

10 that looks at and prioritizes upgrades to the 

11 system. And with that, I thank you for your time. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thank you. Mr. 

13 Welling. 

14 MR. WELLING: Thank you, Chairman 

15 Burns. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me 

16 time to present on behalf of the Organization of 

17 Agreement States. 

18 I would like to take a few moments to 

19 discuss the Integrated Materials Performance 

20 Evaluation Program, or IMPEP. Since 1996, the IMPEP 

21 has allowed for an independent review of the 

22 Agreement State Radioactive Materials Programs. By 

23 allowing our fellow Agreement States peers and NRC 

24 partners to the National Materials Program to 

25 review our policies, procedures, and licensing and 

26 inspection programs it provides a chance to insure 
 19 

1 that public health and safety is being met by not 

2 only the licensees, but by the Agreement State 

3 programs, and allows us an opportunity to discuss 

4 best practices being performed throughout all the 

5 Agreement States and the NRC Regions. 

6 Since 1996, 36 of the 37 Agreement 

7 States have had a chance to go through at least two 

8 IMPEPs. The 37th Agreement State is scheduled for 

9 its second IMPEP next week. In Fiscal Year '14, 12 

10 Agreement States and NRC Region IV were conducted 

11 an IMPEP. Of those 12 Agreement States, 11 were 

12 found to be adequate and compatible with the NRC's 

13 program, and the 12th was found to be adequate, but 

14 needs improvements. 

15 Based on SECY-12-0112, a comprehensive 

16 review was performed of the IMPEP procedures, and 

17 a working group consisting of three NRC Staff and 

18 two Agreement States Staff was assembled. During 

19 last year's Agreement States annual meeting in 

20 Chicago, their findings were presented to the 

21 Agreement States and the NRC. Comments were also 

22 asked and were due September of last year. Ten 

23 papers were submitted based on those findings and 

24 recommendations of the working groups. Nine of the 

25 ten commentors stated that they felt the --- there 

26 was an inconsistency in the IMPEP itself. 
 20 

1 Now, this could be due to definition of 

2 what the IMPEP team leaders feel is the IMPEP 

3 process, what they feel findings and 

4 recommendations are, and how the actual reporting 

5 process is conducted. 

6 The IMPEP process is a great program. 

7 The Agreement States and OAS Board believe fully 

8 in the IMPEP, and we look forward to working with 

9 the NRC Staff and management to enhance the IMPEP 

10 process. We encourage other programs to look at the 

11 IMPEP as a way of working with states and federal 

12 partners enhancing those programs. 

13 Thank you, and I look forward to any 

14 questions. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Well, thank you all for 

16 your presentations. We'll begin this morning with 

17 questioning from Commissioner Baran. 

18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks. Thanks to 

19 all of you for being here. Good to see you again, 

20 Dr. Irwin. 

21 I wanted to follow-up on your comments 

22 on decommissioning. So, obviously, Vermont Yankee 

23 shut down, and your state clearly wants to --- or 

24 is interested in playing a role in decommissioning. 

25 And can you tell us more about what role you 

26 envision the State of Vermont playing in the 
 21 

1 decommissioning process? 

2 DR. IRWIN: The history of Vermont 

3 Yankee and the State of Vermont is a rich one. It's 

4 actually, for the most part, been very productive. 

5 For example, in the early days of startup, it was 

6 identified jointly by the state scientists and the 

7 licensees' staff that radiation levels at the 

8 nearby elementary school were higher than optimal. 

9 They were within regulatory levels, but an effort 

10 was made to reduce those levels. Over the years, 

11 a number of activities were conducted jointly by 

12 the state and the licensee to evaluate the impacts 

13 on the environment from a variety of normal 

14 operations, and some incidents that occurred. And 

15 over all of those years, the State of Vermont has 

16 published annually an Environmental Surveillance 

17 Report to provide an independent verification of 

18 the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

19 that is required of the licensee by the NRC 

20 regulations. 

21 Concurrently, a robust emergency 

22 preparedness program was developed. And as is 

23 appropriate for any institution that creates 

24 resources and develops assets for an important 

25 function, those can be leveraged for a wide variety 

26 of purposes. For example, our State HAZMAT Team 
 22 

1 uses the skills that were developed during the 

2 years of radiological and environmental 

3 preparedness planning to be capable of not only 

4 responding to Vermont Yankee incidents and all of 

5 the exercises that are required for maintaining 

6 preparedness, but also for improvised nuclear 

7 device, radiological dispersal device, 

8 transportation accidents whether they're hostile 

9 action-based, or truly accidents. And we believe 

10 that, one, there is a need to monitor the 

11 radiological environment, as we have up until 

12 December 29 when the plant shut down until all of 

13 the liquids and the solid radioactive materials 

14 have left there so that we can provide still that 

15 independent verification that the environment is 

16 protected, as it has been. It's as important to 

17 count no levels above background as it is to count 

18 levels that exceed some regulatory limit. 

19 And, also, to maintain the capability 

20 to respond to not only radiological incidents that 

21 might occur, but industrial and transportation 

22 incidents that might occur that have a radiological 

23 component to them. And the phases of 

24 decommissioning where this is most important are, 

25 of course, the early stages where they're now 

26 trying to put the plant into wet layup for SAFSTOR, 
 23 

1 and later when they move into the spent fuel 

2 campaign to move all of the fuel from the spent fuel 

3 pool to the independent spent fuel storage 

4 installation. And then after that, relaxation of 

5 emergency preparedness to some degree and, 

6 incidentally, the funding associated with that 

7 until the DECON phase of dismantling and 

8 decontamination occurs where the opportunities for 

9 industrial accidents that could have a 

10 radiological release as a small component of that 

11 might occur. And, again, not only with the amount 

12 of work, but the funding would likely need to be 

13 increased. 

14 So, those are the thoughts that we have 

15 relative to our objectives for both radiological 

16 emergency planning and environmental surveillance 

17 during decommissioning. 

18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: So, at the end of 

19 last year, late December, the Commission directed 

20 the Staff, as I'm sure you know, to initiate a 

21 rulemaking to take a fresh look at a range of 

22 decommissioning issues, including the appropriate 

23 role for state and local governments in the 

24 process. And Vermont and other states will have the 

25 opportunity down the road to comment on a proposal, 

26 but sitting here today, what suggestions do you 
 24 

1 have for us and for the NRC about how the reactor 

2 decommissioning process can be improved? 

3 DR. IRWIN: Yes. As you heard in my 

4 opening remarks, I used the word "encourage," and 

5 the reason for that is that the licensees are taking 

6 what I would probably take as a licensee, only the 

7 required steps. And, unfortunately, when all that 

8 is allowed are exemptions from the operating 

9 standards, it does not, necessarily, genuinely 

10 meet the objectives of good radiological health 

11 protection to ignore some of the opportunities like 

12 those that I suggest here. So, we're not going to 

13 benefit from that rulemaking; those states that are 

14 currently dealing with plants that are in 

15 decommissioning phases. So, I would, as again I 

16 said, try to encourage the licensees. 

17 Now, that's not an easy thing to do, but 

18 we believe that we have been able in Vermont to work 

19 with your licensee very effectively over decades 

20 to accomplish public health and environmental 

21 protection goals because we have respect for each 

22 other's positions. And if that kind of 

23 encouragement, which is, I think, embodied very 

24 effectively in the NEI's Groundwater Initiative 

25 Protection --- Groundwater Protection Initiative, 

26 really where stakeholder engagement is a critical 
 25 

1 component. That sort of encouragement maybe even 

2 through another NEI initiative could be a very 

3 effective way to accomplish that for those who are 

4 in between the stage where we are now and the final 

5 rulemaking. 

6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: All right. Thank 

7 you for your thoughts on that. Do any others have 

8 comments on decommissioning they want to share? 

9 Okay. Mr. Jacobson, I wanted to turn to Part 37 for 

10 a minute. 

11 Can you just give us your assessment of 

12 how you think generally the Agreement States are 

13 doing with implementation of the Part 37 

14 requirements? I know you mentioned that you were 

15 optimistic about states meeting the March 2016 

16 deadline, but I'm curious how you think things are 

17 going? Are there any obstacles you're facing in 

18 meeting that deadline? 

19 MR. JACOBSON: Well, first, the 

20 framework of the Part 37 requirements is 

21 substantially in place right now using regulatory 

22 tools, such as license conditions and security 

23 orders. And then the Commission published a very 

24 nice paper showing the differences between the 

25 current --- between the increased controls, 

26 license conditions, and the security orders, and 
 26 

1 the extra steps that Part 37 is going to require. 

2 So, it's very clear, the extra requirements that 

3 the states are going to need to implement on Part 

4 37. 

5 The performance of the states 

6 implementing these regulations, it's being 

7 tracked. The NRC is posting this on your Materials 

8 Security website. As I said, in October of 2014, 

9 the suggested state regulations were approved by 

10 the Commission, and we think that is going to really 

11 help out some of the states who have not yet 

12 submitted regulations, get their regulations 

13 approved in a timely manner. 

14 And, finally, the OAS stands by, and 

15 we're ready to assist any state that may need help 

16 in meeting this deadline, upon request. 

17 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay, thank you. 

18 So, Part 37 has a requirement, obviously, for 

19 license verification, and I wanted to follow-up on 

20 the discussion on the web-based licensing, and how 

21 that relates to the license verification. Are the 

22 states who --- which I take is most states that 

23 aren't using web-based licensing, does that pose 

24 problems on the license verification side of 

25 things? 

26 DR. FLAHERTY: No, your Staff did a 
 27 

1 really good job of working with the states, and 

2 working through the differences in how states 

3 license versus how the NRC might license. And 

4 there's a set criteria of data that they want for 

5 WBL, as well as an image of the license. And your 

6 Staff worked very well with the states to make sure 

7 that all of that data was captured. And once we get 

8 through that process, now every time a license gets 

9 amended it gets sent over to the NRC, and if the 

10 state is not currently in WBL, then the NRC will 

11 put it into WBL. 

12 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great. Thank you 

13 all. Thanks. 

14 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thanks. I have a few 

15 questions, but just at the beginning, I want to 

16 thank you all for your participation in this 

17 activity. I think the Agreement State Program, as 

18 I recall, goes back to the early 1960s, has been 

19 an important one because, again, it's sort of this 

20 shared responsibility that we all have with respect 

21 to assuring the safe use of radioactive material 

22 across the country in various applications. And I 

23 appreciate the comments in terms of the partnership 

24 we're trying to create with the states, because 

25 that's extraordinarily important. And I think 

26 sometimes --- I know, we've just been going through 
 28 

1 our appropriations and our budget hearings, and one 

2 of the things, and I think it may have been --- a 

3 couple of you, actually, mentioned the importance 

4 of sort of, if you will, the centralized support 

5 that we can provide to the Agreement States, 

6 whether it's through training, through some of the 

7 other --- through the web-based licensing, and 

8 some other initiatives, and I think that's 

9 important for us to keep in mind certainly as we 

10 budget or make our request to the Congress in terms 

11 of the funding for the Agency, and try to keep that 

12 in the forefront, you know, particularly in the 

13 area with the use of materials that are predominant 

14 --- I think we have 37 Agreement States now, and 

15 we have another one, or at least in part coming up 

16 in the State of Wyoming. So, again, I thank you all 

17 for your participation and the support for the 

18 program, and what you do to enhance this very 

19 important aspect of radiation safety, and the safe 

20 use of radioactive material in the United States. 

21 Along those lines, as I mentioned, the 

22 State of Wyoming has indicated at least in part for 

23 the activities related to uranium mining that 

24 interest in becoming an Agreement State. Does the 

25 OAS provide sort of outreach or support to a state 

26 that wants to become an Agreement State? Obviously, 
 29 

1 I think you can take them aside and provide sage 

2 advice. Mr. Welling? 

3 MR. WELLING: If there is interest, 

4 actually, Wyoming did reach out to me for a couple 

5 of different reasons. One, as the OAS Chair, as far 

6 as uranium, so I did have a couple of conversations 

7 with the Wyoming program. So, the OAS does put on 

8 its website that if there is interest from other 

9 states, such as Indiana, Michigan, Vermont, 

10 whoever else, that we are willing and available to 

11 help out to discuss the process. SA-700 is a great 

12 --- it's already laid out in a procedure of how to 

13 become an Agreement State, but we do stress to them 

14 that not only with that procedure, that with our 

15 knowledge and experience of Agreement States, that 

16 we're willing to help them out in their process of, 

17 you know, filing the application, the agreement 

18 letter, whatever it takes. So, we are willing to 

19 stand by and help them out whenever necessary. 

20 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Good, great. Thanks 

21 for that. 

22 You made some comments, I'll stay with 

23 you for a moment. You made some comments regarding 

24 sort of the assessment going on with respect to the 

25 IMPEP Program. What --- are there any sort of maybe 

26 high level or general observations you'd make, 
 30 

1 areas where you think we all have succeeded, or 

2 where we really need to focus coming --- in the 

3 coming years in terms of improving or enhancing the 

4 program? 

5 MR. WELLING: IMPEP is a success story 

6 in itself. I mean, where you see a federal agency 

7 working with state partners, you know, in reviewing 

8 programs independently and providing an 

9 assessment, that in itself is a great tool, and a 

10 success story. Yes, there have been bumps along the 

11 road, and it's one of those programs which we've 

12 been asked to help, and we gratefully appreciate 

13 that concept of allowing us to provide feedback and 

14 looking at the future of the IMPEP. 

15 The biggest, like I said in my 

16 statements, the biggest thing we think of is the 

17 inconsistency. When you have that many different 

18 people and personnel in a program, we each have a 

19 different belief and feeling, so trying to get a 

20 consensus is tough, and the human elements in a team 

21 brings that to bear. So, one of the biggest things 

22 we're asking for is look at the consistency. How 

23 can we make that program and process more 

24 consistent across all 17 Agreement States and the 

25 three Regions when they're reviewed? 

26 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay, thank you. 
 31 

1 I'm going to turn to the Source Security 

2 for a couple of minutes. Commissioner Baran touched 

3 on that. 

4 Again, Mr. Jacobson, you said you're 

5 optimistic. Make sure I understand, do you think 

6 --- are there --- what would you say are the 

7 biggest stumbling blocks that might be there in 

8 terms of the success path into 2016, if any? 

9 MR. JACOBSON: The challenge with 

10 regulations tends to be at the state level at their 

11 --- with the state legislature and their own 

12 state's process in adopting regulation. 

13 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Yes, so depending on 

14 the process, regulation --- because I know some 

15 states it requires the legislative --- you know, 

16 the legislature to approve, as opposed to just the 

17 Agency. 

18 Again, one of the things, and you're 

19 probably well aware, we're under a requirement from 

20 our recent appropriations language to provide an 

21 assessment, I think in 2017, two years from now, 

22 so we certainly look for the support of the 

23 Agreement States as we proceed with that. So, 

24 thanks. 

25 I want to talk a little bit about the 

26 training aspects. Some of our training has gone to, 
 32 

1 as I understand, to a web-based, or parts of it, 

2 not everything, gone to web-based training. Do you 

3 see any benefits or disadvantages of that, or 

4 comments on how that might be working? 

5 MR. SNEE: Well, I think there are some 

6 huge benefits to it--- and, actually, in Ohio we 

7 got an email just last week from your Chattanooga 

8 Training Center asking for volunteers to test some 

9 of the modules. Having it web-based, one, of course 

10 it reduces the cost, but it also opens it up to --- I 

11 mean, I could have my whole staff sit in on those 

12 training sessions and do it, instead of having two 

13 or three people travel to Chattanooga, or wherever. 

14 Not all classes can be supported like that, such 

15 as industrial radiography. The hands-on part of 

16 that is a crucial part of that training, but much 

17 of the training can be done on line like that. And 

18 I think the NRC is off to a good start. We've seen 

19 some of what their thinking is and how they're going 

20 to do it, and it'll be a huge benefit for everybody. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Well, good. Well, keep 

22 us informed on that. I think that's --- as I say, 

23 it's --- you know, using those techniques, as you 

24 say, if you can get --- sometimes for the right 

25 content, the right, you know, application, if 

26 you're able to expand it, get it across, that's 
 33 

1 great. 

2 MR. SNEE: Right. It will open it up to 

3 many more people being able to --- 

4 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Good. Well, we'll keep 

5 an eye on that, and appreciate input from the 

6 community on that, too. 

7 Dr. Irwin, I want to ask you, you 

8 mentioned RadNet, and what appears maybe a less of 

9 an NRC presence or the Staff presence. What 

10 --- help me along here, because I have to confess, 

11 I'm not extraordinarily familiar with it. What type 

12 of participation or contribution from Staff would 

13 you say might be --- maybe an idea, you know, 

14 describe an ideal or practical, or even impractical 

15 terms which would help from your perspective? 

16 DR. IRWIN: So, we've had two national 

17 RadResponder exercises, the first was just 

18 broad-based, everyone that is a registered 

19 RadResponder user was asked to log on and to start 

20 collecting actual radiological data wherever they 

21 were. And I believe 40 states plus participated, 

22 several hundred users participated, and tens of 

23 thousands of data points were collected. And it 

24 gave us the ability not only to provide realtime 

25 what the radiation levels, observations of the 

26 situation, even photographs of where people were 
 34 

1 taking the field measurements and share that with 

2 everyone. And that was something lacking during 

3 Fukushima. And we believe that that was one of the 

4 most important first steps, was the ability to on 

5 time realtime provide the nation with information. 

6 A second one had a scenario built into 

7 it. Actually, a Conference of the New England 

8 Radiological Health Committee, they had an 

9 improvised nuclear device scenario, and the 

10 nation, again, logged on and showed through actual 

11 measurements, observations, photographs the 

12 beginning of collection of locations where 

13 environmental media were sampled, what the 

14 conditions were. 

15 Unfortunately, a gap in all of those 

16 parties participating are the many NRC licensees, 

17 primarily the reactors. And I think that if they 

18 were involved it would give us a greater level of 

19 participation and fill in a lot of really important 

20 data, because among all of the people across this 

21 nation with skills in this area, those that work 

22 in the nuclear power plants are among the highest. 

23 And especially so with laboratory data. So, as we 

24 move further into that, I would like to see 

25 encouragement in the FEMA exercise program for REP 

26 that RadResponder first be encouraged to be 
 35 

1 integrated into it. And then maybe over the course 

2 of time it becomes a tool as convenient, and as for 

3 granted taken as our survey meters. 

4 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. Well, thanks for 

5 that. 

6 I think I'll proceed to Commissioner 

7 Svinicki. 

8 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Well, thank you 

9 for your presentations, and for the acknowledgment 

10 that for some of us, we've been at this dialogue 

11 for a number of years now. 

12 One of the things that the NRC Staff is 

13 very helpful to make sure that we have annually for 

14 this meeting is this map which shows us the 

15 Agreement States and the NRC States, so I think some 

16 of my questions are rooted in this map. This map 

17 is getting very blue. I could have hash tagged 

18 Wyoming that has indicated and notified of its 

19 intention to pursue Agreement State status. 

20 There are other orange states here that 

21 have over the past number of years at times 

22 indicated some interest. Other than Wyoming, we 

23 don't have a Statement of Intent from any of the 

24 others, but this map is getting very blue in terms 

25 of Agreement States. 

26 I appreciate that we've worked very 
 36 

1 well on the training aspects. As a matter of fact, 

2 in 2008, I joined the Commission majority that 

3 re-energized that process of supporting Agreement 

4 State training, which had languished for some 

5 years. I don't know why that was, but it had 

6 champions in 2008, so we re-injected that into our 

7 budget process. 

8 But I'm going to suggest to you that OAS 

9 needs to be --- again, this is just a suggestion, 

10 but I think as you meet annually, it would be 

11 beneficial for you to be reflecting on how much of 

12 the country is Agreement State, and it's going in 

13 that direction. 

14 Our budget is under a lot of scrutiny. 

15 This year for the first time in so long that we had 

16 to ask the NRC historian when this last happened, 

17 but we've appeared before both the House and the 

18 Senate Appropriations Committees on our budget. 

19 That's unprecedented in modern history, so I use 

20 that so that you understand the level of how closely 

21 our budget requests are being examined right now. 

22 So, I think at some point, if the nation 

23 is predominantly Agreement States, the NRC's very 

24 dominant role in training, I think will be 

25 questioned. I'm sorry, I'm just being honest with 

26 you about that. So, I know that our TTC contractors 
 37 

1 are available. California has availed itself of 

2 that to, basically, kind of come in under the 

3 efficiency of our contracting that we have in place 

4 with the TTC. 

5 I want to commend everyone, the 

6 Agreement States and the NRC Staff for the amount 

7 of innovation they're brought to providing 

8 training opportunities. I'm just a little worried 

9 about the future as NRC has fewer and fewer 

10 licensees. 

11 This was a theme yesterday at an 

12 Authorizing Oversight hearing that we had, which 

13 talked about the level of --- if nuclear is 

14 contracting in the U.S., you know, NRC's budget, 

15 how does that relate to that? It was more a dialogue 

16 on the power reactor side, but I think the --- this 

17 is only more pronounced when we look at the material 

18 licensee side. So, it's something to be thinking 

19 about for the future. I don't think it affects FY 

20 '16 in any kind of dramatic way, but I'm going to 

21 suggest as you get together that you be looking at 

22 a future which might have a different role for NRC 

23 as we --- I don't want to call us a bit player in 

24 the materials licensees area, but if we don't 

25 --- if we have fewer and fewer materials licensees, 

26 I think at some point you reach an inflection of 
 38 

1 balance point where things tip, so I think it's just 

2 --- that's just my personal view. It's nothing that 

3 the Commission is supporting or preparing for. 

4 The other question I have is that I know 

5 that we carry around this notion that it takes four 

6 to five years to become an Agreement State. If I 

7 had to make an assumption about why that is, I would 

8 say it has to do with state legislative cycles which 

9 often are not --- state legislatures are often not 

10 in session for the majority of the year like 

11 national legislatures are. But what are the key 

12 points? If any of you can reflect on the history 

13 of your experience of becoming an Agreement State, 

14 what's the long pole in the tent there? Is it 

15 working with the state legislature to establish an 

16 entity, and then legislate the authorities to that 

17 entity within the state? Is that, basically, the 

18 long pole in the tent? 

19 Four to five years seems like a long 

20 time. I would think that if a state were truly 

21 committed to it, I don't think that the NRC's 

22 validation and review steps are the majority of 

23 that time. 

24 MR. WELLING: I'll speak on that as the 

25 36th Agreement State. It only took Virginia three 

26 years. We were a little unique in some things I 
 39 

1 could do as far as regulation stuff, but the process 

2 in itself from the state side is what is the leading 

3 cause of time. 

4 For us to go through and get the 

5 governor to buy off, the state legislature to buy 

6 off to put the statutes in place --- 

7 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: But by the time 

8 we get the Notice of Intent, I mean, we have that, 

9 basically, I think from most states. That's how 

10 --- so, for when we say four to five years from that 

11 point, that seems excessive to me. 

12 MR. WELLING: That's just an average. I 

13 mean, it's --- there had been very few instances 

14 of taking four to five years from the time the 

15 letter is submitted. If, in fact, everything is in 

16 place and accurate when the letter is submitted, 

17 you know, as far as the regulation statutes, the 

18 program, the policies, procedures, it should and 

19 has only taken two to three years from the start 

20 of the letter to the time the agreement is signed. 

21 So, I mean, there have been instances --- 

22 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Okay. So, that 

23 --- maybe if we use that four or five years, that's 

24 an outer bound, maybe, in recent experience. 

25 MR. WELLING: In recent --- 

26 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Because I think 
 40 

1 --- I'm with you. I think the period of state 

2 exploration, building the consensus in the 

3 legislature and with the governor, it seems to me 

4 that takes some years. But I was thinking that we 

5 use this term of four or five years from that point 

6 of making --- the state has made the decision to 

7 pursue it, so I'm encouraged to hear that that has 

8 not --- I think I was here for Virginia, but I think 

9 it was the tail end of the process, so I didn't 

10 realize how long that had taken. 

11 And then the other thing, you know, we 

12 talk about the reason --- I don't mean to sound hard 

13 on state legislatures. And, like I said, they're 

14 in session in most instances for shorter periods 

15 of time than the U.S. Congress. But we do have, in 

16 terms of the status of Agreement State regulations, 

17 we've got some states that have basic 

18 non-conformities going back --- in one case we're 

19 creeping up on 20 years. We've got a number of them 

20 for states, I won't name any names, it's nobody at 

21 the table here, but we've got some that are well 

22 in excess of 10 years. 

23 You know, what --- you know, as NRC, as 

24 we look at doing IMPEP review and we keep these 

25 metrics on where states, the progress they're 

26 making in conforming and getting state regulations 
 41 

1 in place. How do you think we should react to 

2 something if it's, you know, been 10 years, or more 

3 than 10 years. Is there a view that, you know, the 

4 state has hit some problem so fundamental, like 

5 should we doubt that it's going to get there ever? 

6 MR. WELLING: No, I would say never 

7 doubt. In certain cases I've talked to states that 

8 have that problem. It's based on the legislatures 

9 themselves. They have put in place a minimum 

10 requirement of four to five years for a regulation 

11 or a law to get into place. Some states feel 

12 regulations are burdensome on their licensees or 

13 businesses, so it's --- unfortunately, it's up to 

14 each state to decide their own legislative process, 

15 which can cause differences between Agreement 

16 States and the NRC, and where the regulations are 

17 at. 

18 Now, there are other instances besides 

19 regulations, there are license conditions, there 

20 are orders, there are other ways performance-based 

21 to meet those metrics. So, one of the things we're 

22 talking about, especially doing the IMPEP is 

23 looking at an overall concept of how the state has 

24 met those requirements. Is it by regs, is it by 

25 statute, is it by license conditions or orders? So, 

26 as long as those are obtained to put in place, and 
 42 

1 the health and safety of the public is met, then 

2 those metrics should be acceptable. 

3 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: And I 

4 appreciate your mentioning that. That is very 

5 significant, because that gets to consequence and 

6 outcomes. The rest of it is process, which I would 

7 agree with you, at the end of the day when we're 

8 assessing the ability to assure safety outcomes, 

9 that's what matters. 

10 But I --- you know, the Agreement State 

11 program arises from the Atomic Energy Act. At the 

12 end of the day, NRC is accountable for validating 

13 that the states are able to carry forward with the 

14 authorities that we essentially relinquish under 

15 the agreement. So, at some point, I think NRC can 

16 be --- one could question and ask us to account for 

17 the fact that -- you know, our tolerance of 

18 something can't be infinite, so that's why I ask 

19 about is there some point at which we should have 

20 a fundamental concern about the ability of the 

21 state to kind of come into the compatibility? But 

22 you've indicated that there's more than one way to 

23 assess that. One is saying yes, you've been trying 

24 to state laws or regulation at the state level. The 

25 other is that the regulatory authority is itself 

26 compelling the actions through other measures that 
 43 

1 are available to the state regulator. 

2 So, I just --- I know, you know, we do 

3 track it. If there's some more sophisticated way 

4 for us to be looking at that, that gives us greater 

5 granularity to what's happening on the ground, I 

6 think that's valuable. I appreciate the Agreement 

7 States having that dialogue with the NRC Staff. 

8 I guess I'll let it lie there, and next 

9 year we'll sit and we'll look at the same chart 

10 where we'll have probably some of these same 

11 outstanding compatibility issues, but I appreciate 

12 that we'll keep engaged in the dialogue about it. 

13 Thank you. 

14 MR. SNEE: One, if I may, one thing that 

15 may help, and I know it's been discussed, is some 

16 regulations that the NRC implements. Not all them 

17 need to be implemented in three years. Some of them 

18 are rather minor with no safety consequence. They 

19 could be put off where perhaps states can have them 

20 in five, six years to reduce some of that burden 

21 on the states that have a hard time implementing 

22 regulations. That may help. With something like 

23 Part 37; yes, that should be implemented as quickly 

24 as possible, but some of the other ones can be put 

25 off a little bit. 

26 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Well, again, 
 44 

1 I'm always supportive of looking at what makes 

2 sense in terms of those time frames for 

3 implementation. So, again, I think we benefit by 

4 getting that state input, so thank you for that. 

5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

6 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thank you, 

7 Commissioner. Commissioner Ostendorff. 

8 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Thank you, 

9 Chairman. Thank you all for your appearance today, 

10 and for your presentations. I found it very 

11 helpful, and we're all so appreciative of what you 

12 do in your organization in your day jobs. So, 

13 thanks. 

14 I'm going to just make a comment on Dr. 

15 Irwin's comments. I appreciated the --- your 

16 statement on Vermont Yankee, and concerns on the 

17 emergency preparedness stature. And I --- and this 

18 is a public meeting. There are people here that will 

19 know more about this than others, there are some 

20 that won't have any awareness. But I feel compelled 

21 to respond, not necessarily to you directly, but 

22 to those listening that the NRC has found that the 

23 --- has granted security and emergency 

24 preparedness exemptions for Vermont Yankee, and we 

25 believe that those are protective of public health 

26 and safety. And since you were alluding to it, you 
 45 

1 had a different belief. And I'm not trying to debate 

2 this with you, or argue with you, but I think it's 

3 important for at least a Commissioner to make the 

4 statement that we as the Commission have voted to 

5 grant exemptions that we believe fully are 

6 protective of public health and safety in the 

7 context of Vermont Yankee. So, I am not opposed to 

8 discussing this, but I wanted to make sure since 

9 you made a statement that was contrary to the 

10 Commission, I think it's important to in the public 

11 meeting setting make that statement. 

12 Mr. Snee, for your comments on 

13 training, thanks for making those. I don't think 

14 you can --- you know, I think repetitiveness is not 

15 a bad thing for key messages. But I also share 

16 Commissioner Svinicki's comments that we're in a 

17 very different budget environment than we are 

18 --- were even two years ago. So, I think that her 

19 counsel about looking at this perhaps through a 

20 different lens at some point going forward, I agree 

21 completely with that sentiment. 

22 Mr. Jacobson, on your commentary on 

23 source security, I thank you for making the point 

24 that the states have been involved early and often 

25 on the Part 37 development. We've spent a lot of 

26 time as the Commission discussing this, especially 
 46 

1 Commissioner Svinicki and I for the last X number 

2 of years going back on this topic. And I will just 

3 comment that I appreciate what you and the state 

4 organizations are doing in this area. It's been my 

5 --- I'm just making my own personal observation. 

6 It's my comment that many of the critics of Part 

7 37 perhaps do not have a fulsome level of knowledge 

8 of what the risks are, and what the protocols are, 

9 and the different steps that are part of Part 37. 

10 I'm not directly criticizing one 

11 organization or another, but I appreciate what 

12 you're doing and your colleagues to insure that 

13 people understand what's the nature of the 

14 materials we're talking about, and what the risks 

15 are, because I think in many --- my experience has 

16 been, even an official at Department of Energy, 

17 that a lot of people will conflate and exaggerate 

18 the risk profile for some of these materials. I'm 

19 not asking you to agree or disagree. I'm just making 

20 that statement, but thanks for bringing that topic 

21 up. 

22 Dr. Flaherty, I appreciate your 

23 mentioning your belief that the NRC should not take 

24 steps to require web-based licensing to be 

25 mandatory. I think you give a good explanation. I 

26 would just respond, I think it's important for 
 47 

1 those states that are using it, for them not to shy 

2 away from articulating the benefits, to the extent 

3 they found benefits, so that they can share their 

4 experiences with other states that have not pursued 

5 that. But I think you gave a good reason for why 

6 it should not be mandatory, and I appreciate your 

7 raising that in this meeting. 

8 Thank you all for what you do. Thank 

9 you, Chairman. 

10 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thank you. Any other 

11 from our Commissioners? 

12 Well, again, I want to thank the 

13 representatives of the Organization of Agreement 

14 States and the Conference of Radiation Control 

15 Program Directors for briefing us today, and 

16 sharing their insights. As I've said, I think our 

17 relationship with the states is an important one 

18 in this area to continue our mission of serving 

19 public health and safety, which you all do. And we 

20 support you, and appreciate the support for us in 

21 carrying out that mission. 

22 And with that, we're adjourned. 

23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

24 went off the record at 10:31 a.m.)