Consideration of Michigan Pursuing an NRC Agreement

1
Consideration of Michigan Pursuing an NRC
Agreement

• A Discussion with Stakeholders
• January 24, 2007

2

• Do you anticipate requesting an Agreement with
  the Commission under Section 274b of the AEA to
  assume regulatory authority over byproduct
  material.. ?
• NRC Commission Chair Dale Klein, in a letter to
  Governor Granholm August 18, 2006

3

• I have asked the MDEQ and MDCH to develop a
  proposal, including a timeline and a program
  funding strategy, to consolidate the current
  state radiation control programs and to pursue an
  Agreement..
• Governor Granholms response Oct. 5, 2006

4
AGREEMENT STATES                                
                                                  
                                                  
                                                  
                                                  
                                             
5
Stakeholder Work Group - 2005

• Conditional support expressed
• Key recommendations
• Consolidate DCH/DEQ programs
• Rules need revision regardless of Agreement
• Survey of other Agreement States

6
Benefits of an Agreement State Program

• Expressed by Licensees -
• Lower fees on licensees
• Improved responsiveness closer, more accessible,
  more timely
• Regulatory authority centered in one agency
• Expressed by State Agencies
• Fee dollars stay in the state
• Greater capability of state to deal with all rad
  issues.

7
Disadvantages

• Expressed by Licensees
• Program start-up costs
• Fees not always lowered
• Expertise of state program staff
• State rules can be more restrictive than federal.

8
Briefing Paper February, 2006

• Two Key Recommendations
• Consolidate the two radiation protection programs
  within DCH
• Develop a strategy to pursue an Agreement.

9
The Strategy

• Basic Strategy
• Timeline
• Agreement Program Fee System
• Start-up Funding Concept
• Staffing
• Other Activities
• Statutory Revisions
• Rules Revisions

10
Timeline

• An aggressive timeline to finalize an NRC
  Agreement in 4 5 years.
• Introduction of Legislation - April/May, 2007
• Letter of Intent May, 2007
• Program Consolidation late 2007
• Signing of an Agreement Sept. 2011

11
Program Financing

• Assure that a State Program can be conducted for
  lower costs than that of NRCs.
• Other Agreement States annual fees less than
  comparable NRC fees
• Directive Assure that MOST entities will pay
  less, and that NO ONE will pay more than if
  remaining under NRC.

12
Annual Fees NRC and Wisconsin

• Comparison for FY 2003 thru 2006. These two fee
  categories make up 85 of all specific licensees
  in Michigan.

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Program Start-up Funding

• Develop a Funding Mechanism that is limited,
  reasonable and equitable.
• NRC provides no funding State must develop a
  functional and capable program before signing
  Agreement
• State has no general funds
• Recommending a four year interim fee system.

16
Several Possible Structures

• Fixed percentage of NRC fees each year
• Fixed fee - based on percentage of NRC fee in
  Year 1
• Pay-As-You Go interim fee would collect only
  what was needed each year

17
Staffing

• Current Program Staff 3.5 FTEs
• Projected Addl Program Staff 10-12 FTEs
• Added staff to be hired 2008-2010.

18
Other Efforts

• Revisions to Part 135
• To address both X-ray and RAM programs
• Using CRCPD Model Statute as guide
• Rules Revisions
• Intent Adopt NRC Rules by reference.

19
Next Steps

• Stakeholder Meeting early March
• Other public forums beginning in March
• Reestablish Stakeholder Work Group.

20
Michigans X-Ray Program

• Bruce Matkovich
• Section Manager
• Radiation Safety Section
• Michigan Department of Community Health

21
The Michigan Department of Community
Healthsupports recombination of the x-ray and
radioactive materials programs
22
The Michigan Department of Community
Healthsupports the pursuit of agreement state
status, if supported by stakeholders
23
Recent HistoryS.B. 231 of 2005

• Attempted to split Part 135 of the Public Health
  Code into separate parts for x-ray and
  radioactive materials.
• More consistency with MQSA
• Required a surety bond for mammography facilities
• Defined operator requirements
• Included authority to regulate nonionizing
  radiation

24
Recent HistoryS.B. 231 of 2005

• SB 231 never made it out of committee and died at
  the end of the last legislative session that
  ended December 31, 2006

25
Proposed Revisions to Part 135

• More consistency with MQSA mammography
  regulations
• Add responsibility to promulgate rules for
  operator credentialing

26
Proposed Revisions to Part 135will not

• split Part 135 into separate parts
• require mammography surety
• prescribe operator credentials
• regulate nonionizing radiation

27
Proposed revisions to Part 135 are critical to
the agreement state process
28
The Radiation Safety Sectionwill continue to
work on a comprehensive draft revision to the
Ionizing Radiation Rules
29
(No Transcript)
30
Contact Information

• Bruce Matkovich
• Phone [phone]
• E-mail
• bmatko_at_michigan.gov or
• rssinfo_at_michigan.gov
• Website
• www.michigan.gov/rss

• Thor Strong
• Phone [phone]
• E-mail
• strongt_at_michigan.gov
• Website
• www.michigan.gov/deq