1 / 30

Consideration of Michigan Pursuing an NRC Agreement

Consideration of Michigan Pursuing an NRC Agreement. A Discussion with Stakeholders January 24, 2007. “Do you anticipate requesting an Agreement with the Commission under Section 274b of the AEA to assume regulatory authority over byproduct material….. ?”

ivana
Download Presentation

Consideration of Michigan Pursuing an NRC Agreement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 Granholm’s 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 NRC’s. • 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. 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.

  14. 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;

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

  16. 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.

  17. Next Steps • Stakeholder Meeting – early March; • Other public forums – beginning in March; • Reestablish Stakeholder Work Group.

  18. Michigan’s X-Ray Program Bruce Matkovich Section Manager Radiation Safety Section Michigan Department of Community Health

  19. The Michigan Department of Community Healthsupports recombination of the x-ray and radioactive materials programs

  20. The Michigan Department of Community Healthsupports the pursuit of agreement state status, if supported by stakeholders

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. Proposed Revisions to Part 135 • More consistency with MQSA mammography regulations • Add responsibility to promulgate rules for operator credentialing

  24. Proposed Revisions to Part 135will not: • … split Part 135 into separate parts • … require mammography surety • … prescribe operator credentials • … regulate nonionizing radiation

  25. Proposed revisions to Part 135 are critical to the agreement state process

  26. The Radiation Safety Sectionwill continue to work on a comprehensive draft revision to the Ionizing Radiation Rules

  27. Bruce Matkovich Phone: (517) 241-1989 E-mail: bmatko@michigan.gov or rssinfo@michigan.gov Website: www.michigan.gov/rss Thor Strong Phone: (517) 241-1252 E-mail: strongt@michigan.gov Website: www.michigan.gov/deq Contact Information

More Related