1 / 26

Historical Perspective of the Agreement States Program- 50 Year Partnership with the NRC

Historical Perspective of the Agreement States Program- 50 Year Partnership with the NRC. Early History of Radiation Protection. 1895 – Discovery of X Rays 1896 – Discovery of Radioactivity 1896 – Within 6 months of the discovery of X Rays came the first reports of possible injury

yannis
Download Presentation

Historical Perspective of the Agreement States Program- 50 Year Partnership with the NRC

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. Historical Perspective of the Agreement States Program-50 Year Partnership with the NRC

  2. Early History of Radiation Protection • 1895 – Discovery of X Rays • 1896 – Discovery of Radioactivity • 1896 – Within 6 months of the discovery of X Rays came the first reports of possible injury • 1899 – X Ray radiographer licensure recommended to protect public • 1901 – X Ray lethality to a person is alleged • 1901 – President McKinley dies of complications from gunshot wound. Could X Rays have saved his life?

  3. Early History of Radiation Protection • 1915 – British Roentgen Society adopts radiation protection recommendations in what is believed to be the first organized effort at radiation protection • 1922 – American Roentgen Ray Society adopts radiation protection rules • 1928 – International X Ray and Radium Protection Committee formed (forerunner of ICRP) • 1929 – U.S. Advisory Committee on X Ray and Radium Protection formed (forerunner of NCRP)

  4. Early History of Radiation Protection • 1931 – USACXRP publishes first recommendations – 0.2 R/day • 1932 – Discovery of the neutron • 1934 – Discovery of artificial radioactivity • Late 1930’s – Emergence of nuclear medicine • 1938 – First observation of fission

  5. World War II Era • 1941 – U.S. enters WWII • 1942 – First sustained chain reaction • 1945 – July 15, Trinity nuclear explosion • 1945 – August 6, 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings effectively end WWII • 1946 – Article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) describing the successful treatment of thyroid cancer using I-131

  6. Atomic Energy Act of 1946 “Reflecting America’s postwar optimism, Congress declared that atomic energy should be employed not only in the Nation’s defense, but also to promote world peace, improve the public welfare, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise.” “After long months of intensive debate among politicians, military planners and atomic scientists, President Harry S. Truman confirmed the civilian control of atomic energy by signing the Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946.” 5

  7. 1950’s • 1953 – President Eisenhower delivers his Atoms for Peace speech before the U.N. General Assembly, declaring that “peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future…that capability, already proved, is here today”.5 • 1954 – U.S.S. Nautilus is launched marking the first practical utilization of atomic power other than as an explosive.

  8. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 “The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 opened the era of private participation in the peaceful development of atomic energy in the United States. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946, now superseded by the 1954 act, failed to provide for private participation but sustained the federal monopoly which grew from military applications of nuclear energy.”2 “In permitting private development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, the way was opened for state promotion, education, control and regulation.”3

  9. 1950’s • “Following the 1954 Act a number of states undertook studies of atomic energy matters and several, particularly in New England, enacted legislation.”3 • “In October of 1956, the Committee of State Officials on Suggested State Legislation of the Counsel of State Governments included a proposed act to provide for coordination of atomic development.”3 • “With respect to health and safety, the 1954 act did not expressly state whether Congress intended to allow state regulation of sources of ionizing radiation licensed by the AEC.”

  10. 1950’s • “ The constitutional question was posed by many as to whether Congress had preempted the field of health and safety regulation…to the exclusion of the states or whether a state could adopt concurrent non-conflicting regulations applicable to AEC licensees.”2 • In 1959 Public Law 86-373 “Cooperation with States” was enacted which became section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. • This amendment to the Act enabled the AEC to enter into an agreement with a state under which the Commission will discontinue and the state will assume regulatory authority.

  11. The Agreement State Program • “ On September 20, 1960, Kentucky became the first state to present the Atomic Energy Commission a proposed radiation control program.”2 • The process for the transfer of authority is: • The governor certifies that the state has an adequate program and that it is the desire of the state to assume regulatory responsibility. • The AEC certifies that the state’s program is adequate and compatible. • An agreement is executed by the governor and AEC officials.

  12. The Agreement State Program “ …it is clear that while a state regulatory program does not have to be identical with the federal program, a degree of uniformity is intended to afford as little disruption as possible with the manner and scheme of the current federal program. This is, of course, essential so that by the ensuing transfer no harm will be done to the development of constructive uses of radiation and to the industry which has grown and lived with the federal pattern of control since its inception.”2

  13. The Kentucky Program • Kentucky’s decision to assume regulatory responsibility was based on 3 considerations: • “…the conviction that if the states do not move to assume the authority a strong possibility exists for a reassertion of the federal monopoly…” • “…decentralization of the licensing and regulatory function from the federal to state level could create a more favorable climate for the development and use of these materials due to the state regulatory agency’s closeness to the user…” • “…the belief that the atomic energy industry will continue to grow at a rapid rate and that the licensing power could be used as an attraction to nuclear and nuclear-related industries to locate within the state…” 2

  14. Controversy Over Proposed Part 150 “Concurrently with the publication of the proposed Kentucky-AEC agreement, the Commission has also published a proposed regulation for comment which could have a tremendous effect on the amount of federal regulatory power transferred to Kentucky and other qualifying states.” 4 “The regulation does not merely reserve to the Commission regulatory power over the three areas required by the Atomic Energy Act – production and utilization facilities, import and export of nuclear material, or facilities into or from the United States, and ocean or sea waste disposal. Two additional subsections exercise the optional authority of the Commission to retain control over all waste disposal and the transfer or sale of devices containing nuclear materials.” 4

  15. Kentucky Response to Part 150 “…a manufacturer, prior to producing his product, would have to go to Washington for a license to transfer the possession of the device to prospective users. After obtaining his federal license, he would make application to the state licensing agency for a license to manufacture the device…Thus, a complex federal and state licensing procedure involving immense red tape for persons utilizing these materials would exist with the result of negating the very purposes for which the Congress enacted section 274.” 4

  16. Kentucky Response to Part 150 Some manufacturers objected to the transfer of this authority to the states due to concerns that they would face “a multitude of conflicting and non-uniform regulatory and licensing schemes in and among the states subsequent to relinquishment of control by the Commission.” 4 “This problem has been alleviated by a provision in the Kentucky agreement permitting reciprocal recognition of licenses of states which have executed an agreement with the Commission and licenses of the Commission .” 4

  17. Kentucky Response to Part 150 “The proposed exercise of the optional jurisdiction over waste disposal appears to be premature and without good cause shown…” 4 “To this date, there is no evidence in the public domain that the federal government alone can cope with these hazards.” 4 “If the states are not competent to handle waste products of their own licensees, how can they be competent to handle the receipt, possession and use of these materials by the same licensees? The point is that the states are competent or can be made competent by the acquisition of additional personnel and equipment” 4

  18. Kentucky Response to Part 150 • In summary, promulgation of part 150 would undermine Congressional intent expressed by section 274 by: • “Creating a complex regulatory system with dual administration over licensees that could seriously impair the utilization of these materials by science and industry; • Seriously impairing the development of competency and expertise within the states to handle more and greater responsibility in the field as is a specified intent of the federal-state amendment; • Constituting action by the Commission without a prior determination that the necessity for action truly exists; • Harming the presently developing radiation control programs of the states by reducing the desire of the states to participate in the program of divided regulatory responsibility.” 4

  19. The Kentucky Program On March 26, 1962, Kentucky became the first Agreement State

  20. California Agreement • The fee system proposed by California was based on the form of material (sealed or unsealed) and the curie quantity. • “The California fee program generated considerable discussion and concern within the AEC as to whether it would be compatible with the AEC program… The finding of the Commission was “How a state finances its regulation of materials under an agreement should not be a concern of the Commission.”” 1

  21. New York Agreement • “The first three agreements placed emphasis on the state using its best efforts to maintain compatibility with the AEC. At the request of New York, the article was changed in its agreement pledging both New York and AEC use their respective best efforts to maintain compatible programs with the AEC and other Agreement States.” 1

  22. Other Agreements • The Louisiana agreement brought up issues of jurisdiction at off shore oil platforms. • The Arizona program was established in the pattern of the U.S. AEC. After an incident that exposed a conflict of interest, the Arizona Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and replaced with the Radiation Regulatory Agency. • Rhode Island became an Agreement State in a split decision based on concerns regarding the staff’s capability. • The NRC retained jurisdiction over a single licensee (a UF6 conversion facility) in Illinois based on common defense and security considerations. • Idaho relinquished its Agreement State status after 22½ years due to chronic funding and staffing problems.

  23. Transition from AEC to NRC • “In 1961, the AEC’s regulatory staff was separated from the General Manager’s office and placed under a Director of Regulation who reported directly to the Commissioners.” • “Two years later, the regulatory and operational functions were separated physically when the regulatory staff was moved from the headquarters building in Germantown, MD to offices in Bethesda.” • On October 11, 1974, President Ford signed the Energy Reorganization Act. • On January 19, 1975, the Commission’s research and development responsibilities were assumed by the Energy Research and Development Administration(which became a part the newly established Department of Energy on October 1, 1977), and the regulatory and licensing functions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 5

  24. Selected Topics for Future Discussion • Energy Policy Act of 2005 – redefined byproduct material to include NARM and certain sources of NORM • Increased Controls – Agreement States get into the security business • Compatibility • LLRW Disposal • 2002 overhaul of Part 35 • Program evaluation (IMPEP) • Proposed changes to Part 40

  25. References • “Topical Discussion of the NRC / Agreement State Program” prepared by the Organization of Agreement States, 1994 • “ The States’ New Role in Atomic Energy” by James N. Neel, Jr., 1961 • “The Suggested State Radiation Control Act” by Charles F. Schwan, Jr. and Stuart Urbach, 1961 • “Federal or State Jurisdiction Over Atomic Products and Waste – A Dilemma” by James N. Neel, Jr., 1961 • “ The History of the Atomic Energy Commission” by Alice L. Buck, 1983 • “History of Radiation Protection” from the EPA Website • “Memorial Life of William McKinley” by Col. G. W. Townsend, 1901

More Related