Consideration of Consideration of Michigan Michigan

Pursuing an NRC Pursuing an NRC Agreement Agreement A Discussion with A Discussion with

StakeholdersStakeholdersJanuary 24, 2007January 24, 2007

““Do you anticipate requesting an Do you anticipate requesting an Agreement with the Commission Agreement with the Commission under Section 274b of the AEA under Section 274b of the AEA to assume regulatory authority to assume regulatory authority over byproduct material….. ?”over byproduct material….. ?”

NRC Commission Chair Dale Klein, NRC Commission Chair Dale Klein, in a letter to Governor Granholm; in a letter to Governor Granholm; August 18, 2006August 18, 2006

I have asked the MDEQ and MDCH I have asked the MDEQ and MDCH to develop a proposal, including a to develop a proposal, including a timeline and a program funding timeline and a program funding strategy, to consolidate the current strategy, to consolidate the current state radiation control programs and state radiation control programs and to pursue an Agreement…..to pursue an Agreement…..

Governor Granholm’s response; Governor Granholm’s response; Oct. 5, 2006Oct. 5, 2006

AGREEMENT STATES

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Stakeholder Work Group Stakeholder Work Group - 2005- 2005

Conditional support expressedConditional support expressed Key recommendationsKey recommendations

Consolidate DCH/DEQ programsConsolidate DCH/DEQ programs Rules need revision regardless of Rules need revision regardless of

AgreementAgreement Survey of other Agreement StatesSurvey of other Agreement States

Benefits of an Agreement Benefits of an Agreement State ProgramState Program

Expressed by Licensees -Expressed by Licensees - Lower fees on licensees;Lower fees on licensees; Improved responsiveness –closer, Improved responsiveness –closer,

more accessible, more timely;more accessible, more timely; Regulatory authority centered in one Regulatory authority centered in one

agency;agency;

Expressed by State Agencies –Expressed by State Agencies – Fee dollars stay in the state;Fee dollars stay in the state; Greater capability of state to deal Greater capability of state to deal

with all rad issues.with all rad issues.

DisadvantagesDisadvantages

Expressed by Licensees –Expressed by Licensees – Program start-up costs;Program start-up costs; Fees not always lowered;Fees not always lowered; Expertise of state program Expertise of state program

staff;staff; State rules can be more State rules can be more

restrictive than federal.restrictive than federal.

Briefing Paper – Briefing Paper – February, 2006February, 2006

Two Key Recommendations:Two Key Recommendations: Consolidate the two radiation Consolidate the two radiation

protection programs within protection programs within DCH;DCH;

Develop a strategy to pursue Develop a strategy to pursue an Agreement.an Agreement.

The StrategyThe StrategyBasic StrategyBasic Strategy TimelineTimeline Agreement Program Fee SystemAgreement Program Fee System Start-up Funding ConceptStart-up Funding Concept StaffingStaffing

Other ActivitiesOther Activities Statutory RevisionsStatutory Revisions Rules RevisionsRules Revisions

TimelineTimelineAn aggressive timeline to An aggressive timeline to finalize an NRC Agreement in finalize an NRC Agreement in 4 – 5 years.4 – 5 years.

Introduction of Legislation - Introduction of Legislation - April/May, 2007April/May, 2007

Letter of Intent – May, 2007Letter of Intent – May, 2007 Program Consolidation – late 2007Program Consolidation – late 2007 Signing of an Agreement – Sept. 2011Signing of an Agreement – Sept. 2011

Program FinancingProgram Financing

Assure that a State Program Assure that a State Program can be conducted for lower can be conducted for lower costs than that of NRC’s.costs than that of NRC’s.

Other Agreement States annual fees Other Agreement States annual fees less than comparable NRC feesless than comparable NRC fees

Directive: Assure that MOST Directive: Assure that MOST entities will pay less, and that NO entities will pay less, and that NO ONE will pay more than if remaining ONE will pay more than if remaining under NRC.under NRC.

Annual Fees – NRC and Annual Fees – NRC and WisconsinWisconsin

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

Annual Fee Medical Practice - Limited

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

NRC

Wisconsin

Annual Fee Portable Gauges

$-

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$3,000.00

$4,000.00

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

NRC

Wisconsin

$0.00

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$3,000.00

$4,000.00

$5,000.00

$6,000.00

1

Annually

Medical Private Practice - Limited

NRC

Wisconsin

Ohio

Iow a

Minnesota

$0.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

$2,500.00

$3,000.00

1

Annually

Measuring Systems Portable Gauges

NRC

Wisconsin

Ohio

Iowa

Minnesota

Program Start-up Program Start-up FundingFunding

Develop a Funding Mechanism Develop a Funding Mechanism that is limited, reasonable and that is limited, reasonable and equitable.equitable.

NRC provides no funding – State must NRC provides no funding – State must develop a functional and capable develop a functional and capable program before signing Agreement;program before signing Agreement;

State has no general funds;State has no general funds; Recommending a four year interim Recommending a four year interim

fee system.fee system.

Several Possible Several Possible StructuresStructures

Fixed percentage of NRC fees Fixed percentage of NRC fees each year;each year;

Fixed fee - based on Fixed fee - based on percentage of NRC fee in percentage of NRC fee in Year 1;Year 1;

Pay-As-You Go – interim fee Pay-As-You Go – interim fee would collect only what was would collect only what was needed each year;needed each year;

StaffingStaffing

Current Program Staff: 3.5 Current Program Staff: 3.5 FTEsFTEs

Projected Addl Program Projected Addl Program Staff: 10-12 FTEs Staff: 10-12 FTEs

Added staff to be hired 2008-Added staff to be hired 2008-2010.2010.

Other EffortsOther Efforts

Revisions to Part 135 Revisions to Part 135 To address both X-ray and RAM To address both X-ray and RAM

programs;programs;Using CRCPD Model Statute as Using CRCPD Model Statute as

guide;guide; Rules RevisionsRules Revisions

Intent – Adopt NRC Rules by Intent – Adopt NRC Rules by reference.reference.

Next StepsNext Steps

Stakeholder Meeting – early Stakeholder Meeting – early March;March;

Other public forums – Other public forums – beginning in March;beginning in March;

Reestablish Stakeholder Work Reestablish Stakeholder Work Group.Group.

GLCHPS Meeting 1/24/2007

20

Michigan’s X-Ray Michigan’s X-Ray ProgramProgramBruce MatkovichBruce MatkovichSection ManagerSection Manager

Radiation Safety SectionRadiation Safety SectionMichigan Department of Community Michigan Department of Community

HealthHealth

The Michigan Department The Michigan Department of Community Healthof Community Health

supports recombination of supports recombination of the x-ray and radioactive the x-ray and radioactive

materials programsmaterials programs

The Michigan Department The Michigan Department of Community Healthof Community Health

supports the pursuit of supports the pursuit of agreement state status, if agreement state status, if supported by stakeholderssupported by stakeholders

Recent HistoryRecent HistoryS.B. 231 of 2005S.B. 231 of 2005

Attempted to split Part 135 of the Attempted to split Part 135 of the Public Health Code into separate Public Health Code into separate parts for x-ray and radioactive parts for x-ray and radioactive materials.materials.

More consistency with MQSAMore consistency with MQSA Required a surety bond for Required a surety bond for

mammography facilitiesmammography facilities Defined operator requirementsDefined operator requirements Included authority to regulate Included authority to regulate

nonionizing radiationnonionizing radiation

Recent HistoryRecent HistoryS.B. 231 of 2005S.B. 231 of 2005

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

Proposed Revisions to Proposed Revisions to Part 135Part 135

More consistency with MQSA More consistency with MQSA mammography regulationsmammography regulations

Add responsibility to promulgate Add responsibility to promulgate rules for operator credentialingrules for operator credentialing

Proposed Revisions to Part Proposed Revisions to Part 135135

will notwill not:: … … split Part 135 into separate partssplit Part 135 into separate parts

… … require mammography suretyrequire mammography surety

… … prescribe operator credentialsprescribe operator credentials

… … regulate nonionizing radiationregulate nonionizing radiation

Proposed revisions to Proposed revisions to Part 135 are critical to Part 135 are critical to

the agreement state the agreement state processprocess

The Radiation Safety The Radiation Safety SectionSection

will continue to work on will continue to work on a comprehensive draft a comprehensive draft revision to the revision to the Ionizing Ionizing

Radiation RulesRadiation Rules

Contact InformationContact Information

Bruce MatkovichBruce MatkovichPhone: (517) 241-Phone: (517) 241-

19891989

E-mail:E-mail:bmatko@michigan.gobmatko@michigan.go

vv ororrssinfo@michigan.govrssinfo@michigan.gov

Website:Website:www.michigan.gov/www.michigan.gov/

rssrss

Thor StrongThor StrongPhone: (517) 241-Phone: (517) 241-

12521252

E-mail:E-mail:strongt@michigan.govstrongt@michigan.gov

Website:Website:www.michigan.gov/deqwww.michigan.gov/deq