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

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

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

8. Briefing Paper – February, 2006 Two Key Recommendations: Consolidate the two radiation protection programs within DCH; Consolidate the two radiation protection programs within DCH; Develop a strategy to pursue an Agreement. Develop a strategy to pursue an Agreement.

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

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

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; NRC provides no funding – State must develop a functional and capable program before signing Agreement; State has no general funds; State has no general funds; Recommending a four year interim fee system. Recommending a four year interim fee system.

16. Several Possible Structures Fixed percentage of NRC fees each year; Fixed percentage of NRC fees each year; Fixed fee - based on percentage of NRC fee in Year 1; 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; Pay-As-You Go – interim fee would collect only what was needed each year;

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

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

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

20. GLCHPS Meeting 1/24/2007 20 Michigan’s X-Ray Program Bruce Matkovich Section Manager Radiation Safety Section Michigan Department of Community Health

21. The Michigan Department of Community Health supports recombination of the x-ray and radioactive materials programs

22. The Michigan Department of Community Health supports the pursuit of agreement state status, if supported by stakeholders

23. Recent History S.B. 231 of 2005 Attempted to split Part 135 of the Public Health Code into separate parts for x-ray and radioactive materials. Attempted to split Part 135 of the Public Health Code into separate parts for x-ray and radioactive materials. More consistency with MQSA More consistency with MQSA Required a surety bond for mammography facilities Required a surety bond for mammography facilities Defined operator requirements Defined operator requirements Included authority to regulate nonionizing radiation Included authority to regulate nonionizing radiation

24. Recent History S.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 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 More consistency with MQSA mammography regulations Add responsibility to promulgate rules for operator credentialing Add responsibility to promulgate rules for operator credentialing

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

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

28. The Radiation Safety Section will continue to work on a comprehensive draft revision to the Ionizing Radiation Rules

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